Debates anti 113roteebings in Varliament.

POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, several notices of motion which had the precedence were postponed, to give place to Mr. T. Duncombe's motion relative to the opening of letters at the Post-office ; Sir ROBERT PEEL having stated that the Government were most anxious to meet the motion.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thanked Sir Robert for his courtesy ; but re- marked at the same time, that the Ministers had evinced no anxiety to " mal.e a House," as there was not one Minister present at four o'clock, and there were only forty Members in the House, including the Speaker. As to the question itself, he scouted the notion of its being considered as a question of confidence in Ministers; and he ridiculed the challenge of Sir James Graham to go to law: the matter had excited deep interest in the country, and the people would not rest satisfied until it had been investigated by the House. Be should move for the appointment of a "Select Committee to inquire into a'department of her Majesty's Poet-office commonly called ' the Secret or Inner Office,' the duties of persons engaged therein, and the authority under which the functions of the said office are discharged ; the said Committee to report their opinion to the House on the expediency of making any alteration in the

law under which the secret opening, detaining, or inspecting of post-letters is conducted." Mr. Buncombe contended that Miniatershad exceeded the power intrusted to them ; and that within the last few years a most unscrupulous use had been made of the power to open lettere. He was prepared to prove that there was in the Post-office a department known as the Secret

or Inner Office, in which these " deeds of darkness " were perpetrated— a sort of Star Chamber or Inquisition, into which sometimes the letters of in- dividuals were carried, sent by messengers to the Home Office, and copied ;

and sometimes entire bags were so dealt with, the messenger coming with di- rections to deliver to him (say) the Dublin or Brighton bag, or any other as the case might be, which was taken to the Inner Office to be ransacked.

(Ironical cheers from Sir Robert Peel.) Mr. Buncombe said, "So I am in-

formed, and I can prove it. (Cheers.) Bags have been conveyed to the Secret Office, and there kept an hour or two, then carried back to the letter-sorters ;

who, of course, knew nothing about it, and sent the letters they then found regularly on to the distributors." He understood that day after day the letters of Foreign Ministers were now opened and read before they were delivered. In the former debate, Mr. Buncombe had expressed his opinion that such a aye- tern was more fitted for the Governments of Austria and France than for the English nation : but in a recent debate in the Chamber of Deputies, the French Foreign Minister, M. Guizot, had declared that the secrecy of letters in the Post-office of that country was maintained inviolate, not only as regarded their own countrymen but foreigners also : Mr. Buncombe therefore apologized to the French for the unjust aspersion on their character. Indeed, so far from the practice being on-English, it appeared to be peculiarly English, espe- cially in the way it had been exercised. It could be proved that M. Maz- zini s letters had been opened by the direction of the Sardinian Minister, to whom copies had been sent. He should be able to prove that sixty or seventy letters had been opened, and that the practice had been pursued for two or three years past. During the disturbances in 1842, a " roving commission " from the Secret department had been sent into the provinces to open letters; and as they must have had a general authority, probably they had opened everybody's letters. He could prove that letters directed to the "Albany," where several Members of the House resided, had been sent for : whether they had been opened he would not say, but he asked whether any of his own letters had been opened ? That the letters of foreign- ers had been opened to a great extent would be proved; for M. Mazzini, suspect- ting that his letters had been read, laid a trap for the Home Secretary, and had intelligence inserted in one of his letters which was contradicted in a Ministerial paper the next morning. The breach of trust in the opening of letters was not the least objectionable feature of the practice : parties were compelled to send their letters by post, yet it appeared they were sent but to be opened at pleasure. The present practice, he contended, was against the law ; since the Act only authorized the detention and opening of letters, not forging of the seals and resealing them. He pledged himself, if the inquiry were granted, to prove the statements he had made.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM admitted that the question had now become one between the public and the Government ; and it was necessary, to tran- quillize the public mind, that inquiry should be had. Important as the subject was, it had assumed an exaggerated form through the misrepre- sentations that had been made in the House and by the press; so that it became necessary to offer further explanation than in the first in- stance he had deemed proper. " When I consider the state of the public mind, always so sensitive on a matter of this sort—when I consider the effort which has been made, insidiously made, successfully made, ay and I will say designedly made, to influence pub- lic opinion against me upon this matter—when I reflect on these things, I am led to agree with the honourable Member that the time has come when I must say more—when I ought to say more—when I will say more—when, to use the honourable gentleman's own expression, it is necessary, and I am resolved, that 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' shall come out." (Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.) Sir James complained of the man- ner in which it had been attempted to throw the odium of the practice entirely on himself; and of the language of Mr. Macaulay, who had declaimed not against the law, or the system, but had endeavoured to heighten pub- lic feeling against the Home Secretary individually, by representing him to have departed from established usage. Lord John Russell, though he had held the seals of the Home Department for several years and knew well the practice, had also affirmed that the power had not been exercised in a legal manner. No load of obloquy, however, would have induced Sir James to sanction the inquiry if he had not thought it for the public good; but after the votes given the other night by the members of the late Government, he felt that, without inquiry, the maintenance of this power in any way whatever would be utterly impossible. (Much cheering from the Opposition.) " Therefore, without any sacrifice whatever of public duty or pub- lic principle—without any attempt to remove from myself any degree of per- sonal or public odium—I can now indulge my own private feelings not incon- sistently with my public duty, by consenting to be a party to a most searching inquiry—(Renewed cheers)—by being a party to a most searching inquiry into the state of the law, and of the practice under the law, from the earliest period down to the latest moment. As far as I am concerned, nothing shall be con- cealed." (Repeated cheers.) He proposed that the Committee should conduct its inquiry in a way to procure the moat ample investigation. He hoped that they would examine Lord John Russell and all his predecessors in the Home Office, and that the inquiry would extend to Ireland. He felt confident the result would prove be had exercised the power intrusted to him in strict conformity with the usage of his office, and that neither in its mode nor in the extent of its use would his character or conduct suffer by comparison with his immediate predecessors. Though he intended there should be a full and searching inquiry, he thought it ought to be conducted secretly; and he should move an amendment to that effect. (Cries of " Oh, oh! ' from the Opposition.) " What I shall propose is, ' That a Committee of Secrecy be appointed to inquire into the state of the law respecting the detaining and opening of letters at the General Post- office, and into the mode in which the authority is exercised ; and to report their opinions and observations to the House.' ' (A cry of " Names, names I ") He proposed that the Committee should consist of nine Members; that five out of the nine be chosen from among those who usually sit on the Opposition benches, and the re- maining four from those who usually support Ministers. The names he proposed were—Viscount Sandon, Mr. Home Drummond, Mr. Thomas Baring, Sir William Heatbcote, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt, O'Conor Don, and Mr. Ord. In making this selection, he excluded all Members connected with office: he also excluded Mr. Buncombe, as he ap- peared particularly as the accuser on this occasion, and it was better to exclude both the accuser and the accused. " To this Committee my honour and my personal conduct I gladly surrender. I surrender it without a fear. They will have to report upon the usage of the office, and upon the state of the law, which has existed from the earliest times, and which has been sanctioned by men long since gone to their great account. 1 have no doubt that the mem- bers of the Committee will faithfully discharge their duties : and although there has been some evil in the late discussions and in the agitation of the public mind, yet I hope, believe, and pray, that good may ensue from it." (Cheers.)

Mr. Sam suggested the propriety of having some of the legal pro- fession on the Committee, for the better conduct of the examination of witnesses.

