&luau net nurtitiugo iu Varliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OP THE WEEK.

Horn or LORDS. Saturday, Feb. 6. Peers met to present an Address to the Queen. ay, Feb. 8. Transfer of Land ; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a first o Monday,

time—Priucess Royal's Marriage ; the Queen's Answer to the Address—Thanks voted to the Army and Navy in India—Religious Worship Act Amendment ; Lord Shaftesbury's Bill withdrawn, the Archbishop of Canterbury's Bill read a second time.

Tuesday, Feb. 9. Law of Property and Bankruptcy ; Lord St. Leonards's Bill read a first time.

Thursday, Feb. 11. East India Company's Petition presented by Earl Grey, Friday, Feb. 12. Imprisonment for Debt ; Lord Brougham's Motion for Papers—Havelock Annuities Bill read a first time.

Horn or CommoNs. Saturday, Feb. 6. The House met to present an Address to the Queen.

Monday, Feb. 8. Princess Royal's Marriage ; the Queen's Answer to the Ad- dress—General Ashburnham ; Explanation—Thanks voted to Army and Navy in India—East India Loan Bill read a first and second time—Conspiracy to Murder ; Lord Palmerston's Bill, Debate on Motion for leave—Bank Acts Committee no- minated—East India (Transport of Troops) Committee nominated. Tuesday, Feb. 9. East India Company's Petition presented by Mr. Baring—Con- spiracy to Murder ; Lord Palmerston's Motion for leave carried by 299 to 99; Bill read a first time—Lady Havelock and Sir 11. Havelock's Annuity Bill read a second time.

Wednesday, Feb. 10. Oaths ; Lord John Russell's Bill read a second time. Thursday, Feb. II. Minister of Justice ; Lord Palmerston's Answer to Mr. Swart—Joint-Stock Banks; Mr. Headlam's Bill, leave given—National Education; Sir John Pakington's Motion for a Commission of Inquiry—Lady Havelock and Sir H. Havelock's Annuity Bill read a third time and passed. Friday, Feb. 12. Refugees in England ; Question and Answer—Cantillon's Legacy ; Mr. Stirling's Statement and Lord Palmerston's Answer—Hudson's Bay Company ; Mr. Labouchere's Answer to Lord Bury—Government of India; Lord Palmerston's Bill, Debate on Motion for leave adjourned—London Corporation Bill read a second time.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Saturday 21h .... 2h 45m Monday 5h 9h 20m Tuesday 5h 5h 30m Wednesday No sitting.

Thursday Bh 611 30m Friday 511 6h 20m 5 ; Time, 9h 55m Sittings this Week, 8; Time, 411530m

15; — 29h 35m — this Session 16; — 90h Ora THE FRENCH QUESTION.

After a long discussion on the votes of thanks to Lord Canning and the Army and Navy in India, on Monday, Lord PALMERSTON, in fulfil- ment of a promise, moved for leave to bring in " a bill to amend the law relating to conspiracy to commit murder." Circumstances, he said, arise from time to time which point to the necessity, "or the expediency at all events," of revising particular laws. An event of that kind has recently happened. A conspiracy was formed, partly in this country, to commit an atrocious crime. The natural con- sequence has been, that foreign nations, ignorant of our laws, have thought that we are indifferent to crimes of this nature, and rather dis- posed to look upon them with favour. A disposition prevails on the Continent to think that Parliament should take some steps to remove aliens on mere suspicion : but it is not the intention of Government to propose any measure of that kind. Such a power in the hands of Govern- ment would lead to abuse ; to grant it is out of the question. But the Go- vernment, having strong reason to believe that a conspiracy to murder had been partially concocted in this country, are anxious to consider the state of the law as regards that offence. Here Lord Palmerston paused to meet the objection, that, because great irritation has been expressed in foreign nations, and certain military addresses have been published in an official paper, we are precluded from taking, on its own merits, a step becoming the character and interests of the country. That objection he could not understand. If our law is de- fective, we should not abstain from altering it because other nations have given way to impulses of passion, perhaps of fear. If the people of France are ignorant of the spirit of our constitution, we in like manner are ill-in- formed respecting their practices. He had only learnt within the last few days that for slatyyears it has been the practice for military bodies of all descriptions to send up addresses to the head of the existing Government on all occasions of pubhc interest. There was not in the fact of these ad- dresses from the French Army being permitted and published any departure from the ordinary and uniform practice which prevails in France. But there were in those addresses passages " at which, were it not a pity that we should examine too narrowly what passes in France, persons in this country might justly take offence." Well, her Majesty's Government had informed the French Government of the unfortunate effect those passages had produced ; and Count Walewski had ordered the Ambassador here to say, "that, although the practice was a universal practice, if in two or three addresses out of many hundreds some pampa were allowed to be printed to which objections had been taken in Engb.nd, that circumstance must have arisen from the inadvertence of those who had the charge of pub- lishing those addresses—(Cries of " Oh ! " and " Hear !")—and that he was ordered upon the part of the Emperor to state that he regretted such publication. (Loud cheers.) As far, then, as any objection to the revision of our laws is founded upon these recent occurrences, I think such objection ought to cease, after the handsome manner in which an explanation has been made." From this digression Lord Palmerston returned to a consideration of the present state of the law. England treats conspiracy to murder as I! misdemeanour, and punishes it with fine and imprisonment. In Ireland it is treated as a capital crime. Now he proposed to make conspiracy to

