litbates anb Vrotabings inVarliamtnt.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM pro- duced a series of amendments in the Factories Bill, and made a state- ment in explanation of their purport. He contrasted the calmness with which the subject had been considered in the House with the heat and excitement out of doors ; admitting that the number of petitions against the bill was almost without precedent. He alluded to misrepresenta- tions which had been made of the scope and object of the measure ; but forbore to dwell upon them. Government had applied themselves honestly and patiently to consider the objections, with a view to obtain as much chance as possible of ultimately arriving at a satisfactory con- clusion. He repudiated, however, two charges against the hill,—one, that it had a sinister object in coupling the question of education with that of labour in factories, for it was impossible to draw the attention of the Legislature to the labour of children in factories without at the same time bringing under consideration the compulsory education to which they are subjected under the existing law ; another, that the Government sought too suddenly to enforce the change. He ex- plained the checks which the bill, even in its original shape, provided against too sudden an introduction of the system which it proposed to establish- " Before any school for the new scheme can be built, a local subscription of one-third of the cost of the entire building must be got up. When that subscription shall have been obtained, it is necessary, as the bill now stands, that two—but I propose to increase their number to ten—persons qualified to act as trustees, together with the incumbent of the pariah, shall make application to the Educational Committee of the Privy Council for assistance. Thus, ten persons, as trustees, roust be parties to the memorial for a grant, and that only when one-third of the cost has been subscribed. The memorial being despatched to the Privy Council, they are to determine whether it is such as will justify a grant. If they should be of opinion that the memorial and subscription constitute a prima facie case for conceding the grant, then the course prescribed is, that the Committee of Privy Council is to order the memorial containing the alleged facts to be referred to the Magistrates of the district ; who are to call a Special Sessions, of which due notice shall be given ; and that inquiry having been then instituted upon the subject, a report shall be made thereon to the Privy Council. On that report the Committee is again to deliberate; and it rests with them either to grant or refuse the prayer of the memorial. Sup- posing the decision of the Committee to be favourable, it will be impossible for them to make any grant separate from the funds granted annually in Com- mittee of Supply. The House will observe how complete is the check and control of Parliament over the whole proceeding: the checks are of such a nature that the measure must operate gradually, slowly, and safely. Next, as to the checks on the change of the schools existing under the National system : first, the Committee of Management of the National Schools must consent to the change of the constitution ; next, the consent of the Trustees must be ob• tabled; then the consent of the Ordinary ; and lastly, the consent of the Privy Council, upon the joint requisition of these three bodies." He proceeded to consider the objections urged by the Wesleyan Methodists ; which deserved to be received with the greatest respect, and particularly on recalling the immense exertions made by them in the establishment of Sunday-schools. He thought that the objections to the provisions relating to schools on Sunday had arisen less from the actual intention than from the wording of the bill— He intended to exclude from clauses 58 and 59 [which appoint religious instruction in the new schools on Sunday] all words regulating Sunday- schools, and to omit clause 60, [obliging the scholars to attend divine service OD Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday, with certain exceptions, of which the principal was the objection of the parent.] For clause 60 he would sub- stitute a permissive one, providing religious instruction in the principles of the Church of England for "every young person who may wish to attend school at those times "; the recipients of such instruction to attend the divine worship of the Church of England once in each such day in a chapel selected by the clerical trustee. The clause thus reserved to the parent or guardian a free discretion; for members of the Church of England, whose children attend the school on week-days, might if they preferred send them to another school on the Sunday. He proceeded to the objections respecting certificates to be granted at day-schools- He proposed alterations in clauses 16, 17, and 18, [which compel parents to send their children to school, factory-masters to exact a certificate of attend- ance ; and subject the schools to the superintendence of the Government- Inspector ;] and to omit clauses 7l,72, 79, and 74, [which described the schools that might grant certificates ;] proposing new provisions, for the pur- pose of enacting that all the schools in each district, without exception, should grant certificates of the children attending them, on this sole condition, that they should be subject to the cognizance of an Inspector appointed by the Privy Council, and nominated under no other sanction or control. It would be provided, that in Protestant schools only the authorised version of the Scriptures should be used; and the Roman Catholic factory-master would be deprived of the power which he at present possesses of compelling the attend- ance of Protestant children at his own private school.

It had been objected that instruction in the Catechism and Liturgy during one hour on each day would interfere with the progress of study of Dissenters' children : he proposed to alter clauses 57, 58, and 59 ; [directing what religious instruction should be given in the new schools, when, and what children might be excepted ;] substituting new enact- ments— " I provide that the instruction in the Catechism and the Liturgy, to which it was intended to devote one hour during three days out of the five of the week,

should, under the direction of the trustee, be supplied either on the first or the last of the three hours appointed for that purpose. I then go on to pro- vide that this insbuction shall be given in a class-room apart from the school- room, and separate from that where the Dissenting children are instructed. It

is in the power of the ecclesiastical trustee to make the selection of books to be used in the school ; and, as that selection may vary in conformity with the peculiar opinions of the trustee, I have provided that all religious books should be used under the sanction of the two Archbishops. I then propose that no Inspector shall inquire into the religious instruction of Church-of-England children unless under the authority of one Archbishop or of the Bishop of the diocese."

He described the altered method of making exceptions on this head in favour of Protestant Dissenters' children-

" By clause 59 it was enacted, that any person who should object to have his children receive religions instruction, should state specifically the grounds on which be rested his objection. Objection has been taken to this clause on a religious ground ; and it has been said that it is an invidious thing to call on the Dissenter to state any peculiar objections be may have to the mode of in- struction provided for his children. I have provided that it shall be competent for any person, even a Church-of-England man, to object to the mode of in- struction, without stating particulars. I then propose that it shall be dis- tinctly enacted, that during the first or last hour of the three days on which instruction shall be given to the Church-of-England children in the Catechism and the Liturgy, provision shall be made by the trustee that those whose parents object to that mode shall be instructed during that time in some branch of knowledge; thereby providing, that during the interval of the retirement of the Church-of-England children, the education of the others shall proceed. But heretofore no provision has been made for the religious instruction of Dis- senters, except on Sunday, in the creed to which they belong. I propose that the children of Dissenters shall have instruction in the tenets of their creeds, even during working-days, and that the whole matter shall be at the disposal of their parents and guardians." And farther, Sir James read a new clause, which provided that the trustees of the school should appoint a day in the week, to be approved by the Education Committee of the Privy Council, "in which any scholar whose parent desires he may not be present when such Cate- chism and Liturgs, are taught as aforesaid, mey, during three of the usual school- hours, receive religious instruction [either in the school or elsewhere] from the licensed minister of the chapel in which such parent attends divine worship, or from any person whom such licensed minister may appoint."

