Dthatts ant Vrocrebings ilt Varliament.

POOR-LAW CONTINUANCE.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on Tuesday, moved the second reading of the bill for the continuance of the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners.

Mr. DISRAELI opposed the measure. He thought the House ought seriously to consider whether the Poor-law Act hadfulfilled the objects- for which it was proposed ; and whether its effects on the condition of the poor had been beneficial or otherwise. The union of parishes was one of the salient points of the measure. It had effected a total revolution of the ancient parochial jurisdiction of England, and might be deemed as great a social revolution as had ever been effected. By this alteration the Government had outraged the feelings of the people; and their object for this outrage had been a mere sordid motive, which had not succeeded. It was now matter of notoriety, that the amount levied on the people for this new, and, as it was called, improved system, was more than 1,200,0001. This, with the threatened increase, made it evident that in two years' time the cost of administering relief by Unions would be greater than under the old system. The effect of confining the pauper population in large union-workhouses, under strict regula- tions, was little else than confining them in prisons; and it was exposing the poor to a degradation that was calculated to be extremely injurious to their moral characters, by likening them to criminals. The operation of the Act had produced discontent among the people instead of im- provement ; whilst, on the score of expense, it promised to be equally burdensome as the former mode of relieving the wants of the destitute population, which was in accordance with the feelings and manners of the people. Centralization might be useful in some cases; but as applied in the administration of the Poor-laws, its effect was tyrannical and oppressive. He attributed the discontent and outrage which had pre- vailed in the country to the operation of the Poor-law, which was opposed to the habits of the people ; and he should therefore oppose strongly the continuance of the Commissioners' powers. He moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. INTAxtEz seconded the amendment. He objected, first, to the renewal of the powers of the Commissioners for ten years ; and he further objected to the bill because its effects would be to extend the arbitrary powers they already possessed. He believed most Members were ignorant of the real objects of the bill— He was emboldened in this assertion by what had fallen the other evening from his honourable friend the Member for Kilkenny, and the reply made to it by the Secretary for the Colonies. His honourable friend had said that the real object of the bill was to make a distinction between that poverty which was the result of vice and profligacy, and that casual poverty in which the honest and industrious were sometimes involved. If such were the real object of the bill, who was there that would raise his voice or hand against it ? Bat was that the object avowed by the noble lord ? No such thing. The noble lord, with a candour and manliness which distinguished him in the sup- port of those measures which he believed, mistakingly or otherwise, to be for the public advantage, did on that occasion openly and fairly state what he believed to be the real object of the bill. And what was that object, recognized in the Senate of England—a country which boasted of her institutions, of her great power, her great naval and military forces, her arts, her trade, and comi- merce ? He would state the object as it was mentioned by the noble lord- " He differed very much from his honourable and learned friend the Member for Tynemouth, in thinking that a distinction should be made in favour of merit : he thought it most unreasonable that any board should pretend to say who was meritorious. All the public could do in the shape of relief, was to adhere to that wise and good principle of the act of Elizabeth, that no poor person in the country should be allowed to starve." And this was the boon held out to the poor of England by the " Liberals," as they were called, and from some of whom he thought be had just heard a cheer at his quotation. In the term " liberal," according to some honourable Members, was included every thing that was great and generous. Doubting of those meanings, he had looked out for the word in Todd's Johnson; and there be found that its mean- ings were given as "generous," " noble," "magnanimous," "the opposite to parsimony and parsimoniousness." He owned, however, that he did not think those terms applied to the term "liberal" in its modern political application. But the statement of the noble lord had shown what was the "liberal" treat- ment of the poor. You might incarcerate them in Union prisons ; you might whip them once a fortnight—torture them always—clothe them in the degrad- ing dress; but then you would not allow them to starve That was wise, and just, and "liberal !"

He appealed to the great Conservative party in the House, and im- plored them to come to the rescue of the pauper population of England-

The great landowners of the Conservative body were the natural protectors of the poor, who looked to them for protection. They were not alarmed about the Corn-laws, for they knew that with the rise in the price of bread there mast be a corresponding increase in the rate of wages. (" Hear !" from Mr. O'Connell.) He heard again another cheer from the " Liberal " side. He was surprised to hear the honourable and learned Member for Dublin groaning at the truth. He repeated, that he appealed in the name of the poor to the great Conservative body as their protectors. From the " Liberal " side they had now nothing to expect. They (the Liberals) now confided in the noble lord, because they knew that he would not deceive them, and because be advo- cated the most liberal principle " that the poor were not to be allowed to starve," and with that object the Poor-law Commissioners were to be invested with almost unlimited power for ten years.

Mr. Wakley contended that no necessity had been shown for the re- newal of the law. The only evidence was that of the Report, drawn up by the Commissioners themselves. One characteristic point of that report was, that the Commissioners complained that the poor were rest- less and discontented, and expressed no gratitude for the relief they received. He believed, in truth, they bad little cause to exhibit grati- tude, for he knew how the paupers were treated by the Guardians. He denied that gratitude was to be expected in the case ; and he held, fur- ther, that those who expected gratitude from paupers receiving relief were not fit to administer the Poor-laws.