i murder a felony, punishable with penal servitude, and to apply it to all persons with respect to conspiracies to murder wherever intended. The bill, which is short, is as follows. " 1. Any person who shall, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. AdJourninent

Saturday 2h. .... 2h 30m Monday 4h .(m) lh lam Tuesday 4h .(m) lh 45m Wednesday Noon ... 4h 15m Thursday 4h .(m) 111 Om Friday 4h .(m)12h Sittings this Week,

this Session,

and Ireland, or the Islands of jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, conspire with any other person or persons, being either within or without the said United Kingdom and said Islands, to commit murder either within or without the dominions of her Majesty, shall be guilty of felony ; and upon being oonvicted, shall be liable to be sentenced to penal servitude for life or for any term not less than five years, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding three years.

" 2. That any person within the said United Kingdom, or said Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, who shall persuade, or solicit any other person, being either within or without the said United Kingdom or the said Islands, to commit murder, either within or without her Majesty's dominions, shall be guilty of felony; and shall be liable upon conviction to be sentenced to penal servitude for life or for any term not less than five years, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term pot exceeding three years.

" 3. Any person charged with felony under the provisions of this act may be apprehended or punished, or otherwise dealt with in all respects, in any county or place within the United Kingdom in which he may be found, in the same manner as if the felony with which he is charged had been com- mitted in such county or place. " 4. In any proceeding under this act in which the murder shall be al- leged to have been intended to be committed in any foreign country or countries, murder shall be construed to mean the killing of any person, whether a subject of her Majesty or not, under such circumstances as would, if the person were so killed in the United Kingdom make such killing mur- der by the laws of the said United Kingdom." The fifth clause repeals an act of George III relating to conspiracies. Lord Palmerston held that to be an improvement of the law. It goes " as far as we can go without violence to the constitution" ; and, a great crime having been attempted, it is becoming that we should show our feeling so far as to enter upon a review of the law.

" It may possibly be said, that as yet the present law has not been found ineffectual, because no proceeding has taken place under it : but permit me to ask, whether, the object of laws being to deter from the commission of offence by increasing the penalty of any offence, we do not not add to those causes which operate to prevent offences. being committed ? And even though this crime has been scarcely known in this country, and therefore there has been no case in which the law has been applied, can it be said that we are not adding to the security against the crime by increasing the penalty to be inflicted in case it shall be committed ? I cannot but think that the provisions of this bill will have a decisive effect in deterring those who may wish to make this country a place where they may hatch and concoct crimes of a disgraceful character ; and, at all events, they will learn that they can- not do so without liability to punishment."

Mr. A. W. Knecasinn moved the following amendment- " That this House, while sympathizing with the French nation in its in- dignation and abhorrence at the late atrocious attempt made against the life of the Emperor, and anxious on a proper occasion to consider the defects of the criminal law of England, the effect of which may be to render such at- tempts vain, deems it inexpedient to legislate in compliance with the de- mand made in Count Walewski's despatch of Jauntily 20, until further in- formation be obtained, and until after the production of the correspondence between the two Governments subsequent to this despatch."

