Debates an Vroteebings in 113arliament.

RESTRICTION OF FACTORY LABOUR.

Z n the House of Commons, on Monday, the adjourned debate on the third reading of the Factory Bill was resumed by Mr. MONCHTON Mintszs; who supported Lord Ashley's clause at some length ; declaring that the House bad settled the objection against noninterference by an enormous majority. The general debate was continued, without much novelty of argument, by Mr.WARD, Mr. LABOUCHERE, and Mr. CHARLES Wools, against Lord Ashley's clause ; Mr. IlAwas, Mr. JOHN STUART WORTLEY, Viscount POLLINGTON, Mr. SHAW, and Mr. BAILLIE COCH- RANE, in favour of it. In the course of the discussion the anticipated reduction of wages was a gcod deal canvassed. Mr. M`GEsome said that he had accompanied Mr. Horner to several factories, and he found the predominant feelings of the working-classes to be that they would rather consent to have lower wages than that the Ten-hours proposition should not be adopted ; while out of nearly a hundred persons with whom he had conversed on the subject, he did not find any one who did not believe that wages would fall if the clause were agreed to.

soa-e

e

A- Z n the House of Commons, on Monday, the adjourned debate on the third reading of the Factory Bill was resumed by Mr. MONCHTON Mintszs; who supported Lord Ashley's clause at some length ; declaring that the House bad settled the objection against noninterference by an enormous majority. The general debate was continued, without much novelty of argument, by Mr.WARD, Mr. LABOUCHERE, and Mr. CHARLES Wools, against Lord Ashley's clause ; Mr. IlAwas, Mr. JOHN STUART WORTLEY, Viscount POLLINGTON, Mr. SHAW, and Mr. BAILLIE COCH- RANE, in favour of it. In the course of the discussion the anticipated reduction of wages was a gcod deal canvassed. Mr. M`GEsome said that he had accompanied Mr. Horner to several factories, and he found the predominant feelings of the working-classes to be that they would rather consent to have lower wages than that the Ten-hours proposition should not be adopted ; while out of nearly a hundred persons with whom he had conversed on the subject, he did not find any one who did not believe that wages would fall if the clause were agreed to. Mr. MANNERS Surron opposed the evidence of Mr. Horner to that of Mr. M•Geachy, and cited statistics against the proposition generally— Mr. Horner asked a large number of operatives whether they were prepared to accept a correspondent reduction of oages for a reduction ,n the hours of labour? In the vast majority of cases, the operatives answered recidedly in the negative. This question was put by Mr. Homer to one hundred and thirty operatives, and seventy of them said that under no circumstances could they submit to a reduction of wages. Out of the other sixty, who said that they were prepared to take the lesser hours' work with some reduction in their wages, only twenty said they were prepared to take the limit mentioned by the noble Lord. When asked whether, on the reduction of the hours of labour from twelve to ten, they were prepared for the same proportionate reduction of wages, meat of them said that they did not anticipate any such result. Mr. BRIGHT entered into long controversial remarks on opposing statements, put forth by delegates of the operatives and of the mill- owners ; contending that the operatives exaggerated the amount of toil. He adduced evidence that the working-classes do not desire a reduction of working-time when put to them practically, with its consequences ; and he made some further attacks on Lord Ashley's authorities. Mr. M'Geachy said that be had visited several factories in company with Mr. Hornet: he did not mention one factory, where six hundred workmen were employed, all of whom repudiated the notion that wages would be reduced. Two instances have recently occurred in which ten-hours time has actually beau placed within reach of the working classes. On Saturday the 27th April 1844, a master-manufacturer received a deputation on the Ten-hours Bill. Ile inquired if they really wanted to work only ten hours a day ? They were some time before any one answered: at length one of them said he should. The manufacturer said, "Well, you have as good a pair of mules as any in my mill ; you are at liberty to work only ten hours a day, and I promise that you shall enjoy that liberty for twelve months—I will neither discharge nor disturb you." Ile afterwards informed them, "that if the other spinners in the same room desired it also, they should only work ten hours a day.' Be again added, "that should the whole of the operatives of the mill request it, the mill should work only ten hours a day "; and be also gave them permission to return an answer at any convenient time ; but as yet he has not beard more on the sub- ject. Up to the middle of last week there was no indication that the workmen were anxious to work only for ten hours. Another case was that of a large manufacturer not far from Bury. That person thought fit to try how far the ten hours would be agreeable to his hands: he theretore regularly stopped the engine at the end of ten hours. NV hat was the result ? The hands in his em- ployment actually told him they would turn out unless the engine vrotked twelve hours, as it had done before.

One of the agitators for short time at full wages was John Doherty : he had first obtained work in Manchester upon a certificate of character which was a forgery. Probably Lord Ashley was unconscious of that ? (" Hear, hear!" front Lord Ashley.) Doherty had been several times in prison : he had been concerned in violent riots in Manchester in 1818; and since that time be had also been in prison for an offence against the Excise-laws. Be believed the noble Lord was conscious of that fact. Within the last few months the same person bad been had up before the Magistrates for giving a false name, and be had been fined for being drunk and disorderly. He now asked the noble Lord, whether this very person had not received from the Committee

rIon money to proceed on the short-time agitation, and whether that

'tA.. AaJlithejseen most actively engaged in the North of England ? There na who had been up here as delegates—as Mr. Mark Crabtree. r. Crabtree was tried at Aylesbury, for stealing a silver salt- n, and other things, at an inn. He admitted that the things his possession, but said that be must have been intoxicated uld not have known what he was about. He sent for Dr. a character. Dr. Sleigh mid that he had been introduced the Duke of Buckingham, and that many noblemen would bail him to any amount. The Jury returned a verdict of taking the article% but not with a 'felonious intent : on being sent back, they amended their verdict to one of acquittal.

Lord ASHLEY explained. Mr. Bright had accused him of saying that labour had been doubled: what he said was, that it had increased "full 10 per cent." He left the House to decide who was the gross and in- tolerable exaggerator.

Sir ROBERT PEEL defended the Government measure.