By what means were they entitled to relief? Why of right, by act of Par- liament ; by the law of the land; by right confirmed by Parliament ; in fact, they had precisely the same right to relief that the richest man the House held had to his lands. The law of the land had given precisely the same right in the one case as in the other. He denied, therefore, that the paupers ought to be called upon to show gratitude to the hands that relieved them.

He next alluded to the increase of the poor-rate before the passing of the law, and contended that the increase of the rates was not then greater than the increase of the population— Was it to be expected that the increase of population was to take place among the rich only ? Was all increase of the poor-rate to be grudged by a House of Commons which lavished hundreds of thousands on a Court, and 100,000/. on a single lady ? But while such sums were wasted in this way, they were called on to declare that the paupers of this country were a restless and ungovernable people.

The poor-rate expenditure in the two years immediately preceding the passing of the act had increased 13- per cent.; the increase of popu- lation in the same period had been 16 per cent. ; and the increase in the wealth of the country, as exhibited by the returns of legacy-duty, had been at the rate of 6,000,0001. a year. The effect of the Poor-law on the minds and feelings of the people had been to cause distrust of all " Liberal" politicians. The system of plural voting was among the grievances of which the people had a right to complain ; and this prin- ciple of voting, which had always been obnoxious, was extended by the Poor-law even to non-resident owners— Under the existing laws, a non-resident owner could give six votes for the very property for which the occupier gave only three votes. Was this a proper franchise ? Was this a specimen of Liberal administration ? Was this what the country bad a right to expect from a Reform government ? If it were, then he said, the sooner the country got rid of them the better. (" Hear, hear! " from Colonel Sibthorp.) Surely that could not be a Liberal Government which gave its sanction to a franchise of this kind. See how it worked. He himself knew of one parish in which there were put in 1,500 votes by proxy alone. Now, however, it was proposed to alter this, and the noble lord wished that twenty-four should be the greatest number of votes that any one person should be allowed to give. But what was the operation of the system on the ratepayers. They were virtually disfranchised. They knew it ; they were indignant at it. "What use is it," said they, "for us to interfere in these elections? We are deprived of our right by the non-residents and their proxies." In consequence, then, of the operation of the law in this and other respects, and on reflecting upon these things, he could assure the House that this class of persons had become dissatisfied at least at the proceedings of the House of Commons; that they had no respect for the Legislature, and felt no interest in its proceedings. In short, it was felt among the people that the proceedings of that House were adverse to popular rights, adverse to popular interests, and only calculated for the protection and advancement of the rights and interests of the rich. These were the sentiments of the persons of whom he spoke; and for himself he would say, that when he found the principles of the Poor-law Act entirely hostile to the interests of the poor, he should not do his duty as a Member of Parliament if he did not express his opinion upon it. He said, then, that it was a coarse, cold-blooded act ; that it was based on ferocious and savage principles; that it was calculated to lead only to the tor- ture and grinding of the poorer classes; that it was calculated to make the muscle and bone of England strive against the Parliament; and he warned the House, that if they tried to carry it out fully, they would raise a spirit of re- sistance which nothing but force would be found effective to oppose. But there was yet time to retrace their steps. The poor man, who had been toiling for forty years, and scarcely obtaining bread for his wife and children—he on his knees was now appealing to that love of justice which belonged to the House, to the feelings of their hearts, to all their affections and sensibilities, and asking them in the name of God not to impose on him a law so savage as this. He who had supported a wife and children by so many years' toiling, appealed to the House not to let him fall a victim to the cruelty of those who might be inclined to make his poverty the groundwork of punishment. Day after day, and week after week, he (Mr. Wakley) met with instances of this sort among the jurymen who came before him—men on whose cheek the deep wrinkles told sufficiently what sorrow and grief they had passed through. Such men would tell him that they thought Parliament wished the people to be murdered. He said to them in answer, " No, Parliament wishes to do justice to the people " ; but these persons would not listen to him : they referred him to the Poor-law, and compelled him to reflect how much of truth what they said might have in it.

He appealed to the House to consider the condition of the day-la- bourer; who, after working day after day and year after year for a mere subsistence, and is at length broken down by age and disease, finds no relief provided for him but in the workhouse prisons.

Mr. Wakley then dwelt upon the working of the law, and the cruelty and insults practised on the paupers by the relieving-officers. He ad- duced numerous cases of the degradation to which the paupers were compelled to submit from these underlings in office, and of the punish- ments inflicted on the inmates of the union workhouses— There was no redress, no appeal for the unfortunate workhouse poor : the Board did what they pleased—imprisoned and tortured at will. The most atrocious cruelty might be inflicted on the poor man, yet to whom was he to appeal for redress? How was he to obtain it? How could he even communi- cate with his relations under this atrocious and infernal system ? He could describe it in no other terms. He had no desire to give a personal colouring to his remarks; but he was discharging what he considered a most important duty, since he had had more opportunities of witnessing the operation of the existing law than any other man in that House.

