Dtbaics ttntl Vrottetrinns in varliament.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The House of Commons resumed the discussion of the clauses of the Poor-law Amendment Bill on Monday. Before going into Committee, Mr. FIELDER moved an instruction to the Committee to make pro- vision to repeal the Poor-law Amendment Act. He entered into a lengthy attack upon the general measure ; going so far back as to quote Mr. Cobbett's Legacy to Labourers, to show how much more the poor pay in the shape of taxes than they receive in the shape of poor-rates ; and Mr. President Jefferson, against centralization, by which the pre- sent system is distinguished. General Joanson seconded the motion ; and then, without any speaker appearing on the other side, the House divided, and the motion was negatived, by 155 to 9.

The House having gone into Committee, on the 6th clause, which provides that general orders may be construed as particular orders under

certain circumstances, Mr. WOLVERLEY AvrwooD moved an amend- ment of a restrictive nature ; but withdrew it, on Lord JOHN Russw. adding a proviso, that a list of the unions and parishes to which a gene- ral rule should be so applied shall be laid before Parliament as a matter of course.

On clause 8th, which enacts that the sending of the Commissioners' rules need not be proved in any civil and criminal proceeding, Lord

GRANVILLE SOMERSET moved an amendment, to exempt criminal cases from the operation of the clause. The amendment was carried, by 77 to 58. After a few words of suggestion from Lord GRANVILLE SOMER- SET, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL added a proviso to award costs when the sending of the order should be proved. An amendment by Mr. JONES, to restrict the proviso to civil cases, was rejected by 88 to 64.

Clause 9th was postponed. Clause 10th, which provides that the Commissioners may unite as many parishes or unions as they see fit, for the management of infimt poor and insane persons, gave rise to a dis-

cussion. Colonel WOOD first proposed to exempt from the operation of the clause those counties which have lunatic asylums for pauper luna- tics. Lord JOHN RUSSELL assented to the principle of the amend- ment, but proposed to deal with it in a separate bill. The word insane was accordingly struck out of the clause. Mr. B. WOOD then proposed an amendment, requiring the consent of the majority of the Board of Guardians of each Union before the Unions could be united for esta- blishinr,° schools for the infant poor. Lord JOHN RUSSELL objected to the amendment, as a needless ob- struction ; since the fact that the same clause required the consent of four- fifths of the Guardians in each union or parish, before any funds could be raised for the purpose, gave them quite sufficient control. On the score of expense the proposed arrangement was advisable, because it would conduce to economy ; and perhaps the House might not think it unfitting to devote a portion of the annual education grant in aid of such local schools.

Mr. GROTE argued, that it would be impossible for children distri- buted in several workhouses, to the number of twenty or thirty in each,

and contaminated by the example of the elder paupers, to receive such

efficient instruction as they might in the proposed schools. And he referred to the success of the Norwood school as a proof of his position. Mr. GOULBURN said, that although such an institution succeeded for the Metropolis, it did not follow that it would elsewhere. And he ob-

jected to the forcible separation of children from their parents; though in the case of illegitimate children his objection would not be so strong, since he could not put the mother of an illegitimate child on an equality with a virtuous woman.

Mr. HAWES observed, that the system of separation was already at work in several London parishes, which maintained schools at a distance in the country : and where was the need of a difference between the pauper schools and the much-vaunted public schools at which the highs:t- horn youth were educated apart from their parents? Colonel WOOD said, that the actual difference would be, that in the public schools the children had holy days to go home to their parents ;- who looked after their training even while at school. Lord STANLEY said, it was not only so, but the attendance of the chil- dren at the public schools was not compulsory. Lord JOHN RUSSELL contended, that when children were thrown for maintenance upon the State, it was but reasonable that the State should be able to provide for them a proper moral and religious education. Sir ROBERT PEEL supported the plan of combined schools; but he- pointed out some difficulties. The children of parents who sought

merely temporary relief could not very well be sent to a distance. Sup-

pose a large number of persons should be thrown out of employment by a vicissitude of the season—say a severe frost—and obliged to apply for : it was the principle of the law that out-door relief should not be given : the people therefore must enter the workhouse, with all their

children. But when they came out, in three or four weeks time, they would insist on having their children back. How could it be expected that a master could establish and successfully carry out any system of scholastic instruction where a hundred of his scholars might in this way be removed from under his charge at a day's notice? And if the children were retained in the workhouse, they must not be left without the means of instruction. He feared, therefore, that it would be found necessary to have a double establishment.

