;Debates anti Vrinetbings in Varliainent.

NAVIGATION-LAWS.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, when Lord Joni Rosetta moved the order of the day for going into Committee on the Navigation. laws, petitions were presented for and against but chiefly against the Ministerial proposals. One presented by Lord GEORGE BENTINCE, from the master mariners and seamen of South Shields, was couched in such strong terms that the advice of the Speaker was taken on the propriety of receiving it. Lord George quoted the opinions of the seamen who signed it, that they expected to be driven from the English into foreign service if the Navigation-laws were altered as proposed: if they were so driven, they warned the House that they would feel compelled thenceforward to con. sider as their adopted flag that one which should give them the protective encouragement denied in their native service; and they would refuse there- after to serve those who had destroyed, against those who had protected and supported them. The SPEAKER found that though the petition was strongly worded, and evidently penned under feelings of excitement, yet it was respectful to the House; and he saw no reason for rejecting it. In the House of Commons, on Monday, when Lord Joni Rosetta moved the order of the day for going into Committee on the Navigation. laws, petitions were presented for and against but chiefly against the Ministerial proposals. One presented by Lord GEORGE BENTINCE, from the master mariners and seamen of South Shields, was couched in such strong terms that the advice of the Speaker was taken on the propriety of receiving it. Lord George quoted the opinions of the seamen who signed it, that they expected to be driven from the English into foreign service if the Navigation-laws were altered as proposed: if they were so driven, they warned the House that they would feel compelled thenceforward to con. sider as their adopted flag that one which should give them the protective encouragement denied in their native service; and they would refuse there- after to serve those who had destroyed, against those who had protected and supported them. The SPEAKER found that though the petition was strongly worded, and evidently penned under feelings of excitement, yet it was respectful to the House; and he saw no reason for rejecting it.

Mr. HERMES brought forward his motion affirming the general protec- tive principle of our present Navigation-laws; and in a speech of consi- derable length criticized the Ministerial scheme lately enunciated by Mr. Labouchere. The Ministerial measure had been brought forward in so large and abstract a way, as to deprive those Members of an opportunity of fairly meeting it, who main- tain the soundness of the ruling principle of our navigation policy, but concede that minor alterations might be well effected. A Committee bad been appointed on the motion of a private Member, which had collected most carefully a body of valuable information, but which from circumstances had been unable to present any report to the House. It was in the usual course that the Committee should have been renewed this session, and afforded an opportunity of completing; its labours: but the Government, without any further inquiry, had inserted in the Speech de- livered from the throne in November last, a recommendation by her Majesty to consider the Navigation-laws with a view to ascertain if changes might not be adopted. For six months after, they had uttered no word of their views or their intentions. In the mean time, the House of Lords had appointed a Committee to inquire on the subject, which had collected evidence of a nature that very possibly might show good grounds for rejecting the Ministerial scheme. And now, while that Committee was still sitting, and the inquiry into the whole subject was still incomplete, though on the point of completion, the Government came forward with a proposition for the abolition of the great body of the present laws, and the com- plete destruction of the protection hitherto afforded to British seamen and ships engaged in our foreign trade. Mr. Herries contended that no urgency in reasons of state had been shown for seeking so great alterations; and little ground for distrusting the es- tablished opinions that such a venture would be dangerous to the interests of the country. He criticized in succession the pleas in behalf of Prus- sia, America, and our West Indian Colonies, for repeal or modification of the pre- sent code. Prussia had nothing to give us in return for the concessions she sought: on the other hand, her warnings and threats of withdrawing those ad- vantages she had already conceded were trivial. America, in the most kindly and friendly way, no doubt, requested to join our foreign and colonial trade in re- turn for reciprocal concessions to be made to us: but America had no colonies; and it most be admitted that she had ever been too " smart " to make an offer from which she herself was not to be a gainer. As to the West Indies, Mr. Herries went into detailed statements to show that the petition against the Navigation-laws agreed to by the Jamaica House of Assembly could but very imperfectly have represented the real sentiments of that body, or of the island at large. It had been carried through in an unusual way, at an unusual time—had in fact been smuggled through: some members had never heard of it, and one had even denied its existence, when examined before the House of Lords. Public memorials had been prepared both before and since that petition, and had passed through Committees of inquiry in the island Legislature, in which not a word occurred of allusion to the grievances of the Navigation-laws, or of solicitation for their repeal. Commenting on the reservation of the coasting trade in contrast to the opening of the colonial trade, Mr. Herries asserted his belief that if any alternation were desirable it should be applied to the former rather than the latter. It was also a great incongruity of the scheme, that while it entirely abrogated all the protection hitherto afforded to British seamen, it left unrelieved the whole weight of the present burdens borne by British ship- owners—burdens only borne in consideration of the protection hitherto grantel Mr. Herries relied much on the authority of Mr. Huskisson, and quoted him for a definition of that protective principle which he was willing to stand by; and which would reserve our colonial, coasting, and fishing trade wholly, and protect our foreign trade as far as was consistent with our relations and engagements with foreign countries. He approved the advantages given by Mr. Huskisson under his reciprocity treaties. He was not aware that any Members of the House were disposed to refuse all discussion of the subject, or the removal of any existing and real inconveniences which might be safely removed. If the House were agreed on the general principle of protecting our marine, it might, in Committee, " re- move anomalies which had been the object of censure and ridicule in some quarters, where attention seemed to have been bestowed only on the smaller parts of the subject: they might put an end to some of those difficulties as to sending nuts from Hamburg, and the like, which certainly might be described as ab- surdities."