Sir GEORGE GREY denied that he had evinced any desire to " run down " Sir James Graham by directing public feeling against him. What he objected to was, Sir James's silence when invited to deny the exercise of the power at the instigation of Foreign Governments. He was glad the inquiry had been granted ; and he hoped it would be a full, fair, and impartial one. On that understanding, he did not object to the Committee being secret. Mr. ROEBUCK admitted that the inquiry ought to be conducted with closed doors ; but he wished to secure the perfect publication of the evi- dence, for the public satisfaction ; and he stated specific objections to the exclusion of lawyers from a Committee of inquiry which involved the construction of the law. He assured Sir James Graham that he fully sympathized in the feelings Sir James had expressed. " I fully believe that advantage has been taken of this incident to call down public indignation upon an officer who has done nothing more than tread in the footsteps of his predecessors ; and that this opinion has been aided and created out of doors by all the vile arts which attach to the daily papers of this country. A fouler instrument of calumny cannot be found, and all its foulness on the present occasion has been poured on the head of the right honourable Ba- ronet. I will not do honour to one more than another of these detestable chan- nels of public information, by naming any one of them. 1 beg to add, that I am delighted that an inquiry is to take place; and I am convinced that when the public and the country come to understand what the power is, and how it has been exercised under all Administrations—when you lay bare all its hideous deformity—it will be consigned at once to destruction. It is a power not ne- cessary for the safety of the country, not necessary for the peace of the world, and only used to gratify base passions, and for party, disingenuous, and detest- able purposes."

Mr. LABOUCHERE defended himself and the late Government from the charge of having given additional force to the power of opening letters when they consolidated the Post-office Acts in 1837 : he assured the House that what had then been done was a mere act of consolida- tion, and that no alteration was made in the law.

As to the power of opening letters, the fact was this—There was one set of words in the Irish Act, which gave this power to the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Justice in his absence; there was another set of words in the English Act, which gave this power to the Secretary of State. In consolidating these laws, it was of course necessary to choose between the two sets of words, and the words of the Irish Act were adopted instead of those of the English Act. That was simply what had taken place. He believed, that in no degree had they rendered the law more stringent against the subject, and that no increased power was given to the Secretary of State by that alteration ; but if it were so, he hoped the House would acquit him of having done it intentionally, and would throw the whole responsibility upon him, for if there were any error it was his alone. As to the exercise of the power, he thought it ought to be strictly con- fined to the prevention of some act of treason at home, and ought not to ex- tend to the letters of foreigners. He felt shocked to learn that Mr. Fox should have resorted to the practice of opening the letters of Foreign Ministers. He approved the course Sir James Graham had now adopted ; but he thought ad- ditional time should be given to consider the names of the Members to be ap- pointed on the Committee ; and since lawyers were to be excluded, he objected also to the name of Mr. Home Drummond, who had practised at the bar.

Sir ROBERT PEEL considered the whole Administration to be re- sponsible for the acts of one of its members ; and he looked on the in- quiry as involving the conduct of the Government. He explained the views of the Government as to the mode of conducting the inquiry.

The object of the Committee was simply to procure a full and complete in- vestigation as to the length of the usage and the circumstances under which the power objected to had been exercised, and whether the power had been perverted from the purposes for which it was granted. Lawyers had been purposely ex- cluded, because it was a question of fact and not a construction of the law that was to be decided. Had lawyers been put on the Committee to wrangle about the law, Government would be chargeable with wishing to divert atten- tion from the main facts. If the great legal authorities in the House of Lords differed, as they did, on one particular point, he was much afraid that any re- port which a Committee of nine gentlemen assisted by two lawyers might make, would not be received with much satisfaction. The construction of the law was another question, which might be determined at another time. The Committee was a secret one, because by such a Committee the truth could be better elicited. Objection had been made to the Member for Perthshire, on the ground that he was a professional man : if so, Sir Robert hoped some other Member would be appointed, of equal authority ; it being borne in mind that all legal questions were to be reserved for future discussion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended himself from the imputation of wishing to direct public feeling against Sir James Graham. He thought that Sir James, when the question was first brought forward, ought to have explained the principles which had guided him ; and as no explanation was given, he had voted for inquiry. The Committee proposed was such as fully satisfied him. " I entirely agree that the Committee appointed to investigate this matter should be a Secret Committee. I think the purposes of the inquiry will be more fully attained, the investigation will be more strict, and the members of the Committee will be better able to arrive at a conclusion, if the inquiry is conducted secretly, than would be the case if it were an open Committee and the matter were canvassed from day to day. 1 am ready to agree to any selec- tion of names the right honourable Baronet may think proper to propose. I see no objection to the names he has mentioned ; and I think it is advisable that we should now close this part of the subject. I shall be quite content with the decision of a Committee constituted in the manner proposed by the right honourable gentleman opposite; and I believe that in the hands of such a Committee the public interests will not suffer." Mr. WAKLEY objected to a Secret Committee. The public would never be satisfied with such an investigation ; for they did not want to know whether Sir James Graham was better or worse than his prede- cessors, but in what manner this odious power had been exercised. " I infer from what has transpired, that what the right honourable Baronet means to do is this—to admit that his own conduct has been rather dark and queer with respect to this transaction, but to endeavour to get out of his difficulty by saying to the members of the late Administration, Thank Gad I I am not worse than you are : I will prove before this Committee, that if my conduct has been objectionable, that of my predecessors in office was at least quite as bad.' How very satisfactory to the public I (Laughter.) It is said that when persons of a certain description fall out, honest men get their own : now it is clear to me, that but for the hostility manifested to the present Government by the mem- bers of the late Administration, we should have had no inquiry at all. I am glad there has been a fall-out between the honourable gentlemen on opposite sides of this House ; but I doubt very much whether the public will get their own." He feared from the manner in which the inquiry was to be conducted, that it would be admitted that the power in question ought to exist. If so, they might go on for another twenty or thirty years, till another explosion took place in consequence of the power being exercised too rigidly. Nothing would satisfy the public but the discontinuance of the odious power; and it was the duty of the House to appoint an open Committee. Mr. MACAULAY, in the same manner as Sir George Grey and Lord John Russell, justified his former attacks on the conduct of the Home Se- cretary, on the ground that all explanation had been withheld as to the principles on which the powers lie possessed had been exercised. If regard to public duty prevented Sir James from giving any explanation on the preceding. evening, why agree to an inquiry now ? Mr. Mac- aulay also disclaimed baying ever, in his capacity of Privy Councillor, become acquainted with any facts obtained by breaking open letters at the Post-office. As to the appointment of the Committee, it met with his approbation : and he thought it advisable that, in the first instance, the inquiry should be conducted secretly. He should be much sur- prised if the report of the Committee altered his opinion that the state of the law requires very great and extensive alteration.

Mr. WALLACE and Mr. WILLIAMS objected to secrecy. If the Com- mittee were to be a secret one, Mr. Williams said it would give more satisfaction if Mr. Duncombe and Mr. Hume were upon it.

Mr. CURTEIS complimented Mr. Duncombe on the success of his exertions in bringing this subject before the notice of the country, and in forcing the Government to grant inquiry.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected to the wording of the amendment, as he thought it might exclude consideration of the case of M. Mazzini. He complained that Sir James Graham had not attempted to answer openly the charges he had brought forward. He, however, acquiesced in the proposition of the Government ; reserving to himself the right to re- open the question if the Committee did not do their duty.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, when he proposed the name of Mr. Home Drummond, the representative of a great agricultural county, he was not aware that gentleman bad once practised at the bar : he now pro- posed that the name of Mr. W. Patten be substituted for that of Mr. Drummond ; which was agreed to.