The real question before the House was, whether they should curtail factory- labour to the extent of two hours a day ? Of what avail was it to taunt Ministers with a violation of principle ? for if they had committed an error in re- stricting labour to twelve hours, those who taunted them shared the error. But be was willing to discuss the question as one of degree, putting principle out of view.; and he avowed that Ministers had reached the utmost extent to which they could go in limiting the labour of adults. What was the advantage of referring to the Corn-laws in the present discussion ? "Granted that we maintain a restric- tion upon Corn-laws, bow can that justify you for imposing other restrictions upon the manufactures of the country ? Take either branch of the dilemma, and you must find yourselves equally embarrassed. Agree with us that the Corn laws happen to be justified by the peculiar circumstances of the country, and then you cannot with any consistency be favourable to the imposition of any such restriction as this ten-hours clause. Say, on the other band, that the Corn-laws ought to be removed, and how can you consistently set them free and impose restrictious upon any other branch of trade? How can you restrict labour if you set free commerce? How do you reconcile the one or the other with justice?" It is said that the proposed interference is very tri- fling : but factory-labour is not like spade-husbandry, in which the interference with the use of one spade only makes the individual lose his work ; to stop factory-labour is to arrest the work of machinery equal to 100,000 hones, to abridge the employment of all persons engaged in auxiliary trades, and to im- pose an income-tax of 16A on the gross annual wages of 225,000/. He ilia.- trated the effect of such a measure by the case of a mill in Manchester. " The owners of this mill hold their water-power upon lease. They never contem- plated such an interference as the present ; they have no clause in their lease to protect them from the interference of Parliament ; and what are they now to do with all their arrangements and liabilities founded upon the basis of the existing law ? In that mill they at present work twelve hours a day. There are 475 persons employed in it, of whom 119 are adult males; the remaining number, 356, would have their hours of labour also curtailed : and why should all this take place ?—for the purpose of improving the social condition of dm people employed in that mill. Let the house only look at the state of health of the persons employ ed in that mill. Out of 475, only 7 are absent on ac- count of illness ; that is to say, that only 1 in 68 is incapacitated on account of illness—being 4 per cent on the 475. Of the whole thus employed, 259 re- side in Manchester, and 216 of the number bare been attracted to that esta- blishment : they have been allured to it by .a high rate of wages, and they have been toiling during a period of prosperity In trade to make a provision which shall guard them against the evils of poverty in old age. You tell these poor people that they are not to make the most of their labour while they can ; and then you tell me that the prohibition is for their moral comfort—for their social happiness and advantage!" To look to the moral and social part of the question, the income-tax of 16 per cent would operate as a bounty upon band- loom weaving; it would induce the hand-loom weaver to work fourteen house a day : now hand-loom weaving is much harder toil than power-loom weaving, and carried on in damp unwholesome cellars; it is a trade which is charac- terized by vice and misery.

Sir Robert briefly reviewed the arguments by which the restriction is main- tained. Be altogether doubted the assumption that as much work would he done in ten hours as in twelve. From accidental circumstances it became necessary, for fifteen weeks in 1842, to work a mill at Manchester for ten hours a day instead of twelve: the mill had usually produced 119,000 hanks of cotton a week ; estimated by the reduced time, the proportionate produce of ten hours ought to have been 99,574 banks—the actual produce was 99,000 hank,. It bad been said that "that which is morally wrong cannot be politically right"; a sort of saying much admired in certain quarters. (Cheers from Lord Ash- ley and other Members.) Really, argument must be submitted to the test of reason. " Well, that which is morally wrong can't be politically right. Now, what is the meaning of this? I can't quite understand it. If you apply it to some enormous act of injustice committed by a great state,—ii you apply it to such acts as the revocation of the edict of Rentz or to the partition of Poland.— I can understand what is meant to be conveyed : but does it mean that it is politically right that I should interfere by law with that which is morally wrong ? Is that the meaning? Is it true that it ought to be the rule of legis- lation that I should interfere by enactment with that which is morally wrong? I say, that is not the principle of legislation. Many things, as intemperance of various kinds, are • morally wrong,' but are beyond the pale of legislation. In a despotic country, there is no act of oppression which might not be justi- fied by that doctrine, if he who holds the power is to construe what is 'morally wrong. The Inquisition justified all its proceedings upon the ground that that which was morally wrong ought to be suppressed by the exercise of power and of legislation. But in this case, where I admit that we ought to consult that which is for the lasting benefit of the people, which is conducive to their morality and promotes their social comfort—where I admit, also, that wealth ought not to be the exclusive olject of the Legislature—yet are we not left at liberty to determine whether the mode of our interference does produce that effect ? I deny that in this sense it is morally wrong that persons should labour twelve hours in a factory." And how would the advocates of ten hours justify themselves before Mr. Fielden and others who consider it "morally wrong" for women to work more than eight hours?

Lord Howick made light of foreign competition—" The noble Lord says import as much as you can. 1 say, export as much as you can. The noble Lord seems to think that the profits of trade depend on the amount of imports; and his argument is that imports insure exports. But, on the other band, ex- ports insure imports. The results are the same : you cannot import anything without exporting, nor can you export anything without importing; and con- sequently, that novel doctrine of the noble Lord has no foundation whatever. It is after all a mere question of barter, and the policy of imports and the policy of exports stand on precisely the same foundation ; and I am not at all recon- ciled to this restriction in the hours of labour by the doctrines which the noble Lord has east forth, and which he admits are peculiar and not well understood, I admit that I am afraid of foreign competition under the restrictions you pro- pose. We have had a long duration of peace, and foreign countries have long directed attention to manufactures : there is the prospect of continued peace; and the profits of capital are equalized nearly, not only in all trades in this country, but there is a tendency to equalize profits throughout the world. This country has found it impossible to prevent the exportation of machinery ; thus waiving some of its advantages. A Belgian gentleman employed to prepare a report on a pri;jet de foi on the subject gives this account of the hours of labour in different countries. In the United States, the hours of labour are 78* week.; in France, from 72 to 84; in Prussia, 72 to 90; in Switzerland, 78 to 84; in Austria, 72 to 80; in the Tyrol, 78 to 84; in Saxony, 72; in Baden, 84; in Bohn, 94; in England, 69,—being very considerably leas in England than in any other of these competing countries. We have now permitted the export of machines ; we stand now by far lower in the amount of weekly labour pet-

farmed, according to this estimate, than any other country ; and it is now pro- posed that the 69 hours now tolerated by law should be reduced to 58. I do think that that is a most serious reduction. I think it requiree a statement of sets of a most unexceptionable character, and of arguments of the most cogent description, to justify such an experiment." After combating some other arguments, Sir Robert animadverted on the