Sketching statistically the enormous magnitude of the interests embarked, he earnestly deprecated hasty legislation. He indicated the extent and the manner of the changes he thought admissible; and the opposition he would offer to pre-

wit measures, which he might think .too hazardous or too precipitate, in their extent or in their time and method of proposal. If the House proceeded with care fed deliberation, affording full time to the nation, and especially to those deeply iiire.led in the subject, for expressing opinion to the Legislature, then he had no°be objection. But upon a question which involved no demand fur immediate le- in's.11tien—which did not contain in the slightest degree the element of emergency .end which involved an alteration that in the opinion of many would be attended with the worst effects, though others doubtless considered the effects would be most salutary—upon such a question to pretend to proceed with the baste which was now proposed by her Majesty's Government, was utterly preposterous, and would never be agreed to, he hoped, by the House of Commons. At all events, no effort should be wanting on his part to prevent the passing of such a measure at the present time.

Mr. Herries moved the following resolution, as an amendment to Lord John Russell's motion on the order of the day for going into Committee—" That it is essential to the national interests of this country to maintain the fundamental principles of the existing Navigation-laws, subject to such modifications as may be best calculated to obviate any proved inconvenience to the commerce of the 'united Kingdom and its dependencies, without danger to our maritime strength."

Mr. LABOUCHERE followed, in general support of the Ministerial scheme.

He showed that English shipping and seamen are quite able to meet fo- reign shipping and men in equal markets; that, in fact, wherever they had done so the increase of tonnage in our favour had been strikingly great. On the other band, he showed by figures, that our most protected depart- ments of the shipping trade are comparatively not flourishing. He replied to the remarks respecting the Jamaica petition.

He was unable to contradict or confirm Mr. Harries; but he apprehended that the right honourable gentleman was hardly prepared to say, unless the same trick was played all over the island, that the memorial of the planters, merchants, la- bourers, and others of Hanover, Jamaica, did not represent the opinions of lose who had sent it to this country. [Here Mr. Labouchere read an extract from a memorial from the latter body, setting forth that the freights which they were obliged to pay were nearly doable the amount of what they would be if the Navi- gation-laws were repealed; and that a large number of American ships weut away from the island in ballast, which would otherwise be available for carrying away the produce of the colony.]

The real point for the House to decide that evening was fairly raised by the resolution proposed as an amendment—

Would they be contented with patchwork legislation? Was it right to main-

tain the principles of the Navigation-laws? The first principle was that of colonial monopoly; the second was the maintenance of those restrictions which were intended to secure the long voyage trade to this country; and the third was the maintenance of those restrictions which were intended to secure the European carrying-trade? The question was, whether they were prepared to consider the propriety of departing from those principles, or leaving them un- touched—whether they should meet the wants of commerce and the exigencies of the case before them—whether they were prepared thoroughly and completely to revise the whole system of our Navigation-laws, with the view of adapting them to the spirit of the times and meeting the just demands of other countries, the wishes of our own Colonies, and the interests of our expanding trade? He had never sought to disguise from the House the magnitude of the question. It was to be considered in all its details, and was fairly raised by the right honourable gentleman. Of course, if the right honourable gentleman carried his resolution it would be fatal to the measure of the Government.