The new exceptions in favour of Roman Catholics followed-

" In the districts where the Roman Catholics have schools of their own, they are authorized to grant certificates, which will enable children to work in the factories, subject only to the cognizance of an Inspector appointed by the Privy Council, who will in this case have no right to inquire into the re- ligious instruction. And it is provided, that in districts where there is no Roman Catholic school, 'if the parent of any child being a Roman Catholic shall notify to the trustees, that, on the ground of religious objection, he desires that such child may not be present at such teaching or reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor at such divine worship as aforesaid, be shall not be required to be present at such times, but shall be employed in any matter of instruction not religious in a room apart." The composition of the trust would be much modified : clauses 51st, 52d, 53d, regulating the trust, would be altered, and new powers would be given to it- " It is the intention7of the Government to adhere to their proposition, that if there be only one parish, the minister shall be the trustee • but if there be more than one in the district, the Bishop shall select the incumbent to be the clerical trustee. The proposal, as it now stands, is, that the clerical trustee shall have the appointment of the two Churchwardens, or if there be more than two, that he shall have the power of selecting. I propose that, instead of the selection of the two Churchwardens, the clerical trustee shall have the power of selecting a person duly qualified, (be may be a Churchwarden,) according to the provisions of this act. In lieu of the second Churchwarden nominated by the clerical trustee, I propose to have an elective trustee, to be elected by any number of persons not less than twenty, each of whom should be qualified by having made a donation of 10L to the school, within the three years last pre- ceding, having subscribed 1/. for the two years immediately preceding, or having given land as a site for the school." Instead of the enactment that the four remaining trustees should be appointed by the Magistrates in Quarter-Sessions, it was proposed that they should be elected by the rate-payers assessed to the poor-rates at 10/, for the twelve months antecedent to the election. But, to secure that the minority should be duly represented and not altogether exclu- ded, it was provided that no rate-payer should vote for more than two trustees; the effect of which would be, that in every case where the majority did not preponderate by more than two-thirds, the minority would return two repre- sentatives in the trust. It would thus be seen, that five out of the seven trustees would be elected. The duration of the trust would be five years. He proposed that the head-master, and he only, should be subject to the veto of the Bishop of the diocese, but that all the assistants should be appointed by the trustees. Instead of empowering one trustee to dismiss a child from the school, he should require the concurrence of three trustees ; with an appeal against their decision to the Committee of Council. And if the master were to attempt to use his influence unduly for the purpose of instilling into the minds of the scholars any peculiar opinions with respect to matters of doctrine, it would be open to any trustee to complain of such conduct on the part of the master to the Committee of Privy Council; which had the power of dismissing him if the complaint were substantiated.

Sir James Graham concluded with an earnest appeal to the House to further a measure deliberately shaped to combine the respect due from Government to the Established Church with perfect liberty of con- science ; urging his belief that imminent danger would result from its postponement- " I may be wrong, but I feel intimately persuaded, that if this measure, modified as it now is—a measure treated with signal forbearance by the poli- tical opponents of the Government, and with respect to which an earnest desire has been manifested to arrive, if possible, at the adjustment of this most im- portant matter—if a measure so proposed, soeupported, and so treated in Par- liament, shall fail to effect the great object of a combined system of education, from this time all further attempts to attain that end will be hopeless, and that henceforth we must expect nothing but a system of education conducted on adverse principles and in an antagonist spirit, which, I say it with deference, instead of producing a feeling of unity and good-will among all classes of her Majesty's subjects, will but aggravate the bitter spirit which now exists; and I venture to predict that the most fatal consequences will flow from it."

He laid his altered bill on the table as his olive-branch, tendered in the hope that it might prove the harbinger of peace. A brief series of remarks, rather than discussion, ensued. Lord Jowl RUSSELL hoped that the bill would be discussed with proper calmness ; vindicated the exertions of Dissenters in the cause of edu- cation, by pointing to their pecuniary support of Mr. Lancaster ; thought that the amendments rather tended to remedy defects and fulfil the original intention of the measure, than to depart from its principle ; but calculated that the new composition of the trust would secure to the Established Church a majority. He hoped that they should proceed to the consideration of the bill with a prospect of wiping away from this country the stain of not having an efficient education for the working. classes; an object in the attainment of which those classes are more deeply interested than the Government or any party in the state. Manifestations of opposition, more or less strong, were given by Mr. EWART, Dr. BOWRING, MT. MILNER GIBSON, (who said that the bill would tend to drive children from the particular employments to which it applied,) and Mr. ALDAm. Mr. HAWES and the Earl of SURREY re- served their opinions ; Mr. BORTHWICH and Viscount DuRGANNosi tendered their support. Others said a few words of a vague kind; and the House, on the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, went into Committee pro forma, to receive the alterations ; and the bill was ordered to be recommitted on Monday the 22d.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice on Tuesday, that on going in- to Committee on the Factories Bill, he should move as an instruction, that no system of national education could be satisfactory which gave the entire control of education to the Established Church, or which as- sumed the right on the part of the State to compel by enactment the adoption of any prescribed system of religious instruction.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice, that on the 16th instant, he should propose the ninth and tenth of the resolutions of which he had given notice for Thursday. With regard to the others, he should drop them ; preferring to propose any amendment he might think necessary in Com- mittee on the bill. The following are the resolutions to be moved-

" 1. That, in the opinion of this Rouse, the Committee of Privy Council for Education onght to be furnished with means to enable them to establish and maintain a sufficient number of training and model schools in Great Britain.

"2. That the said Committee ought likewise to be enabled to grant gratuities to deserving schoolmasters, and to afford such aid to schools established by voluntary contribution as may tend to the more complete instruction of the people in religious and secular knowledge, while at the same time the rights of conscience may be respected."

Next night, Mr. COLQUTIOUN gave notice, that he should move, as an amendment to these resolutions, others to the effect that the Privy Coun- cil be furnished with the:means to assist the British and Foreign Schools, the National and the Wesleyan School Societies, for the establishment of model schools.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.

In the House of Peers, on Monday, Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the second reading of the Registration of Voters Bill ; of which he explained some of the chief provisions, placing foremost the relaxation of the law as to the payment of poor-rates and assessed taxes, and the appeal from the fluctuating decisions of the Revising Barristers to the Court of Common Pleas.