Mr. HORSMAN, Mr. SIMI, and Mr. JAMES, were of opinion that Mr. Duncombe should be on the Committee. Dr. BOWRING gave the strongest form of expression to this opinion.

He considered that the honourable Member for Finsbury represented public opinion within these walls more than any other honourable Member. (Cries of " Oh, oh ! " and laughter.) That peculiar modesty and delicacy which cha- racterized his speech in bringing forward this motion—( Laughter)—he was sure that the right honourable Baronet himself would admit this fact. (Re- newed laughter.) He should prefer a Committee of eleven Members rather than have omitted the name of the honourable Member for Finsbury.

Mr. JAMES divided the House on the question ; but his motion was negatived, by 128 to 52. It was subsequently moved by Mr. WILLIAMS that Mr. Hume's name be added ; but the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice, that on the presentation of the report of the Committee, he should move that the evidence be printed.

The Earl of RADNOR brought the subject again before the notice of the House of Lords on Thursday, by moving,

" That a Secret Committee be appointed t o inquire into the practice of de- taining and opening letters, under the provisions of the 1st Viet. c. 36, and more particularly into the circumstances under which the letters of Mr. Maz • zini, a literary foreigner, and Captain Stolzberg, residing in England, have been opened."

Lord Radnor denied the authority of the Home Secretary to grant warrants for the opening of letters. There was no provision of the kind in any statute ; and the authority was assumed merely on inference. Because the law stated that the postmaster should not open any letter except on the warrant of the Secretary of State, it was inferred that the Secretary had the power : but it was not expressly given to him by any statute, nor was it a part of the com- mon law. He would not deny that the power of stopping letters at the Post- office in certain cases might be advisable : but if done, it should be done by the Ministers on their own responsibility. He would not allow, however, that any circumstances would justify opening the letters of foreigners. That was a breach of the rights of hospitality from which his mind revolted. They some- times heard of the conscience of the State. He thought it great nonsense to talk of " the conscience of the State," as applied to particular sects and opi- nions; but Government ought to take care that they did nothing to violate the laws of morality. And what did their practice amount to in this case but to falsehood, forgery, and treachery ? He contended t here was not one of these disgraceful crimes that they did not in this instance set an example of. Only the other day be received a begging-letter, which he answered ; and he was very much surprised, a few days afterwards, to receive another, sealed with the counterfeit of his own seal. He hoped that did not arise from the example of counterfeiting seals set at the Post-office. 1Vhen a great department of the Government was conducted on a system like this, of falsehood, forgery, and treachery, it was absolutely necessary that it should be inquired into.

The Duke of WELLINGTON admitted the necessity of inquiry, to tranquillize the public mind, more especially when the Government had been charged by Lord Radnor in Parliament wit:a falsehood, forgery, and treachery. The Duke thought few would agree in think- ing the power ought to be repealed : but if he could suppose it had ever been exercised for private purposes, or otherwise than for the public be- nefit, lie should say it ought to be put an end to forthwith.

As to whether foreigners should be exempted from the operation of the power, the Duke contended, that if they did any thing to compromise the peace of this country with other powers, they were committing a breach of the rights of hospitality, and they ought not to claim exemption from the law. " it is the proud distinction of the policy of this country, that our object and our interest is not only to remain at peace ourselves with the whole world, but to maintain peace throughout the world, and to promote the independence, the security, and the prosperity of every country in the world. But, supposing a foreigner is exciting and driving others to rebellion in foreign countries, pro- viding aids for that purpose, and fitting out expeditions from parts of her Ma- jesty's dominions—Corfu, or Malta, or elsewhere—to disturb the peace of Italy: is that, or is it not, my Lords, a breach of the laws of hospitality ? I say it is an act inconsistent with the interests of this country : it is an act which it is the duty of the Government in this country to prevent : it is an act which it is the duty of the Secretary of State to have a knowledge of, if he has infor- mation that such attempts are going on. My Lords, we have seen some re- markable events in recent times. Why, it is but a few years ago since there was an invasion of a neighbouring country from this country, fitted out in the midst of the session of Parliament, under the eyes of her Majesty's Govern- ment, which was all but successful. Was that an act consistent with the ho- nour and interest of this country ? (" Hear, heal') Would it not have been the duty of the Government, if they had information of it, to have- pre- vented that act of invasion ? Why, within a very few days, accounts have been received of an expedition which sailed from her Majesty's dominions to make an invasion of the territory of an ally of her Majesty ; and this con- nected with these gentlemen in this country." The Duke thought it not advisable that the Committee should direct ite attention to particular cases therefore he moved an amendment, in the same words as the motion for conducting the inquiry in the Commons. He wished the Committee to be composed of Peers on both sides of the House ; compris- ing a majority of the Opposition Lords, and excluding. all persons in office. The Peers nominated by the Duke were—the Duke of Bedford, the Earl of Burlington, Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham, the Earl of Powis, Earl Somers, and the Bishop of London.

(Subsequently, finding that the Duke of Bedford wile absent and Earl Powis indisposed, he substituted the names of Lord Colchester and the Earl of Rose- bery. The Earl of Rosebery yesterday begged to be excused, as be was going out of town ; and the name of Lord Auckland was substituted.]

The Marquis of NORMANBY objected to the power of opening the letters of foreigners. If the letters of foreign exiles were to be examined, no man could tell the extent of the consequences, or into whose hands the letters might falL The power ought never to be exercised except for the vindication of our laws or the safety of our country; not to enable foreign powers to call upon us to examine private letters.

The Duke of WELLINGTON explained, that he bad not said letters ought to be placed at the disposal of any foreign power whatever.

The Marquis of NoRmANEY—" Have Mr. Mazzini's letters been communi- cated to any foreign power ?" The Duke of WELLINGTON—" I have no knowledge of it." The Earl of ABERDEEN—" I can more readily answer that question ; and I can assure the noble Lord, that not one syllable of the correspondence has been communicated to anybody whatever." (" Rear, hear! ")

Lord CAMPBELL was glad that two eminent lawyers were named on the Committee.

He believed that the Committee would report that a bill of indemnity was necessary ; for it appeared to him that the Secretary of State bad no power to do more than a Magistrate had power to do. He knew this power had been exercised for many years, but without any authority, just as Secretaries of State had issued general warrants for centuries and seized private papers; and he believed, if the question were to be brought before a court of law, the prac• tice would be declared illegal, and a jury would give damages. Lord RADNOR was content to let the Duke of Wellington's motion be substituted for his own ; and the Committee was named.

SUGAR-DUTIES BILL.

The Earl of Dtamous.rE moved the third reading of the Sugar-duties Bill iu the House of Lords, on Tuesday ; when a debate occurred on the general provisions of the measure. Lord Dalhousie entered at length into the subject ; showing the prejudicial effect of the emancipa- tion of the slaves in the West Indies on the supply of labour, and the consequent diminution in the produce of sugar. This diminished sup- ply had necessarily increased the price ; and it became requisite to pro- vide a supply from other quarters, to answer the increasing demand. It was the duty of the Government to create a supply of sugar at a reasonable price to the consumer, whilst they protected the interests of the producer, and had respect to what the country had done to put down slavery. It was upon this principle the bill was founded.