Mr. Labouchere deferred all discussion of details till the House should be in Committee; and would simply call for the taking of that step in order that the measures might be introduced and fairly considered.

Mr. Herries was supported by Alderman THOMPSON, in a speech of

practical information, temperately but earnestly spoken. He warned the House against the effects on our colonial shipping trade which would fol- low on the opening of that trade to the Americans, whose ships already supply our West Indies with the whole of the lumber they require, even under the disadvantage of always leaving port in ballast. Mr. H. J. BAILLIE admitted that all restrictions on trade are injurious to some extent, but he thought the restrictions of the Navigation-laws are far outhalanced by the advantages they secure. Mr. H. DRUMMOND dif- fered from the Ministry and also from their opponents: he stated his re- pugnance to the principle of the Ministerial scheme, but his intention to offer no vote against it, as he deemed it an essential step in the new com- mercial policy which the country has lately adopted. The other speakers on this side were Mr. Scorr and Mr. ROBINSON.

The motion to go into Committee was supported at length, in a speech of statistics and argument, by Mr. JAMES WILSON; and briefly, in the same fashion, by Dr. BOWRING.

On the motion of Mr. MOFFATT, the debate was adjourned till Thurs- day.

The debate was continued on Thursday, at considerable length, without much variety in the style or drift of argument. Mr. Herries's amendment was opposed by Mr. MOFFATT, Mr. MITCHELL, and Mr. MILNER GIBSoN; supported by Mr. ROBINSON, the Marquis of GRANBY, and Mr. HENLEY. Mr. ROBINSON addressed himself not only to the general argument, that there was no demand for the measure nor any adequate cause for change, but also to the production of special evidence to show that English shipmasters are not so in- ferior as they have been described, but are improving. He would like to know from the Lords of the Admiralty, whether they are prepared with any other plan of mantling the Navy in cases of emergency than the one now in existence, before they expose our commercial marine to such fearful competition as is now pro- ?wed. Ile doubted exceedingly whether the proposal of Sir James Stirling to seep up a large naval establishment in time of peace, so as to render the Navy at all times comparatively independent of our commercial marine, would meet with much favour in the present state of our finances. He assented to one change: shipowners were forced to train up apprentices very much to their detriment, and would willingly agree to the proposition for altering the law in that respect. The Marquis of GRANBY also alluded to the necessity of manning the fleet.

Mr. Labouehere had said he had kept the coasting trade intact as a reserve for seamen for the Royal Navy : but was there no chance of that trade failing? Was be certain that in a few years hence that trade could be relied upon as a reserve for supplying the Navy with seamen ? There was evidence on record which went to show that the railways might in a few years destroy the coasting trade of the country.

Mr. MITCHELL controverted Mr. Robinson's assertions; insisting that English shipmasters are peculiarly chargeable with drunken habits; and that shippers prefer foreign vessels to English, the cargoes being in greater safety. He showed that in respect of outfit English ships are as cheap as any; and he partly imputed the superior character of the masters and crews in thellihips of that practical peo- ple the Americans to higher salaries and wages: thetars are better paid than Our own, except in the India or long voyage trade; an while the lowest wages in

American ships are 31. a month, in our ships they are . it Mr. MILNER GIBSON surveyed many of the broader arguments on the subject. He called to mind the claim of the agricultural Protectionists, by the voice at Sir John Tyrell, whose cry was, " Don't make agriculture the sole object of your ex-

perimental policy." He showed the confused and conflicting effects of the pro- Wintery parts of the law. People may export in any ships they think proper! but they must only import in ships of the country or their own. A merchant may even import foreign provisions, if they are not to be consumed by the people of England—if his goods are to be bonded, then they are outside the Naviga- tion-laws; yet, last year, when there was a pressure from the want of food. the very opponents of the measure now proposed clamoured for suspension of the Navigation-laws. What can that law be good for which must be suspended on the first pressure? Foreign countries may carry for themselves, but not for each other; so that in fact the Navigation-law protects each foreign country against all the rest; and the corresponding Navigation-law—of the United States, for in- stance—excludes the ships of this country from more than half the import trade of the Union.