Sir ROBERT PEEL supported the principle of the bill; though he guarded himself against being considered pledged to support its various provisions. The questions lie considered were, whether it was advis- able to adhere to the great experiment made in 1834; and whether, if that question were decided affirmatively, it was expedient that it should he carried iuto operation by a Central Board of Commissioners. He referred to the state of the administration of the Poor-law at the time the act passed to show the necessity of a change being made in a sys- tem which was corroding the industry of the country : the old Poor- law was, in short, a contrivance to pay the wages of idleness out of the fruits of industry. The able-bodied poor, when receiving out-door relief, were sure to waste their time in idle games, or spending the day in sleep, to prepare themselves for the execution of those practices that required darkness and concealment— It was upon grounds such as these considerations suggested, that he supported a legislative measure having for its object to supply some such test of industry as the establishment of workhouses furnished. He supported a measure which said to the able-bodied poor—" You must take up your residence in a work- house, or you must relinquish the hope of deriving any benefit from the poor- rates." This was an enactment which iu common justice was due to the humble and independent labourer, who toiled incessantly to keep himself from the degradation of receiving parochial relief. The continuance of the present Poor-law was due to the community at large ; but, above all, it was due to the working-classes themselves, for without it there could be no hope of improve- ment, either in their moral or their physical condition. He did not doubt that cases of extreme distress and hardship might he cited, and might be more easily cited now than when the workhouses were small, for large establish- ments necessarily led to increased publicity. In the old workhouses, which were carried on upon a small scale, cases of abuse of power, cases of cruelty and hardship must have existed ; and he suspected that they did exist to a much greater extent, and were of a far more aggravated character, than had ever yet come to the knowledge of the public. He did not deny the existence of abuses at present—be lamented that they were to be found ; but he conceived that the hest way of mitigating those causes of complaint, would be to maintain a plan which, by reason of the great scale on which it was worked, afforded that protection against abuse and tyranny which publicity usually supplied. In- fluenced by considerations such as these, he had been induced to give the mea- sure his support ; and now he should deeply regret being convinced that the experiment of 1834 had failed, and must be abandoned. If such a conviction were forced upon him by circumstances, lie should do that which upon the whole he thought would be most advantageous to the country, but he repeated that it would occasion him great regret to be obliged to abandon the plan of 1834. It had been objected to the present law, that it had not improved the condition of the farmers, and that it had increased rent and wages. To that objection it might be replied, that the object of the law was not so much to improve the state of the farmers as to raise the condition of the working-classes. The statement that wages had been raised, was a proof that the measure had effected the latter object. Referring to the clauses of the bill, Sir Robert Peel said he doubted the expe- diency of renewing the power of the Commissioners for so long a period as ten years. He thought there would be no benefit in prolong- ing it beyond five— Ile knew all the advantages of giving a permanent character, and the autho- rity which arose out of that permanency, to a Board having such functions to perform as those which appertained to the Commissioners; yet, on the whole, he thought that the balance was in favour of limiting the duration of the com- mission to five years. if at the end of five years the bill was found to work well, he was certain that the good sense of Parliament and the good sense of the country would lead to its renewal. He had another reason for wishing to limit the duration of the measure ; great legislative powers were delegated to the Commissioners, and it was only becoming in Parliament to review periodi- cally the manner in which those powers were exercised. Of the other clauses in which he hoped to see amendments intro- duced, he alluded to the burial of paupers in burial-grounds attached to the unions. He had supported the measure from an anxious wish to promote the interests of the working-classes ; and he thought those who administered the law ought to execute it with deference to their feelings. If the paupers preferred being buried in churchyards, such wishes ought to he treated with due consideration, In reference to the unions, he thought their further extension would be objectionable ; for the principle of extension, he conceived, had been already carried too far.

Mr. T. DONCOMBE characterized the proposed measure as a bill for perpetuating the power of the Queen, Lords, and Commons, already in the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners ; nay, the effect of the bill would be to extend the powers they already possessed, as it would abolish the operation of Gilbert's Acts in the country. He had no doubt the Ministers would be glad enough to obtain the support of Sir Robert Peel to their bill by adopting the amendments he proposed— The right honourable baronet objected to the clause respecting pauper grave- yards; which, of course, would be expunged. He, (Mr. Duncombe,) however, wished that honourable gentlemen bad more compassion on the poor creatures while they were alive, than sympathy with their feelings when they were dead, and it would be better for both parties. It would be far more humane to let them die in the places where they were born than to drag them to workhouses. Mr. Fox MATILE denied that the discontents and outrages in the country had been caused by the Poor-law Act, as asserted by Mr. Disraeli. The object of the bill was to ease the condition of the working-classes, instead of depressing them ; and if the rates had been higher under the new system, instead of lower as they had been, he would still have as strongly supported its continuance, knowing that its effects were beneficial to the population of the country. The main question to be decided was, whether they should continue the system under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners— The Poor-law Act had been founded on the recommendation of Commis- sioners of Inquiry, who had founded their system on particular cases of good management which had come under their notice. The only means of extend- ing effectually that good management which had been met with in some parishes was a central authority. The admirable management of the prisons in Scotland was one instance of the value of-a central authority. Still, how- ever, there was a large field over which the authority of the Commissioners had not yet extended. if they now deprived the country of the benefit of their services, the Commissioners must leave three parts of their work undone ; so that whilst they were amending the syatem in one part of the country, in another part of the country the old system was remaining in force. The two systems would be pulling against each other; and he believed that there was a greater chance of the old system contaminating the new than of the new amending the old.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL consented to the second reading of the bill, though strongly objecting to many of its provisions, which he should oppose in Committee. He thought the Guardians ought to have the power of granting out-door relief. He agreed that it was necessary to have a central Board to carry the new system into effect ; but he ob- jected to give the Commissioners legislative powers.