Lord BROUGHAM wound up some eulogistical mention of the Reform Bill, and its author Earl Grey, by remarking, that after eleven years' practical experience of that great and useful measure, it was not a little surprising how very few were its defects. The great evil of the exist- ing systems is the annual registration— The voter, whose vote or title to vote it was necessary to examine calmly and without bias, did not care for his vote, and if left to himself would not go to the registry. The consequence was, that the candidate took him there. That candidate, therefore, who bad the longest purse and the longest train of agents, possessed an immeasurable advantage over any opponent who wanted the influence which that purse and agency bestowed. He who had the means of defraying the expenses of the registry and those other expenses connected with elections was sure to continue in Parliament ; and this state of things he considered to be the result of annual registration. With the exception of the Universities, every Member of the House of Commons was put to an annual expense on account of this annual registration, which it was necessary to keep alive. Annual Parliaments were a subject of great alarm to many of their Lordships, as calculated to create an annual excitement in the country; but then, annual Parliaments would be of some benefit to the people, by consti- tuting a check upon their representatives; whereas by annual registration be maintained that the people did not gain one tittle of security. He deplored therefore that the bill retained the process of annual re- gistration. The law took as the test of a man's fitness to vote, the oc- cupancy of a house worth 101. per annum ; but when once the line was thus drawn, why not hold to it for five or six years, or at least during any given Parliament for which the vote was regis- tered? The present plan was an exception to the general rule ; for a Member of Parliament who is even declared bankrupt can retain his seat for a twelvemonth afterwards ; and a Justice of the Peace, whose qualification is 100/. a year, although he become bankrupt or insolvent

remains on the commission until struck ofE Lord Brougham also doubted the justice of the provision which removed from the register one who should have received parochial relief; for as to the independ- ence of the voter, a pauper has more than a menial servant, who can yet hold the franchise. It was, however, a great improvement to re- move the jurisdiction in respect of registration from the fluctuating tribunal of the House of Commons to the Judges ; and it would be a farther improvement if the same Committee of the House of Commons were to try all petitions ; for the same Committee would not venture on decisions so conflicting. He had heard some jealousy expressed with respect to taking the jurisdiction from the Commons and vesting it in the Judges; but for his part he entertained no such jealousy. It was said: that it was an unprecedented thing for a judge to decide on the validity of a vote ; but it should be remembered, that in every case of disputed property, a judge had to decide upon the right and title to the property out of which the vote was claimed. He should vote for the second reading of the bill, with a view to improvement at subsequent stages.

Lord DENatarr only objected to the bill that it did not go far enough. He was particularly pleased with the clause that gave the appeal to the Court of Common Pleas ; for courts of law are not biased by political considerations, and they are the proper tribunals to which to refer questions involving points of law. He objected to that part of the bill which related to personation of voters at elections, as a needless declaration of an existing and sufficient law ; and also to the lightness of the punishment affixed to a very grave offence—from one to six months' imprisonment with hard labour : he had known cases, under the existing law, of persons imprisoned for twelve months, though hard labour had not been added. The provision that persons coming to the hustings to personate should be seized and carried before a Magistrate, he regarded as dangerously open to abuse in the heat of an election. He should move the omission of the whole of that code against personation.

Lord CAMPBELL was rejoiced to hear Lord Brougham on the whole approve of the Reform Bill, though he now seemed to think some parts objectionable. With regard to registration, however, he thought it one of the best parts of the Reform Bill. [Lord Broughain—" I am not against registration: God forbid !"3 Without registration, we should have elections lasting for fifteen days, and yet hundreds of votes might not he decided by the Sheriff. Under the Reform Bill as brought in by Lord John Russell, a man who had once established his right to vote enjoyed it for six years, except on some supervening disability. He objected to the number of Revising Barristers : their number in- deed was reduced by the bill from 170 to 85 ; but, with certain super- numeraries to belappointed, the number would be 100. The expense was a great evil ; but a greater Was that the patronage of the Judges placed the Bar in an uncomfortable position with the Bench. He agreed that a Committee of the House of Commons might be a bad tri- bunal; but he felt much jealousy in transferring the jurisdiction to a court of law ; and he objected to legislating in reference to the high character of the existing Judges. It would be better that, as Lord Coke suggested, the House of Commons should have the power to ad- minister an oath, and decide all questions of controverted elections pro- prio vigore. The bill narrowed the franchise, and at the same time added to the number of votes supposed to boon the Conservative side— By the 23d section of the statute 4 and 5 Will. IV. c. 45, a right of voting was given to trustees in possession; but, by the 26th section of the same act, said that no one could be allowed to vote unless be received rents for his 4,12 use. This could not apply to trustees, since trustees could not receive money for their own use. Trustees had accordingly been allowed to vote, ttough some revising barristers had excluded them. The present bill said they should

have no vote, and thereby disfranchised hundreds. Another clause alt.tred the mode of measuring the limits of seven miles from each borough, (on which the right of voting often turned,) from the rule laid down by the Court of King's Bench, giving a larger circuit; and the greater the circuit of the borough the greater were the means afforded of swamping the town-voters. The great

blots of the Reform Bill were the allowing the old freemen to vote; and the 50/. tenants-at-will. By the present bill, a farm let for 2001. might be let to four joint-tenants, and each of those joint-tenants would have a vote, so that there might be as many of these sham votes multiplied as there were 50/. in the rental.

In Committee, he should move the omission of the clauses respecting trustees, the mode of measurement, and the 50/. freeholders.

After some further conversation, the bill was read a second time.

