Debates an Vroteebinas in Varliantent.

ELECTION COMPROMISES.

Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice, on Wednesday, that on Thursday he should move these resolutions- " That the compromises of election-petitiops, as brought to the knowledge of this House by the Report of the Select Committee on Election Proceed- ings, must, if for the future they be allowed to pass without punishment or censure, tend to bring this House into contempt with the people, and thereby seriously to diminish its power and authority. " That all such practices are hereby declared to be a violation of the liber- ties of the People, and a breach of the privileges of this House ; which it will in all future cases strictly inquire into and severely punish. " That whereas in the late elections for Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes, Read- ing, Falmouth and Penryn, and Bridport, the present laws have been found in- sufficient to protect the voters from the mischievous temptations of bribery, it be ordered that Mr. Speaker do issue no writ for any election of Members for the said towns till further legislative enactments have been adopted to protect the purity of elections."

In moving these resolutions, on Thursday, Mr. ROEBUCK reminded the House of the statements which he bad made when he first brought the subject before the House ; and he referred to the proofs of those statements in the Report that had been presented— He had stated in one case, that a compromise had been made, that a sum of money had been deposited, and that one of the honourable Members represent- ing the place had agreed to retire. He remembered being struck by the dig- nified manner in which one honourable Member bad denied the fact. Indeed, be had gone beyond a mere negation. But what bad been the fact proved ? Had not the honourable Member for Harwich, Mr. Attwood—for now he was obliged to distinguish him—agreed to pay 3,500/. in order to withdraw from the Com- mittee the discussion then about to take place before it ? and did not the other honourable Member Major Beresford, agree to withdraw himself by a certain day by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds ? Both these facts had been proved. Before he proceeded, let him say, although he bad at the outset been met with vituperative hostility, that he believed honourable Members were unwittingly and unwillingly the victims of a system. His resolutions mentioned no names, reflected in no way upon cha- racter, but simply provided for future mischiefs. He had proved all his assertions, and much more : and would the reflecting and honest people of England believe, that in buying up poor voters, in debauching constitu- encies, and afterwards in shielding themselves by a contemptible quibble and buying off the consequences, the conduct of Members was either honourable to themselves or beneficial to their constituents? He be- lieved the people would say the chief criminal was the briber; the rich man, who went down with money in his pocket to a large consti- tuency, some of them oppressed by poverty, and offered them a bribe to sell their consciences— If honourable Members were content to bribe, let there be no bribery-law. Let there be no hypocrisy, upon the subject. There was far too much hypocrisy already. They made a law to put down bribery—they passed whole nights discussing bribery-bills—and yet, on the morrow, that man who had been the most decorous in his professions, the most exact and precise in his deprecations of bribery, would go into the country with 5,000/. in his pocket to bribe the first constituency that presented itself. An honourable gentleman went to a place with 5,000/. in his pocket, and said—" I want no bribery ; I must know nothing about it. My eyes are of the most delicate texture ; I am fall of sen- sibility and honour—I beg you will not say a word about bribery, but—return me." (Laughter.) Make me a Member of Parliament, but let me not know the means used. There is 5,000L; go away, and let me know nothing about it till I am a Member." (Cheers and laughter.) Now, he would appeal to the House, and ask was it possible for an honest man, conversant in the ordinary business of life, not to know the purposes to which the money was applied? ("Hear, hear!") Was it not clear as the sun that he must know that the sum be had given is to percolate throughout the heart of the constituency? He must know that his money is applied to the grossest, basest bribery. He walked the streets—he flaw the beer-houses fall of his own followers—but he turned aside ; and if pressed upon the subject, he would say, "Oh, I have no doubt the beer-houses are open, but I really know nothing about it." One reason for retiring from these contests was stated to be, alarm at the enormous expenditure. It might be the duty of the House not to call upon persons so situate to spend the whole of their fortune ; but there was something more than the dread of expense— In every one of the five cases that had been before the Committee, (he pur- posely excluded Bridport,) the retiring party had been afraid of inquiry, not simply in consequence of the expense attending it, but in the apprehension that the whole proceedings would be discovered,and that bribery, or that which was deemed to be bribery, should be proved before the Committee, and the seat sacrificed. In the case of Harwich, Mr. Attwood, the real party to the con- test, paid 2,000/. to avoid inquiry, and the agent paid 500/. more; and the Member for Reading paid the 2,0001., although feeling secure of his seat. The circumstances of the Reading case showed clearly that inquiry was dreaded. The honourable Member might sacrifice his colleague, and pay 2,0001.; but would that do with the country? It was clear as the sun at noon-day, that something was behind of which all parties were afraid. In the case of Lewes, the third party on the poll was placed at the head by " shuttlecocking " the votes ; that is to say, one party alleged that John Thomas had no vote, and the other that John Jackson had no vote • and thus the poor voters were to be struck off the poll. Was that the way that the franchise was to be dealt with? He insisted that they had reached a crisis, when interference could no longer be postponed. He concluded by moving the first resolution.

Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL here made a long speech; observing that he had not opposed the appointment Of the Committee, but protesting against Mr. Roebuck's whole course in the matter. He-objected to the constitution of the Committee, appointed under circumstances of excite- ment, and unsworn to impartial Justice. And was Mr. Roebuck the fittest person to have the conduct of such an inquiry ?- Did he not sell his Parliamentary services for money ? ("Hear, hear I ") Mr. ROEBUCK (in a low voice)—" I did not." Mr. RUSSELL—" Did he not sit in this House as the paid agent of a rebel colony ? " (Loud cries of "Hear, hear ! " and" Order ! ") Mr. EtoznooK—" Sir, I rise to order. The imputation against me is that I sold my Parliamentary services to a rebel colony. Now, whoever told the honourable Member that uttered a falsehood." Mr. RUSSELL—" It was certainly universally believed; but, however, if the learned gentleman declares it to be untrue, I withdraw the statement." The SPEAKER—" The honourable Member will, I am sure, see the propriety of withdrawing the expressions he used." (" Hear/ ") Mr. RussELL—" It was universally stated, when Canada was in rebellion, that the learned gentleman, for money, became the advocate of Canada in this House." (" Order I" and "Hear, hear! ") Mr. Rozaties—" I was not even in the House at that time." Mr. Russzr.r.—“-At all events if I understand the learned gentleman— [Mr. Roebuck, angrily, " if! "]—?f I understand the learned gentleman to deny the statement, I willingly withdraw it." He denied the necessity of the inquiry—

The House had ascertained that compromises had been made. Was it ignorant of that fact before ? Was not the fact as notorious as the sun at noon-day ? Could it be said that the House was not sufficiently cognisant of these compromises to be in a condition to found legislative enactments for the correction of them ?