Lord HOWICK expressed satisfaction, that during the discussion not even the most violent opposers of the new Poor-law had ventured to recommend a return to the old system ; notwithstanding the years of denunciations to which the new system had been exposed. The former system condemned the hard-working man to a forced idleness until his little pittance might be spent in the beer-shops.

From the evidence taken in 1834, this fact was notoriously established, that the labourers were refused employment on the ground that they had a little money yet in store ; and to that accursed system, which was reducing the peasantry of England to a worse condition than the Russian serfs, no honour- able Member said they should return. He regretted to find that Sir Robert Peel intended to propose the limi- tation of the Commission to five years. Were the House to consent to diminish the term from ten to five years, it would show a degree of yielding and uncertainty that would encourage the agitation against the measure oat of doors. Whilst Lord Howick was speaking in favour of the longer term, some Member called out " Make it permanent ": to which his Lordship replied, he had no objection— The act of 1834 contained no limitation of the duration of the Commission. It was impossible it could be terminated, for it was necessary the boards of Guardians should be responsible to some authority. From his experience he was convinced that very great benefit arose from the interference of the Com- missioners. He feared that the observation of the right honourable baronet with respect to the burial-grounds might create prejudice out of doors. But it was never the intention of the Commissioners to debar the settled poor of the rural districts from the consolation of being buried in the places where their ancestors were interred, but only to prevent the casual poor, who were often received in disease and died, from being buried in the grounds of those parishes with which they had nothing to do.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended the existing Poor-law Amendment Act, which he contended was founded on the same principle as the law of Elizabeth, though altered to meet the changed circumstances of the times. The same principle of establishing a test of destitution, which it enforces, was acted on by the Duke of Wellington in India during a famine in that country. Lord John admitted that, according to theory and argument, hard labour out of the workhouse seemed to be fully equal as a test to the present workhouse test : but experience told in favour of the existing system. If they were to act on the principle of affording out- door relief, as recommended by Sir Edward Knatchhull, the evils of the old system would soon return. He could not, therefore, agree to such a proposition. After alluding to the advantages of the New Poor-law, in comparison with the old law in its effects on the labouring population, Lord John continued- " I cannot help thinking that the present test of destitution, instead of being injurious, is highly beneficial to the labourer, and that the best course that can be adopted is to enable him to obtain employment for himself. The contract between the labourer and the employer is a perfectly fair contract : it is an exchange of labour for wages ; and the result of it is to promote a spirit of industry and independence on the part of the working classes. A contrary doctrine may be popular ; but it cannot, I think, be denied, that living by charity destroys the independence of the labourer, weakens his strength, and undermines his morality—that such a system, in an overgrown population, will lead persons to resent the authority of the law, disobey the dictates of re- ligion, and destroy the whole foundations of society. I will not now discuss the details of the clauses of the bill : but with respect to one proposition, that as to limiting the duration of the Commission to five years, all I can say is, that I should be extremely sorry if the House were to adopt any such limita- tion. Sufficient time has elapsed to enable Parliament to say whether or not they approve of the system ; and I think the Commissioners are as much as possible under the control of Parliament. It is in the power of the Crown to remove the Commissioners whenever it pleases; and, if the conduct of any of them should be op, :n to blame, it would be impossible for any Ministers to pre- vent their dismissal. It seems to me, however, that it would not be wise to render their duration short, because the effect of that would be to weaken their authority."

Mr. G. KNIGHT, Mr. DARBY, Mr. E. R. RICE, Captain PECHELL, Mr. LANGDALE, and Mr. JAMES, expressed their intention of voting for the second reading, though they all objected to different details of the mea- sure which they should oppose in Committee. The principle of the bill was strongly opposed by Mr. Musrz, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. W. Arrwoon, and Mr. FIELDER. On a division, the numbers were—for the second reading, 201 ; for the amendment, 54; majority for the second read- ing, 147.

DESTITUTION IN THE HIGHLANDS.