On a division, the amendment was carried, by 172 to 108.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET then moved an amendment to restrict the operation of the clause to orphans, illegitimate children, children deserted by their parents, the children of convicts, or to those whose parents should consent to their removal. Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not oppose the amendment ; which was affirmed. A proviso suggested by Mr. BRIDGES was adopted, directing that the buildings for schools should be paid for by a special poor-rate, chargeable half upon the tenant and half upon the landlord. Some other amendments were dis- posed of.

On Tuesday, the House again took up the 10th clause, in Committee.

Mr. COLQUHOUN moved to add a proviso, that in the combined schools a chaplain of the Church of England should be appointed to regulate or superintend the training of the children ; excepting, however, the chil- dren of Dissenting parents ; and in the case of those children, should their parents or godfathers express a wish that they should not be edu- cated in the principles of the Church of England, that a minister of their own persuasion should be appointed, with such salary as the Poor- law Commissioners might think fit. A discussion took place on this. proposition. Dr. LUSHINGTON thought that the interference of the chaplain should absolutely be confined to children of the Established Church. The ex-

ception for which the proviso prepared was not broad enough : orphans were not protected by it, especially the orphans of Independents or Baptists, who could not profit by the interference of godfathers. He thought that the clause should be postponed ; or if it was proceeded with, that it should be amended so as to restrict the chaplain's tuition to children of the Established Church ; giving to Dissenting ministers

liberty to visit the schools at all convenient times of the day, for the purpose of imparting instruction to the children of their communion. In answer to Mr. GLADSTONE, Dr. LIISELDIGTON said that children who

entered the schools might in the first instance be assumed to belong to the Established Church; but a fair opening should be left to those in- terested in their welfare to show what the church of the parents was.

Mr. HAWES asked, whether the proposed chaplains were to be paid out of the poor-rates ? Competent chaplains could not be obtained under 100/. or 1501. a year ; and were such additional demands upon the public money to be made at a time when the Tithe Commutation Act had added at least a million and a half to the revenues of the Church? According to the clause, the secular education of the children was to be placed under the control of the chaplain, whose appointment was to be approved by the Bishop; so that by a side-wind the education of the children would be thrown wholly into the hands of the Established clergy. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was not unmindful of the difficulties respecting

the children of Dissenters. Those difficulties had been considered on the establishment of the school at Norwood ; and he had then agreed with the Commissioners that it was better to appoint a chaplain. But he thought that the proviso ought to limit the control of the chaplain to the religious instruction of the children; both on account of the ob- jections that Mr. Hawes had urged, and because, if secular instruction were intrusted to the chaplains, they might prefer antiquated modes of tuition to the improved methods now in use.

Mr. LANGDALE maintained, that children of fourteen or fifteen years of age should be protected from the violation of their religious prin- ciples, without waiting for the interference of their guardians.

On a division, the proviso was carried, by 119 to 32.

Mr. WARD then proposed an addition to the proviso, apportioning the pay of the clergymen attending schools according to the numbers of the children of the various creeds in each school ; but this amendment was withdrawn. On the amended clause being put from the chair, Mr. TOWNLEY PARKER moved its rejection. A discussion which followed reverted to the general subject of the combined schools, which was fully discussed on Monday. When the House divided, the clause was carried, by 141 to 36. In debating an amendment which Sir HESKETH FLEETWOOD pro- posed, but afterwards withdrew, Sir ROBERT PEEL suggested, that if there were uct enough pauper children at any time to fill the united schools, the children of poor persons in the vicinity might be admitted upon the payment of a small sum. Mr. Fox MAULE concurred in the suggestion, and would incorporate it in a clause. Clause 17th, which enacts that work shall be provided for disorderly women receiving relief in the Metropolis, was amended by Mr. GROTE, so as to provide work also for vagrant paupers who may receive tem- porary relief. It was then opposed by Colonel SIBTHORPE, on account of its arbitrary and indefinite bearing; since, he argued, it was impossi- ble to define who were " disorderly females," and the clause gave undue power over a Blass who ought to be commiserated instead of being further oppressed. On a division, however, the clause was affirmed, by 144 to 23.