Major .BERESFOKD followed, with a lengthy and indignant explana- tion. He defied Mr. Roebuck to point out any part of the evi- dence which convicted him of bribery or treating. He had certainly agreed to retire, because Mr. Attwood had been at the expense of the election, and he thought that if either were to go out it should he the person who had not paid. Had he defended his seat he should have retained it, for he was quite innocent of the bribery. He was no party to the compromise : he had never communicated with Sir Denis le Mar- chant ; his offer to retire was made solely to Mr. Attwood ; and Mr. Attwood's agent was not his. The Report was guilty of a little exag- geration: for instance, it stated that "a large part" of the constituency had been bribed—which should mean half; whereas only 80 had been bribed out of 182.

Mr. FITZROY contended that the Report had not placed his conduct in the true light : he had agreed to the compromise after it was all arranged; and therefore, he maintained, he could not be described as a tiarty to it ; and he complained that neither his agent for the petition in London nor his agent in Lewes had been examined.

Mr. Escorr would not oppose the first and second resolutions, as the House had sanctioned the constitution of the Committee and their pe- culiar procedure ; but he questioned the right of the House indefinitely to disfranchise five towns.

Captain PLUMRIDGE asked how any case could have been made out against him, when the Report stated that the compromise for Falmouth and Pearyn had been made wholly without his knowledge ?

Mr. BLACKSTONE could not assent to the proposition that compro- mises were a breach of privilege ; nor could he agree to the third reso- lution; but when he saw that at Nottingham the opposing party had power to make the other expend 10,000/. or 11,0001., and that the pro- secution of the petition would have cost 20,000/., he should not oppose an inquiry into the case of that town before issuing the writ.

Mr. LASCELLES, bearing testimony to the correctness of Mr. Roe- latch's conduct as Chairman of the Committee, explained, that he brought forward the resolutions in his individual capacity, without the cognisance of the Committee ; with whom it was an understanding that no crimi- natory proeeedings should be taken against individuals.

' Lord CHELSEA thought that all useful purposes might have been answered by bringing forward some abstract proposition, to the effect that such practices were notorious, and that measures ought to be devised to pat an end to them.

Mr. WARD argued, that general allegations would have been repeated usgue ad nauseam, with no legislative result ; while but for the boldness, the novelty, and even the irregularity of Mr. Roebuck's course, the House never would have had the Report before them. But, those cases proved, was the House to pass no censure on any one, and to render the inquiry abortive?

Mr. HAWES could not support the resolutions ; and he believed that he might speak for every member of the Committee— The inquiry bad been of a peculiar kind. He felt that if they received informa- tion from parties interested, they received that which they could obtain from no other source; but though they received it and published it, they felt they could not use it either against the individuals or the constituencies concerned. The Committee stated as much in their Report. But by these resolutions they were here called upon distinctly to affirm that the practices revealed to the House by this Report, and received under the peculiar circumstance be had stated, were practices to be designated a breach of the privileges of the House. Now, was he to stop here ? Why, what was the object of that declaration ? To stop there would indeed be calling upon the House to make a declaration extremely objectionable. On the other hand, if they proceeded to punish the parties, they would then be acting in direct opposition to the Report of the Com- mittee.

The Report, however, would not be barren of result ; for the bill which had passed through Committee last night (Lord John Russell's Bribery Bill) contained clauses which would meet the cases of compro- mise; and although that bill had preceded this discussion, it had not preceded the inquiry of the Committee.

Mr. AGLIONBY foresaw that the result of the discussion would add one more to the many farces which the House had been called upon to . duct in the course of the present session.

Mr. HAWES remarked, that although as a member of the Committee he could not concur in the resolutions, as a Member of the House he should concur in almost any legislative remedy that Mr. Roebuck could propose to remedy the evil.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL repeated reasons against the resolutions, already given by Mr. Hawes. Mr. Roebuck's resolution ought to have run something in these terms—" That the compromises dis- closed by the Committee, in the opinion of the House tended to pre- vent the investigation of charges of bribery, and that it is the duty of the House to adopt some legislative measure to remedy this evil "; and then he could have supported it. He moved, as an amendment, "the previous question."

Sir ROBERT Nous, with some general and rather bitter remarks on Mr. Roebuck's proceedings, declared that he should have been better sa- tisfied had the Solicitor-General met the motion with a direct negative. Mr. HUME regretted that Sir William Follett should have placed the House in the situation of not being able to express an opinion ; and he asked why not expressly condemn practices which no one defended? No one suggested punishment for the past, but the Solicitor-General said that there should be none for the future. The third resolution might at all events be supported on the ground that they should wait to see the Bribery at Elections Bill through the House of Lords. No sooner had the writ for Ipswich been issued, than in twenty-four hours bribery had been again resorted to. Mr. Thomas Dtnrcoranz asked Ministers, whether, if Major Beresford, Viscount Chelsea, and Captain Plararidge applied for the Stewardship of the Chiltern

Hundreds, to carry out these corrupt compromises' it would be granted? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Steward- ship was in his gift: it would be time enough for him to decide upon the application when it should have been made. Captain PLUMRIDGE asked Mr. Goalburn whether he would give him the Chiltern Hundreds to carry out the compromise ? Mr. Goutnum said, the application had not been made. Captain Purstarnoz : "I now make it." (No answer; and repeated calls for Mr. Goulburn did not draw him from his seat) Mr. Cocsraaarn defended his own consistency in a low tone of voice, and denied that bribery was proved against him.

Sir ROBERT PEEL declared that he did not regret the course that he had taken in supporting the application for a Committee: the develop- ment of facts would be beneficiaL But it would now be unjust to brand with any peculiar censure Members who had been parties to those com- promises. He had expected that Mr. Roebuck would have moved some resolution, that it was desirable, in consequence of the disclosures, to adopt immediate legislative measures: now such a measure had passed through Committee only the previous night. The appointment of the Committee was the act of the House ; and Sir Robert Peel could not see in the manner of their inquiry any departure from the ordinary course of other Committees, to justify a condemnation of the mode in which the Committee had discharged their assigned duty. Mr. Roebuck was not personally responsible for their proceedings : on the other hand, the Report of the Committee showed that they contemplated no such proceeding as that in which he was now engaged. But how did the resolutions meet the case? Sir Robert read the first two-

" Why, that being translated, means no more than this : 'You have been gat', of an offence which is a violation of the liberties and privileges of the People and a breach of the privileges of the House : still we will not call you to the bar and censure you; but any person who hereafter in like manner may offend, we will.' But there are several other parts of these resolutions with which I am not satisfied. The honourable gentleman, by his resolutions, declared these practices to be a violation of the liberties of the People and a breach of the privileges of the House: now, I do not like dealing with general terms of this kind. I think the House ought not lightly to adopt such a declaration. The honourable gentleman does not state the particular nature of the compromise which shall constitute a violation of the liberties of the People and a breach of the privileges of the House ; but he refers to cer- tain compromises, all of which differ in character; and, speaking generally, says, they are breaches of privilege and violations of the liberties of the People. If they he so, why do you not go on and censure the parties to them ? When you talk of inefficient proceedings, is it not inefficient to pass by those guilty of these violations ? Why, you abstain from censuring them because we gave them reason to believe that if they gave their evidence fairly they should not be visited with censure. I wish to see a law passed which shall insure a full inquiry into and a remedy against such practices; but I am not quite cer- taM that they are a breach of the privileges of the House, because, when the House passed the Elections Trial Bill, if divested itself of the charge of in- quiring into bribery, and said to individuals, We leave it to you to prefer and defend charges of bribery."