Mr. H. RAILLYE, on Thursday, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee " to inquire into the condition of the population of the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, with a view to afford the people i relief by means of emigration." The distress experienced in the Western Highlands arose from the destruction of the kelp-manufacture by the reduction of the duties on salt and barilla. The poor inhabitants not being able to obtain nourishment from their barren soil, were re- duced to the greatest distress by that act of the Legislature which de- prived them of their manufacture ; and it became peculiarly the duty of 'Parliament to relieve the distress which its enactments had been the means of occasioning. This relief was to be found in emigration ; and he proposed that the destitute Highlanders should be sent to Upper Canada, where they would find many of their friends and countrymen already located.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL acceded to the motion, for the purpose of afford- ing an opportunity for examination ; but he held out no hope that the conclusion to be arrived at would be favourable to Mr. Baillie's views. Unless it could be proved that when those people arrived in Canada they could be placed in a position to procure a livelihood, it would be impolitic and cruel to hold out delusive hopes.

Sir ROBERT PEEL approved of the appointment of the Committee. He thought it would have the effect of convincing the parties that emigration on an extensive scale could not be accomplished, and that it would open their eyes to the real amount of relief they could possibly receive from Parliamentary enactment. The case of the Highlanders was similar to the hand-loom weavers ; for new discoveries and appli- cations of machinery were to the one what a reduction of duties was to the other. Emigration, to be useful, should be carried on with great care ; and if the state interfered directly for the relief of these people, care should be taken to unite such relief with local subscriptions.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed a verbal alteration in the motion, to avoid the risk of raising expectations that the House was about to grant money. This amendment was adopted, and the Committee ordered to be appointed.

MR. M'LEOD'S ARREST.

On Monday, Lord STANLEY asked whether there would be any ob- jection to produce the correspondence between the British Government and the Government of the United States relative to the destruction of the Caroline steamer ; whether any despatches had been received from the British Minister at Washington, Mr. Fox, respecting the recent ap- prehension of Mr. M'Leod ; and whether the Government had taken any steps, and if so, what steps, for the protection of Mr. M'Leod? Lord Stanley prefaced his questions by a statement of the facts. He began by recapitulating the history of the circumstances under which the steamer was destroyed— It would be in the recollection of the House, that in the latter period of 1837, at a time when by the gallantry of the troops both of the Line and the Militia rebellion had been put down in the province of Upper Canada, and not a single rebel in arms was left within that province, a band of men, consisting partly of Canadians and partly of American subjects, was organized and armed within the frontiers of the United States, possessed themselves of arms by seizing on the arsenals the property of the United States, and in open day took possession of an island lying in the Niagara river, the property of her Majesty ; to which they transported, also in open day, arms the property of the United States, ammunition and stores the property of the United States, and brought frequent reinforcements of men, in order to make their position strong. From that position, and with those means, they for a considerable time fired upon the inhabitants of the Canadian frontier at not more than six hundred yards distance, and upon boats passing up and down the river. This band, thus posted, was supplied on more than one occasion by a schooner from the American frontier, which they had chartered for that express purpose, with arms, ammunition, and reinforcements. On the night of the 20th December, that schooner having been so employed during the day of the 20th, a body of men, by authority of her Majesty, and commanded by or at least under the orders of Mr. M'Nab, Speaker of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada, who at that time commanded the Militia of the Province, and was active on behalf of her Majesty, attacked the schooner, lying, undoubtedly, moored by the American shore; and having boarded her, and found it impossible to carry her away in consequence of the rapidity of the current, set fire to her, and suffered her to fall down the Falls of Niagara. Representations on the subject were immediately made by the local American authorities to the United States Government ; and a counter- statement was made, through Mr. Fox, by the Canadian Government. The President, however, had received evidence very contrary to that relied upon by the Canadian authorities ; and a demand for reparation was made to Mr. Fox. The whole correspondence was transmitted to the British Government in February 1838. Since then, no information had been furnished by the Foreign Office ; but the Colonial Office had strongly supported the view taken by the Canadian authorities, and had spoken in the highest terms of approbation of those by whom the schooner had been destroyed. He believed the country generally considered the question as settled ; but on the 12th November last, Mr. M`Leod, who was in the Queen's service, and a member of Council, was arrested in the State of New York, for participating in the attack on the Caro- line. Mr. Fox had demanded his release, but it had been refused by the United States Government. The present position of the matter was this- " A British subject was arrested in the month of November; the assizes will take place during the present month, February ; and at this hour, (and this is my vindication for interfering. in any degree, in a matter on which communi- cations have taken place between two great nations, which are now in a very critical state,) at this moment, the life of a British subject may be in jeopardy, in consequence of his having acted in defence of his native country, and under the orders and by the authority of the military powers of this country, to whom he was compelled to give obedience in repelling invasion and rebellion."