threat of Mr. Ferrand, that if a Ten-hours Bill were not conceded. it would be extorted; and on Mr. Bernare remark, that "you cannot deal with men as with chessmen—you cannot square them in muses to your rigid theories of political economy." Yield to such appeals, and how long would it be before similar concessions were demanded : look, for example, at the address put forth by the Millers Association of Great Britain and Ireland. (Si? Robert Peel proceeded, much cheered) " They enumerate their grievances, and thug enun- elate their proposed remedies: ' We ask, yea, we would Bay, demand, first; these boons, as the redress of those grievances—first, we wish to work eight hours per day, and no more; secondly, we wish to receive 4s a day wages; thirdly, we wish to be paid weekly ; fourthly, we wish to be united for our security.' 4 Friends and fellow-countrymen, we now appeal to your sympathy, and ask yOR, in the name of justice, whether to be buried in the caverns of the earth, mhaling the most noxious air for eight hours a day, be not enough ? '—What- evens morally wrong cannot be politically right.— We ask you, is 4s. a day too much for digging out of the bowels of the earth so useful a commodity as coal; our lives all the while in the most imminent peril, every moment threatening us with the most horrible death, and no provision for our wives and children ?'— Now, on the principles upon which we are now asked to concede, we should be bound to yield to demands of this nature urged by the popular voice, and to enact that labour for more than eight hours per day in mines, and for less than 4s. per day, should not be allowed. Sir, I believe nothing would be more in- jurious to these people than an acquiescence in their demands. I will not act upon the assumption that they are better judges than the Legislature—se- leeted for the purpose—of what constitutes their best and comprehensive in- terests. I will not abrogate the functions of a legislator because they wish for and demand these improvident enactments. It would be no vindication for us that we bad acted in accordance with their wishes and feelings-

' Brener° &mos iota., optantibus DI faciles ';

Or, as it was paraphrased with great force, How nation, sink, by darling schemes oppressed,

When vengeance list,-us to the rash inquest.'

But 'vengeance is not ours.' Our duty is to take a benevolent and compre- hensive view of all our great interests, commercial, political, social, and moral, and all classes in this vast community. It is, Sir, a maxim of law, a technical rule you must observe in the administration of justice, 'volenti non fit in- juria'—that injury cannot be done to him who consents to it : but you, de- puted to perform the functions of watching over the welfare of a great country, you cannot act upon that principle. And it cannot be a greater proof of your possessing attributes appropriate to the duties of legislation, that you reverse the maxim : • voienti non fiat infuria'—we will resist y our wishes in order to promote your welfare. We will discharge the duty assigned to us, on account of our being able to take more comprehensive and more beneficent views than you are.' I protest, then, against the dem rine that we are to concede because it is the popular will. If we are satisfied that it is not for the popular inte- rests, then it is our painful but necessary duty to resist. If this House be of a different opinion—if you are satisfied that you must make this great experiment on labliur—or if you think concession is inevitable, and that you must give way to the wishes and feelings of the people—be it so. But if you take that course, and if you resolve (as you cannot but do in consistency) to pursue it, you must—I say it with all respect—you must do so under other auspices, and under guides who can trace a clearer soda better way than can the present Ad- ministration. I know not what the result may be this nieht ; but this I know, that I shall with a perfectly safe conscience, if the result be unfavourable to my views, retire with perfect satisfaction into a private station ; wishing well to the result of your legislation, but, for myself, prepared to pursue that more rugged but not inglorious path of duty—prepared to resist concessions which, though popular, I believe to be injurious, and to consult the public interest at the expense of popular favour.' (Loud cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL protested against making the question one of Ministerial confidence, virtually subjecting all legislation to the Minis- ters of the day.

Upon what principle would the House proceed ? If they were inclined to

say that the attainment of wealth should he their only object, let them adopt the long hours prevalent on the Continent, and distance all foreign competition, regardless of the disease, immorality, and ignorance of religion which must ensue. Sir Robert Peel made no valid distinction in principle between ten hours and twelve hours. Lord John believed that the proposal to adopt the ten-hours limit was founded upon views of national health, religion, and mo- rality; considerations which the Legislature ought to hold in as high regard as any consideration of national wealth. He did not think that the same wages would be given for ten as for twelve hours' labour; but a considerable domestic saving would be effected by the working-classes. As to foreign competition, lie argued that the superior efficiency of British labour would meet that ; or It might be met by the abolition of the tax on raw cotton, and by the removal of restrictive duties on the importation of food. Sir James Graham charged him with having formerly stated different views : he had changed his opinion. In reconsidering and reflecting on this subject his opinions had changed. The first questiou was, whether in that change of opinion he had been influenced by any unworthy motive. There was but one Member who in the course of this debate had insinuated such motives both against him and some who sat near him. With respect to that honourable and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) he would say little, because he had entirely taken himself out of the sphere of our mortal and peccable nature. (Cheers and laughter.) With candour, and at the same time with great. modesty, that honourable and learned Member said, " Fools rush in —" declining to quote the rest of the line : but it was very clear, as lawyers put it, by way of inuendo, he meant "fools," such as the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, "rush in where angels," meaning thereby the honourable and learned Member for Bath, "feared to tread." (Mach taughter.) With great appropriateness the honourable and learned Member claimed to himself the benefit of the comparison. But, putting aside all dispute with the honourable and learned Member, because he only pretended to be fallible and erring on this subject, he came next to the right honourable Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had quoted the remarks he had made on this- subject in former years. He had stated formerly what where his views ; he had stated them both when in office and after be left office: hut his opinions, he repeated, were now changed. Did the right honourable Baronet mean to say that consistency upon every subject was absolutely necessary to the character of a politician? (Loud cheers.) Ile might refer to great examples in former days vell-had not been afraid to state that they were inconsistent on certain subjects • when they were charged with such differences of opinion ; but the right honourable gentleman himself, who appeared there as the organ of a Government composed of men with whom be said at one time it would be in- consistent with his heinous to act, because they had always opposed good government and promoted bad—surely he had chang:d his opinion, having pro-, flounced, ao he thought, a somewhat rash judgment on that occasion. He did not think that a change of opinion on such a subject 'as this was after all so very extraordinary. Again, the right honourable Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury had said the other day, that it would be the greatest degree of pre- sumption and vanity to pretend always to have the same opinion on some subjects. The House had lately heard from that right honourable gentleman a most admirable exposition of tbe sound principles which should regulate the currency, although in his early life, before he bad fully examined that subjoin., the right honourable Baronet voted with his party, confiding in theirjudgment, which he had since seen reason to see was utterly erroneous : but what a loss to the country would it have been if he had foolishly said, " By giving such and such votes, I am pledged to this view of a guestion, and therefore I will not look into it or endeavour to form a better opinion." The amendment was supported by Sir ROBERT Nous. Mr. 'COL- LETT also supported it, but merely as the means of getting rid of a very improper and pernicious bill.

On a division, the numbers were—For the clause, 159 ; against i(, 297; majority for Ministers, 138.

[The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers. Soon after, Lord Ashley rose as if to leave the House. He was met by a loud exulting cheer, which, according to the Times, seems to have been directed against him in a personal way : he looked for a moment round the House, and then resumed his seat] A clause, moved by Mr. BROTHERTON, to enable millowners to rely on the real ages of children, instead of surgeons' certificates, having been negatived without a division ; and an amendment by Mr. GRAINGER, extending the power of appeals in certain cases, negatived by 124 to 29 ; there was another division on the question that the bill do pass— For the motion, 136 ; against it, 7 ; majority, 129. The bill passed ; and the House adjourned at two o'clock on Tuesday morning.