By the Act which this measure was intended to supersede, all foreign sugar was subjected to a duty of 63s. per hundredweight and 5 per cent, and British sugar to a duty of only 24s. and 5 per cent. This bill proposed to leave the duty on sugar the produce of the British possessions as it is at present—namely, 24s. and 5 per cent; but it proposed to effect an important alteration with respect to foreign sugar, by allowing the sugar of China, of Java, and Manilla, to be admitted at a duty of 34s. and 5 per cent, such sugar being the produce of free labour; and it also proposed to give to her Majesty in Council a power to admit, under particular circumstances, sugar the produce of other countries, with which we had reciprocal treaties, such being certified to be bona fide the sugar of those countries and the produce of free labour.

Lord MONTEAGLE objected to the measure, because it made legisla- tion on a subject of commercial policy fluctuate with the laws and morals of the people of other countries : he objected to it also on the ground that it was not brought forward as a final arrangement of the question, but merely as a stopgap till something further could be done.

When he, a few nights ago, asked their Lordships to agree to a motion for inquiry into the state of our imports, it was objected that such inquiry would unsettle men's minds and check commerce : now he could not conceive any measure more calculated to depress an already depressed interest, than such a vacillating and uncertain state of things as this bill would produce. He also objected to the bill on the ground that whilst it professed to prohibit slave-grown produce, it admitted sugar from China and Java, where slavery existed ; and it would also indirectly encourage all slave-produce, be- cause the countries from which sugar was allowed to be imported at the lower duty would supply themselves with sugar from the Brazils, and send all their own produce to the English market. He denied that the opinions of the people of this country as to the admission of slave-grown produce had been fairly taken at the last elections : he was convinced that if ever there was a case where delusions had been carefully excited, and pledges had been given which were afterwards broken, and every deceit had been palmed on the minds of the people of this country, it was at that time. Upon these points he dwelt at considerable length ; going over much of the same ground as the opponents of the measure in the Commons; and he concluded by expressing his opinion that the principle of the bill was bad and inexplicable.

Lord BROUGHAM defended the bill, on the ground that this was not a mere question of free trade or of abstract political economy, but was one involving the interests of humanity and public faith. It affected essentially the greatest acts of this country, the abolition of the slave-trade, and the emancipation of the slaves in the British Colonies. Those glorious triumphs ought not to be tarnished ; and, to be consistent with our- selves, we must preserve a system of commercial policy that would prevent those acts from being rendered nugatory. He was not prepared to say that he would not be in alliance or would not commercially deal with any country which cultivated its ground by slaves. He held, as a statesman, that it was not with a view to put down slavery and encourage emancipation that he had a right to take this course, or draw that line„or make that distinction ; because be had no right to interfere with the domestic institutions of any other state under the sun. But when they came to the question of slave-traffic, it was another matter, and such observations would not apply; because, if be opened the ports to the consumption of Cuba and Brazilian sugar, he should know that, by that very act, he was opening those ports to the accursed African slave-trade, and every hogshead of sugar which he allowed to enter our ports this year more than had been consumed last would be raised by means of that infernal traffic; and he should know his policy to be calculated not merely to encourage the detestable institutions of slavery in Cuba and Brazil, but he should be also encouraging that which he had a right to interfere with as a British statesman and a man. With respect to the consumption of slave- grown coffee and cotton, with which they bad been taunted, be considered that :anion as a necessary evil, but it was palliated by the difference in the nature of the culture of the different kinds of produce. In the cultivation of sugar, slave- labour was employed in its most revolting forms, and was altogether different from the cultivation of cotton, coffee, and indigo. Looking to the claims of the West Indian planters and at the wants of this country, he believed that this measure was necessary. Sugar had become to the people of this country nearly one of the necessaries of life : but to repudiate all attempts to limit its increase to a certain degree, would be bad policy, and would injure that cause which he bad moat at heart, the extinction of slavery and the abolition of the slave-trade.

Earl St. VINCENT contended, on behalf of the West India planters, that the reduction of the differential duty was too great; or at least that the measure should be postponed till our colonies were sufficiently re- covered to compete with foreign countries.

The Earl of RADNOR believed the difficulties of the West Indies arose from the restrictions caused by monopolies, to which they were them- selves subjected. He did not object to the bill, as it was a step in the right direction. Lord ASH-BURTON approved of the measure, as adapted to meet the wants of the country, at the same time that it attended to the interests of humanity.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought the measure contained many sound principles, which ought to have been carried further, by con- sulting more the interests of consumers in this country. He considered that attempts to exclude the sugar produced by slave-labour would fail in practice, and that the better plan would be to admit all sugars upon an uniform system.

This country had made great sacrifices for the abolition of the slave-trade, and great sacrifices the people would be prepared again to make if they could expect them to be effectual; but the country was not prepared to abandon its commerce with every part of the globe where it had the effect of encouraging the slave-trade. To interfere with other countries was for the first time pro- posed by this bill; and he must say that he was not very desirous to see it successful, because he doubted that it was a principle safe or proper to be adopted to interfere with the institutions, be they bad or otherwise, of other countries, by applying to them that commercial screw which, wherever applied, had always failed, and which he hoped would always be found to fail ; because he was persuaded that civilization and improvement, and even ultimately the great object of the abatement of slavery, were to be most easily and effec- tually achieved by the freedom of intercourse and the exchange of ideas between a people having long bad the benefit of free institutions, and one which was not so far advanced in civilization and a love of those institutions. Alluding to some remarks made by Lord Brougham on the commercial mea- sures propounded by the late Government before they quitted office, the Mar- quis said, his noble and learned friend had taunted the late Government with having, like drowning men, caught at straws. If it were so, they had this con- solation, that the straw had not met the unfortunate fate of ordinary straws in rotting on the ground, but had germinated in the ungrateful soil opposite, and had come forth in the shape of altered Corn-laws and altered Sugar-duties, although they had been previously told the country had the happiest of Corn- laws and the happiest of Sugar-duties. (Laughter.) Lord BROUGHAM acknowledged, that the straw was so far exempt from the fate of ordinary straws, that it had not gone down with the drowning men, but while they sank it remained. After a few words from the Earl of DALHOUSIE in reply, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

THE SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.

In the same House on Monday, a discussion arose on the motion. for the third reading of the bill for repealing so much of the Act 6th and 7th William IV. as relates to the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor ; on the question whether the House could proceed without having received the consent of the Crown. Before the bill went into Committee last week, the Duke of WELLINGTON said he would not oppose its progress ; reserving to himself to state the course he should pursue at a further stage. The Duke now explained, that he was not authorized to give the consent of the Crown ; and he urged their Lord- ships not to press the measure any further under such circumstances. It had been argued, that as the consent of the Crown was not required fur the passing of the act a portion of which this bill went to repeal, their Lordships might proceed to deal with it without any previous consent : but there was a material difference between the two cases. The Act conferred certain powers on the Crown, for which no previous consent was required ; but when it was proposed to interfere with the Royal prerogative by taking away some of those powers, the consent of her Majesty was necessary, according to the established. usage of Parliament. This bill did touch the prerogative in a most material degree, and on a most important point—with regard to the regulation and the revenues of the Church; and he begged their Lordships, particularly the Right Reverend Bench, to consider well the expediency of passing a bill to the dis- cussion of which the consent of the Crown had not been given, which was to affect the prerogative of the Crown, and especially on a Church question, and a matter relating to the revenues of the Church. He begged to remind them bow much more important it was that they should not establish a precedent fur the passing of such a bill through Parliament without the previous consent of the Crown to its discussion, than that they should pass the bill to prevent the union of these two dioceses. That was his objection in point of form to pro- ceeding with the bill: his objection to the measure itself was, that it w.Juld in- terfere with the important arrangements for the establishment of the diocese of Blanchester' with the augmentation of the revenues of the sees of St. David's and Llandaff, with the establishment and endowment of Archdeaconries and with the provision for the parochial clergy in the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. These were important points ; and it would be impossible, according to the forms of Parliament, to introduce provisions in the bill for carrying them into effect. To do so they must send the bill into the Lower House. As he had no authority to give her Majesty's consent to the bill, the Duke considered that alone was a sufficient ground for the bench of Bishops to reject it. He would not take the sense of the House on the third reading, but would content himself with declaring he was not authorized to give her Majesty's consent to the further progress of the measure.