Several other alterations, of more or less importance, were made in the bill.

In the Committee, on Thursday, Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET objected to the arbitrary power conferred by the 18th clause, which enabled Guardians of Unions to contract with other Unions for the maintenance of their poor, for a period not exceeding seven years ; and he moved a proviso, to prevent man and wife, or parents and children, from being placed in the houses of different Unions. Lord JoHN RUSSELL admitted that the power giyen by the clause, although it would be convenient in several cases, might be abused; and he suggested various modes of limiting its operation; but ultimately the clause was withdrawn alto- gether.

The 19th clause was opposed. Its effect was to make a mother,

whose husband has abandoned his family, or is otherwise separated from them, liable, after the father, for the maintenance of the children, in the same way as a widow or single woman. Mr. WAKLEY de- nounced the clause, as conceived in a savage spirit: many clauses of the bill, he said, "contained such an insult to the ordinary feelings of humanity, that there was the greatest difficulty in controlling the reason so as to discuss any part of it with that calmness which the subject should demand"; and he called upon Lord John Russell to protect " these unfortunate women and children against what was intended for them by the framers of this vile proposition." Lord Joust RUSSELL exposed the exclusive sympathies of those who attacked the Commissioners so freely- " If any thing be said to honourable Members themselves, they are exceed. ingly sore ; but when speaking of a Poor .law Commissioner, there is no delicacy in attributing to him every degree of cruelty, which scarcely befits any man even the most barbarous ; and it is thought all right, because he is only a Poor- law Commissioner ! There is, however, nothing to be attributed to honourable Members themselves in reference to this subject but the purest and most sub- lime humanity. There is humanity which ought not to be forgotten with re- gard to other classes, upon whom a portion of the burden of these enactments will fall. We ought to consider the honest labourer who does his duty, who works from morning till night, and employs his earnings in the suppbrt of his wife and children ; and, I ask, is that man to be burdened for the support of another family, the father of which goes away collusively, and leaves his wife and children on the parish ? Are we to have no feeling for this man who does his duty, who works steadily and honestly; and would it not be a hardship on him that he should be burdened for persons seeking to evade the law ? But the moment any thing is proposed to affect the latter description of persons,

i

your humanity is brought into play ! I brought before a Committee of this House, about sixteen years ago, a poor labourer, who out of moderate wages supported his wife and a large family, who never asked the parish for assist- ance, and withal who did not display any ostentation or pride in consequence of thus supporting and bringing up his family so creditably. Now, iu making laws with respect to relief, we ought to consider such men as those ; and when we find instances frequent of men going away and leaving their families chargeable to the parish, we ought to do our utmost to prevent such evasions of the law."

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET objected to the clause, that it would effect a very extensive and severe alteration in the condition of married women. Is threw an unjust burden on those women whose husbands alone were guilty of neglecting their offspring; and upon the wives of soldiers and sailors, who were unavoidably absent on the service of the country. The same view was supported by others, among them by Dr. LUSEINGTON ; and ultimately the clause was withdrawn. The next contest occurred on the 22d clause ; which enables Guar- dians to purchase sites for building workhouses, and to borrow money charged upon the rates for the purpose. Mr. THOMAS DCNCOMBE moved to make the borrowing of the money subject to the consent of the rate-payers in vestry. Mr. WAKLEY solicited the support of Sir Robert Peel for the amendment. But Sir ROBERT said that he was not to be cajoled into opposing a clause which he approved. Mr. HAWES would support every thing that had a tendency to promote the efficiency of workhouses ; and he quoted an instance of the state of Bethnal Green Workhouse under the old law, for three weeks in March 1830- " From the 2d to the 9th of March, there were of men, women, boys, and girls, 1,357 in the workhouse, and only 331 beds. On March 16th, there were 1,242 men, women, boys, and girls ; and for 180 of the boys there were but 24 beds. On March 23d, there were 1,215 persons of different ages and sexes ; and for 174 of the boys there were but 24 beds. At one period there were but 24 beds for 190 boys ; 74 boys had been put into a ward with 21 beds ; 123 girls had been put to lie on 23 beds." Whereas, on the 27th March 1841, there were in the same workhouse 754 persons, with 364 beds.