THE ASHBURTON TREATY.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. HUME brought forward his motion of thanks to Lord Ashburton for the mode in which he had concluded the treaty of Washington. He insisted on the import- ance to this country of maintaining a friendly footing with the United States ; and said that be himself was at least not open, to the charge preferred against Lord Palmerston of having made a party question of the treaty— He had consulted none of those with whom he usually acted, and if he had erred it was an error of his own. When he saw the thanks of the country so often given to military men, and saw honours bestowed by the House on those by whom the military glory of the country was upheld, he could not but think it right that the thanks of the country should be given to those by whose means peace and the prosperity of the country was brought about. When he looked at the immense Debt of this country, incurred through the pursuit of war, he could not but be an advocate of peace. Among the details which Lord Palmerston had stated, he bad omit- ted an important part—the details of the last two years, in which, though nominally at peace with the United States, we were actually at war so far as the cost of keeping up a war establishment and the feel- ing between the two countries were concerned: the House was perhaps scarcely aware of the expense of keeping 20,000 infantry in Canada and twenty ships of the line on the North American station. Mr. Hume went over the several points of the negotiations which Lord Ashburton had brought to so satisfactory a conclusion, after Lord Palmerston had stated to Mr. Fox that he bad no hope of coming to an arrange. ment under the Van Buren Administration. In his speech, too, Lord Palmerston had omitted all mention of the hostile proceedings in the State of Maine, of Massachusetts, and others ; of which Mr. Hume read specimens ; though the excitement which obliged this country to keep up such an enormous force in Canada arose from the proceedingsof the Maine State Government. Under the new treaty, we have obtained the advantage of having all disputed points settled by the Federal Govern- ment; an arrangement by which local feelings will be prevented from being brought to bear upon international disputes. Mr. Hume cited precedents in support of his motion— In 1763, the House of Commonalthanked the Sheriffs of London for burning the North Briton. (Laughter.) In 1788, the Commons thanked Admiral Keppel, whose conduct had been assailed in a court-martial.In 1794, that Rouse thanked those who had the management of the tlial of Warren Hastings. In 1805, it gave a vote of thanks to the Comtnissioners of Naval In- quiry. In May 1806, the Commons thanked those who had conducted the impeachment of Lord Melville.

In conclusion, he moved,

"That this House, looking to the long-protracted and unsuccessful negotia- tions for the settlement of the North-eastern boundary between the United States of America and the British North American provinces, and taking:into consideration the great importance of removing the grounds of irritation be- tween the inhabitants of the frontiers, is of opinion that the treaty of Washing- ton, by which that boundary has been defined and settled, is alike honourable and advantageous; and that Lord Ashburton, who conducted the negotiations which led to that treaty, deserves for that service the thanks of this }louse

Dr. BOWRINO briefly seconded the motion. The treaty had been so violently and undeservedly attacked, that it was quite becoming in the Legislature to give it a hearty and emphatic approval. Lord Ash- burton bad sought to conciliate, without unworthy concessions.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER Was not surprised at Lord Brougham's motion in the other House, for he had for some been coquetting with Govern. ment ; but he regretted to see Mr. Hume, whom he had always con- sidered to be a plain straightforward, honest, calculating Scotchman; following in the noble and learned Lord's footsteps. He adverted to the recent correspondence on the right of search, to show that that question was not settled ; and asked what would be the consequences, if, in the attempt to carry out the views of their respective Governments, a British vessel were to enforce it and an American were to resist, and one of the American men were killed? Sir Charles denied the story, told by Mr. Disraeli, that when he waited upon Lord Pahnerston to be crammed, for a speech, his horses had run away and knocked down an old woman : if he had plays d the spy, no doubt he might have seen Mr. Disraeli issuing from the American Minister's house drenched with French brandy, which must have tended to confuse his vision ! He moved as an amendment, that the House do now adjourn.

Captain BERKELEY seconded the amendment. Mr. Escorr supported the motion. It was opposed by Mr. EDWARD HULLER; who said that though he considered the treaty neither advantageous nor honourable, he did not disapprove of its terms. (Laughter.) It was one thing to ap- prove of a treaty, and another to consider it advantageous.

Sir Howse]) DouoLes vindicated the treaty, especially the cession of Rouse's Point : it was useless as a defensive and only useful as an offensive station ; and he hoped that we should never make a hostile inroad into that country—a country better to be attacked, if un- fortunately it were necessary, on its coasts.

Mr. VERNON Sporn followed, with an attack on Mr. Hunie's motion, monstrous in its total want of precedent. He cited Sir Robert Peel's abstaining from including Sir Henry Pottinger in a recent vote of thanks to the military leaders in China as a precedent against it; and be observed, although Sir Robert Peel intended to fulfil his promise of supporting the motion, he bad had the taste and discretion not to hear a single word of Mr. Home's speech. After assaulting the treaty, Mr. Smi:h taunted Mr. Hume with former attacks upon him by the object of his present approval : he had been callous to the wit of Canning, insensible to the -ridicule of Sir Robert Peel, and even to the attacks of Mr. Alexarder Baring himself. It was, perhaps, not wonderful that his honourable friend should wish to give the thanks of the House to Lord Ashburton for the cessions of territory he had made, inasmuch as he himself had advocated the surrender of the whole of Canada. If the thanks of the House were due to Lord Ashburton at all, be was an M- used man, to be called to the bar of the House to receive the thanks of the House three months afterwards—to receive the thanks of the House for an able negotiation, when an unable Governor-General had been thanked at once. Mr. Vernon Smith eulogized Lord Palmer- ston' s speech in the former debate, as "a most useful exhibition to that House"; and he defended the peculiartnotion on which that speech was founded— Was it, he would ask, new to conclude a speech of that kind with a motion for papers? What would have been the use of a dieisiou ? (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) He thaeked honourable gentlemen for that cheer. He well knew that when an admission was made on one side of the House it was sure to be bailed by a party-cheer from the other. He knew very well that on his side they were in a minority; but were honourable gentlemen prepared to say that a minority was of no use? Minorities somethnes worked themselves into majorities, especially when their efforts were seconded by energy and abilities such as those of his noble friend.

He would vote for Sir Ch tries Napier's motion, that the subject was unfit for discussion in that House.

Mr. CHARLES HULLER regretted that indisposition prevented his addressing the House so fully as he could wish. He did not undervalue precedents, but the importance of the treaty was almost unprecedented in the history of the diplomatic service of this country ; and the country had been placed in a position with respect to the treaty quite unprecedented— There had been a debate upon the subject, in which there had been much ability and force of argument on both sides ; but yet that debate, in the eyes of the country, had an appearance as if all who spoke on the Opposition side of the House opposed the treaty, and its only supporters were the Ministers by whom it had been effected. It was not desirable that such an impression should go further. It was desirable that the people of this country, and that the world at large, should know that the treaty of Washington was not re- garded as a party question. Mr. Buller touched upon the points of difference which the treaty had dealt with ; and he pronounced Lord Ashburton deserving of thanks for removing those causes of dispute. The only difference in the line of boundary from the line awarded by the King of the Nether- lands, and pressed upon the acceptance of the United States by Lord Palmerston, was the keeping the Americans as far off from Quebec as if we had the whole of the disputed territory. There had been no con- cession of the navigation of the S.. John ; and the simple right conceded to the Americans, of floating their timber down the river, was amply compensated by their concession of the open navigation of the St. L iw- reoce. The tone of Lord Ashburton's negotiations might not have been so diplomatic as was usual ; but it was worthy of the representative of a great nation, knowing its own strength, and not seeking to accom- plish more than what justice and right warranted it to demand.