On a former occasion' Sir Robert had strongly stated the danger of establishing precedents for the suspension of particular writs ; but to pledge the House to suspend writs in six cases, involving the seats of twelve Members, was a course full of danger : on a nice balance of par- ties in the House, the majority might retain the balance of power by thus suspending writs. He doubted whether the House had the right to suspend a writ on the vague intimation that they contemplated some general measure concerning bribery. In some cases, as that of Brid- port, there was no seat vacant ; yet the resolution pledged the House to suspend the writ on the next vacancy that might occur. Sir Robert should Tote against the resolution, but he should support Lord John Russell's bill.

The resolutions were further opposed by Mr. VERNON SMITH; and the third by Mr. SHARMAN CRA.WFORD and Mr. TURNER.

Mr. ROEBUCK briefly replied; showing that Major Beresford and Mr. Fitzroy bad not disproved the substantial facts in their exceptions to the Report. He had proposed his resolutions as a safeguard against the practices until a bill should be passed.

The first resolution was then negatived, by 136 to 47.

Mr. 'luxe inquired whether Government, having sanctioned these abominations, would grant the Chiltern Hundreds to complete the cor- rupt arrangements ? Mr. GOULBURN—" If the honourable Member for Montrose will make the application on his own behalf, I shall be pre- pared to consent to it." (Much laughter.) Mr. ROEBUCK asked Sir Robert Peel for an answer to the plain question, why the writ for Not- tingham was ever suspended at all ? (Sir Robert Peel made no reply.)

The other two resolutions were negatived, without a division.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

The order of the day having been read, on Wednesday, for the se- cond reading of the Bribery at Elections (No. 2) Bill, Mr. 31.4.mi:4N0:sr spoke at some length against it ; objecting particularly to the clause which enabled the Committee to examine people as to their own crimi- nality; to the appointment of a Commission consisting of three Peers and four Members of Parliament—so inconsistent with the denial to a Peer of the right to vote at the election of Members ; and to the 35th clause, which ordered the expenses of elections, when allowed by the Committee, to be defrayed by a rate on the division of the county in which the election had taken place. However, he should withdraw the motion of which he had given notice, (to recommit the bill that day six months,) not to embarrass those with whom he usually coincided in opinion. Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to assure his honourable friend, that he should feel no embarrassment in acting on his own convictions. Mr. MACKINNON wished to avoid voting against his own friends ; and therefore he begged leave to withdraw his motion. (Ironical cheers.)

The House went into Committee. Mr. CHARLES BULLER (in whose charge, it appears, the bill had been left) said, that, deferring to the de- cision of the Select Committee on the bill, he should abandon the clauses from 35 to 39; difficulties having been found in levying the proposed county-rate for paying the expenses of petitioners.

A long discussion arose on clause 1, which declared the payment of " head-money " to be bribery. Sir ROBERT PEEL proposed to omit the words "in pursuance of any usage," &c. ; as head-money might be paid where no such usage had obtained. Mr. O'Cosoinu. objected, that money paid before the vote might not come within the operation of the clause. Mr. &MIL suggested the necessity of introducing a clause to

prevent treating, which is increased by the stopping of direct bribery. Sir ROBERT PEEL remarked, that he had told Lord John Russell, that any attempt to discourage bribery would be ineffectual if the law with respect to treating were left in its present shape, at the same time that it would be very difficult to draw the line between treating and inno- cent hospitality. By an attempt to discourage the practices in ques- tion, others had been understood to receive a tacit sanction : thus, cor- rupt treating before the teste of the writ, though still an offence at common law, did not cause the loss of the Members' seats. The Sou- erroa-Giamoax. suggested, that it would be better to introduce the clause in some other part of the bill, with a preamble stating that doubts had arisen whether certain practices could be considered bribery : so that it might not be considered that the Legislature had attempted to define bribery ; for if that were done, and any thing were left out of the clause, they might be considered as giving their sanction to that parti- cular species of bribery. Mr. CHARLES BULLER accepted this sugges- tion, and said that he should reintroduce the clause at the end of the bill. The clause was postponed for that purpose.

The next clause, authorizing a Committee to ascertain the cause of

the abandonment of charges of bribery, and to report, was discussed at much length. Mr. BERNAL inquired whether the conclusion of the clause, which empowered the Committee to examine Members or can-

didates, "and their several and respective agents and all other persons whomsoever, touching such matters," was intended to give a compulsory power of examining attornies or agents as to matters confided to them by their clients ? The Arromenv-Gammaar. explained, that the clause gave a new power of examining Members and candidates, and their agents ; but it did not alter the rules of evidence—as, for instance, a professional man 'would not be called upon to disclose any secret. Sir ROBERT lams insisted that the effect of the clause would be to deprive professional men of the protection which they now enjoy. Mr. CHARLES BULLER said, it was well known that nearly all compromises were con- ducted by agents ; so that if inquiry were to be carried on at all, the agents must be examined. Nor would any professional privilege screen them, seeing that in these compromises they were principals. Mr. DARBY objected, that the clause indirectly gave the Committee, appointed only to inquire into a compromise, power to inquire into bribery. Ul- timately, the clause was altered by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL so as to limit the examination of the parties enumerated, "according to the ordinary rules of evidence," " as witnesses" ; and by Mr. BuLLER, to limit the inquiry to "the withdrawal, abandonment, or forbearance to prose- cute such charges," instead of the more extensive term "matters." Mr. AGLIONBY remarked, that there appeared a very general disposi- tion among gentlemen opposite to object to the provisions of the bill, and on the part of Mr. Buller a very conciliatory disposition to adopt alterations which had materially impaired the efficiency of the measure. He hoped that when Lord John Russell, who was then at a distance, heard of the discussions and of the alterations of that night, he would cat the Gordian knot next session by bringing forward measures for the extension of the suffrage and for the establishment of vote by ballot. Mr. BULLER said, he had only consented to an alteration which, if the House adopted the 26th clause, would be withdrawn with the consent of the gentlemen opposite. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the provision of this bill which enacted that if a compromise was entered into an inquiry should be instituted, would have a most salutary effect on the elections which would take place during the recess; for the can- didates and the people would be aware that, in the case either of bribery or of compromise, strict inquiry would be certain. The clause was agreed to.