The bill was read a first time in the House of Lords on Tuesday ; to be read a second time on Monday next.

CODIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord Baononew moved the second reading of his hill for the Consolidation of the Criminal Law.

He had often expressed his disinclination to grapple with the subject ; wish- ing that he could induce the Lord Chancellor, with his greater capacity and influence, to undertake the task : but at least 1,e had no reason to look for any opposition from Government. The bill originated in the report of the Cri- minal Law Commissioners appointed when he held the Great Seal ; the result of whose inquiries corresponded with the proposition which he made in 1828. Since that year, the improvements in the criminal law hare been such, that if lawyers who flourished and who faded thirty years ago were to rise from their se- pulchresat this moment, they would not know that they were living in the coun- try which their learning and genius had adorned. That led him to hope that the only part of the law which be then left untouched, the criminal law, was now fated by his humble and imperfect administrations to experience a similar change and similar adeqoate improvement. How long are we to suffer our criminal law to remain locked up in statutes in the works of different oracles of our law or only floating in the air of Westminster Hall, while we order every one of Majesty's subjects to be ignorant of it or to disobey it at bis peril ? Some persoss, indeed, entertain a repugnance to reducing the law to a written digest ; and Lord Mansfield said, " while the law remains an unwritten law, it works itself pure by rules drawn from the fountains of jus- tice." Those fountains he approached, to quaff of their streams, and to pluck some of the flowers which spangle their margin.

" Juvat imeerosaccedere tomes, Atque bourne ; juvat uovos deceipere fiores."

Some of them would be new to their Lordships. In the first place, it by no means follows that because the law is not reduced to writing, it is disen- cumbered of writing and printing: there are 32 quarto volumes of printed public statutes, besides three times as many private statutes. Lord Mans- field, however, spoke not of the statute but of the common law. To confine the retrospect to the period since Lord Mansfield left the bench, in 1806, and speaking, not of equity, nor of the Irish, but of the English common-law courts alone, tomes of "judicial legislation," as the decisions of the Judges have been called, have accumulated : there are 160 closely-printed bulky volumes of de- cisions, besides 10 volumes of decisions at Nisi Prius-170 in all, or 150,060 pages of print ; all of which it behoves the Judges and the practitioners in the three Courts of Westminster to make themselves acquainted with—if man can make himself familiar with such a mass as that which it is painful to mention and frightful to contemplate. "1 uow bold in my hand a volume of 350 pages, closely printed—so closely, that I, at ray time of life, cannot read it with nay unassisted sight, and upon large pages, being about equal to the Code Nupolion, which contains the common law as well as the statute law of France. Your Lordships, perhaps, will think that this volume, then, is a digest of the com- mon law or of the statute law of this country ; or perhaps you may think that it is a consolidation or combination of the combined common and statutory law ? No. But peradventure your Lordships may think that this volume is a digest or index of these 160 volumes of reports, with their 150,000 pages of print? N3 such thing. Peradventure, then, your Lordships may think that it is a. digest of the reports of the list three years of the present century ? Not so : it is an index to the reports of cases in the Courts of Westminster Hall for one year only—the year 1842. And the digest of the whole reports for the last ninety years—from 1752 to last year—occupies four immense volumes, con- taining 8,000 pages and upwards. And the mass of reports to which these massive volumes are but the digest and the index, it becomes a lawyer—I win nut say a student, for a student cannot purchase them—but it becomes every lawyer who practises to buy and make himself the holder of. There are Lin and odd volumes of law—I speak of the decisions on reports—which it becomes every lawyer to possess; and which also it becomes every lawyer to try to read if he dare; which it becomes those Judges who have contributed yearly to increase the mass, and not only becomes but behoves them, to read, understand, and inwardly digest, because they will be called upon overtly to give the result of that digest in the lodgments they have to pronounce between man and man, in civil or criminal Mee. And how many reporters are there engaged in furnishing the records of these decisions? There are fifty-nine learned gentle- men engaged in that occupation ; and every year from twelve to fifteen of the volumes they produce are to be added to the library of the lawyer,—a mass in the whole which defies a moderate fortune to possess—a mass which defies any degree of industry to master, which defies any degree of memory to retain, and which defies any degree of perspicacity to disentangle."

Lord Brougham glanced at previous consolidations of law—by Justinian, atie

ticipated in intention by Cam; and by Edward. Lord Bacon, who wrote diffusely and profusely on the subject, enlarged on the mischief of retaining, obsolete laws, which begets a habit of disobeying, first the obsolete, and then the laws in force. Sir Edward Coke, and successive Parliamentary Commis- sions, comprising names illustrious in law, from 1650 to recent times, have re- commended such measures; and in 1626, Sir Robert Peel introduced a mea- sure for consolidating all the laws relating to a large class of offences against property. [The Lord Chancellor—" Statutory law,"]. Yes, statute law ; and Sir Robert Peel's words could not be too often repeated : "He thought, the real value of high official station was, that it empowered the leaders to further such Vale improvements." In consolidating the criminal law, could any thing equal the absurdity of leaving out all that is contained in the com- mon law; especially when you reflect for one moment what must be the language which the lawgieer holds upon this subject to those he calls upon to obey, under the severest penalties ? " He tells them, Disobey at your peril; here is the law, written so plain that he who runs may read." But,' asks the sub- ject, is this all the law ? " Very far from it,' replies the legislator; ' it is not above one-fourth or one-fifth of the law you have to obey ; but where you are to find the rest, is more than I can tell. " It is said that so long as the common law remains unwritten, the Judges can, by construction, contract or stretch it at their pleasure, and accommodate it to the various circumstances of each case and the varying state of society. " My Lords, to my uninformed mind it appears, that any thing more decisive against an unwritten law cannot be advanced ; because what I want is this—that the Judges shall not have any thing of that kind to be left to them—that they shall not have it left to them to contract or expand the law at pleasure. What I want is, one fixed rule." Nor does the criminal law vary with the cases and with the stages of society; murder, and theft, and larceny, were the same in the days of Edward as in the days of Coke, or Hale, or James the First. He denied that any Judge wishes to have the power of making the law instead of declaring the law. Consider the position of a Judge called upon to decide in a case of 'difficulty and doubt. " The case is new; no statute has dealt with it, no exactly parallel case is found on the books. What is he to do ? In the first place, he has to go through that statute law, which, although it does not touch the case, may furnish him with analogies ; then he has to look into what has been written by learned men of former years, who may or may not have treated of the point, and from whose labours he may hope to gain some scintilla of light to guide him in his dark and thorny path ; then he has to collect all the cases which may furnish any analogies. Thus is he left to wade and grope in darkness through all these volumes of cases, in order to find something bearing upon the case in question— something like it ; and upon each case he finds, if case there be, there arises an argument how near it conies to the point before him—how far it differs; whe- ther the judgment upon the former case hears upon the present, or whether it was but an arbitrary dictum. Upon each and every case arises a dispute whether it be applicable in principle to the present point. In all this endless confusion of doubts and difficulties, which cast darkness rather than light upon the path of the Judge—beyond all this 'visible obscure' he has to grope his way, in order to satisfy himself, not what is the law, for that he cannot do, but how near be can get to a reasonable guess consistently with his own opinion, and not in the teeth of the express authority laid down by some text-writers- how near he can arrive to a hint, to a glimmer of the law, and how he may turn and apply it to this new and knotty point. Think how great a relief it would be to the Judge, if, instead of the enormous mass I have mentioned, he were referred to a code, or articles, where were recorded the opinions of Govern- ment, and where he might read what the lawgivers had determined upon the very question."