Lord MoNTEAGLE and Lord Vtvtax opposed the bill, on the ground that it would obstruct the effectual amelioration of the condition of the

working clergy.

The LORD CHANCELLOR explained the manner in which the bill would affect the prerogative of the Crown.

During the vacancy of a see, the temporalities belonged to the Crown ; any alterations in a see, therefore, affected the direct pecuniary interests of the Crown ; and there could be no doubt that where the pecuniary interests of the Crown were concerned, its consent was necessary. He doubted whether be was authorized in putting a question affecting the Royal prerogative without the consent of her Majesty; and suggested the appointment of a Committee to search for precedents.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought the Lord Chancellor was not at liberty to put the question under such circumstances. The Duke of RICHMOND supported the third reading ; contending that if the House had the power to read the bill a second time without the consent of the Crown, it might be read a third time also.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE charged the Lord Chancellor with having had recourse to an unworthy " manoeuvre " in the objection he raised. The Loan CHANCELLOR protested against this expression ; and the Duke of NEWCASTLE explained, that he did not mean anything person- ally dishonourable, but had merely used the term in a political sense. Ultimately it was resolved, on the motion of Lord CANTERBURY, to adjourn the debate, and appoint a Committee to search for precedents. On Thursday, Lord WHARNCLIFFE reported that no precedent could be found ; and the Committee were remanded to their studies with fresh instructions.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated the course Government intended to pursue with the bills before Parlia- ment ; those they intended to proceed with, and those which it was their intention to abandon for the session.

Those to be proceeded with be stated to be the Poor-law Amendment Bill ; the Dutcby of Cornwall Bills; the Metropolitan Buildings Bill ; the bills for the regulation of Joint-stock Companies and for giving Joint-stock Com- panies remedies at law and equity ; the Railway Bill; the Savings Banks Bill; the Land-tax Commissioners Bill ; the Unlawful Oaths Bill; the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill ; the Customs-duties (Isle of Man) Bill ; the Bank of England Charter Bill; the Education Bill ; the Linen Manufac- tures (Ireland) Bill; the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill; the Protection of Purchasers (Ireland) Bill ; the Colonial Postage Bill ; the New South Wales Bill. These bills were already before the House, and the Government in- tended to proceed with them : the number was large, but Sir Robert did not believe they would lead to any protracted discussion. There were two bills ready to be introduced which he hoped to get through the House this session : one was a corollary to the Bank Charier Bill, its object being to establish new regulations for such Joint-stock Banks as might hereafter be esta- blished; the other was founded on the report of the Select Committee ap- pointed to consider the Jurisdiction of the House in Contested Elections.

The bills announced to be abandoned this session were—the Registration of Electors (Ireland) Bill ; the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill ; and the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. As to the County Courts Bill, Sir Robert post- poned his final announcement till next week. These were all the measures for which the Government were responsible. He bad stated their intentions so far as circumstances enabled him to judge ; reserving to himself the power of modifying the statement according to the progress the bills might make. In reply to a question from Colonel RAWDON, Sir ROBERT PEEL subsequently added, that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Presbyterian Marriages Bill, when it came before the House. Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated, in reply to a question from Mr. MACAULAY, that he should lay on the table before the close of the ses- sion a bill for Regulating the Medical Profession ; also a bill for altering the Law of Settlement.

IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.

The order for the second reading of this bill having been moved by Sir ROBERT PEEL, immediately after he had announced his intention of not proceeding with the measure this session, Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE protested against the waste of public time in discussing a bill that had been virtually abandoned. Already had the House sat five months without much advantage; and why should part of another week be unprofitably consumed at this period of the session ? It would be dragging the supporters of the Government again through the mire. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear ! " and laughter.) What course could the Government now take when the amendment was proposed, by those hostile to the bill, that it should be read a second time that day six months ? Why, that was practically the course pursued by the Government ; yet their sup- porters would be asked to vote against it. (Much cheering and laughter.) This was insulting both to the House and to the people of Ireland. He therefore moved that the other orders of the day be proceeded with. Sir ROBERT PEEL justified this Government proposal, on the ground that it was important they should ascertain the opinions entertained of the measure by the House. Had it been abandoned without discussion, such a course would have been pronounced an "insult to Ireland." Mr. VERNON SMITH advised the Irish Members not to say a word on the question. He protested against the Members of the Opposition being fettered in the subsequent discussion of the measure by opinions now delivered, when there was no intention of legislating on the sub- ject. Lord ELIOT challenged Irish Members to express their objections to the measure. The bill had been made the topic of bitter denunciations against the Government by those whom he now called on to substantiate those charges. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said, he had been appointed at a meeting of Irish Liberals to open the opposition to the bill; but as the bill was abandoned, it was useless to discuss it. If the Government really wished to have the opinions of the Irish Members on the bill, they could state their objections in Downing Street, without hindering public business unnecessarily in Parliament. Mr. SHELL taunted Ministers with delaying this measure, which, when out of office, they had pronounced to be one of pressing urgency. As the Irish Members refused to discuss the bill, and Sir ROBERT PEEL ceased to press the second reading, Mr. Duncombe's amendment was carried without a division.

UNLAWFUL OATHS IN IRELAND.

On the same night, in the Committee on the Bill for Renewing the Act for the Prevention of Unlawful Oaths in Ireland, a stout opposition was made, which alarmed Sir Robert Peel for the result. Mr. M. O'FERRALL moved, as soon as the House was in Committee, that the Chairman should leave the chair. It was objected to the measure, that innocent persons had often been entrapped by having papers put into their possession, of the contents of which they were ignorant. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Lord ELIOT, and Sir ROBERT PEEL urged, that the bill was not a new law ; that it was only to be renewed for one year ; and that its operation would he narrowly watched. Nevertheless, the Opposition were inexorable, as the Ministerial benches were very empty. Mr. SHELL, Sir D. NORREYS, Colonel RAWDON, Mr. V. STUART, and Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, spoke against the bill; but shortly before the division a rush of Members into the House gave Ministers a majority of 18 ; the numbers being—for the clause, 58 ; against it, 40.

MINISTERS-MONEY, IRELAND.