We have, however, departed materially from our principle of making every country confine itself to carrying its own produce, by permitting countries to use ports which are not within their lawn confines, for purposes of navigation with this country,—altering geography for the sake of the Navigation-laws. But what say the countries with which we have the " favoured nation" clause, and to which we promised to give all the privileges that we gave to any foreign country? Hol- land says, "You allow Hanover to carry produce from Memel to England: is Memel in Hanover? You allow Hanover to come to the Meuse, and carry Dutch produce from Holland to England. You must allow Holland to carry produce from Memel to England: we are entitled by the ' favoured nation ' clause in our treaty to the privileges you grant to other countries." Yet it was actually to prevent Holland from being the earner from all these countries that the Navigation Act was passed. If we allowed this to Holland, we must allow it to Sweden ; and if to Sweden, to Norway and Denmark; and what would Prussia say? Indeed, he very much doubted whether, under our present law, we couldrevent American produce from being imported from Europe into this country; fopr the American treaty said that we should not impose any prohibitions upon the produce of America which we did not impose upon the produce of other countries; and if we allowed European produce to be brought from Europe into England, we mast allow American pro- duos also. He believed it was only the idea that we were going to deal with the Navigation Act which had prevented different foreign countries from pressing for the performance of our treaty stipulations with them. Mr. Gibson believed that Sir James Stirling's proposition was not so very un- reasonable, as some represented. aud that there might be a reconstitution of the Navy so as to make it quite independent of the merchant service for a supply of men. It might be done by diminishing the expenses of the Navy. For instance, might there not be fewer officers? Honourable gentlemen opposite said that the mer- cantile marine was necessary for the support of our naval power, and yet they said they most strongly objected to impressment; but no one pointed out how the transfer of men from the merchant service to the Navy was to be effected. That was a point that perplexed him much. He believed we have no mode of getting these men except making them come against their wilL At this moment they do not volunteer very freely; and he was quite sure they would not, in cane we wanted their services for warfare. But theeffect of oar attempting to iMpretill them would be to make them fly to America; and the mercantile marine and the naval power would both lose their services.

On the motion of Lord Inozsran, the debate was adjourned till Friday, ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

On Tuesday, Mr. BOVYERIE moved the following resolutions-

" That the Ecclesiastical Courts of England and Wales have been the subject of several public inquiries, which have shown them to be totally incapable of ful- filling the important functions they affect to exercise. That these Courts have not only to decide questions concerning some of the most important civil rights of the subject, but they exercise a criminal jurisdiction, pretended to be pro salute animas, which touches his property and personal liberty. That the law they ad- minister urgently requires amendment. That their system of procedure is incom- patible with the effectual attainment of the ends of justice. That they are not only inefficient but costly. That their continued existence is injurious to the sub- ject, and a scandal to the judicial system of the country."

He supported the resolutions in a speech of considerable length; stating the well-known grievances; and recapitulating the attempts to deal with them, since 1834, by the Governments of Lord Grey, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Melbourne, and the present Government—attempts seven in number, but all abortive.