Lord Brougham cited the opinion of Monsieur Dupin in favour of the Code Cieile ; Monsieur Dupin having originally been sceptical as to the advantages of codification : and he proceeded to give example of the confusion and uncer- tainty in which the written law now stands, it being safe to assume that if there be such uncertainty in the written parts of the law, there must be at least as much in the unwritten parts. "As to the written, the learned Commission- era have collected no lees than thirteen definitions of the crime of theft—a crime, be it remembered, for which about 12,000 persons are tried yearly—five of which definitions are totally diverse; and they are by judges as well as text-writers. As to the general state of the law, there are now 1,540 statutes in force. Of 376 which are repealed, or supposed to be repealed by impl cation, or said to be obsolete, that is, never acted upon, how many do your Lordships think it is smite doubtful whether they are repealed or in force? Very nearly one-half, 142. How are you to tell whether these are or are not the existing law of the laud? But, besides, there are two or three score of statutes supposed to be repealed directly—not obsolete, not by implication, about which it is perfectly impossible to know whether they are repealed or not. I will take as an example the 3d and 4th Henry VI. c. 10, which makes it a most grave offence, severely punishable, for any person to have in his possession the images taken out of a church ; but, then, there is a merciful proviso—except those of a nobleman or other persons who are not reputed saints: so that if 1 were to take an image out of a church, if it were of a reputed saint, I should be liable to the severest penalties ; but if it were of anybody who was not so reputed—of any of my noble friends near me, for instance—I should escape a penalty entirely. (Laughter.) Suppose it were my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack-1 might with- out fear take him." (Laughter.)

Lord CAMPBELL--." No, no : he is a saint without being reputed." (A laugh.) Lord BR0CCEIAS1—" Well, repute is required. This act was subsequently repealed ; but King James the First repealed the repealing act ; and therefere there is the greatest doubt whether the original act of Parliament is not revived. Again, there is the 32d of Henry VIII.—the law of maintenance—no one can tell as to that. Then there is the 23d Henry VIII., for the attaint of juries finding false verdicts. Some say it is repealed ; I do not know whether it is obsolete or not ; but I know that Lord Ellenborough, being very much dis- satisfied with several verdicts which went against his opinion, threatened the jury in his place with the 23d Henry VIII., which, he said, it was a great mistake to think was repealed. Then there is the 26th of Henry VIII., and the 5th and 6th of Henry VI., as to which no man can tell whether they are repealed or not, which make it capital for any person to call the Sovereign a tyrant, infidel, or schismatic. So that if any person 140 years ago had hap- pened to tell the truth respecting King William of glorious memory, and say that he was a Presbyterian or a schismatic, he would have been guilty of high treason ; and no man can tell whether this is so now or not. Then there is the act against forestalling, the act prohibiting the importation of foreign cards for carding wool, and the 13th Elizabeth forbidding corn to be exported when wheat was at 6s. 8d. a quarter. The 2d Richard II., which allows no shoemaker, under severe penalties, to be a tanner, nor any tanner to be a shoemaker ; as well as the 3d and 4th Edward VI., forbidding any servant, labourer, or artificer, to be hired by the day, or for a leas period than a year,— a law which, as your Lordships know, is violated every day. The 4th Henry VII., like it, forbids cattle to be killed within a walled town, or within the town of Cambridge ; and the 1st and 2d William and Mary, which allows no peasant to sell any goods in a town, except at a fair. I have culled out these as sam- ples; no man can tell whether the acts stand in the statute-book or not. Such acts are justly termed by Lord Coke snares to entangle the unwary subject : they lie in wait to be drawn forth at some unexpected moment ; they are vi- pers which, though frozen, are not dead, and which the heat of party or the malignity of private revenge may warm into life to sting the innocent victim. As an example of this, 1 will remind your Lordships that by the act of Queen Elizabeth of glorious memory, whoever refuses to go to church for three successive Sundays shall pay a shilling. It must be to his own parish- church ; and 1 am sure, though all of us go twice on Sundays to church, it is very generally not to our own parish-church. Three years ago I presented a pe- tition from three men confined at that time in Lancaster prison by the sentence of the justices, for a 14s. damages and costs. An information was laid against them, not for absenting themselves from church, but for what the agricultural and judicial mind holds a much more grievous offence than any absence from the church—I mean poaching. The information, however, failed, and the Janice, learned in the law, would have been compelled to dismiss the prisoners, had he not bethought himself of asking them, But were you at church last Sun-