There was no hardship in the Commissioners being enabled to make better provision for those whose misfortunes drove them into work- houses.

It was subsequently stated by Mr. WAKLEY, that he had furnished the account quoted by Mr. Hawes, when he was Churchwarden of the parish ; but he added, that the local authorities were not to blame, as the workhouse was too small. Eventually the amendment was rejected, by 216 to 22. The 23d clause empowers the Commissioners to define the classes of poor children who may be apprenticed, the trades to which they may be apprenticed, the cases in which a premium shall be paid, and the amount and mode of payment. This Mr. B. WOOD proposed to amend, by requiring the consent of the Guardians to the Commissioners' defi- nitions. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the clause was intended to restrict the practice of bolstering up certain trades which might be overstocked in particular places, by giving premiums with pauper apprentices. Sir ROBERT PEEL concurred in the propriety of enabling-the Commissioners to curb the abuses of apprenticeship ; and the amendment was with- drawn. Colonel SIBTHORPE then moved that the clause be expunged. It was affirmed, by 143 to 74.

IRISH POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION.

On Monday, Mr. Hawley, the Assistant Commissioner for Clonmel Union, was examined in the House of Lords. He has left the Union since the time of the occurrences in question, and has consequently dismissed much of the subject from his memory. He said he had made inquiries respecting Mr. Butler's qualifications of a great number of persons ; but he could only remember the name of Mr. Bianconi. He did not inquire respecting Mr. Butler's conduct in political matters, because the Poor-law Commissioners had instructed him not to mix politics or religion in what he did. He knew of Mr. Bagwell's letter, objecting to Mr. Butler's appointment ; but as the charges in the letter were only general, he did not think it necessary to make further in- quiry : he assumed that Mr. Bagwell's opinion of Mr. Butler's unfit- ness originated in the connexion of the latter with a Catholic prelate. Mr. Phelan was recalled and examined touching charges which be had made on a former evening against Mr. Fennell, for want of promptitude in the execution of his duty in making certain returns. Lord Glengall had since received a letter from Mr. Fennell, denying the charge. Nothing material to the general question, however, came out. Mr. Phelan observed, in the course of his examination, that his acquaintance with Mr. Butler, for an interval of four or five years, had not been so close as it had been at other times; and it was very pos- sible that the circumstances connected with the action brought against Mr. Butler by his brother-in-law, and the subsequent pecuniary dif- ficulties of the former, might have occurred at that period.

On Thursday, the investigation closed with the examination of Mr. Armstrong, a clerk in the Commissioners' office at Dublin. The Earl of GLENGALL then gave notice, that after the Easter recess he should call the attention of the House to the whole of the evidence taken at the bar.

JEWISH DISABILITIES.

On the third reading of the Jews' Declaration Bill, on Wednesday, Mr. WILLIAM GLADSTONE moved that the bill should be a read a third time on that day six months. If it were possible to draw the line be- tween municipal and political offices, this question might take a different aspect; but should the municipal franchise be granted, the political one would immediately be demanded. In his mind, the profession of the Jewish faith was a disqualification for office in a Christian country. Christianity was a part of our law : Parliament commences its daily proceedings with Christian worship, and prays for the promotion of true religion, which can mean only the Christian religion : would they destroy the distinctive Christian character of the institution? The most urgent and interesting questions of the present time were religious questions—for instance, Church-rate, Church-extension, and the Scotch Church. Such questions were not to be committed to men who, if conscientious, must regard Christianity as a fable and an imposture. In the debates on the Catholic Relief Bill, Sir George Murray had produced great effect by his allusion to those sympathies between the Protestant officer and his Roman Catholic soldiers which arose from their common faith in one Redeemer: but with the Jews no such sym- pathies exist. The Catholics were a large body, and in Ireland even a

majority of the people : the Jews were but a very small, an in- finitesimal element of British society. The Catholics had suffered centuries of oppression : the Jews had no practical grievance whatever