Ile described the nature of the Diocesan and Provincial Courts; the exclusive nature of the offices and of the legal practice in those Courts; the inconvenient custody of wills under different jurisdictions, involving trouble and lose to legatees and successors; the imperfect and vexatious operation of the Courts in the matter of church-rates, the imperfect and sometimes cruel operation of the Courts in matters of church discipline, especially of defamation and such proceedings against lay person-. Mr. Bouverie made goat use of the recent case of Gelds versus Geile in the Arches Court, with the peculiar family connexion between the husband in that snit, the lawyers on his side, and the Judge of the Court. He touched ups the sinecures with large salaries attached to some of the Courts. For example, the Registrar of Canterbury receives 7,5881a year, exclusively of many thousands allowed for clerks' salaries; the Registrar of Chester enjoys a ainecnre of 7,1551 a year; the Registrar of York, 2,6361. The document setting forth these sala- ries is curious: the names which it sets forth of those who hold sinecure places in the Ecclesiastical Courts form a sort of index to the families of the past and pre- sent Bishops and Archbishops of this country. The subject was not a very at- tractive one; but he would say to his noble friend at the head of the Government, who on a late occasion had declared that the people of this country were not in favour of constitutional and political reforms—[Sir George Grey, "No, no! "]- that he would be going a great way towards establishing that conviction, if he could show that, whenever practical abuses or grievances were pointed out, there exists a readiness on the part of Government to remove them. Sir GEORGE GREY did not controvert the points urged in Mr. Bouverie's speech; nor did he contest the necessity of sweeping and extensive change in the constitution and practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He agreed with the recommendations that had emanated from successive Committees of inquiry: indeed, the subject bad not escaped his attention, and a bill would have been submitted to Parliament in the present session, if there could have been any prospect that the details would have received that at- tention which they deserved. At this period of the session, however, he should despair of proposing a motion on the subject; and if he withheld his assent from the resolutions, it was only because he could not hold out a hope of being able to carry through a proper remedial measure during the present session. Sir ROBERT INGLIS directly opposed the motion; on the ground that changes are mischievous, and not necessary. He objected to centralization; maintained that the country depositories of wills are well arranged, accessible, and as free from dirt and damp its any of the fswet13- its depositories in London. The fact that in four years there were only eighty- eight searches for wills in London, and 1,320 in the country, showed that central- isation would not benefit the public. He denied the sinecures; asking the Attorney. General whether the Registrarship of Chester was correctly described as a sinecure? The office has a large business. The resolutions were opposed by Colonel SIBTHORP and Mr. Hunsotr; supported by Mr. Horan, Mr. AGLIONBY, and Mr. PAGE WOOD. The

Axionwat-Gistatmat. followed the course of Sir George Grey. Ultimately, Mr. Bouvrauw, satisfied with the assurance of Sir George Grey, withdrew the motion.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES.

On Wednesday, Mr. ANSTEY moved the order for going into Committee on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Mr. LAW moved that it be an instruc- tion to the Committee to divide the bill into two bills; omitting so much in the first bill as related to the 10th George IV. c. 7, and the provisions thereof. His object was, not to show any favour whatever to the first por- tion of the bill, but at all events to rescue the 10th George IV. from the Operation of the measure. A long discussion ensued; mostly on the pro- posal to split the bill, but partly also on the merits of the measure; the instruction being opposed or supported by those who opposed or supported the whole measure. Mr. ANSTEY declared that if the bill were split, he should still persevere with the latter part. In the course of the discussion, Mr. NEWDEGATE, who opposed the bill, especially the latter part as au- thorizing the admission of the Jesuits, creatures of Rome, stated that be had referred to the Roman Catholic Directory, apd discovered the follow- ing entry—

"19th of February 1848. Thomas Chisholm Anstey, Esq., Barrister-at-law, made a Knight of the Order of St. Gregory by his Holiness the Pope, as a mark of his approbation, and as a reward for his great services in the cause of the Ro- man Catholic Church, especially for his endeavours to obtain a repeal of the sta- tutes imposing penalties upon Roman Catholics."

Now Mr. Anstey, as a member of this order, would be obliged to uphold the authority of the Pope agaiust the laws of his country. Mr. ANSTEY denied the obligation. Mr. HENRY Dnualmown [who may be said to have spoken on both sides] insisted that there is an essential difference between the dead Papists of books and real live Roman Catholics: he admitted the evils they had done in former times; but, from having the honour to be acquainted with many—for he had lived near a college of Jesuits—he de- clared that they are as harmless a set of persons as he ever knew in his life.

On a division, Mr. Law's instruction was carried, by 129 to 42. The House went into Committee; and was still engaged in a contest on the first olauso when six o'clock came, and compelled an adjournment.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS: DEFEAT OF MINISTER13.

On Tuesday, Dr. BMW/4G submitted a series of resolutions on the ne- cessity of a reform in the mode of keeping the public accounts.