day ? Oh, no.' Or the Sunday before ? Oh, no." Or the Sunday

before that ? Oh, no !" Then I'll convict you all in the fine of Is.' They were imprisoned eleven weeks : and, to show how utterly inconceivable and un- intelligible this sentence was to many persons, a right honourable friend of mine, who read the letter on Law Reform which I addressed to Sir James Gra- ham, wrote me a letter, expressing the greatest anxiety for my reputation as a lawyer, and said I must have great reason to complain of my printers, for they had made a most ridiculous blunder, having printed " poaching ' instead of ' preaching.' The writer, in fact, thought the fine had been inflicted On the men as field-preachers who attended conventicles." An ulterior con- sequence of this confusion is, that the lawgiver does not see his way any more than others; and the most absurd and injurious blunders are perpetually committed. Another evil is the strange way in which the statutes are entitled, and their objects lumped together. The 31st George H. c. 23 in- cluded very dissimilar objects—the carrying sugar from the Colonies to foreign parts, the prevention of frauds by retailers, and abuses in the measurement of coals in the city and liberties of Westminster, and the preventing of the de- struction of madder. root. The law is called " the perfection of human reason "— he would give an instance of that perfection. In the time of Henry the Sixth, the Judges laid down the rule, that the date of a statute must be taken, not from the day on which it passes, hut from the first day of the session an act was passed prohibiting the importation of certain goods into lreland—" here- after ' was the word in the act ; the session began in January; the act passed in May ; but an importation had taken place in February, and the Irish Court of Exchequer held that the man was liable for having imported the goods after the act was passed; and that decision was confirmed by the twelve English Judges and the House of Lords I Another instance of the perfection of human reason- " Queen Elizabeth passed an act declaring that any person should suffer fine and imprisonment who should take more than 10 per cent interest on money; and it was provided by a subsequent clause, that any person taking more than 5 per cent should be made liable to pay it back on an action being brought. When the statute of Anne regulated the Usury-laws, not one word was said about this latter provision, although the others were repealed ; so that (though it is not now generally known) there would be no answer to an action for the recovery of the money under these circumstances, and it could only be defeated by the passing of a retrospective act." Lord Brougham concluded by saying, that if the bill were read a second time, he should ask the House to refer it to a Select Committee, to consider its provisions. The LORD CHANCELLOR agreed that the first part of the bill, that comprising a digest of the statute-law, must be passed ; but it would require great consideration before substituting for a system which has worked so well as the common law, a set of statutory enactments, inflexible in their character, and to be applied literally and strictly as they arise. He therefore suggested that the bill should be read a second time, and should then stand over until next session ; so as to afford Government an opportunity of examining into the subject. Persons competent to deal with the subject might be employed to examine the details and give their opinion.

Lord DENMAN did not perceive the evil of 15,000 pages of reports ; but he thought the improvement of the criminal code an object of para- mount importance.

Lord CAMPBELL said that Lord Brougham had exaggerated the evils of the present state of the law, and also the advantages of a code ;" which is not so necessary as it was in France before Napoleon con- solidated the laws, for every province in that country then had its separate system. He was sorry to see some old and obsolete laws re- tained in the bill, such as the barbarous enactments relating to scandalunt magnatum and to forestalling and regrating. A measure of such vast importance should be brought forward under the superintendence and responsibility of Government. Lord BROUGHAM explained, that the Commissioners had prepared a digest of the existing law, in order that the House might strike out such parts as they thought proper.

The bill passed the second reading.

COMPENSATION TO THE SLR CLERKS OFFICE.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. WATSON claimed at- tention to the enormous compensation awarded under a recent act to the holders of abolished offices in Chancery ; moving- " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the orders for compen-

sation made by the Lord Chancellor to the persons tilling the offices of Clerk of the Enrolments, Comptrollers of the Hanaper, Riding Clerk, Six Clerks, Sworn Clerks, Waiting Clerks. Agent or Record-keeper in the Court of Chancery, under the Act 5 and 6 Vic., c. 103; and to inquire into the nature, duties, and emoluments of those offices before the passing of that act, and their right to com- pensation (and if any to what amount) during their life and for seven years after the death of such person ; and to inquire into the circumstances attending the passing of that act, and the monies charged on the Suitors' Fee Fund in Chancery for passing that act; and also to inquire into the taxation of suitors in Courts of Law and Equity, and the application of money raised thereby, and the propriety of continuing the same." By the 12th clause of the act, the Chancery Offices Abolition Act, all persons holding the offices enumerated were to be compensated annually during their lives, at not less than two-thirds or three-fourths, nor more than the whole value of their offices, to he fixed on an average of three years; and by the 14th clause, compensation was even extended to seven years after death ; the clause enacting, that inasmuch as the business of a Sworn Clerk and of a Waiting Clerk had been treated as a subject of sale and succession, and had commonly been sold for half the amount of seven years' profits, that amount should be paid to the administrators, executors, and assigns of such Sworn Clerk, or Waiting Clerk, who should die before the 28th of October after the passing of the act, or before compensation should have been made to him. These compensations have to be paid out of the pockets of the existing suitors, and have been estimated at 1,000,000/. The duties of the Six Clerks were very trifling ; but he wished principally to draw attention to the case of the clerks of those Six Clerks, the " Sworn Clerks." They were for- merly sixty in number, but recently they had only been twenty-five. The suitor was obliged to employ one of those clerks, who originally had a mo- nopoly of the business of the Court. Their fees depended on the number of attornies who employed them, but the Lord Chancellor could alter the fees when he pleased : Lord Erskine authorized them to receive 6s. t3d. for every cause entered on the paper; but in 1828 Lord Lyndhurst ordered them not to receive any fee in a cause unless it should be absolutely before the Court. According to a return for 1838 and 1839, obtained by Mr. Aglionby, some of the clerks had been receiving 10,0001. a year, and some 5,0001. Mr. Pemberton Leigh described the duties in 1841: the actual duties of the Six Clerks consisted in the formal signature of their, names on the records; and so trifling was it, that one out of the number attended in his turn for two months in the year, signing his own name and those of the others: for such duties these gentlemen received, in 1840, a net sum of 1,1221. in fees alone. The duties of the Sworn Clerks consisted, first, in merely transmittiog notices to solicitors in the course of each cause ; the return for those duties behig, in 1840, 59,967/. ; of which 8,205/. was paid over to the Six Clerks, 364/. to the " bag-bearer and others"; the remainder was retained by the Sworn Clerks. Another source of the Sworn Clerks' income was the term-fees; fees of 6s. 841. each, paid for no duty, but accruing to the Clerk on each of the four terms in the year in which any step was taken in a cause: the produce in 1840 was about 14,333/. The remaining item was 8,994/. received by the Sworn Clerks for taxation of costs ; and it is curious that that duty, the only one which they really performed, was ostensibly performed by the Masters; so that the Sworn Clerks received about 9,000/. for doing other people's business, and all the rest for doing next to nothing I The return specified the income of each clerk : one was 8,130/., another 9,6451., a third 10,879/. ; the last, after paying every expense, would yield a clear sinecure of above 7,000/. per annum—more than the salary of any Cabinet Minister—half as much again as the pension of a Lord Chancellor I Such being the duties, what was the compensation ? One gen- tleman, a Mr. Getty, was to have 5,424/. a year ; he was also appointed a Taxing-master at 2,000/.; so that for taxing costs, five or six hours a day, he was to have 7,424/. a year. Another gentleman was to have 2,700/. a year for seven years after his death. Sir Charles Napier had told him the other day, that all the Admirals in the Naval service do not receive so much as 7,000/. a year. These clerks also had Agents, one of whom was to receive 900/. a year, and others similar sums ; a Waiting Clerk was to receive 500/. a year, and an Agent of the Six Clerks 1,972/. a year. The secret of these enormous compensations WRB in part explained by the railroad speed with which the measure passed through Parliament. The Chancery Offices Aboli- tion Bill was introduced on the 29th July 1842, and it received the Royal assent on the 10th August. Another remarkable fact was the deviation from the usual course in respect to compensation-clauses; which generally grant compensation, "if any," on an average of ten years—the amount of fees to be stated on oath. In the Chancery Offices Abolition Bill, the words "if any" were omitted ; the compensation was based on an average of three years .—the three preceding years having been the heaviest in amount of arrears got through, and therefore the most lucrative; and there was no provision for testing the statements of amount by oath. Another strange fact was the un- precedented charge of 339/. for obtaining the act itself, to be paid for by the suitors of the Court of Chancery. These enormous compensations are charged upon two funds,—the Suitors' Fee Fund, which amounted in 1842 to 62,000/., and in 1843 to 153,0001.; and on the Suitors' Fund in Chancery—unclaimed dividends in Chancery, amounting to 2,800,000/. Stock, property to every shil- ling of which there are those who are entitled. In conclusion, Mr. Watson contended that justice to the suitors demanded revision of these exorbitant compensations.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the motion ; agreeing in much that Mr. Watson had said, but charging his statement with being one- sided.