A mere negation of privileges he did not consider to be a practical grievance : nobody called it a practical grievance that the religious test

is applied to the Lord Chancellor, and in Ireland to several other great officers. There had been junctures under Elizabeth, under Charles the Second, and under William the Third, when it had been necessary

to discuss religious questions of all descriptions in the Legislature : but now Parliament was in process of being disqualified for the dis- cussion of such subjects— He did not complain of this change in the constitution of the House. He admitted that it had lost a portion of its competency to discuss these questions, which were called on for discussion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: but that competency must necessarily be regulated by circumstances ; and the circumstance of their having incorporated with them very many persons differ- Ting with them in religious opinions would make it unreasonable, even if it were possible, to retain the same authority over the Church. The more of her op- ponents, however, they introduced into Parliament, it was manifest that the more did they increase their incompetence. The time might come when the admixture of creeds amongst them would be so strange and particoloured that it would be an insult to public opinion to think of discharging ecclesias- tical functions.

Mr. MACAULAY said, the question was not whether the Jews were to have seats in Parliament : it was unfair to maintain that they were jus- tified in refusing to admit persons belonging to the Jewish persuasion to municipal offices, merely because they might on some future occasion obtain admission to the national Legislature. The objection on the point of faith would equally apply to those who were already admitted to the House. Supposing Jews were admitted to the House, what steps could they take with reference to the important questions that could come before Parliament ? How would they vote on the question con- nected with the Church of Scotland? It was ridiculous to suppose that they would endeavour to abolish the Scottish national church and esta- blish Judaism in its place. They would do no more than thousands of Protestants were now attempting to do—endeavour to introduce the Voluntary system. It had been said that Jews laboured under no prac- tical grievance : but the exclusion from office was itself a practical grievance. How would Mr. Gladstone himself be content to be ex- cluded from that House on account of his creed ? Then it had been said that the Jews were few : so were the Quakers ; and the fewer the less dangerous. The Duke of Wellington himself had feared the Ca- tholic millions of Ireland, but nobody apprehended an insurrection in Petticoat Lane or Duke's Place. The bill would be unnecessary if the Jews could only learn to put a gloss upon their professions, such as others did— He could only wish that learned persons elsewhere could teach the Jews some of their casuistry ; for then, doubtless, all the scruples now made so much of would be swallowed without any difficulty. Under the direction of these learned persons, the Jews might soon learn how to put a gloss upon all that seemed most insuperable to them in the minds of the most tenacious among the Christian bodies. The declaration, " on the true faith of a Christian," might then be made aptly to fit the month of the conscientious Jew, having re- ceived the gloss which those would so well know how to clothe it in who had in their own persons shown the country how practicable it is to hold at once the faith of Rome and office under the Church of England at Oxford.

Mr. GOULBURN, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, and Mr. ESTCOURT, spoke in favour of the amendment. The original motion was supported by Lord SANDON, who, confining himself 'to the question immediately before the House, saw no reason for refusing the concession demanded ; by Mr. R. M. 3Inzens, who thought the House not qualified to discuss religious questions ; and by Mr. DrvETT, the introducer of the bill. The House then divided ; and the third reading was carried, by 108 to 31.