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved on Wednesday, that on Tuesday next the House should resolve itself into Committee- " to take into consideration the Act 17th and 18th Charles II. c. 7, entitled an ' An Act for provision of Ministers in cities and corporate towns, and making the church of St. Andrew's, in the suburbs of the city of Dublin, presentative for ever'; with a view to the repeal of so much thereof as relates to the payment of ministers in corporate towns in Ireland." The imposition of the Ministers-rate had produced much dissension in Ire- land, similar to that formerly caused by the Vestry•cess. The valuations were necessarily unjust, because the rate did not extend beyond a rental of 601. per annum: thus the houses of the wealthy were partially exempted from the pay- ment of the rates, which were levied to the full amount on the houses of in- ferior value. The total amount of the rate was only 15,000/. • but it was the occasion of much bad feeling among the Roman Catholic population. Lord ELIOT said, he would not assent to the repeal of the existing act, unless some arrangement was made for securing the rights of the clergy.

The Attorney-General for Ireland and himself had carefully considered the subject, but without having been yet able to devise a plan at once satisfactory to the public and just to the clergy. The same mode of remuneration wax adopted iu the capital cities of England and Scotland. And it should be re- collected, that persons, whether Protestant or Catholic, purchased or leased property subject to this burden, and of course received deductions in considers-. tion of it. There might, however, be some means resorted to for lessening the annoyance—pethaps through transferring the payment of the rate ; and the way in which the valuations were conducted might probably be amended. A brief discussion ensued ; in which Mr. BELLEW, Lord STANLEY, Mr. CURTEIS, and Mr. J. O'BRIEN took part. An attempt was unsuc- cessfully made to count out the House whilst Mr. O'Brien was speak- ing; the benches being very empty, and those on the Ministerial side especially being nearly deserted. Under these circumstances, the gal- leries were cleared for a division ; but as Ministers were evidently in a minority, the motion was allowed to be carried without dividing the House.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The proposed alterations in the Poor-law were discussed in the House of Commons on Thursday, on the motion for going into Com- mittee on the bill.

Mr. A. B. COCHRANE, in conformity with a previous notice, moved, " That the new Poor-law, though improved by the proposed amendments, is still opposed to the ancient constitution of this realm, and inadequate to the necessities of the people."

In his argument, Mr. Cochrane dwelt upon the increasing population, and the increasing poverty of the people caused by the want of employ- ment; manual labour having been supplanted in a great degree by ma- chinery. In such a state of things, especial care should be taken to pro- vide relief for those who were willing to work but could find no employ, in such a manner that the acceptance of the relief should not be considered a de- gradation. It was difficult to ascertain on what principle the new Poor-law was founded ; but it was clear that it was opposed to the ancient custom of the country, which admitted the right of the poor man to support. The pre- sent Poor-law was, in point of fact, totally opposed to the law of Elizabeth. It was not merely that they had introduced a pernicious system of centralization, and utterly destroyed everything like parochial administration, but, while the law of Elizabeth made labour, they made suffering the test of poverty. In another place, Lord Brougham had talked about sickness being a thing for which every prudent man ought to prepare and to be provided against: but did he expect that the poor man, out of his scanty and irregular earnings, could lay up money against sickness, or provide a coffin for himself while he was yet alive ? The existing system of relief was so odious to the people, that they preferred starvation to entering the unions. The effect of the new system had been to increase crime, and to depress the honest labourer, whilst it had no ter- rors for the dissolute and abandoned. Neither was it justifiable on the ground of economy; for the new system was nearly as costly as the old. Mr. Cochrane at- tributed the evils of the country to the increase of machinery. Manufactures paid little or nothing for the poor; while landed property was assessed at 35,000,000/. and house property at 23,000,0001., all other property in the United Kingdom was assessed only at 6,000,000/. Machinery was not taxed according to the value which it represented. The manufacturers were benefited by the distress of the country, as it enabled them to command the rate of wages. Ever since the commencement of the present century, every measure which passed was calculated to favour the capitalist and depress the poor man. The Currency Bill of 1819 bad this effect. It was time that some measures of a more fair tendency should be introduced. He admitted that the commercial prosperity and greatness of the country were owing to manufactures ; but even those ad- vantages might be purchased too dearly if the condition of the working-classes were not attended to. If a timely relief were not afforded, the day might come when all the bonds of society would he dissolved, and every other consideration and recollection but that of vengeance lost in one wild cry of despair.

The SPEAKER intimated, that the proposed amendment, in that stage of the proceedings, was informal : it was consequently withdrawn. Sir JOHN GUEST denied that agriculture bore the greater proportion of the poor-rates : he had been assessed one thousand pounds in a quarter for manufacturing-property. Mr. BORTHWICK contended that the new Poor-law is opposed to the spirit of the constitution, as well as repugnant to the feelings of the people ; that it had proved inefficient, and its continuance was dangerous in the existing state of society. He proposed, as an amendment, these resolutions- " That the Act 4th and 5th William IV. c. 76, commonly called the New Poor-law, is unconstitutional in principle and oppressive in operation. That it is therefore expedient that the said Act should be taken into consideration, with a view not to its partial amendment but to its entire reconstruction."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, speaking from the experience his present office had afforded him, was confirmed in his opinion that the amended Poor- law had been beneficial to the working-classes. He denied that its principle was alien to the spirit of the constitution. He quoted from a pamphlet by Sir Matthew Hale, for the purpose of showing the wretched condition of the poor at the time referred to by the opponents of the new Poor-law as that in which the poorer classes enjoyed greater pri- vileges than now. The Legislature felt so strongly the necessity of refusing to go back to the law of Elizabeth, that the 9th George I. was introduced; and that act was al- most identical with the present law. In 1765, a Committee was appointed by the House, and reported their opinion that the law relating to the poor was in many respects defective, and its operation ineffectual; and he could not con- ceive that a Committee appointed in 1833 could express an opinion in more pointed terms relative to the imperfect operation of the old system of poor-law. He denied that by the existing law out-door relief was refused. The Commis- sioners had the power to refuse it, but there was no absolute denial of out-door relief. To show that the practice disproved the assertion, he read a return of the Poor-law Commissioners for the present year, from Which it appeared that the total number of poor in England was 1,366,000; of whom 203,000 were

relieved in the workhouses, and 1,160,000 were relieved at their own homes— which was 85 per cent receiving out-door relief, and only 15 per cent relieved

in the workhouse. It had been stated that the applicants for relief were obliged to sell all their property, and show themselves to be absolutely destitute, before relief was granted them ; but this also was one of the false assertions made for

the purpose of exciting prejudice against the law. He read extracts from re- ports of the Poor-law Commission in 1833, to show to what a wretched state the labouring-classes in the agricultural districts had been reduced by the oper- ation of the old law. The continued acts of incendiarism and insubordination,

the feelings of then subsisting between the employers and the employed, the depression of rent and withdrawal of capital from agriculture, were all attri- buted to the operation of the then existing Poor-law. He referred to the re- port of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the operation of the Poor- law in Scotland, for the purpose of showing that the law in this country was founded on a more comprehensive system of relief than in Scotland, where the able-bodied poor were not entitled to any relief.