Clauses 3d and 4th were affirmed, with some amendment Mr. DARBY objected to clause 5th, which enabled candidates or electors to present petitions against the return within three months after the act of bribery alleged. This clause, however, was carried, by 62 to 15. In clause 7th, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to increase the recogni- minces of petitioners from 100/. to 250/. each for two persons, and from 2001. to 400/. for one person. Sir ROBERT PEEL remarked, that at pre- sent the return of a Member must be questioned within fourteen days ; but under the bill, he would be liable to an inquiry into his conduct, though not to the loss of his seat, during the whole of a Parliament ; and therefore there ought to be some security against vexatious pro- ceedings. The amendment was adopted, after a short discussion. The subsequent clauses, down to the 13th, were affirmed.

Clause 14th enacted, that if extensive bribery should be reported by an Election Committee, the House of Commons should address the Crown to appoint a Commission of inquiry, consisting of three Peers and four Members of the Commons. Mr. O'Coarnm. objected to the appointment of Peers ; and Mr. Escarr to the whole proposal, as un- constitutional. Mr. AGLIONBY said that he had objected to the pro- posed Commission ; but as he was the only Member of the Select Com- mittee in the House, he would state the grounds on which the provision had been proposed— It had been said, then, that if you found it necessary to disfranchise a bo- rough, city, or county, you could not do so except by a bill to which you must procure the sanction of the House of Lords ; the course of proceeding being, that after a full inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons, the bill, having passed the House, was sent up to the Lords, where a Committee was again appointed, who again went through all the evidence and examined all the wit- nesses. Then their Lordships discussed the bill in their House, and having agreed to it, sent it down to this. Now, it was said the effect of the clause constituting this Commission would be, that all these proceedings, by way of inquiry and examination, would be done once for all ; and that if a Committee of the other Rouse sat jointly with a Committee of this, the other House would have no objection to agree to the bill on the evidence so taken, iRe confessed he was considerably struck with the force of the argument that a great loss of time and a vast expense arising out of the attendance of witnesses would be entirely saved by the contemplated plan, and that it by no means gave the Lords the power of interfering to recommend disfranchisement, as the initiative in that respect would still remain and reside in the House of Commons.

The upshot was, said Mr. Macanwom, that the House of Commons were to surrender their privileges to save the House of Lords the trouble and time of examining witnesses in support of a disfranchisement bill.

Mr. ROEBUCK stated reasons why the bill should not be passed at the present time— There were two separate questions into which the subject resolved itself; one was, the question whether the right to the seat belonged to one party or the other ; the second was, whether certain transactions, as, for instance, bribery under this bill, had taken place in the borough, city, or county which sent the

Members. Now this mode of dealing with the latter question appeared to him to be operose in the extreme ; because if they got what he would call a perfect system of judicature for the investigation of the first inquiry, that would be a perfectly sufficient machinery, in his opinion, to conduct the second. They

were about next year to consider if they could find a good election-judicature ; but in this bill they were called upon to determine on a separate system of judicature for the investigation of bribery under the hill; so that, having deter- mined by one system of investigation, to be settled hereafter, as to who should be the sitting Member, they would next have to put in motion the large ma-

chinery given by this bill before they could get at the question of bribery. For such an object, he asked the House and the country, whether it was wise to establish this remarkable system ? If they delayed, her Majesty's Government

would have time to give its mind to the question. Between this and next year, the Government would be able to devise some means how to attain a judicature which should be impassive and not liable to political influence. He believed that the House of Commons was quite unfit for this sort of inquiry ; and he did not think that their incompetency would be corrected by taking to their aid a portion of the House of Lords. He entreated the Howie, there- fore, to delay this measure for the two or three months of the recess.

Sir ROBERT Items concurred in Mr. Roebuck's recommendation, and in almost every word he had spoken.

Sir ROBERT Pm. regretted that the House was discussing new matter in the absence of Lord John Russell, Sir Thomas Wilde, and the Chair- man of the Committee up stairs. He explained, that the proposed Corn- mission was no breach of privilege, because it did not relate to the disposal of individual seats, but to a measure of enactment for the dis- franchisement of a constituency, in which the House of Lords must join. He repeated the grounds for the Commission explained by Mr. Aglionby ; adding, that the delay generally resulted in bringing feebler evidence before the House of Lords, who declined to proceed with the bill.

Mr. BERNAL recommended the postponement of the other clauses of the bill. Mr THOMAS DUNCOMBE objected. Mr. CHARLES BULLER• supposed he must say something, though really he.had very little to say ; for whilst he felt a great interest in the general principle of the hill, this was a part of it to which he must confess that he had not given much consideration. If the opinion of the House were against the clauses respecting the Commission, they should of course be expunged. Mr. VERNON Sarna and Sir ROBERT PEEL both pronounced the cen- stitution of the Commission " whimsical " ; and Sir Robert recommended Mr. Buller to withdraw that part of the bill. Mr. BULLER assented; thanking Sir Robert Peel for his advice : and clauses 14th to 25th were withdrawn.

Clause 26th, which authorized the examination of parties in matters criminating themselves, was opposed by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL; who objected to the innovation in the general rules of evidence, and to a prospective indemnity for a crime not yet committed. Mr. O'Comem. argued, that the way to prevent crime was to encourage the disclosure of it. Lord PALMERSTON contended, that the hope of indemnity could not operate as an encouragement where a great number of persons 'were. parties to the act of bribery. Mr. SHEIL thought the whole difficulty might be got over by simply providing that no answers given' before the Committee or Commission should be given in evidence against any parties examined. On a division, the clause was rejected, by 80 to 39.

Mr. BULLER next proposed to strike out clause 27th, subsidiary to ' clause 26th. Mr. CRAWFORD insisting on a division, the clause was negatived, by 70 to 28. Clauses 30th and 31st, and'from 35th to 39th, were struck out. Mr. Sam. objected to clause 43d, as repealing the bribery-oath ; and it was struck out. Clause 44th was agreed to. The House resumed ; the bill was reported, and ordered to be printed ; the report to be further considered on Friday.

Loon CAMPBELL AND MR. ROEBUCK.