LORD DENMAN AND LORD WALDEGRAYE.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord DENMAN took the oppor- tunity afforded by the presentation of a petition relative to the admi- nistration of justice, to make an explanation respecting a charge against him, of having improperly sanctioned a compromise in the case of an assault by Lord Waldegrave and Mr. Duff upon a policeman. Lord Denman stated the facts— On the day in question, a case was brought before him in which Lord Walde- grave (he mentioned the name because it would look like false delicacy to withhold it) and another gentleman were charged with having committed an assault on a policeman ; and it was said that he had directed the parties to enter into a compromise, and had suggested that course for the purpose of put- ting an end to proceedings in that way. Now, in the first place, he had given no such direction : he had no power to give any such direction. The proceed- ings had not been stopped : the proceedings were now actually going on, and would, in the ordinary course of practice, be brought before the Court of Queen's Bench next term.

It was necessary to understand, that when cases were removed by certiorari to the Court of Queen's Bench, no depositions were sent up from the inferior court, and the judge of course came to the case without any previous knowledge of the facts. Lord Denman here read an accurate statement of the particular case as it was brought before him— It appeared from that statement, that his learned friend Sir Frederick Pol- lock, on the part of the defendants, who had pleaded " Not Guilty," applied to the Court for leave to withdraw that plea, and that they should be per- mitted to enter a plea of " Guilty." He urged the moat sincere regret of the defendants for what had occurred, and their anxiety to make every possible atonement and apology. Now, it was impossible to mistake the meaning of the word atonement : it meant, no doubt, some pecuniary compensation—a course sometimes adopted where the nature of the case admitted of it. Where a pub- lic outrage was committed, end where a public example was necessary, no such compromise ought to take place ; but where this was not the case, and where the only punishment that could be inflicted on the defendant was a pecuniary fine, it was obvious that it was better that such compensation should be given to the party injured, rather than that it should go into the treasury, in which case he could derive no benefit from it. Those observations having been made by Sir Frederick Pollock, Lord Denman then said—" At least they act right now. Let their plea of Not Guilty' be withdrawn, and a plea of Guilty' be recorded. I hope the case may be of such a nature as to admit of its being settled by private reparation." That was the whole extent of what he said.

A contrast had been drawn, by a Member of the House of Commons, between his conduct upon this occasion and that of Mr. Justice Erskine, who sentenced a man at Salisbury for a much less serious offence to fifteen years' imprisonment. But how could a comparison be made be- tween a case which had been tried and one which had not? It might just as well be assumed that Mr. Justice Erskine had been unduly severe to a poor man, as that another Judge had favoured a rich man— But what a notion it was, to take sentences at one place and sentences at another, and, without considering the difference of circumstances, to apply a kind of foot-rule to them—to regard them as they might a sum in addition or subtraction, and to say, there is so mirth heinousness in one and only so much in another, and therefore there was evidently an inequality in the administra- tion of justice. Was it right to cast imputations in this manner on the con- duct of men who bad not, like others, an opportunity to defend themselves ? Nothing was more likely to lead to insubordination, to licentiousness, and to a contempt for the law, than such a course. Lord Denman appealed to Lord Normanby to testify that no com- mutation of sentence had been applied for. He then alluded to an at- tack which had been made by a London paper upon Mr. Justice Patte- eon, on account of some difference in the sentence which be had passed

on two criminals. That Judge had called on him, and explained why the different sentences had been passed ; and no man really acquainted with the facts could have made the objections which had appeared.

The Marquis of NORMANDY was glad of the explanation which Lord Denman had given; though he might have left it to his own high character to satisfy the public of the baselessness of the imputation. The Com- missioners of Police bad objected generally to pecuniary compensations to police-officers, as leading both to temptation and to injurious sus- picions ; and Lord Normanby was glad to see that Lord Denman thought that such compromises ought to be of rare occurrence. With respect to Justice Patteson, at the very time that he was attacked on account of one of the sentences which he had delivered, he had applied to the Home Office to have it commuted.