He admitted that the Six Clerks Office was an abuse, but it was an abuse consecrated by time : it stood in the way of any improvement, and it was ab- solutely necessary to dispose of those individuals and their interests before the way could be cleared. The fees bad been sanctioned by successive Lord Chan- cellors. While some of the Sworn Clerks received the sums mentioned by Mr. Watson, the income of other a was as low as 201. a year. When the pre- sent Lord Chancellor came into office, he found in existence a Commission, consisting of Lord Langdale, Vice-Chancellor Wigram, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and Mr. Sutton Sharpe. There was also in existence a Committee, appointed by the Law Association, to consider various law reforms. To that Committee the Commissioners referred the subject of reforms in the practice of the Court of Chancery ; and the Committee made a report recom- mending the abolition of the Six Clerks Office. Some of the Sworn Clerks were spoken to ; and they were disposed to assist in the reform, on the under- standing that they were to receive compensation for their vested interests. Accordingly, a bill was prepared by Mr. Wainwright, one of the Sworn Clerks: it was submitted to the Committee of the Law Association ; Mr. Pemberton Leigh, an exposer of the abuse, was a party to the bargain ; the other Com- missioners made no objection to the bill; Mr. Wainwright obtained an inter- view with Lord Cottenbam, pointing out each clause, and especially the com- pensation-clauses, and Lord Cottenham made no objection ; Mr. Hume said he bad examined the bill, and found it to be correct both in principle and details; and the bill was sanctioned without opposition by both Houses of Parliament. Admitting the abuse, the compensation was fair and just : parties had vested rights and interests in the emoluments of their offices, which had frequently been made the subject of transfer and sale, often for considerable S ums of money. Large sums of money were given for even a share in the busi- ness. In one instance, as much as 27,000/, and in another I5,000/., was given for only a portion of the business of a Sworn Clerk. It was so much considered a matter of succession and of family arrangement, that settlements were made with respect to the offices, and the bills were framed with reference to the benefit such parties derived from being installed by their predecessors in office; and actually in one instance, and it was a remarkable circumstance, showing how completely it was considered a matter of succession, that a person named Wain- wright was a Sworn Clerk in the time of the Commonwealth, and the office had devolved from father to son in lineal descent down to Mr. Wainwright himself. Mr. Watson seemed to forget what was done on the abolition of the Irish Six Clerks Office, in 1838: the bill which effected that change was introduced by Lord Plunket, and sanctioned by the Government of the day ; the emoluments of the offices were not more than 600/. a year, and yet the clerks had the round sum of 4,000/. paid to them in present money, and an annual sum, calculated

u pon the average of their salaries for the last three years, awarded them during life. The compensation in the present case was large, but quite immaterial to the public. The Suitors' Fee Fund was previously taxed to the amount of 77,000/. for the fees received by the Six Clerks and others; which but for the change would have become a permanent incumbrance on the public : it is now charged to the amount of 45,000/. compensation, and 23,000/. for the new offices substituted for those which have been abolished; which latter is a permanent charge, but the 45,000/. is of the nature of annuities, and as the lives drop off the fund will gradually be relieved to that amount.

Mr. JOHN JERVIS supported the motion. He denied that the offices had been made a matter of bargain and sale, as that would have been in the teeth of two acts of Parliament ; and from the fact that the Lord Chancellors had the power of altering the fees, he contended that the holders of the offices had not acquired a permanent right. The case of the Irish Six Clerks Office was not in point, because the offices were patent and saleable offices. He condemned the change, because there has been an actual augmentation of fees : to go through the Taxing- office, for example, which used to cost some shillings, must now involve large sums of 301., 40L, 501., or more.

The motion was also supported by Mr. REDHEAD YORKE, Mr. Wit.- ETAS( WILLIAMS, and Mr. WARBuitToN ; and opposed by Sir JAMES GRAHAM, who insisted that the offices in question were legally saleable. Mr. CHARLES BULLER argued, that the change had been worth the expense, and that the regard paid to vested interest had engaged every person in these courts of law to promote the smooth-working of the measure. He would vote for that part of the motion which proposed to

inquire into the taxation of suitors; as he objected to the whole system of fees, and did not see why the officers of the Courts should not be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

On a division, the motion was negatived, by 84 to 68.

THE IRISH SPY SYSTEM.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Marquis of NORMANRY drew attention to the case of Mr. Gray.

He animadverted on the revival of the spy system in Ireland ; regarding the Shinrone case as proving that it has extended tar and wide ; and quoting from

the pamphlet entitled A Cry from Ireland the statement that persons had been employed by the Police to mix as fellow-criminals with the prisoners in Kil- kenny Gaol, in order to betray their confidence. But while be condemned the system, he deprecated the injustice of visiting it as an offence in individuals charged with participation. Mr. Gray labours under the imputation of being the originator of this revived system. In November last, two men were arrested in the town of nudes for hawking seditious ballads ; and in the course of some com- munications of the Attorney-General, Mr. Gray, the Stipendiary Magistrate, asked whether Osborne, one of the ballad-singers, might not be allowed to go at large on his own recognizances, and whether his evidence would suffice to convict Moran, the printer of the ballad ? The Attorney-General replied, that Osborne bad better be detained in custody ; and he observed, that if proper measures were taken, no doubt similar ballads might be purchased of the printer, and he might be prosecuted independently of Osborne's evidence. Mr. Gray consulted with Sub Inspector Jennings ; who suggested that a Policeman should be sent in disguise to buy the ballads: to this, Mr. Gray objected, but he left Jennings to give his own instructions to a Sub-Constable. Accord- ingly. Sub•Constable Falvey went in disguise to Moran, taking with him a manuscript copy of the ballad " The Tories' Downfall"; and he asked the printer if he had any copies of it. Moran replied that he had not ; but on seeing the manuscriptcopy, he said, " Oh ! this is what you got from Osborne"; and then he set to work and printed a number of copies, which Falvey paid for and took away. Falvey laid an information, and Mr. Gray issued his war- rant, on which Moran was arrested and committed for trial. Subsequently, Mr. Gray was dismissed from the Magistracy, while Falvey was retained in the Constabulary ! Lord Normanby passed some strictures on the present manner of transacting such business at Dublin Castle ; assuming that the Lord-Lieutenant could not himself have seen all the papers on the subject. lie moved for copies of official documents on the case.