Sir JOHN Hamann protested against the precedent established by the motion.

Lord STANLEY said, that if Lord Ashburton was indebted to any one for the extraordinary proceeding of a vote of thanks for concluding a treaty, it was to Lord Palmerston— To that noble Lord's unfair, and be must say ungenerous attack, was Lord Ashburton indebted for that favourable feeling on the part of the country, which had been expressed by an bonouvable Member, not otherwise connected with the Government than by the union of those just and good sentiments which, out of the ordinary course, he had come forward to express in the form of a vote of thanks to one upon whom an unjust imputation and an unwar- rantable attack had been made.

He doubted whether any treaty had been concluded involving more important consequences— He would venture to Bay, that no treaty was ever concluded between two nations whose interest it was more to maintain harmony with each other, and to whom it would be mutually suicidal if— Mr. MACAULAY—" Mutually suicidal I" (Laughter.) Lord STANLEY—The right honourable gentleman was a great critic. (Cheers.) Perhaps the expression was not correct, but it was not the less true ; for he believed that if a war were to arise between this country and the United States, there was not a blow which could be struck by one against the other which would not recoil, and inflict as great an injury upon the country that gave the blow as could he inflicted upon that which received it. He therefore did not think the expression he bad made use of was subject to the hypercritical jeers of the right honourable gentleman. A treaty had been concluded, not only mutually satisfactory to the two countries, but leaving no unpleasant and unfriendly feeling between them. Had Lord Palmerston done as much?— Had the noble Lord advanced one single inch in settling the Boundary question, or any other question pending between this country and the United States at the time be quitted office? On the contrary, the case of the Caro- line, the Right-of. Search question, and the Boundary question, had all three become more complicated, and the feelings of the two countries more embittered and envenomed against each other. Lord Stanley proceeded to defend several points of the treaty ; con- tending in particular that nothing had been conceded either by Lord Ashburton or by Lord Aberdeen in respect to the right of visit; and it must be admitted that the question had been so far settled, that a limit had been put to the claim, and the practical difficulties had been obviated- " The Unitzd States would not recognize the right as we claimed to exer- cise it in regard to visiting their vessels; but they had entered into conditions with us for exercising it together. They would not recognize our right to board their ships; but they had resolved to endeavour, and zealously to endea- your, to attain the objects of the treaty of Ghent, and by a combined effort to put down the Slave-trade. They would not allow us to stop American ships ; but they sent an American squadron to stop American ships. Was that not an advance? was that Pot fulfilling the treaty of Ghent? The noble Lord objects to the squadron ; but what did the noble Lord do in 1839? The noble Lord directed Mr. Fox, in 1839, to offer to the American Government this self-same proposition, on the recommendation of the Commissioners of Sierra Leone ; who said that two fleets cruizing together would reap a rich harvest and make many captures."

Lord Joust RUSSELL maintained, that Lord Stanley had said nothing for the treaty, but he had been vehement against those who had made "unfounded slanders"—

The noble Lord let these unfounded slanders pass by till the honourable gentleman came to their help, who was opposed altogether to the dominion of this country over her Colonies ; and who had, in his correspondence with the chief of the Canadian rebels, spoken of their throwing off "the baneful domina- tion of the Mother-country." Unless this honourable gentleman hail come to the help of the noble Lord and his colleagues, they would have allowed their dear friend to go away without reparation; and but for the correspondent of Mr. Mackenzie, the noble Lord would have allowed the session to pass away and have done nothing to retrieve Lord Ashburton's honour, or relieve him from the "unfounded slanders" which had been thrown on him.

He ridiculed Mr. Hume's unskilful choice of precedents : he had found nothing better than the burning of No. 45 of the _North Briton; though the case of Earl St. Vincent was in point. He cited a passage from a letter by Mr. Webster, dated 23d March 1843, to show that, 60 far from the Right of Search question being settled, it is open to the dangerous contingency mentioned by Sir Charles Napier ; and he argued that Lord Ashburton's tone in the negotiations was calculated to lower the country in the eyes of the world ; and his feeling was that it had that effect. In arranging the boundary, Mr. Webster insisted at one part on obtaining the Madawaska settlements, because he would keep to the river, and at another to depart from it, because it came too near to the United States ; so that Lord Ashburton was neither allowed to keep the Madawaska settlements nor to keep to the river. There could be no doubt but that when the account of the treaty arrived in this country, it was considered to be an advantage, because people were satisfied that there might be in any way a settlement of the Boundary question and some other matters ; but a different feeling succeeded— There was a sort of feeling in this respect which he thought was very like that of My. Primrose with respect to Moses Primrose when he brought home word that he bad sold the horse. He was asked how much he grit 1or it, and he replied 31. 5s. 2d. (Laughter.) Well, said Mrs. Primrose, 3f. 5s. 2d. is good for something, and Moses has done no bad day's work. (Laughter.) But when it turned out that Moses had not got the money, but shagreen spec- tacles, then the family thought Moses a very bad negotiator, and they were discontented with his proceeding. Such, he believed, in the end would be the opinion of the country as to this famous negotiation. (Cheers and laughter.) Could the House approve of negotiations in which they saw many things conceded which it was not necessary to concede, and where questions were left unsettled that might well have been arranged ? Re doubted much that it would be for the advantage of this country to pursue a similar course with other countries— He had no doubt, that if they thought it enough to please foreign countries, they could easily find a Peer for instance to go to France and state that Eng- land was willing to abandon the treaties of 1831 and 1833. There could be no doubt that such a course would give satisfaction to the French Chambers, and please a portion of the French nation : but then he did not think that the peace of the world could be made permanent by unworthy or discreditable con- cessions. With America, above all other countries, it could not be so secured.

This brought Lord John to an allusion to the bill which passed the Senate to seize the Oregon territory ; the most violent proceeding, he believed, ever adopted by a legislative body in the history of the world. If there was one part of Lord Ashburton's conduct which he could view with indulgence, it was that he congratulated the people of Boston and spoke of that place as being the cradle of liberty- " It was not fitting, undoubtedly, in the character of a Minister to do so. At the same time, I do feel that the Americans, if they were actuated by Eng- lish principles of freedom, and if they had any of the blood of their ancestors in their veins, were bound to resist this country in any attempt at domination over them. I feel the greatest pride in seeing so noble a government esta- blished in the United States of America. I rejoice to see that country flourish; and although it may want many of the elements by which order is maintained in this country, 1 believe, with some exceptions which are trifling in compa- rison with the great majority of its advantages, that law and order are the pre- valent rule and axiom of the United States.'

Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that Lord John Russell had made the im- portant admission, that when the result of these negotiations first be-

came generally known, there was in this country but one feeling of almost universal satisfaction ; a satisfaction that would not have been felt if any undue or discreditable concessions had been made by the Govern- ment, and which was at the same time the strongest testimony to the merits of the negotiation. Sir Robert adhered to his opinion, as in the case of Sir Henry Pottinger, that it was contrary to precedent to vote thanks for diplomatic services : but was there ever a case u. which three statesmen who swayed public opinion to such an extent as Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Macaulay, came forward so decidedly to express an adverse opinion as to the result of a negotia- tion and the conduct of a diplomatist ?—

t. The noble Lord has stood in the position of the leader of the House of Commons; the other noble Lord by his side has lately filled the office of Secre- tary of State for Foreign Affairs, and is generally believed to bare more know- ledge and experience in these matters than any other man living ; of the great talents and abilities of the right honourable gentleman on his right (Mr. Macaulay) I have had frequent opportunities of expressing my opinion ; and I

i

will ask, s it just, is it equitable, that three such men should attempt to discre- dit—nay, to ruin—the reputation of a public man who has undertaken a public duty from the purest of all possible motives, and yet should allow to those who support and defend him no opportunity of asking for the opinion of the House of Commons—of determining whether or not such discredit is cast upon him with the sanction of the Legislature and the public? " As to Mr. Hume'a opinions about Canada, his support had not always been refused by Lord John Russell on that account— "The time was—I well ren‘ember it—when, turning round to his honour- able friend, he could find it convenient to forget his opinions respecting Canada, and could even condescend to receive his vote to support or to rescue him in his hour of difficulty and danger. (Loud cheeriny from the Ministerial benches.) 'Why, it would have been as absurd for the noble Lord to have said, 'I can't go out into the lobby with you because of your conduct concerning Canada,' as if 1 bad said now, This motion is just; there is no reason for negativing it; but three )eats ago its mover said something on Canadian affairs of which I cannot approve, and therefore 1 shall vote against his proposition.'" He contrasted Lord Palmerston's motion for papers with Mr. Wynd- ham's motion condemnatory of the treaty of peace in 1801, which he manfully carried to a division ; and though he had only a few Members to vote with him, Lord Hawkesbury thought it necessary to move a counter-resolution. An analogous instance was that of Mr. Macdonald's motion concerning the negotiations with Spain, in 1823, which Mr. Canning, as it involved the conduct of Government, would not allow to be withdrawn ; and on a division only twenty Members voted for it. Sir Robert Peel referred at some length to the protraction of the dis- puted questions with the United States which Lord Ashburton bad brought to a close. Against the passing of the Oregon Bill by the Senate he placed its rejection by the House of Representatives, the more popular t•ody. On the right of search he remarked, that if Lord Palmerston had always limited himself to the search of only suspected American vessels no fault would have been found; but in February 1841, orders were given not to capture bona fide American vessels, which showed that it previously had been the practice to capture them. Sir Robert expressed his belief that the joint squadron on the coast of Africa would be effectual for the suppression of the Slave-trade; and that the two countries would shortly enter upon an amicable settlement of the Columbia question. He concluded by calling upon the House to give their support "to the motion of the noble Lord "—(A laugh)— he meant, of course, the motion of the honourable gentleman.

Viscount PALMERSTON argued, that if a vote of thanks were expedient at all, it would be the duty of Government to propose it, as in the pre- cedents cited by Sir Robert Peel, of Mr. Canning, and Lord Hawkes- bury. He insisted that Mr. Hume's opinion, that Canada was of no value to this country, had much to do with the approval of a treaty which tended to the disconnexion of Canada. He complained that Sir Robert Peel's course, in objecting to his moving for papers the other night, went far to fetter the freedom of debate ; and he retorted, that it was not a very usual course to cut away the ground of a Member who had given notice of a motion by Government's producing papers which at first they refused. He corrected Mr. Charles Buller's mistake, that the navigation of the St. John was given as compensation for corre- sponding advantages ; and Mr. Disraeli's, that a certain strip of land had been obtained for us, which had in fact been conceded by us. Lord Palmerston denied that he had used irritating language towards the Americans, or that his despatches had any thing to do with the excite- ment among them. He explained that the order of 1841 was intended to discontioue the practice of arresting American vessels ; but it was a practice adopted on the suggestion of Lieutenant Payne, an American officer, who bad proposed to Captain Tucker, the officer in command of the British cruisers, that the vessels of each country should seize slavers belonging to the other, and deliver them up to the captains of vessels of their respective countries ; but the American Government not ratify- ing that agreement, so highly honourable to Lieutenant Payne' the British Government sent out orders to discontinue the practice. Lord Ashburton professed to seek an extended application of the arrange- ment made by Lieutenant Payne ; but the provision in the treaty was different both from that and from the recommendations of the Sierra Leone Commissioners ; for there was no security that the squadrons would act together—that the cruisers would bunt in couples, without which they could not act efficiently. Lord Palmerston concluded by exhorting the Government not to drag their friends through the dirt, nor to lower the character of the House by breaking through a rule which had been established ever since the Revolution.

The House divided on the amendment ; when the numbers were— For the amendment, 105; against, 240; majority, 135.

Again on the original motion— For, 238; against, 96; Ministerial majority, 142.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice, on Monday, of a companion, or rather cross motion, for a vote of thanks to Sir Henry Pottinger ; but on Tuesday he postponed it for a fortnight.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

Mr. ELPHINSTONE moved, on Wednesday, the second reading of the Marriage and Divorce Bill; of which he explained the nature and object— At present, suits for divorce were carried on in the various provincial courts, 'abject to appeal to the Courts at York and Canterbury. Now, with the ex- ception of London, those courts were totally unsuited to the trial of such Watkins: the Judges were wholly unqualified; they were unassisted by a bar, and consequently there was little chance of justice being obtained. Then the expense was enormous : in one case, which was first tried at the Court of Wells, and in which the suitor was paw, the expense was upwards of 1,500/.; all of which ultimately fell on the suitor, in consequence of the adulterer be- coming an outlaw and insolvent. Under the present law of divorce, three steps were necessary before a divorce was complete—first, a suit at common law ; second, an appeal to the ecclesiastical tribunal ; and thira, a bill in Par- liament. His object was to have a new court appointed, with Judges nomi- nated by the Crown, which should be empowered to try the case and grant a divorce avincula matrimonii. There were other provisions in the bill; but that was the principal.