It had been proved by documents laid upon the table, that the sum of nearly 8,000,0001. every year escapee the authority of the House: and it was an as- tounding fact, that since the passing of the Reform Bill, from 110,000,0001. to 120,000,0001. bad been dispersed without the authority of the House of Com- mons. In 1837, the different revenue departments expended in this unauthorized way, 6 155,0001.; in 1843, 5,507,000/4 in 1846, 6,152,0001.; and in 1847, 5,904,6901. It appeared that in other departments, such as the Treasu7, the Privy Council, and the Army, Navy, Ordnance, &c., there was expended in the same way, in 1837, a sum of 767,0001.; in 1843, 1,199,0001.; in 1846, 909,0001.; and in 1847, 1,099,7471.; making a gross amount of sums expended without Parliamentary authority, in 1837, of 6.922,0001.; in 1843, of 6,706,0001.; in 1846, of 7,061,0001.; and in 1847, of 7,604,4371. In this country there is no such thing as a central account kept. There is no department where one could see at a glance the whole of the public receipts and expenditure. The accounts are scattered about in one direction or another, but they cannot all be found in any one department. The inefficiency of the Audit Office makes it impossible to discharge its duties, or to get up the arrears: in one instance, he believed they discharged not less then five or six millions by a single vote. In the case of the Shannon Navigation, there has been no return for ten years. With respect to the detention of receipts, the Customs department, he found, detains a stun of two millions; though he wished to know why the salaries paid in that depart- ment should not as regularly be brought under Parliamentary control as those in the War or Naval departments? It is the same with the Excise, the Post- office, the Stamps and Taxes, and the Crown Lands. In this way, six millions sterling is deducted by those departments. Parliament has no cognizance of public money received into the Fee-funds. He believed, however. that some recommendation would issue on this subject from the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure. Dr. Bowring concluded by reading his resolutions, which set forth some of the facts that he had stated, and the necessity of bringing every receipt and expenditure under the revision of Parliament.

Sir CHARLES WOOD contended that the motion was needless; since in one way or other the greater proportion of the expenses in question are brought under the cognizance of Parliament. In one way or other, too, the payments are of a kind that must be made. And many improvements, in the spirit of Dr. Bowring's motion, had already been effected. He would abstain from moving " the previous question," in the hope that Dr. Bow- ring would be satisfied with this statement, and withdraw his motion.

The motion was supported by Mr. HOME: opposed by Colonel Sns- Twotto, who professed to doubt Dr. Bowring's sincerity; and Sir GEORGE CLERK, who advised Government, however, to adopt Dr. Bowring's sug- gestions respecting the Fee-funds. Mr. VERNON SMITH hoped that Dr. reswring would not press a division, as it would place the question in a disadvantageous light.

The galleries were cleared for a division; and during the exclusion of strangers, Sir CHARLES WOOD, finding that Dr. Bowring persevered, did move " the previous question." [The unexpected result of Sir Charles's amendment makes it desirable to explain to our unparliamentary readers what its effect ie. A courteous way of setting aside a motion is to move that the Speaker put " the question previous" to that raised by the main motion, namely, the question whether the motion shall he put " now " or not. A negative of course seta aside the motion for the time, but ex- presses no opinion or hostile decision on its subject-matter.] On a divi- sion, the numbers were—for putting the question "now," 55; against it, kt; majority against Sir Charles Wood's amendment, 1. The House then divided again on the first of Dr. Bowring's resolutions; and it was carried by 56 to 51; majority against the Government, 5. The rest of the reso- lutions were passed without division. The result was received with loud oheers.

THE DEBBY WRIT: POSITION OF MINISTERS.

nrsday, Mr. CoLvirast moved that a new writ be issued for mpliance with a petition to that effect from the inhabitants of he deprecated indefinite delay of the writ pending the pro- Hanmer's Borough Elections Bill—the inquiry might gh the writ were issued. The motion was seconded by , who objected to punishing the innocent electors of Derby ; and it was subsequently supported, on similar grounds, by greet of s.proees" itsti.1 c Sta

with thei,

.11

Mr. Hu= energetically resisted the motion, as counter to the express opinion of the House— It was said that some general rule should be laid down by which the Rouse might regulate its proceedings with respect to the suspension of writs; and on the occasion of the first motion being made this session for the issue of a writ, he had recommended that no writ should issue for any borough in which corrupt practices were alleged to have prevailed, until an inquiry had been instituted le order to ascertain to what extent those practices had been carried.

Sir GEORGE GREY would rather expose himself to the charge of dealing leniently with bribery than be a party to the indefinite suspension nfl writ for a large constituency. The sense of the House respecting the con. duct of the freemen had already been marked by suspending the writ for several weeks; and although the House had done right to inquire, he saw no reason why the ten-pound householders should be disfranchised.