STATE OF NEWFOUNDLAND.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. PAKINGTON moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of Newfoundland. He sup- ported the motion by an account of several objectionable proceedings in the House of Assembly and at the elections in that island. Lord Grey's grant of a Local Legislature in 1832 was premature— There were particular circumstances connected with the colony which made it most inexpedient to grant them a representative government. The popula- tion of the island consisted of from 75,000 to 80,000 persons, Roman Catholics and Protestants in equal proportions. A still more remarkable circumstance was, that from the climate of the colony it was hardly possible to carry on any agricultural pursuit ; and the greater number of the inhabitants were engaged in the extensive fisheries, being for the most part seamen. The proportion of merchants, shopkeepers, and the other wealthier classes, was extremely small. A Colonial Legislature having been granted to such a community, it was neces- sarily constituted upon a very Democratic principle, with a numerous conati- tuency, and an extremely low rate of franchise. Every person occupying any tenement for a period of one year was entitled to vote, and every one occupying for a period of two years was entitled to sit in the House of Assembly. However, as the wealthier classes had petitioned for a change, there was no blame to the Government which accorded it— The first Assembly thus constituted consisted for the most part of respect- able persons ; bat in the second Assembly, returned in 1836, a number of members appeared who had been elected amidst scenes of the utmost party violence. Several of the representatives returned were taken from an extremely low position in life ; so low, that they could not be expected to be qualified for the task of legislation. One of these parties, still in the Assembly, was a humble fisherman ; another was a domestic servant. He was informed by a gentleman now in this country, that one of these representatives requested him to take his (the representative's) daughter into his family as a nursery-maid ! This Assembly had been guilty of grievous acts of tyranny, under the pretext of protecting their Parliamentary privileges— It was now a matter of history that a medical gentleman walking in the public streets, having had a quarrel with a member of the Assembly; was treated as if he had been guilty of a breach of privilege, and confined accord- ingly. He was subsequently enlarged by one of the Judges upon a writ of habeas corpus. The Assembly, therefore, dragged the Judge and the Sheriff who executed the writ away to a prison, under the pretext of a breach of pri- vilege; and the Governor of the colony was obliged to prorogue the Parliament before their release could be effected.

The Chief Justice had been appointed to a seat in the Executive Council ; a most imprudent course, as it converted the Judge into a partisan. The circumstance came under the consideration of the Privy Council, and the Judge was removed ; though acquitted of all that could tend to impeach his conduct. A public meeting of the inhabitants of St. John sent an address to the Crown, expressing their conviction that the hostility shown in the colony to the Judge arose solely from his inflexible administration otjustice. Gne charge brought against the Assembly, was misapplication of its power over the public money. In Newfoundland, every official person, every magistrate, and every constable, must go before the House of Assembly for his salary. It was alleged that the Assembly, in awarding these salaries, had been re- gulated by political likings and dislikes. Petitions on the subject were sent home in 1838 ; and the Chamber of Commerce of St. John, who usually abstained from taking part in political matters, were among the petitioners. The latter said, speaking of the Legislative Assembly-

" They have interfered with the duties of the Executive by appropriating to individuals, by name, the most trifling salaries, depriving, one constable alto- gether of his stipend, lessening that of another, increasing that of a third; and this, too, without any complaint being made against the sufferer, or any recommendation in favour of the one benefited, but solely and notoriously because the individuals affected by their votes were either opposed or favourable to the members of the Assembly at their election, or did or did not approve of their subsequent conduct. However contemptible such conduct may appear, the evil effects of it are daily felt more extensively and seriously than we can describe. The peace-officers, who are poor, and mainly depending for subsist- ence on their salaries, are naturally deterred from independently doing their duty; and we fear the evil is not confined to these the lower functionaries."

Mr. Pakington then alluded to election-riots which had taken place at Carbonear, a town in the island, attended with circumstances of great violence. The Legislative Assembly was not free from the suspicion of having been cognizant of those disturbances— A messenger of that Assembly had had bills of indictment preferred against him upon two occasions, for assaulting a magistrate: he was bailed out by members of the Assembly, and still retained in their service. Another charge had since been preferred : a young person in the colony had been cut off, and no parties had been brought to justice : the magistrates caused an inquiry to be made : suspicion fell upon a person connected with the House of Assem- bly; and when this suspicion was hinted, the Legislative Assembly summoned the magistrates before them, and arrested the progress of justice.