Lord PALMERSTON said, that despatches on the subject had been re- ceived from Mr. Fox. He thought, however, that it was not expedient, pending the discussions on the subject between the two Governments, to produce the correspondence asked for by Lord Stanley. Of course, when the negotiations were brought to a close, there would be no ob- jection to laying the correspondence on the table ; nor would there be any objection to producing at once that which had already been pub- lished in the American papers. The information which Lord Palmer- ston had received led him to the conclusion, that Mr. M•Leod was not present at the destruction of the steamer. With regard to the ground taken by Mr. Fox, it was competent to the American Government to have considered the " transaction " either as one to be dealt with by the two Governments, on a demand for redress to be granted or refused, or as a matter to be left to the local authorities.

Lord STANLEY reminded Lord Palmerston that he had not answered the most important question with regard to the release of Mr. M'Leod. Lord PALMERSTON said, it had escaped his memory-

" Of course, the House will, I trust, suppose that her Majesty's Government will send—they have indeed sent—certain instructions; but till we get the conclusion of the correspondence, it is impossible to send final instructions. I trust the House will believe the Government will send such further instruc- tions as they may think it to be their duty to do; but I am not prepared now to state formally what those instructions may be."

Mr. HUME deprecated any premature judgment on the question until the whole correspondence was before the House. What instructions, asked Mr. Hume, had been given to Mr. Stevenson with regard to his urging the demand for compensation ?

Lord Pannnegrost thought that the published correspondence showed that Mr. Stevenson had been instructed to abstain from pressing the de- mand. Lord Palmerston then gave a clearer definition of the grounds on which he considered the question to rest— In the case of the American citizens engaged in invading Canada, the Ame- rican Government disavowed the acts of those citizens, and stated that the British authorities might deal with them as they pleased, and that they were persons who were not in any degree entitled to the protection of the United States. But in the other case, they treated the affair of the Caroline as one to be considered as that of the Government, and not to be left upon the responsi- bility of individuals. Until, therefore, the British Government disowned those persons, as the American Government disavowed their citizens in the other case, they would have no right to change their ground upon the question. Sir Ronmer PEEL asked Lord John Russell, whether there were not officers of the British Army and Navy engaged in the affair of the Caro- line, and wounded in that service ; and whether they had received the same pensions as they would have received if they had suffered such wounds in the service to which they regularly belonged?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL had understood that officers of the Army and Navy were employed on the occasion, under the orders of the Colonial authorities, and that some of them were wounded in that service ; but he had not heard that they had received any pensions.

Lord MOUNTCASREL called attention to the same subject in the House of Lords, on the same evening. He said that he had the opportunity of knowing, " through the means of Captain Drew," that Mr. M'Leod was not present when the schooner Caroline was burned, and that he was in fact on duty ashore.

Lord MELBOURNE declined stating what Government meant to do ; but the House might be sure that they would take the measures which they thought best calculated " to secure the safety of her Majesty's subject, and to vindicate the honour of the British nation."

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, Lord STANLEY recurred to the questions which he had put on Monday respecting the arrest of Mr. M'Leod. He explained that he had not asked for that imperfect portion of the correspondence on the subject which had appeared in the Ame- rican newspapers : Lord Palmerston, however, had said that he saw no objection to the production of that portion, though he had objected to producing the whole— He hoped that the noble lord would reconsider that answer. He begged at the same time to state, that he had not asked for the production of a part only of the correspondence ; and at all events, the production of the whole, or any part of it, would be entirely at the noble lord's own discretion : certainly he did not ask him to produce a portion of it on the ground which the noble lord had stated—that, objecting to the production of the whole, he was willing to lay before the House so much of it as had, through some irregular means, already obtained publicity in de American papers. Such a ground for the pro- duction of important public documents would establish a very inconvenient precedent, and would place the case on a principle liable to great misunder- standing as regarded the country in the eyes of her colonies and of the world generally.

Lord Stanley again urged Lord Palmerston to give an explicit answer as to whether any steps had actually been taken by the Government for the protection of Mr. M'Leod.

Lord PALMERSTON replied— When he stated yesterday that be would have no objection—that he could have no reasonable objection—to offer against the production of papers which had already been laid before Congress, he did not intimate any intention, on the part of Government to lay on the table of the House any other part of the correspondence ; therefore he thought the noble lord would exercise a sound discretion in abstaining from pressing for it. [Lord Stanley repeated, that he had not asked for it.] With respect to the other question, what he had to state was this—A case of a somewhat similar nature happened, or was about to happen, a year or a year and a half ago; and upon that occasion instructions were sent out to Mr. Fox, laying down what the Government thought were sound principles in the emergency. At that time it was rendered unnecessary to act upon the instructions; the case having now actually occurred, Mr. Fox, without waiting for further instruc- tions from home, acted upon the former instructions, and made the de- mand upon the American Government for the liberation of Mr. M'Leod. He then reported the whole case to the Government; but from various causes that communication had been much longer& its passage than usual, and it was on Saturday last that he (Lord Palmerston) had received the final portion of what had taken place between Mr. Fox and the American Government ; it was therefore only that day (Tuesday) that an opportunity had pre- sented itself for sending out final and conclusive instructions.