Sir James admitted the distress caused in manufacturing districts by the pressure of the population on the means of subsistence ; but this could only be counteracted by multiplying the means of productive labour. " However much we may deplore the evils of the manufacturing system, we must not forget that we have established great powers of machinery, and great skill in the useful arts of life ; and it now forms no part of our duty to waste time iu vain

lamentations. Onwards we must proceed, and anything fatal to our manufactures would be the greatest blow that our dense population could sus- tain. I do not overlookthe fact that I have been taunted with an inconsistency between these sentiments and those which I formerly held upon the subject of the currency. To that I shall only reply, that in the year 1819 we recurred to our ancient system by adopting gold as the standard. Whether, at that time, such a return to the ancient system was a public injury or otherwise, forms a question not now before the House. It was an act deliberately dune by the Legislature and Government of the country ; and in full force it has remained for a quarter of a century. It must stand ; for to alter it would be to nullify all the transactions which have taken place from that time to this. Any de- parture from it would shake the foundations of our prosperity and endanger our preeminence as a commercial and manufacturing community. That commerce which we enjoy, and those manufactures in which we so much excel other nations, we should do all iu our power to preserve—nay, to cherish ; nothing could be more unwise than an opposite course of legislation. There are many clauses in the present bill calculated to mitigate the severity of the present Poor-law. In that spirit of mitigation I call upon the House to proceed ; and I hope the House will agree to these important mitigations of its severity which I propose we should now enact." Mr. Smear WORTLEY thought the new law was in many respects oppressive, and opposed to the principles which were advocated by its promoters. The union of parishes, to the extent to which it had been carried, was particularly objectionable ; as it was impossible for any single Board of Guardians to administer the affairs of the poor over districts some of which comprised upwards of two hundred thousand acres, and others contained a population of nearly a quarter of a million.

Lord Joust RUSSELL defended the new law from attacks that had been made on it within and out of Parliament. He reviewed the state of affairs under the old law ; and showed, that in humanity to the poor, and in protecting the rights of labour as well as of property, it was far superior to the system previously established.

The law of Elizabeth had been eulogized. There was no doubt it was a good law at the time it was enacted ; but it was unsuitable to the present times, and its penalties would not be now tolerated. Society had then emerged from a disorderly and irregular state, and many persons were distributed over the country with whom war and robbery were a trade. The object of the Legisla- ture at that time was to reduce the idle and disorderly to a state of rule and obedience ; and no very merciful methods were adopted for the purpose. The 39th Elizabeth, which was subsequently in a great degree embodied in the 43d Elizabeth, declared that persons, with or without licence, wandering abroad, should be esteemed and punished as rogues ; and the 4th chapter of the acts of the same year provided for the punishment of rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars : whether licensed or unlicenced, they were to be sent to the House of Correction or the gallica. By the 14th Elizabeth, rogues and vagabonds, for the first offence, were to be grievously whipped, Or burnt through the gristle of the ear, unless some creditable person would take them into service ; for the second offence they were to be more severely punished; and for the third to be treated as felons, and their lives forfeited. Lord John followed the course of legislation on this subject, and its connexion with the condition of the people, down to 1833, when the agricultural population were in a state of insurrection, and the old law threatened to swallow up the whole rental of the kingdom. It was obvious, therefore, that some great change in the law was necessary. Lord Grey's Government undertook to make that change; and a task more weighty or invidious could not be imagined. He regretted that the operation of the new law had not increased the wages of labour so speedily as he expected. It bad, however, produced great benefit ; and the principle of it was to get rid of the mixture of parish-allowance with wages. From that principle he should be sorry indeed if the House departed; and the repeal of the existing law would bring back the state of degradation as well as the discontents of the labouring poor. He rejoiced in the course which the Government had taken ; and he trusted that in the progress of the bill through Committee they would not ex- perience the same obstacles as he had found: indeed he was sure they would not, because some of those who were most obstinate and pertinacious in forcing amendments on him now held office under the right honourable Baronet. (Ironical cheers.) Sir W. JAMES said, if there were a great number of cases of out-door relief, it was an argument against and not in favour of the law ; and if they meant to abandon the workhouse-test, he congratulated them with all his heart. He opposed the law because it suppressed private charity. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD protested against the law as unconstitu- tional in principle and oppressive in practice.

Lord SANDON expressed his satisfaction that public opinion bad at last induced the Government to amend the basis of the law, and to disclaim the workhouse-test. He complimented the Times newspaper for the able and persevering manner in which it had advocated the cause of the poor. The new system had been contrasted with the old for the purpose of showing its superiority : but how had that been proved? Had the rate of wages been raised by the present system ? They were told of the fires which had been caused by discontent in 1833: but could they at the present moment boast of exemption from that evil ?

Mr. WAKLEY spoke strongly against the law ; at the same time he was glad to find the workhouse-test was disclaimed. That test he con- sidered the principle on which the new law was founded ; and as the principle was abandoned, why not repeal the law ? Why should they any longer maintain the expenses of the Poor-law Com- mission, and the huge buildings which they saw defacing the social system throughout the country—those huge houses of torture ? Alluding to Lord John Russell's support of this law, and his compliments to the present Govern- ment for maintaining it, Mr. Wakley regretted the opinions entertained, and the conduct pursued by both parties on the subject ; and he could not regard but with feelings of apprehension the dangerous circumstances with which they were surrounded. He was satisfied that the time would come when Lord Johtt would regret entertaining such an opinion on the subject as he now did: several gentlemen on the other side of the House had urged that the poorer classes should be treated with humanity : but if they asked these honourable Mem- bers to support any proposition for an increase of the power of the poorer classes, they were sure to meet with a refusal. He therefore did not place much dependence in what those Members had said that night. When honour- able gentlemen talked in this way of humanity to the poor, he would tell them that the people of England did not want humanity—all that they required was justice, and that Parliament should not fetter them in the exercise of their in- dustry. If this were done, the people would tell them to throw their humanity to the winds. As it was evidently the intention of the House to maintain this law, he regretted that this motion had been made, although he should vote for it ; for he feared that it might only increase the discontent out of doors, and throw difficulties in the way of its administration.

Captain PECHELL spoke against theinterference of the law with local acts. Colonel Woon suggested that the unions in several parts of the country should be divided. Mr. BROTHERTON would vote for going into Committee : though he objected to the principle of the new law, he felt they could not go back to the old.

Mr. FERRAND having moved the adjournment of the debate, Sir ROBERT PEEL urged the House to go into Committee forthwith. The Government had brought forward this bill from a sense of duty, and in conformity with the views of the opponents of the Poor-law : if they were determined in their opposition, the bill must be dropped altogether. Those who opposed the Poor-law would therefore gain nothing by their opposition. Lord JOHN MANNERS exclaimed with much animation against the threat to drop the bill. He could not conceive how a Government, proposing to mitigate an existing law, and considering it to be its duty to do so, should still deem it to be con. sisteut with its duty as a Government to give up such a measure because it was proposed to carry on the debate over two nights. (Loud cheers.) He begged of the House to remember, that it was now three years since the principle of the Poor-law had been discussed. He begged of the House also to remember, that this amended Poor-law had been promised at the earliest period of the session ; that six months bail now elapsed since it had been put upon the Notice-book of the House of Commons ; that since then they had discussed every conceivable subject under the sun; they had not grudged giving their time even to subjects of the least consequence; but now, when an adjournment was proposed, they found the Government grudging to give two nights' debate to that matter which affected, deeply affected, and beyond all others, the working- people of this country. Owing to the announcement by the Government of a measure like this, an important institution, which it was proposed to he formed in this metropolis, and for which due preparation had been made, was pat an end to. Lord John subsequently explained, that he alluded to an institution which was about to be formed in London for the relief of the destitute.

Mr. B. ESCOTT supported the motion for adjournment. Lord STANLEY complained that the business of the House was stopped by these preliminary debates. The bill could not be practically dis- cussed till it was in Committee. He advised those who approved of the amendments in the law which this bill would effect, not to swamp it by a superfluity of talk. Mr. B. COCHRANE and Mr. P. BORTHWICK defended themselves from the charge of wishing to hear themselves speak. Lord STANLEY explained, that his remark was general, and not di- rected to any Members in particular, nor confined to this question.