In the House of Peers, on Thursday, Lord CAMPBELL moved that it be a standing order that no Member of the Commons House of Par- liament be allowed to plead as counsel at the bar of the House of Lords for or against any bill depending in that House ; a motion which . had originated in the nomination of Mr. Roebuck to *eclat the bar as counsel for the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill. Lord Campbell, after a tribute to Mr. Roebuck's abilities and high character, drew a distinc- tion between the admission of Members of Parliament to plead in merely judicial cases and in legislative proceedings ; it appearing to him decidedly wrong to allow a Member to appear as counsel for any particular party. If it were permitted, retainers might be left at the , chambers of influential Members, before any measure.was introduced into.the House of CODIDIOEIS, to influence their judgment. If a Member had voted for a measure, would it be satisfactory that he should appear, against it? if he had voted for it, might he not plead. with undue warmth? Nor could the Reuse use the same 'freedom with a illefnber as with an indifferent party. Lord Campbell reviewed precedents. He found that between 1660 and 1693, there were ninety instances of leave granted by the House of Commons to Members to plead at the bar of the House of Lords : but Only one ease related to a bill; and that, the, case of Sir Henry Fynn, related to an Mate bill. The case of Queen Caroline was scarcely in point, because' Mr. Brougham and his col- league were the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General of the Queen ; and Mr. Brougham volunteered an agreement not to vote on the bill in the Rouse of Commons. The case of Sir Jonah Barrington, in 1830,

did not relate to a bill. - • '

The Loop CHANCELLOR agreed that inconveniences might occur from the practice, although in point of fact none had occurred. He exa- mined Lord Campbell's precedents. No inconvenience had arisen from the leave granted in the case of the Queen's trial ; because, if the House had refused the desired permission, the same individuals would have appeared, first relinquishing their seats in the House of Commons. No - inconvenience resulted in the appearance of Lord Abinger and Sir Edward Sugden in, support of the address to remove a-judge, alluded to - by.Lord Campbell ; a prOceeding which Was in substance a bill. If the House thought"proper to alter the rule, let the change be the result of diligen1 and Minute inquiry, and not it,gen&itlmotion directed againsta particular individual and intended for a particulnr,occasien. Lord Boot:maim could only believe on Lord Campbell's own asser- tion that he was aware of the gravity and delicacy of the question which he had raised. He condemned the proposal hastily to change the

standing orders, (an act of legislation unchecked by the ordinary stages through which a legislative measure usually passes,) as without pre- cedent or necessity. What inconvenience or mischief did Lord Camp- bell apprehend ? To whom ? If a retainer influenced a counsel at the bar, it would do just what it was meant to do : if in the other House, it was the business of the other House. Lord Brougham exposed some inaccuracies into which Lord Campbell had fallen ; and finished with a high eulogium on Mr. Roebuck, as a man of inflexible integrity, of the largest information, and of the greatest ability. The motion was negatived without a division.

SUPPLY: GRIEVANCES.

The motion to go on with the Committee of Supply, in the House of Commons, on Monday, was met by an amendment from Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE. He drew attention to the conduct of certain legal func- tionaries in Staffordshire, whom he charged with acts of oppression— A report bad gone abroad that a statement had been made by some Magis- trates in Sedgeley, that if a Chartist dared to show his face in the town, he should be immediately arrested. Mr. Mason, a Chartist lecturer, however, thinking that the Magistrates had no right to make such a statement, deter- mined on holding a meeting in Sedgeley. He had proceeded about ten minutes in his lecture, when be was interrupted by a constable of the name of Bevan. Mason was telling the people--and telling them, as Mr. Duncombe believed, truly—that the laws of this country were made by the Aristocracy—that the People had no voice in the election of their Representatives—that the laws which were to be obeyed by all should be made by all, and consented to by all ; that the individuals in this country who worked the hardest received the least, and that those who worked the least received the most. The constable then interrupted the lecturer, saying that he could stand that no longer; that he should do something for his pay ; that Mason was using seditious language ; and that it would be his duty to break up the meeting. Mason told the con- stable that he had no business to interrupt him ; that his only business would be to go before a Magistrate and lodge information against him, which might be tried on a future day. The constable persisted in putting an end to the meeting: he took hold of the bench on which Mason was standing, and tilted up the lecturer. The people interposed, but finally Bevan carried off the bench. No breach of the peace was committed except by the constable. Mr. Mason took out a warrant against the constable ; upon which the con- stable took another against Mason, and caused him to be apprehended. The Magistrates dismissed the charge against the constable ; but Mr. Mason and seven others were committed for attending an unlawful meeting, and for assault. The lecturer was found guilty by the Jury of attending an unlawful meeting; and the others were convicted of a common assault.

Mr. Duncombe concluded by moving for copies of the depositions upon which John Mason, a Chartist lecturer, Thomas Caswell, and six others, were committed for trial at the late Midsummer Sessions for the county of Stafford ; together with copies of the indictment, or indict- ments, and the names and addresses of the Magistrates and Jury before whom they were tried.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM had still to learn, that a constable, hearing at a public meeting language calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, was not entitled to arrest the person so offending. If a constable inter- feres without sufficient cause, it is at his own peril. At all events, the question had been submitted to a jury ; and the chairman who presided on the occasion had held his office for twelve years, was a man of ac- knowledged skill and experience, and was a member of the legal pro- fession. From him Sir James read a statement, denying that he had ever given expression to any political opinion in public, and that he had ever heard any political discussion among the Magistrates when they attended the Quarter-sessions. Sir James contended that the trial was in all respects fair, honest, and impartial ; and he deprecated the con- stituting of that House a court of appeal.

Mr. AGLIONRY maintained that the House was the proper supreme court of appeal in cases where the liberty of the subject was at stake ; and he denied that the constable ought to be made a judge of what con- stituted an unlawful meeting. Mr. HAWES called for the opinion of the Law-officers of the Crown. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that whenever a constable saw any act done, heard any counsel given, or any language used, the immediate tendency of which was to lead to a breach of the peace, it was his business to watch and take care that no breach of the peace should be committed ; or it might become his im- perative duty at once to interfere and prevent it. He should be sorry to see any proceeding the tendency of which was put down public opi- nion; but when he saw that the conduct of the constable, however rash, had been justified by the verdict of a jury, he did not think the House warranted in interfering. The motion was opposed by Sir ROBERT INGLIS and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, and supported by Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. SHED.. In compliance with a suggestion from Mr. O'Connell, Mr. DUNCOMBE said that he would not press that part of his motion which called for the names of the Magistrates and Jurors. Sir ROBERT PEEL would vote against the motion ; not for the purpose of protecting the constable, but of maintaining intact the principle that the House of Commons ought not on light and trivial grounds to interfere with the due administration of justice. The motion was further supported by Lord PALMERSTON, Mr. EWART, Mr. MARK PHILIPS, and Mr. Vii.. mEas. On a division, it was rejected, by 116 to 32.