Lord WHARNCLiFFE defended the Government ; maintaining that Mr.

Gray had no claim to the sympathy of the House. The affair had been investigated by Mr. Manley, the Queen's counsel ; from whose report it appeared, that although Mr. Gray might not have given directions, he was cognizant of what Falvey had done, but he suppressed the cir- cumstance in his report to Government. The prosecution remained hanging over Moran's head for several months ; Government not being at all aware of the way in which the evidence against him had been obtained, until informed of the fact by Mr. Scott, the Crown counsel at the Assizes. He did not object to the production of the papers.

In the course of a desultory conversation which ensued, Earl FOR..

TESCUE said that he had seen Mr. Gray for the first time that morning, and Mr. Gray distinctly stated that he acted on the suggestion of the Law-officer of the Crown, and that he gave no instruction to have the ballad printed, but took it for granted that Moran bad copies by him. The other Peers who took part in the discussion were the Duke of BUCCLEUCH, the Earl of Wier:mow, and the Earl of WiNcnu.sue, de- fending the Government ; and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE on the opposite side.

The motion was agreed to.

COMPLETE SUFFRAGE.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD

moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend Parliamentary suffrage and secure a fair representation of the people. His bill proposed to extend the suffrage to every male adult unconvicted of crime and not incapaci- tated by insanity, and resident for a certain time in the place where he was to vote ; and it would make some change of electoral districts : bat he would explain the details at a subsequent stage. To show how little the working classes are represented in the House, he referred to the re- peated vote for curtailing the working-hours of factory-labourers—a vote which was afterwards rescinded by a majority of 138. The motion was seconded and supported by Dr. BOWRING. No answer was made to these two speeches; but the House divided at once, and the motion was negatived, by 97 to 31.

SUPERANNUATED STATE OF NAVAL OFFICERS.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Sir CHARLES NAPIER moved a resolution recommending that a plan of retirement for officers of the Navy should be devised, with a view to render the Naval service more efficient, and to reward old and meritorious officers. This motion he supported in a discursive speech ; urging the necessity of having young officers in order to render the Navy efficient, and describing the advanced years of officers generally. In 1815, there were 831 Captains, their average ages being thirty-one years and four months ; in 1843, there were 720 Captains, the youngest of whom was forty-six : the youngest Admiral (Sir Thomas Troubridge) is fifty-two years of age; he was a Captain at seventeen. When Sir Charles was in Syria, there were 1,600 Marines there; but of all the Captains only one could march properly, and he was so knocked up that Sir Charles was obliged to procure a donkey for him. If there had been no donkey to be got, what would have become of the Marines? In the course of his speech, Sir Charles complimented Sir Robert Peel on the great talents of his son, who had recently gained his Lieutenancy, not through his father's influence, but "for having passed an exceedingly rigorous examination with extraordinary reputation." Sir ROBERT PEEL thanked Sir Charles for his compliment ; but warned the House against a combination of Naval officers. He opposed the motion, on the strength of a report by a Commission appointed by the late Ministry, comprising the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Minto, and several of the highest authorities of all parties : that re- port stated that none of the plans of retired allowance which had been submitted to the Commissioners appeared calculated to advance the public interests to any extent commensurate with the charge they would entail upon the public revenues. Sir Robert added the further reason, that unless the plan of retirement were compulsory, the oldest officers would not retire; so that it would not effect the anticipated clearance of the Navy-list. He exhorted the House to leave the matter in the hands of Government.

The motion was advocated by Captain M. F. F. BERKELEY, Captain PECHELL, Captain Halms, Mr. Husta ; resisted by Sir GEORGE Coot.-

MISCELLANEOUS.

NEW Wares were ordered to issue, an Monday, for Launceston, in the room of Sir Henry Hardinge, appointed to be Governor-General of India ; on Tuesday, for Kilmarnock, in the room of Mr. Johnston, deceased.

CONVERTED MEMBER. On Monday, Mr. Scott Murray, having embraced the Roman Catholic religion, took the oath prescribed for Members of that persuasion. Iona Pooa-haws. On Tuesday, Sir DENHAM NORREYS moved that the following Members be nominated as the Select Committee on the Poor-relief (Ireland) Acts—Sir Denham Norreys, Lord Eliot, Mr. More O'Ferrall, Mr. Young, Mr. French, Viscount Bernard, Mr. John O'Connell, Lord Claude Hamilton, Sir Henry Winston Barron, Mr. Shaw, Lord Courtenay, Mr. Vesey, Sir Edmund Hayes, Mr. Bellew, and Mr. E. P. Shirley. The House had al- ready granted the Committee; but he understood that Government meant to rescind the former motion, by opposing the nomination, merely because Mr. Shaw aaid " No." The money expended for 100,000 paupers amounts to 7404000/.: if differently administered, it would give greater relief; and he wished for inquiry into the system generally. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, he had agreed to the Committee on the condition that the Representatives of Ireland in Parliament should manifest a general desire for the inquiry : but there had been no such manifestation in either House ; and the investigation would tend to impede the working of the Poor-law. He moved that the order for the appoint- ment of the Committee be discharged. The original motion was supported by Mr. BELLEW, Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH, Mr. MORE OTERRALL, and Mr. REDINGTON ; opposed by Mr. SHAW and Lord JOHN RUSSELL; and, on division, negatived, by 42 to 10. • SUGAR-DUTIES. On Thursday, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that it would not be convenient to bring forward the Sugar-duties before the 3d June ; for which day he fixed the Committee.

WHITSUNTIDE DOLYDATS. Sir ROBERT PEEL has given notice, that on Priday next, the 24th instant, he will more the adjournment of the House of Commons till the following Thursday. Lord INGESTRE, Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, Captain CARNEGIE; and negatived, by 71 to 23.