Mr. EWART seconded the motion. Dr. Nrcsiots. had understood that the bill did not extend to divorce 3 vinculo naatrimonii, or be should not have permitted its introduction. He moved that it be read a second time that day six months. On a division, the second reading was ne- gatived, by 105 to 41. The bill, therefore, was lost.

TOWNSHEND PEERAGE.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, Lord BROUGHAM having moved the second reading of the Townshend Peerage Bill, Lord COTTEN- HAM opposed the motion. His objection to the measure was, that it was perfectly new. The investigation of two Select Committees had failed to produce any thing resembling it. It was alleged in support of the bill. that within a short time after the marriage of Sarah Dunn Gardener with the Marquis of Townshend, shta left his house, cohabited with another man, and gave birth to certain children, who were said to be illegitimate, on the ground that her husband had not had access to her : but no bill had ever been brought before the House for the purpose of dissolving the marriage ; which marriage, according to this bill, was to continue ! The Committee of last session only discovered three cases which bore auy resemblance to the present— The first was the case of a party who, in 1672, was alleged to have repre- sented himself as the Earl of Northumberland, and against whose right to the title a petition had been presented to that House by the Countess Dowager of Northumberland and Lady Elizabeth Percy. That petition was referred to a Committee: and so far the case was similar to the present, but no further, be- cause the party was called on to state his title and became a claimant for the Peerage. The permission of the Crown was obtained for the inquiry, the per- son prosecuted his claim, and the House decided against it. He still, however, persisted in calling himself the Earl of Northumberland; and the House issued an order, not very likely to be resorted to in these times, that he should be brought before the Courts of Westminster Hall, with a paper on his breast bearing these words—" False and impudent pretender to the Earldom of Northumberland." The next case related to a Scotch Peerage, and was there- fore quite foreign to it ; and the third was nothing more than an ordinary bill of divorce, the 10th George 111., for dissolving the marriage of the Earl of Macclesfield with his wife Anne. Formerly it was not very unusual for bills of that kind to contain clauses bastardizing the issue ; but in modern times there were no such precedents. There was another case in which a naval offi- cer had been away for a long time, and his wife had a child burn at a time when it was impossible that he could be its father. In that case the act passed de- claring that child illegitimate; but since that there had been no other instance ; and the reason given in Mr. M'Queen's "Practice of the House of Lords in Divorce Cases" was, that there was no party to represent the issue. The con- test was between the husband and wife. The husband asked to be divorced from his wife ; but who represented the interests of the issue? They were the parties almost wholly interested in the clauses declaring them illegitimate ; and yet they were not represented. It was proposed by the present bill to enact, "that the several children of the said Sarah Gardener Marchioness Towns- bend shall be taken and adjudged for all intents and purposes to be illegitimate from their birth, and shall not be taken to be the lawful issue of George Fer- rets Marquis Townshend." The enactment, therefore, not only concerned the title, but all other questions which might be connected with legitimacy.

Nor was the bill necessary ; for there was another remedy for the alleged grievance of expiring testimony— It was true that we had not, in this country, the benefit of a law which existed in Scotland, and which enabled persons in cases depending on evi- dence that might be lost, to take a proceeding which would enable them to have a declaration of their rights; but another system had been pursued in this country which had been found in a great measure to answer the same pur- pose. He meant a proceeding in the Court of Chancery, by which parties who wished to preserve the evidence of living witnesses to be examined hereafter, when the occasion might arise, were permitted to examine them, with all the imperfections to which he would admit an examination on paper was open. The result, however, was, that what the witnesses deposed to was put upon record, to be used hereafter when the occasion might arise. This proceeding was called a "bill to perpetuate testimony."

It should be kept in mind, that in matters of divorce the House did not assume the power of discharging parties a vinculo matrirnonii until it was found it could not be done by the Ecclesiastical Courts, which could only separate them a mensa et thoro ; and the House should be slow to establish a different precedent. Lord Eldon had approved of the intervention of the Legislature in Miss Turner's case ; but not until it was ascertained that there was no remedy under the law exist- ing. He moved that the order for the second reading of the bill be discharged.

Lord Baocamat argued, that the discretionary power of Parliament knew no bounds ; Lord Coke said of it—" Si cetatem [species] eat cape- cissima " ; adding, in the classic language of an ancieut—" His ego nee nicks rerum nec tempora posse": and he gave instances of the power of Parliament which would stagger Lord Cottenham- One instance was to declare a party to be entitled to succeed to an estate vested in his ancestor, during the life of that ancestor, without the attainder or default of the ancestor, and to bastardize a child born in lawful wedlock on account of adultery, whilst his father and mother were living together. It had no doubt been said that a bill might be filed in Chancery to perpetuate testimony : but the opposite party might file a bill to per- petuate false testimony ; and when the evidence came to be considered, the witness might be dead. It was a mistake to suppose that Parlia- ment could not dissolve a Scotch marriage. The reason why few Scotch cases came before the House was, because they had the shorter and cheaper proceeding of a " declarator ": but the very absence of such a remedy at law here was a reason for the bill.

The Earl of DEVON opposed the bill, for reasons similar to those given by Lord Cottenham. Lord DENMAN supported it, on the ground of paramount necessity. The Earl of WICKLOW opposed it, referring to the fifteen years' supineness of those who now promoted the bill.

Lord CAMPBELL asked, what foreign nations would think of our laws and institutions, if they admitted such open insults to propriety as might ensue if Mr. Margetts asserted the rights of a Marquis's eldest son, such as sitting on the steps of the Throne during a division of the Peers, or when the Queen was upon it ? No time was to be lost. Since the question arose, many material witnesses, among others Mr. Ridgway, had died; in ten years that which now was clearly evidence would be lost altogether. Lord Cottenham was mistaken in supposing that there had been no similar case : in the Banbury case, in 1661, a bill was introduced to bastardize the issue of the claimant of the title— The Earl married in his old age ; and his wife had issue two sons, Edward and Nicholas, who were never, known to the Earl as his children, but who daring t be life of the said Earl were called Edward and Nicholas Vaux. After the death of the Earl, iu 1632, Edward assumed the title ; and after his death it was assumed by his brother Nicholas. The bill to which he had alluded as having been introduced in 1661 declared the illegitimacy of Nicholas ; but it appeared only to have been read a first time, and then dropped. In the recent case of" Hamilton versus Hamilton," a case involving the succession to a high title, the decision of the Lord Ordinary, declaring the illegitimacy of two chil- dren, was overruled by the Court of Session ; and the decision of the Court of Session was afterwards set aside by their Lordships, thus establishing the ille- gitimacy of the children.