Mr. Snaiimaat CRAWFORD interposed another amendment—a resolu- tion, "That the distressed state of Ireland requires the immediate at- tention of this House and of her Majesty's Government, with a view of adopting such measures as may be advisable under the present circumstances of the extreme destitution of the working classes in that country." He repeated the remarks made in going into Committee on the Poor-law, that it does not provide out-door relief in Ireland, though in England the law in that respect is relaxed ; and he cited particular instances of the distress in Ireland— According to a document signed by the Reverend Mr. Hughes of Clare- monis, in that district there were nearly five hundred families in a state of destitution, subsisting chiefly on the charity of their neighbours. In other parts the poor were described as subsisting on green weeds and inferior flour; the consequence of which was, that dysentery prevailed among them to a la- mentable extent. He had been informed that neither the distress of 1831 nor tilkt of 1835 was at all to be compared with that which at present existed. In Belfast the distress was confined chiefly to the working classes and manufac- turers; but in other parts in Ireland great distress also existed among the agri- cultural population. He attributed much of the evil existing in Ireland to the maleadrounstration of the Poor-laws ; but that evil was greatly aggravated by the bad management of the landlords. The bad arrangement of the law be- tween landlord and tenant had a most injurious effect. There was another evil connected with the Poor-laws—the transmission of Irish paupers front England to Ireland: men who had been ten or twenty years in England, when removed to Ireland, had no place of settlement. They were removed thither and then left to starve; or else they were sent back again to England, and after that sent to and fro.

Lord ELIOT said, that Government had already devoted attention to the subject ; but it was desirable not to check charity and private bene- volence. He feared that so long as the people depend mainly on pota- toes for subsistence they must be subject to periods of distress ; but he saw no reason for despondency— He believed that in a few years the people of Ireland would not depend upon potatoes for subsistence ; meal was now becoming a part of their food. He had received a letter from Mr. Griffiths, who had been for ten years em- ployed as a valuator in Ireland ; and he said, in answer to questions which had been put to him, that he considered the people were gradually and steadily progressing in civilization and comforts, and that in the South and South- western districts of Ireland the system of drainage of the lands, and the im- proved method of tillage, held out a prospect of considerable benefit for the future. The communications of the Surveyor of Ireland authenticated this anticipated result. The Poor-law had curtailed no privileges of the Irish people. It would be rash to say that relief should begiven to every poor man in Ireland; but the regulation was that assistance and relief should be given to the aged, the infirm, and the impotent. He hoped that the power of giving out-door relief in Ireland would never be conceded by Parlia- ment.

Mr. O'CONNELL did not see any practical result that could attend Mr. Crawford's motion. He did not regard a Poor-law as a panacea for the ills of Ireland, any more than he trusted to the repeated pro- phecies of gradual improvement for the country. He felt bound to bear this testimony in favour of the present Irish Government, and he gave it with pleasure—that in every locality where great distress prevailed it had made prompt exertions to afford some relief. The motion was supported by Major BRYAN and Mr. FRENCH; but at the suggestion of Mr. O'CONNELL it was withdrawn. Mr. HOME recommended Ministers to turn their attention to the distressed state of Scotland.

The House then went into Committee.

The vote of 12,434/. for the Household of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was opposed by Mr. HOME, who desired to abolish the Vice- Royalty altogether. He urged this abolition the rather just now, because he understood that Lord De Grey was about to retire. Sir ROBERT PEEL answered, that Lord De Grey was leaving Ireland but for a short time, and only for the recovery of his health, which had suffered severely from his close application to business. The vote was passed. The vote of 50,0001. for the Caledonian Canal was opposed by Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS. Sir GEORGE CLERK said, that a million had already been expended on the works, and it was reckoned that they could be completed in three years, for 150,000/. Sir ROBERT PEEL concurred in condemning the project ; but the question was, whether it was not better to expend 150,000/. with the hope of a profitable return, than 40,0001. for the purpose of destroying the works. If parties could not be found to contract for the whole works for the sum named, no part of the money should be laid out. The vote was agreed to. Several other votes were affirmed, including a gratuity of 60,000/. for tlie officers, marines, and seamen employed in the late war on the coast of Syria, by way of prize-money for the vessels and stores which had been surrendered to Turkey ; which raised some opposition from Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON and others.

POOR-LAW.

In moving the second reading of the Poor-law Amendment Bill, in the Upper House, on Tuesday, the Duke of WELLINGTON observed,

that he was one of those who supported the Poor-law as it was intro- duced in the House of Lords some years ago ; and he had been satis- fied with the results of the measure in its practical working. Not that he approved of every act that had been done in carrying the measure into operation-

" I think that in many cases those who had charge of the working of the hill have gone too far ; and that there was no occasion whatever for constructing

buildings such as have acquired throughout the country the denomination of Bastiles, and that it would have been perfectly easy to have established very efficient workhouses without shutting out all view of what was passing exterior to the walls. The Dissenters Marriage Act, indeed, has rendered it necessary to establish Unions in many parts of the country which were not ripe for the formation of those Unions ; and to that it is owing that the features of the

Poor-law have assumed in some parts of the country a harsher character than was necessary. But I must in general state my approbation of the working of this act. I have paid great attention to the subject : wherever I have resided, I have attended the meetings of Guardians of Unions in my neighbourhood ; I have visited several workhouses in different parts of England; and I must say, I never visited one in which the management was not as good as could be ex- pected in such districts of the country, and which did not give universal satis- faction."

Earl STANHOPE had not been prepared to see the present Government bring on themselves a greater degree of odium than had fallen on their

predecessors. He quoted the opinions of Locke, Blackstone, and Coke, which he interpreted to show that the bill was unconstitutional ; and the opinions of Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Abinger, Lord Wynford, and Lord Eldon, against the particular measure. It was evidently intended to render the Commission permanent, without at all mitigating the severity of the law : and at what time was such a proposition brought forward ?—

under circumstances of unparalleled distress, when, as Lord Brougham had stated, numbers were perishing from hunger. Lord Stanhope con- tinued his general remarks against the bill in strong terms, and inter- rupted by the following colloquy— What was the bill but a punishment of proverty as a crime ? No matter whether it arose from measures of Government, or from misfortunes which no prudence could prevent, the poor were cast into workhouses which the noble Duke had denominated Bastiles.