Further pressing from Lord STANLEY could obtain no mcre explicit answer. In reply to questions from Mr. HUME and Mr. THOMAS DUN- COMBE, Lord PALMERSTON said that the Government had regarded the destruction of the Caroline steamer " as a justifiable proceeding, seeing that it was done in defending the territory of her Majesty from un- warrantable invasion." That approval of the act had been communi- cated to the American Minister in this country, and by Mr. Fox, the

British Minister at Washington, to the American Government. •

BRITISH CLAIMS ON PORTUGAL.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Lord SANDON moved for papers relative to the naval and military claims on the Government of Portugal, arising out of the late war of restoration. He regretted to find that no further progress had been made in the adjustment of these claims than at the end of last session, notwithstanding the promise of early settlement then given.

Lord PALMERSTON regretted that the claims had not been settled, but considerable progress had been made towards an amicable arrangement. The two Commissioners appointed to investigate and determine on the claims could not agree on the question of the contracts. Each of them had prepared a statement of his views of the question, to be submitted to the Belgian Minister, who had agreed to act as arbiter. When that matter was decided, the questions that would remain would be of minor difficulty, and a speedy settlement might then be expected.

DEATH PUNISHMENT.

Mr. FITZROY KELLY, on Tuesday, reproduced his bill of last session for the abolition of the punishment of death in certain cases—

He proposed in this bill to abolish the punishineut of death in every crime save that of murder and high treason. In the progress of his bill through the House last session, it had passed through all its stages by considerable majori- ties until the third reading, when it was rejected in a comparatively thin at- tendance. The object of the present measure was coextensive with the bill of last year. In substance it was the same, only that out of deference to the opi- nions of many honourable Members, instead of repealing the punishment of death in all cases in one clause, he had now made a separate clause for every case in which he proposed its tbolition. This would have the advantage of each case resting on its own peculiar merits, and would allow of the substitu- tion of a minor punishment in each.

As to the existing system of secondary punishments, he felt the ne- cessity of great amendment ; hat that was a question which ought to be left to the Government. Still, if the Ministers did not intend to pro- pose a plan to that effect, he should be prepared with a series of reso- lutions for altering the present system. He understood that the Go- vernment intended to bring forward a measure having similar objects to the present bill ; therefore, though he desired to have the principle admitted by the second reading, he should delay proceeding farther until the Government bill was introduced, unless it should be too long delayed.

Mr. EwART seconded the motion ; and expressed his conviction that the punishment of death ought to be abolished in all cases.

Lord Jour; RUSSELL concurred in the opinion that some further miti- gation in the severity of the criminal code was required ; but he could not go the length of abolishing the punishment of death altogether, nor even to the extent of the present bill, which had been admitted to be only a step to total abolition— With respect to the offences punishable with death still remaining on the statute-book, there were some which hardly any one would wish to see visited with that penalty; but whether from inadvertence or some other circumstances, there had not yet been any act of legislation on that subject. There were other cases which would be attended with much greater difficulty. As an instance of both classes of offences, lie would mention those which were created by a single statute passed under very peculiar circumstances—he meant the destruc- tion of ships or stores in her Majesty's dockyards. Some offences of this kind might partake of the character of high treason ; but in the same statute other offences were comprehended, such as the destroying ropes or setting fire to a small quantity of stores in the dockyard, which in themselves might be con- sidered merely as offences against property, and ought not to be punished with death. Surely the Government, which did away with capital punishment in so many cases in 1837, and had since given so much attention to the punish- ment of transportation, might have been left at liberty to consider the whole subject of the penal code, with a view to the establishment of a uniform and consistent system. We could not expect to have an entirely satisfactory system established until we had other prisons, maintained at the expense of the State, for the confinement of those who would now be punished with death or trans- portation. Much labour and care would be requisite, before a satisfactory statute on this subject could be passed.

Mr. Kelly's bill was then brought in.

JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTS.

Mr. Fox MAULE, on Tuesday, obtained leave to bring in a bill on the subject of County Courts. His first proposal would be to extend the juris- diction of the County Courts to a larger sum than at present ; he would suggest 201. He would make them ambulatory within their own districts. He would have a Judge for each, to be appointed by the Government at a fixed salary. He would abolish all written pleadings, and make a sum- mons the only process. On any amount under 51. the judge might decide without a jury ; on any larger amount a jury might be demand- able by either party. The parties themselves should be examinable, and no witness should be incompetent on the score of interest. He would give to the Court a jurisdiction also in the recovery of small tene- ments. It was not in contemplation to take away the jurisdiction of Hundred Courts or Courts of Requests ; though he certainly did believe that the County Courts would soon withdraw their business from them- The judge was not to practise at the bar ; and his salary was to be at first 8001., and to increase as business should increase until it reached a maximum of 1,5001. An analogous measure had been introduced into Scotland with the best effect.

Mr. MAULE subsequently obtained leave to bring in a bill enabling the Lord Chancellor to direct that certain proceedings from the Court of Chancery, in relation to bankruptcy, lunacy, and insolvency, may be carried into the County Courts.

TITHE RECOVERY ACT AMENDMENT.