The House divided—For the adjournment, 18 ; against it, 219.

Another conversation ensued about the time allowed for discussing the bill ; and another division was forced on the question whether the House should go into Committee—Ayes, 199 ; Noes, 19. The House then went into Committee pro forma.

PRISON DISCIPLINE.

A discussion arose in the Commons on Tuesday, on the motion of Mr. MACKINNON for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the reports of the Inspectors of Prisons and the state of discipline in gaols, for the adoption of an uniform system of punishment. The dis- cussion was chiefly of interest for the facts elicited respecting the prison at Pentonville. Mr. Mackinnon compared the Pentonville system to that of the Inquisition in Lisbon in 1745 ; the prisoners being absolutely deprived of all society, and obliged to wear masks in the presence of strangers. Sir JAMES GRAHAM denied the statements respecting the treatment of prisoners. Solitary confinement was not now practised in any prison in England. The Separate system was as distinct from solitary confinement as light from dark- ness. The latter system he conceived to be entirely indefensible. In the prison at Pentonville, each convict saw at least eight or ten persons during the day. He was instructed by a schoolmaster and by a chaplain, and for many hours had the opportunity of conversing. Sir James had himself attended the instruction given in the chapel by the schoolmaster to the assembled prisoners. It was true they had no opportunity of either seeing or communicating with each other ; but they all saw the schoolmaster, who could see each countenance: and it was a most touching spectacle to observe the sagacity of their coun- tenances, and the effect the instruction imparted to them had on their coun- tenances and demeanour. The appointment of a Committee, at this period of the session, would be utterly useless; whilst it might create distrust and con- fusion. He was so satisfied with the general progress and improvement every- where, that he really did trust such an element of discord would not be intro- duced as the appointment of this Committee. Mr. WAKLEY bore testimony to the excellent treatment of the prisoners in Pentonville prison. He had formerly been one of the active opponents of the proposed system ; but in consequence of strict inves- tigations he had made, examining the prisoners when no one was near to influence their statements, he had completely altered his opinions. He had questioned them closely, as to how they were situated in that gaol, and in any other gaols in which they had been confined. He had asked them which sort of discipline they preferred : every prisoner he had examined had given the most unqualified testimony in favour of the system pursued at Pen- tonville. Of the diet, they had declared that it was ample; of their improve- ment in mind, they bad declared that the instruction they received in the trades they were taught was most serviceable, and a great source of amusement. They declared that the confinement to which they were subjected was not un- pleasant in the slightest degree. They were asked if they had any complaint of any kind ; and they unanimously answered they had nothing whatever of which to complain. Many of them who had been taught trades spoke with the liveliest feeling of gratitude for the benefit therefrom resulting, and were in

great glee at the idea of going to the Colonies, obtaining a ticket of leave, setting up in the occupation they had learnt, and gaining an honest livelihood. As to the reports that many cases of insanity had occurred in the prison, Mr. Wakley said that three cases had occurred; bat in two of them the malady was clearly traceable to-hereditary causes. Mr. MacKinnon withdrew the motion.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.

The House of Commons commenced day-sittings on Wednesday, and met at twelve o'clock, chiefly for the purpose of going into Committee on the Joint-stock Companies Registration and Regulation Bill. There were scarcely a sufficient number of Members present to make a House during any part of the sitting.

Mr. HAWES objected to going into Committee on the bill ; as it would not have the effect of preventing the formation of fraudulent Joint- stock Companies, whilst it would confer great power on the Board of Trade to interfere in commercial affairs. He moved that the House resolve itself into Committee that day six months.

Mr. GLADSTONE defended the bill ; denying at the same time that it would confer greater discretionary power on the Board of Trade : on the contrary, it would limit the power which the Board now pos- sessed under the Letters Patent Act.

The bill would enable any person wishing to become connected with any Joint-stock Company to go to a particular office, where he would find all the particulars about the company which it was important to know, and which would prevent his being taken in by needy speculators using the names of honourable men for the purposes of fraud, or for the reckless chance of ob- taining the management and control of the funds belonging to others. The measure was not intended to apply to present Joint-stock Companies, further than a registration of their names and objects. It was in all other respects prospective.

Mr. PARKER protested against the management of the affairs of the people by Boards under the direction of Government, instead of allow- ing men to conduct their own business, as formerly. He objected to Railway Companies being included in the bill.

Mr. GLADSTONE said, he had not made up his mind respecting Rail- way Companies, but his present impression was against including them in the bill.

The amendment was negatived without a division, and the bill went into Committee. On clause 2d, (defining the operation of the bill,) it was proposed that its provisions should not apply to any Joint-stock Company at present incorporated by statute or charter, except as here- inafter provided. This was agreed to ; as was also an amendment ex- cluding foreign companies having agencies in this country from the operation of the bill. It was next proposed that the bill should apply to Scotch and Irish Joint-stock Companies having agencies here. After some discussion as to what might be considered " agencies," Mr. GLADSTONE said he should consent to let the bill apply to Scotch and Irish companies having establishments in England. A noisy conversation ensued ; which terminated in agreeing to a motion proposed by Mr. GILL, that the Chairman report progress.

MISCELLANEOUS.

CANVASSING FOR PRIVATE BILLS. In the House of Lords on Thursday, the Duke of RICEIMOND alluded to the renewal of the practice of canvassing for private bills ; and urged their Lordships to adopt some measure to put a stop to the practice. Several Lords concurred that canvassing in such cases was most reprehensible, and that the standing orders on the subject should be rigidly adhered to.

PRIVY COUNCIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. The report On this bill was received by the Lords on Tuesday, after the clauses relating to the jurisdiction in divorce cases had been expunged. On Thursday the bill was read a third time, and passed.

ACTIONS FOR GAMING. A bill brought in by Lord PALMERSTON, to Sus- pend certain actions until the Committee appointed by Parliament had re- ported upon the present state of the laws on gaming, was read a second time in • the Commons on Thursday, after a division on the question of adjournment, of 61 to 10.

CONDUCT OF THE JUDGES AT GLASGOW ASSIZES. Mr. 'WALLACE, on Tues- day, moved an address to the Queen for a commission of inquiry into the con- duct of the Lord Justice Clerk at the late Glasgow Assizes, when he stopped a case without giving the Jury an opportunity to pronounce their verdict. The Loan ADVOCATE said, the case was not stopped until all the evidence for the prosecution had broken, down ; and there was in fact no case to go to the Jury. Mr. WALLACE persisted in dividing the House : For the motion, 36; against it, 113.

PREVENTION OF SMOKE. On the motion for going into Committee on the Smoke-Prevention Bill, on Wednesday, Sir ROBERT PEEL recommended that the bill be withdrawn till next year, in order that the subject might re- ceive more consideration. He suggested. also, that a report should be made upon the forty or fifty inventions for preventing the smoke-nuisance, which were most deserving of adoption, and least expensive. That, he considered, was the most effectual way for arriving at practical conclusions on the sub- ject. This recommendation was, after a short conversation, agreed to ; and the bill was withdrawn.

THE ROYAL ASSENT was given by commission on Thursday to the follow- ing bills—Sugar-duties, Vinegar-duties, Slave-trade Treaties, Gold and Silver Wares, Forestalling, Night-Poaching-Prevention, Assaults, (Ireland,) Limi- tation of Actions, (Ireland,) to fourteen Railway bills, and to twenty-seven other private bills.