The Duke of WELLINGTON (in an emphatic tone)—"No !" (Much laughter.) The Earl of STANHOPE—" Well, then, which are generally considered Bastiles." The Duke of WELLINGTON (in a still louder tone)—" No! (Renewed laughter.) 1 must interrupt the noble Earl. When 1 said the workhouses were considered Bastiles, I meant by the noble Earl, and those who thought like him." ("Hear, hear !" and laughter.) Earl STANHOPE proceeded ; asserting that lenses de cachet in England are only issued against the poor ; winding up a series of the usual accu- sations against the law, thus— Under the operation of this accursed statute, injustice had been perpetrated, cruelties sanctioned, and crimes committed, which it was out of human power to remedy or to repair. They might regret their proceedings, they might wish to retrace their steps, but they would not be able to recall to life the victims who had been murdered in these new prisons. He spoke not unadvisedly—he did not rashly use the word murder. Compared with the enormities perpe- trated under this law, how trivial appeared the question of Ship-money, which led to a great rebellion and brought Charles the First to the scaffold; or the Ordinances of Charles the Tenth of France, which caused the Monarch who propagated them to be hurled from the throne! Hereabouts occurred another colloquy— The evil would indeed take its own course, and work its own cure ; but awful calamities would ensue.

The Duke of WELLIFGTON (loudly)—" Hear, hear, hear ! " Earl STANHOPE--" I rejoice the noble Duke has heard it." (Loud laughter.) The Duke of WELLLYGTON—" Hear, Lear, hear ! I admire it, I ad- mire it !"

Earl STANHOPE—The noble Duke would hear it some day in a voice of thunder from the people : but be bad warned them of the impending danger ; he had warned them of what might be the fate of this House—of their Lord- ships individually and collectively, if they were weighed in the balance and found wanting. (" Hear! " and renewed laughter.)

Lord Stanhope moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that if Earl Stanhope had brought forward any thing new, he should have felt bound to enter into the question at large : but the language even in which his charges were couched was not va- ried, for it was not, for him, unusually immoderate— Such speeches were supported by precedent ; but it was he who had furnished, and be alone who had followed this precedent—(" Hear, hear! ")—who had pursued the system of making appeals to the passions of the people by advancing such charges as that of murder, and enunciating such anticipations as those of impending rebellion ; a species of prophecy which, more than any other, tended towards its own accomplishment.

Lord Brougham, however, did not believe that the people would be led away by such declamation.

The amendment was rejected without a division. The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday.

The bill went through Committee on Thursday, without discussion.

Micas AND COLLIERIES.

The recommittal of the Mines and Collieries Bill having been moved in the Howe of Lords, on Monday, Lord BROUGHAM delivered a long address to caution the House against too much legislation— Nothing, he thought, as a general principle, should be done by means of legislation to carry out of their usual channels—out of those chant ds into which they would naturally flow—capital and labour. He did not say that there were no exceptions to this rule. If any kind of employment amounted to an offence—to a crime, as in the case of the slave-trade—then it became the duty of the Legislature to interfere. Again, if any species of employment which was not actually criminal was yet immoral in its nature, or if it had a tendency to produce immorality, it was also the duty of the lawgiver to inter- fere and to prohibit its existence ; but every thing in that case depended upon degree—upon whether that tendency was certain, direct, and immediate, or not ; and upon these grounds he was disposed to support that part of this bill relating to the employment of female children. With reference to the effect of trades on health, it was the lot by which men lived, that they should earn their bread, not only i by the sweat Of their brow, but by the wear and tear of their constitutions—as n the case of white paint and lead-workers, in trades using braziery and steel-filings ; and if it were admitted that the Legislature could not or should not interfere in such cases, then_ he averred that a certain Inference followed, which could not be escaped, that to a certain degree com- paratively young persons must be allowed to enter into these employments, which could only be properly learned by commencing at an early age. Colliers, however, were not the only parents whose conduct towards their children was extremely to be lamented. it was bad, it was most lamentable, to see children carried at a tender age to the mines, and there made to crawl through damp caverns, to crawl and work for a greater number of hours than their strength permitted, and then to be sent home in a state of mental and bodily exhaustion fit for nothing but sleep : but this, bad as it might be, was not much worse than the cautious .provision which was made by some parents in order to stunt the growth of thew children, to prevent them from attaining a certain stature and the due proportion of their strength, lest they should also attain a certain weight. This was to be done in order that they might be exhibited at a certain small size, and consequently light weight; and then these unhappy wretches, old before their time—these stunted individuals, after performing the services of those who hired them, died without even attaining any thing like old age, and during their lives never had a healthy constitution. Great evils also arose to the children of the poor, whose mothers were induced to become wet-nurses to persons in the rank of life of members of either House : but were any one to procure a bill to be hurried through the other House to prevent such a measure, nine-tenths of their Lordships would reject it. It might be feared that it would cross the minds of many, how ready they were to interfere with the working classes, but bow apt they were, when practices were denounced in which they themselves were sharers, to turn a deaf ear. Would it not be said they were great dealers in cheap virtue ? The Marquis of LONDONDERRY observed, that the bill would not come into operation till March 1843; and it would be better to employ the interval in further inquiry : he moved that the bill be referred to a Select Committee. The Earl of DEVON was pleased to find Lord Brougham's generalities as much in favour of the measure as against it. The bill was supported by the Earl of GALWAY, and (in its altered state) by Lord HArstaaros : it was opposed by the Earl of Hermon. The motion for going into Committee was carried, by 49 to 3. . Amendments on various clauses—by Lord BEAUMONT, to permit women under eighteen to remain in the mines till March next, instead of beiog excluded within three months ; by Lord LYTTELTON, to make the bill come in force in May 1843 instead of March ; by the Earl of ,Dnriatona, to permit single women above twenty-one years of age to work in the mines ; by the Earl of MOUNTCASHEL, making the age of admission for boys twelve instead of ten; by Lord SHELNERSDALE, to permit women above forty years of age, in certain cases, to remain at work—were successively rejected ; the last, on which there was a .division, by 29 to 15. The several clauses were agreed to, with some verbal amendments ; and the bill was reported ; to be reads third time on Friday.

MINISTERS AND EDUCATION..

Presenting to the House of Lord, on ?donday, a petition from a Mr.