Captain PECHELL, on Tuesday, obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend his former bill for the recovery of small amounts claimed for tithes. That hill provided that all such disputed claims should be de- cided by the bench of Magistrates, to prevent writs for trifling sums being brought into the superior courts at great expense. It appeared, however, by recent proceedings, that the act was rendered nugatory, as the Ecclesiastical Courts did not consider themselves included in the term " her Majesty's Courts."

COPYRIGHT OF PATTERNS.

Mr. E3IERSON TENSEST, on Tuesday, moved for leave to bring in a bill to exteud the copy right of patterns on printed calicoes and muslins from three months to twelve. Twelve months was the extent of the copyright in designs in silks and woollens ; and he contended that it was from the want of a similar protection to our cotton-printed goods that we were excelled by the French manufactures, who had a protec- tion for five, ten, or fifteen }ears. As the law stood, no manufacturer considered it worth the trouble and expense of bringing out new elegant patterns, which might be almost immediately pirated with impunity.

The motion was opposed by Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, on the ground that the protection claimed would be an injury to the calico-printing business, and prevent the amendment of patterns which had been pro- tected. Ile granted that a more ample protection might be the means of inducing our manufacturers to produce more elegant designs than the French ; but in that case they would be copied by the latter, and the goods sent to this country to compete with the original manufac- tures at a cheaper price.

Mr. LABOUCHERE opposed the principle of giving so long a protection as twelve months ; he thought it would be more prudent to try six months in the first instance.

Mr. MORRISON attributed the superiority of the French patterns and designs to the existence of schools of design on the Continent. What the manufacturer wanted in this country was an English style of art.

31r. Sergeant TALFOURD supported the principle of affording protec- tion to the inventors of designs. Taking this occasion to allude to the defeat of his Copyright Bill, he said that though defeated by accident, he bad not relinquished his original intention.

Mr. WARBURTON said, the principle he supported both in literary productions and the inventions of art, was to give a short term of remu- neration to the inventors, and then to secure the reversion of the inven- tion to the public. The bill was read a first time, and ordered for a second reading on the 3d March.

DISABH.ITIES OF THE JEWS.

Mr. DIVETT obtained leave to bring in a bill to allow Jews to make the dechration contained in the Act 1 and 2 Vic., cap. 5 and 15, on ad- mission to corporate offices. He founded the measure on a petition pre- sented from Mr. Salomons, late Sheriff of the City of London.

Sir ROBERT Nous objected to the bill, as another step in retreat from the character of a Christian nation. The Jews, he said, were a class who, amiable and respectable as many of them were, could never regard themselves as Englishmen, or as belonging to any but a foreign people : they therefore could not claim the privileges of native citizens, and, as a class, did not in fact claim those privileges.

Mr. WARBURTON maintained that the principle of the objection urged by Sir Robert Inglis would go to repeal all the privileges at present enjoyed by the Jewish community. He held that the exclusion of any body of men from civil privileges on account of their religious opinions was persecution.

The bill was read a first time, and ordered for a second reading on the 3d March.

MISCELLANEOUS.

NEW Warr. A new writ was ordered, on Monday, for Richmond, in the room of Mr. Spiers, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

NEW MEMBERS. In the House of Commons, on Monday, the Ho- nourable GEORGE PERCY SYDNEY SMYTHE took the oaths and his seat for Canterbury. Lord EASTNOR, for Reigate, and Lord LISTOWEL, for St. Alban's, took their seats in the House on Thursday.

LORD KEANE. Messages from the Queen were brought down to both Houses, on Monday, recommending that measures should be taken for conferring on Lord Keane and the two next surviving heirs of his body, on account of his "great and brilliant services," some distin- guished mark of approbation. An address to the Queen, in reply to the message, was agreed to in the Lords on Tuesd..y, on the motion of Lord MELBOURNE. The Commons took more time to consider the matter.

ORDNANCE SURVEY OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND. A bill for ex- ecuting a new Ordnance Survey of England and Scotland was on Thursday ordered to be brought in by Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN. It is pro- posed that the survey shall be on the scale of six inches to a mile, as in the Ordnance Survey of Ireland. BANKS OF ISSUE. The Committee of last session on Banks of Issue was on Thursday reappointed, on the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.

TITHE COMPOSITIONS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a second time on Thursday. Mr. PIGOT stated that it was the intention of the Government, at the next sittings of the Court of Chancery in Dublin, to institute proceedings against all defaulters for arrears of tithes.

DRALNAGE OF LANDS IN IRELAND. Lord I■IORPETH, On Tuesday,

brought in a bill to amend the law relating to the drainage of lands in Ireland. The object of the bill is to place the drainage under the con- trol of pnblic Commissioners, instead of its being its the hands of com- panies, as at present.

PERSIA. In reply to Sir ROBERT PEEL, on Monday, Lord PALMER- mom said that the differences between the British and Persian Govern- ments had not yet been settled. There would be no objection to lay before the House of Commons such information as would explain the present state of the relations between Persia and England.