The Earl of LINCOLN opposed these conclusions.

If the writ were issued, of what use would it be to inquire? where would be the consistency of Government? If the Sense should agree to issue the Derby writ, the Borough Elections Bill would linger in that House during the remainder of the session- and the end would be that all the other suspended writs would be issued. To lake the course recommended by Sir George Grey, would be trilling' with the question; and it would have been better not to have suspended any a the writs, than, having suspended them for a definite purpose, now to issue there. Such conduct would not tend to elevate the character of the House in the opinion of the country; and henceforth the public would be extremely liable to doubt the sincerity of the protestations made m that assembly of a desire to put an end to corrupt practices.

Sir Jonw HANKER said, that after what he had heard from the Secretary for the Home Department, he felt that the chance of his passing the Be. rough Elections Bill was very remote.

On a division, the motion was negatived, by 153 to 136; majority, 17.

MINISTEE,IAL ANNOUNCEMENT: JEWS: RATE-PAYING CLAUSES. On Thursday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave two notices of motion- " One is, that I propose on Monday next to ask for leave to bring in a bill to alter the form of oath to be required of Members on taking their seats in Parlia. ment. (" Hear, hear!") The other is, that on Friday I shall move for leave to bring in a bill a repeal so much of the existing law as makes it necessary to pay the assessed taxes in order to be on the register as an elector in cities and bo- roughs." ("Hear, hear!") OPERATION OF THE POOR-LAW IN IRELAND.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Earl of Locaw moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Irish Poor-law Acts relative to the rating of immediate lessors. He supported his motion with some details touching the operation of the law in that respect in the county of Mayo; and intimated that a vast amount of bills and declarations had been filed against him in the courts of Dublin; though he declined to enter into that particular subject.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE opposed the motion; as the inquiry would embrace the judicial question, and the operations of a law not yet fully developed.

Earl Firzwilassat supported the motion, on the general ground that the operation of the law in Ireland has caused an alarming increase of pauperism, with a corresponding increase of rates. Would Ministers, he asked, do nothing more for Ireland than give it this inapplicable law?

It was true, there was the Encumbered Estates Bill; and of the principle of that bill he approved; but he doubted very much whether it would accomplish the object that was desired. And if it should prove a failure, another session would have passed away and nothing be done for Ireland. They bad a great work to perform, and had not yet so much as begun it. But they must perform that work, unless they intended to leave Ireland in her present condition. If there were anything like sanguineness in their expectation of seeing Ireland in a dif- ferent condition, they mast deal with that great phsenomenon of the rural popu- lation. They had not touched that question yet. They had given money and lent money, and they might continue to do so. As to the loan of last year, they would have to repeat it in 1849, and again in 1850, or they would do nothing. But even then, with loan after loan, they would do nothing; for all were now agreed that the great mass of the rural population in many parts of Ireland was the phsenome- non with which they had to deal. And while this mass of pauperism existed in Ireland, let them look to the other parts of' the British dominions, and what did they behold ? In Canada, in Australia, in other colonies, the cry was for bands to work. In other parts of the empire there were wastes requiring to be peopled; and nevertheless they persisted in the course of giving no encouragement to emi- gration. ("Hear, hear!") This very year a bill had been passed, the tendency of which was to discourage and throw difficulties in the way of emigration. ("Bear, hearrfrom Earl Grey.) He could refer his noble friend to the opinions of the Irish shipowners on that subject. He was fully aware that there were great difficulties to be encountered; but emergencies required action, and, moreover, emergencies were often great opportunities. Earl GREY deprecated Lord Fitzwilliam's extending the debate so wide ly on so narrow a motion. As to the state of the Irish, he maintained that the people must not look to Government for relief from their deplorable condition: Government cannot impart wealth and prosperity; these must be created by the people themselves.

His noble friend had accused the Government of doing nothing. What more could have been done? If the Government had succeeded by the measures they had passed in February in restoring peace to Ireland, they hid done what was of inestimable value to the industry of Ireland; and it was now for the Irish people to work out their own prosperity. His noble friend had spoken of the millions of acres of waste land lying uncultivated in Ireland. But if the intelligent in- dustry and capital which his noble friend had assumed not to be wanting were ready in Ireland, there was no reason why the people should go to Canada and Australia; while without capital their removal to those distant countries would not improve their condition. In a few days he should lay on the table papers connected with this important subject of emigration; and he should take the opportunity that would then be afforded him of showing that more had been done in that direction than his noble friend imagined. Measures of great im- portance on this subject were now in progress, and he hoped that the Government i

would be able to go on with yearly increasing efficiency in improving and ex- tending emigration.