Turner, who claimed to have anticipated the system of vocal instruction adopted by Mr. Hullah, the Bishop of Loiinow called for an explanation from Lord Wharncliffe respecting his statement, that he should feel it his duty to make no distinction between members of the Church and Dissenters on the subject of education— He did not understand the noble Lord to say as an abstract proposition that he saw no difference between the two so far as education was concerned. The whole subject of education had been discussed with considerable warmth some years ago in that House ; and a mode of regulating the National Schools and those of Dissenters was then agreed to, to which he understood the noble Pre- sident of the Council the other evening to declare his intention of adhering. That was the sense in which, he took it, the phrase " equal terms" was used—(" Hear, hear ! " from Lord Wharnclifire)—and to that he could have no objection, for he acquiesced in the original plan. He also required some explanation respecting the Exeter Hall classes— He was a subscriber to the system of vocal instruction adopted there, and lie should persevere in promoting its success. But be understood that lectures were given there also in mechanical parts of education, and in linear drawing. Now be confessed that the addition of other branches of education excited in him, and in others, some apprehension, not now, but as to the results to which It might possibly lead, because one species of instruction might be added to the other; and a normal school being once established, without any religious in- struction being provided by the Government, to retrace our steps would be im- possible and the question of religious instruction must be left undecided. The attendants at the lectures were teachers of Sunday schools and mechanics— classes, no doubt, for whom it was very important that such instruction should be given ; but they were not the parties contemplated in the original scheme for teaching masters. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that the Bishop of London had put the right interpretation upon his expressions. As to the classes at Exeter Hall— He must confess that their formation seemed to be viewed with a degree of jealousy for which he could not account. (Loud cries of Hear, hear ! ' the Opposition.) He could not help thinking that the object of those was much misunderstood. Their Lordships knew that by recent discovenes. reading, writing, and drawing, could be taught in a simpler method and in a much shorter time than they could be acquired hitherto. It appeared to those having control over this institution that masters should be instructed in these improved methods of teaching. Classes for reading, writing, and linear draw- ing, were formed on the synthetical method, as it was called. They were at first frequented by none but schoolmasters; but in a very short time it was found that mechanics, shopmen, and even those in a higher situatiou in life, were anxious to obtain the information which was afforded. When such men could not read or write, or were bad accountants, it was not wonderful that they should adopt a method of learning which afforded them such advantages, at a much cheaper rate and in a shorter time than they could formerly have procured them. But how such a custom could militate against religious edu- cation, or how it was to be inferred from its adoption that a normal school was about to be established for teaching the people every thing without religion, he could not divine.

In the House of Commons, on the same night, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that the funds placed at the disposal of the Education Committee were nearly exhausted ; and he therefore intended to propose a supplemental estimate of 10,000/, which would be distributed in precise conformity with the minutes of the Privy Council. Applications for aid had been made from classes in several large towns, as well as from those at Exeter Hall. The subject required consideration, and he was not now prepared to state whether the Government would propose an additiotial estimate for the singing-classes.

MISCELLANEOUS. • EXTENSION OF THE SUFFRAGE. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave no- tice, on Wednesday, that early next session he would move for leave to bring in a bill to extend the Parliamentary Suffrage, and to make other alterations in the Election-laws, with a view to effect a full, fair, and free representation Of the People in the Commons House of Par- liament.

TENURE OF LAND IN IRELAND. Mr. CRAWFORD also gave notice, that early next session he would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland ; also, the system of letting lands, the nature and duration of tenures, and the proportion which the rent bears to the gross produce in different dis- tricts of Ireland.

THE LIMITATION OF . ACTIONS (IRELAND) BILL Was read a second time in the House of Lords, On Thursday : its object is to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England. The Bishop of DERRY illustrated the value of the measure, by enumerating proceedings which had been carried on by the Irish Society against the late Bishop of Derry, and which originated in various years between 1629 and 1841.

THE COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS BILL passed through Committee On Saturday ; the anticipated opposition proving fruitless.

QUALIFICATIONS OF MASTERS IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE. Cap- tain FITZROY obtained leave, on Thursday, to introduce a bill to regu- late the. examination of all persons who wish to become masters or mates of merchant-vessels-

He would propose to establish ten boards of examiners; the principal board to sit in London, two in Scotland, two in Ireland, and the others in different parts of England. At the Board in London there should be four examiners, while each of the other Boards would consist of three. Each board would corn- prize a seaman who had been master in the Southern hemisphere, a master in the coasting-trade, and the master of a steamer. Over the whole would be a principal examiner and secretary ; the system to be approved by the Trinity House, and placed under the control of the Board of Trade. INDIAN COOLIES IN MAURITIUS. In the Houte of COnInIODS On Tuesday, on the motion thatthe Colonial Passengers Bill do pass, a dis- cussion was raised by Mr. Ilawns ; who moved the omission of that part of the bill which enables the Governor-General of India to extend its provisions to the emigration of Hill Coolies to Mauritius. Mr. Hawes and others contended, that the abuses which had formerly pre- vailed had rendered the condition of the Coolies in Mauritius a species of slavery, and that they would do so again ; while Lord STANLEY IX- plained that the provisions of the bill would render such a result im- possible. The amendment was rejected, by 118 to 24. The bill was passe&

FOREIGN COMMERCIAL RELATIONS. LI reply to Lord MONTEAGLE, on Thursday. t,he Earl of RIPON said, that it is fully expected that tj4e treaty with Portugal would soon be brought to a satisfactory condo- . • sin; that we are carrying on negotiations with the Brazilian Govern- ment respecting the treaty which is about to expire ; and that repre- sentations have been made to the French Government on the subject of its ordinance relative to British linens.

PORTENDIC Cwasra. In reply to Mr. DrvErr, on Thursday, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that he had a strong feeling on the claims of the British merchants to compensation for injuries committed by the French at Portendie in 1832. Forcible representations had recently been made to the French Government ; but the death of the Duke of Orleans had interrupted the communications on the matter. Sir Robert seized the occasion to express the deep sympathy of the English in the affliction of the Royal Family of France. (The House responded with loud cheers.)

INTERVIEWS 'WITH MINISTERS. Mr. FIELDEN having obtained from the Home Secretary a disclaimer of an inaccuracy imputed to him in the Morning Chronicle report of the interview which he had given to the Anti-Corn-law Delegates, Sir JAMES GRAHAM objected to being made responsible for any thing contained in reports of the kind— If such reports continued to be published from es parte statements, drawn up from the mere recollection of the parties themselves, confidential, he might almost say familiar intercourse, which at present took place between deputa- tions from the country and the Ministers of the Crean must necessarily be destroyed; and it would be the duty of Ministers, in their interviews with such bodies, to preserve a rigid, he might almost say a sullen, silence. Sir ROBE.RT PEEL also protested against the reports, as inaccu- rate— " For myself personally I do not care; but I think it unfortunate for the sake of the public that incorrect versions of these interviews should be given. The result of such a practice will, I fear, be, that 1 shall find myself obliged to decline seeing such deputations altogether. This I shall much regret, as it will deprive me of many opportunities of receiving valuable information : but really it is hard, after having devoted two hours of the most patient attention to the representations of those gentlemen, to find the proceedings reported in a manner which, without being positively incorrect, gives a false colour to the whole tenor of my observations.'