Mr. Pakington quoted the remarks of the Governor to the House of Assembly on the subject of the riots, in which he declared that he could not issue writs for a new Assembly, unless the election law were altered, so far as better is protect the voter. Mr. Pakington concluded by making his motion.

Lord Joust RUSSELL said, be had recommended the Governor to do all in his power to secure a better working of the constitution ; and unless he succeeded, Lord John should apply to Parliament to sanction a remedy of his own proposing. It was not for him, therefore, to ask for inquiry at this stage. But as there were circumstances which might require in- vestigation, he should not oppose the motion. He dissented, however, from some of the general principles laid down by Mr. Pakington. He did not think that a free constitution had been prematurely granted to Newfoundland— He thought that the general rule should be, that whenever you had a settle- meat of British subjects well established in a place, you should give them free and popular institutions. He admitted that the Parliament at home should have the power of reforming or suspending these colonial constitutions in such cases as they deemed necessary. He thought a case of suspension of the con- stitution was necessary in one instance, in which he did not obtain the assent of the House—namely, with regard to that of Jamaica. He begged the House to recollect that he had proposed this at a period when the large proportion of the inhabitants of that colony were in a state of transition from slavery to freedom, and it was feared by the Government that there would be found for some time considerable difficulties in the workingof a popular constitution in a commu- nity like that of Jamaica; and likewise when there were many persons in a colony of Spanish descent, or of French descent, mixed with a certain propor- tion of persons of English extraction, he thought that they could not depend on the harmonious working of a free constitution. These objections did not apply to Newfoundland. A despatch from the Governor, dated July 1839, showed that even amid the jealousies which existed, the Legislature had effected a great many in improve- ments. Some of their proceedings might seem strange n this country, to those who had been accustomed to the forms of a free constitution which had been working for centuries; but they did not prove that the colonists ought to have no constitution.

Mr. HursE hoped the inquiry would not be a partial one. The pro- ceedings in the Assembly were those of a minority, and the majority were anxious for inquiry. There was no one in England, however, who could supply complete information. Mr. Pakington should have mentioned that the Committee of the Privy Council, before whom the Chief Justice was examined, recommended him not to return to the colony.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. PAKINGTON, on Thursday, moved that the Committee consist of the following Members : Mr. Pakington, Lord John Russell, Lord Stanley, Viscount Howick, Mr. William Gladstone, Sir George Grey, Viscount Sandon, Mr. Shell, Lord Ashley, Mr. Langdale, Sir James Graham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Colquhoun, Mr. Charles Buller, and Mr. Lascelles. They were appointed accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

On Thursday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated the plan of proceeding with business immediately after Easter— He proposed that on the House meeting after the Easter holydays, the noble lord the Secretary for Ireland should state the course which he meant to pursue with regard to the Irish Qualification of Electors Bill; and if it became neces- sary to reprint the clause respecting the franchise, it would he sent to be printed. The Committee on the bill would be fixed for the Monday following, instead of the Friday; for which it now stood. On the Friday, he would pro- ceed with the Administration of Justice Bill ; and after that would take the vote for the Civil Contingencies; and on Thursday the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring forward his financial statement for the year.

MISCELLANEOUS.

DUTIES IN THE COLONIES. On Thursday, Mr. LABOUCHERE stated that he had made some modifications in the schedule of duties which he should have to propose in Committee on Monday next : the differential ad valorem duty on imports into the Colonies would be seven instead of ten_ per cent.; shingles would be reduced to 2s. per thousand; and pitch and pine or other lumber-timber from 10s. 6d. to 7s. per thousand feet. There were other, but slight modifications, which he would state when moving the resolutions.

THE CAROLINE AFFAIR. On Thursday, Mr. HIIBIE said, that as the vessel bringing despatches for Government from America had not yet arrived, he would postpone to the 6th instant his motion for the production of the correspondence in the case of the Caroline.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE LORDS. Lord MELBOURNE announced, on Tuesday, that the House would adjourn on Tuesday the 6th of April to Thursday the 22d.