The motiou was supported by Lord Swaim DE DECIES, Lord BEAU- MONT, and Lord MONTEAGLE; opposed by the Earl of DEVON, Lord CAMPBELL, and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,—mainly on the ground that it would be bad to interfere with pending judicial proceedings. On a division, the motion was carried, by 33 to 27; majority against the Government, 6. LAW of SETTLEMENT AND RATING. In reply to Mr. VERNON SMITH, 00 Monday, Mr. CHAHLE.S Bums= stated that he had set on foot an inquiry into the operation of the law of settlement: no measure on that subject would be in- troduced this session. On the law of rating, he had two measures in an ad- vanced state, which he hoped in a day or two to bring under the consideration of the Premier, and shortly after to lay on the table.

FREE EMIGRATION GRANT. In reply to Lord MASON, on Monday, Mr. BANeEs stated that 10,0001. would be included in the Estimates for the purpose dpromoting free emigration to New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. WEST LYDIES. In reply to Mr. 11USEE, on Thursday, Lord Joan RUSSELL said that, on the 15th or 16th instant, he would state the course which Govern- ment intended to pursue with regard to the West India question. LORD PALMERSTON AND THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT. In reply to Mr. }WRY Bansin, on Thursday, Lord PatatnasTow said that he had declined to receive any communications from the Marquis de Mirasol, who has arrived from Madrid with explanations from the Spanish Government; but had expressed his willingness to receive communications on recent occurrences from the accredited era of the Queen of Spain, if they were made in writing. Such communica- tions had been received from the Spanish Minister, "I am in communication with him still; and I do not feel it my duty, at present, to make any statement en that matter to the House; but, whenever those communications are closed, I shall probably feel it my duty to lay the correspondence on the table; though, of course, it is not in my power to say at what time I shall be able to do so."

THE CONVICT MITCHEL. On Tuesday, Mr. ROCHE observed that Mr. Ifitcbel had been tried, convicted, and sentenced; and he bad been treated with a degree of harshness beyond that which was usually applied to the commonest convict in Ireland. (" Oh!" and groans.) He had been hurried from his friends and family. (" Oh t " and " Order! ") He wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Home Secretary and the Government to carry out in its full rigour that disproportionate and unjust sentence? (Loud cries of " Oh, oh! ") Sir GEORGE GREY replied—" I will say nothing whatever as to the epithets with which the honourable Member has thought proper to accompany his question. ((reat cheering.) If I am to understand the question to mean' is the sentence passed upon Mr. Mitchel to be executed ?' I have to inform the honourable Mem- ber instructions have been given for carrying that sentence into effect." (Con- tinued cheering.)

NATIONAL LAND Conn:vary. The Select Committee on Mr. Feargus O'Con- nor's Bill to legalize the National Land Company was nominated on Tuesday, not without some disputation: Mr. O'Connor had put no lawyer on the Committee, and no representative of Lancashire, whence a large portion of the subscriptions is derived; and he was compelled by Government to alter the composition accord- ingly. THE LEICESTER ELECTIDN CosuarrrEE reported, on Thursday, that Sir Joshua Walmsley and Mr. Richard Gardner were not duly elected; that they had, by their agents, been guilty of bribery; that the election was void; and that the system of bribery in Leicester was such as to demand the attention of the House,

THE PRINCESS SOPHIA. An address of condolence to the Queen on the death of the Princess Sophia was adopted by the Commons on Monday, and by the Lords on Tuesday. it was moved in the one :louse by Lord Joint RUSSELL, and seconded by Sir ROBERT PEEL; in the othte House, moved by Lord LANS- DOWNE, and seconded by Lord STANLEY.

COLONIAL GOVERNMENT. Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH has fixed a day for his motion "to call the attention of the House to the subject of the Colonial Expenditure and Government of the British Empire": it now stands on the No- tice-paper as " deferred from Tuesday 20th to Tnesday 27th Jane."