The LORD CHANCELLOR contended that the bill was justified by so extreme a case. And, after a little more discussion, the amendment having been negatived without division, the bill was read a second time.

Counsel were then called to the bar. Mr. Austin, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Hildyard, appeared for the petitioners ; and Mr. Talbot on be- half of the Earl of Leicester ; and it was arranged that evidence should be proceeded with next day.

The House met on Thursday at ten o'clock in the morning, to hear evidence ; Mr. Austin opening the case in a speech of no great length. Several official witnesses were examined on points of form and fact,— such as the serving of copies of the bill on persons interested in the ease, the patent creating the Earldom of Leicester, the pedigree, the fact that the Member for Bodmin qualified as "Earl of Leicester," and the like. The witnesses who gave evidence as to the facts of the case were these—the Dowager Dutchess of' Leeds, half sister to the first Marquis of Towshend (father of the present) ; the Reverend Mr. Dro- ver, his tutor ; Mr. Thomas Wilkins, an acquaintance of Mr. Dunn Gardner, (the present Marquis's father-in-law,) and Mrs. Wilkins, his wife ; Miss Sophia Wilkins, who had been in the service of Lord Chartley ; Mr. Tomline, groom, Elizabeth Kirby, and Anne Hunter, servants to Mr. Gardner ; Mrs. J. Harris, niece to Mr. Gardner ; Mrs. Royston, wife of a surgeon, deceased, who knew Mr. Gardner, and at- tended Lady Chartley ; Mr. J. Bayley, an accoucheur, who had at- tended her as Mrs. Margetts ; Mrs. Hewson, landlady of the house in Hunter Street, in which Mr. and Mrs. Margetts lived ; Mrs. Jones, the wife of an apothecary, who had herself attended the baptism of the children in 1823; and the Reverend Hugh Hodson, Master of West- minster School.

The main facts deposed by these witnesses may be briefly told. The present Marquis of Townshend was the son of the Earl of Leicester, afterwards Marquis of Townshend; and he was baptized in 1779. In 1807, being then Lord Chartley, he married Sarah the daughter of Mr. Dunn Gardner. They lived together only a short time, apparently from the summer to the following spring ; they were not happy ; and there was no evidence that they had ever occupied the same bed. In 1808, Lady Chartley left her husband's house and returned to her father's house in town. [A. suit to annul the marriage, on the ground of impotency, was instituted by the lady, but not continued.] Here she seems to have become acquainted with Mr. Margetts, a brewer, of St. Ives ; and after a trip by the family to a watering-place, the lady and, the acquaintance returned as Mr. and Mrs. Margetts. In July 1811, a child:was born, who was named John ; in 1812, another son, who was called William ; in 1814, a daughter ; in 1816, a son ; and in 1820, a daughter. The lady objected to be called by "the horrible name of Lady Leicester," the title which devolved upon Lord Chartley after his ether became a Marquis, and preferred to be called Mrs. Margetts. vs. Gardner told her servants to call her so. Mrs. Gardner had been cat eto regret that the children were illegitimate, and Mr. Gardner to nope that they would not be called lords and ladies, as they were Mar- getts's children. They were accordingly called Master John Margetts, Master William Margetts, and so forth. In 1823, however, there was a change: the children were taken to St. George's Bloomsbury, and were baptized by the Christian names which they had already borne, their parents being described as the Marquis and Marchioness of Towns- hend: the old Marquis had died in 1811, and the lady's husband had of course succeeded to the title. Henceforth Mrs. Margetts was called the Marchioness of Townshend; the children were called the Earl of Leicester, Lord William Townshend, and so forth ; instead of "papa," they always said "Mr. Margetts"; and in the books of Westminster school " John Margetts" was altered to " Earl of Leicester." Mr. Margetts died in 1842, Mr. Gardner in 1831, Mrs. Gardner in 1839. The farther hearing of evidence was adjourned to Friday.

MISCELLANEOUS.

Citunca OF SCOTLAND. The Duke of Altana. having presented a petition to the House of Lords, on Tuesday, from the Presbytery of Dunbarton, for some measure to put an end to the division in the Church of Scotland, a conversation ensued. The Marquis of BREADAL- BANE predicted a secession of eighty per cent, not merely of ministers but of people, from the Church of Scotland ; and he urged Government to interfere to prevent that irreparable mischief, and to stop the en- -croachments of the Law Courts on the privileges which the Church held by the constitution of the country. Lord BROUGHAM expressed the utmost astonishment and reprobation at the idea that the law and constitution of the country could be at variance : the Marquis might as well declare a law for Taymouth Castle, and say that that law, quoad Taymouth, was to be superior to the law of the land. The Earl of ABERDEEN said, that if the Marquis of Breadalbane was not satisfied with the amount of concession whicJi he offered in his bill and pro- claimed, (and which Government was ready, when the proper time arrayed, to embody in a legislative measure,) he certainly despaired of giving his noble friend any satisfaction.

SUPPRESSED BISHOPRICS. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY has given notice of a motion on the 16th, for the separation of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.

CANADA CORN-TRADE. Lord STANLEY has given notice, that OR Monday the 15th, he will submit to the House of Commons a reso- lution preliminary to the introduction of a bill for the importation of wheat and.flour from Canada into this country.

NAVAL PENSIONS. Sir CHARLES NAPIER has given notice, for the 16th, of a motion for bringing the state of the Retired Naval List before the House.

PORTUGAL. In reply to the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, on Tuesday, the Earl of ABERDEEN said, that the negotiations with Portugal were not merely interrupted, they were actually at an end.

Dom CARLOS. In reply to Mr. Holm:mien, on Wednesday, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that both the English and French Governments, taking into consideration the tranquillity of Spain' were unwilling to permit Don Carlos's immediate or unconditional liberation. At the same time, if a sufficient guarantee were given that no risk to the tran- quillity of Spain would ensue, there would be no objection to the libe- ration of that Prince.

ROYAL FUNERAL. Both Houses adjourned over Thursday, on account of the funeral of the Duke of Sussex.