Mr. Kinglake warmly concurred in the abhorrence of assassination ex- pressed by Lord Palmerston. If it were possible to prevent the repe- tition of these attempts—if the Law-officer of the Crown, speaking with a regard to the science of law, and not bending under political pressure from abroad—had said that the law required altering, Mr. Kinglake would have given his best attention to the measure. But that is not the case. In a despatch, to which, strange to say, Lord Palmerston made no allusion, the French Government urgently called upon as to alter our law. Now he was so oldfashioned as to decline to concur in altering the municipal laws of England at the suggestion of any foreign potentate. Either the measure proposed by the noble lord is merely a piece of law re- form, or it is a political action suggested from abroad. If it were a piece of law reform, he should have expected it to have been proposed by the very able Law-officers of the Crown, and could not believe that in that case the noble lord would have made himself the organ of the Government. But if it were, as he conceived, a concession to the pressure put upon the noble lord by the despatch to which he had referred, he must decline to concur in the proposed legislation. It so happened, that at that very moment honour- able Members had in their hands notices of motion for revising that very, branch of the law which the noble lord was now submitting to their consider- ation. The Solicitor-General, only so lately as Thursday last, gave notice of his intention to introduce several bills for the consolidation, improve- ment and amendment of our criminal law. Of these notices one was—" Mr. Solicitor-General—Offences against the Person. Bill to consolidate and amend the Statute-law of England relating to offences against the person. An early day." ("Hear, hear !" and a laugh.) The other was, " Mr. Solicitor-General—Indictable Offences. Bill to consolidate the Statute-law of England and Ireland relating to accessories to or abettors of indictable of- fences." Therefore, if it were not intended that this proposed legislation should be absolutely exceptional, it might be most aptly, conveniently, and properly comprised in the notices which the Solicitor-General had placed in their hands. But perhaps that would hardly satisfy the exigency under which the noble lord was acting. They had been told that Count Walew- ski's despatch of the 20th January had not been answered. He proposed to the House to answer it there and then. No human ingenuity could devise a better answer than a simple vote of that House. Mr. Housman seconded the amendment. Mr. HADFIELD, Mr. W. J. Fox, and Mr. Gnsmas denounced the bill. They took the ground that it was unnecessary ; and that it would prove to be a " sham " and a dead letter, unless it provided for detection by means of French espion- age. If we oblige France today, something may be done to oblige Aus- tria tomorrow, and after that perhaps something to oblige the King of Naples. If England gives way, what can we expect Belgium to do ? what Switzerland ? what Sardinia ? Persons who wade through slaughter to a throne have no right to ask their neighbours to watch over their safety. Assassins do not grow in England. They go out of, but they come into England, from countries administered by Governments who make assassins.

The defenders of the bill were Mr. BOWYER and Sir Joan WALSH. Mr. Bowyer's position was, that an ally had, in an amicable and inoffen- ewe manner, pointed out a defect in our law. If the House refused to amend that defect, they would effectually give colour to the unjust and absurd imputations of the French Colonels. Mr. Bowyer quoted Mattel in support of his proposition that the Government bill is in accordance with international law. Sir John Walsh contended, that we should not be yielding to the dictation of a foreign power by simply enforcing our own laws at the request of a tried and proved ally. Ile eulogized the public and private conduct of the French Emperor.

Lord Eneno said he could neither vote for the bill nor the amendment. He deprecated hasty legislation, and suggested a commission of inquiry into the state of the law.

Mr. ROEBUCK, although the hour was late, asked the indulgence of the House while he stated his opinions. There are two questions—Does the law require alteration ? is this the right time and the right mode of making it ? Great Britain and Ireland, with a few exceptions, aro the sole depositaries of the liberties of Europe. For the sake of mankind, we should do nothing to circumscribe the liberties of England. We are an asylum to every political offender ; we give up criminals, but not political criminals. According to the law of England, conspiring to do anything is a misdemeanour punishable by fine and im- prisonment. Why should we alter the law ? Experience has taught us that to make the law efficient we must make detection certain. When punishment is severe there is great difficulty in bringing a criminal to jus- tice. When it was found that forgers could not be convicted, we went to the root of the disease and rendered the law more efficient by making it less cruel. But the Government now propose a contrary course. Certain per- sons it is supposed—but of that we have no evidence—conspired in England to kill the French Emperor. Take it for granted : would the discovery of the crime have been one whit more easy had the proposed law been in force? "If you toll us that a severer punishment would have induced those persons not to commit this crime, I ask you to go across the water with me to France. There the crime was carried to its consummation, and there it was punishable by death ; yet, though the punishment of death stared them in the face, they committed the crime. Mrhat ought they then to do in France according to the reasoning of the noble lord ? Why this—the crime was not prevented by death being the punishment, therefore they ought to introduce torture as well as death. If an addition to the punishment here be neces- sary, an addition to the punishment in France is also necessary. The only punishment you can add to death is torture ; therefore, according to the

i

prciples of the noble lord, torture ought to be introduced into the French law." As proposed, the law in no way facilitates discovery ; discovery is the only thing we want; and what Count Walewski points at is an alteration of our police law—is the introduction of the French system of police to fa- cilitate detection. Yet in spite of this terrific police, the Emperor's life has been endangered, and he turns round and insults this country. "He too, of all men upon earth, to dare to insult England—he who has partaken of her hospitality, who has been sheltered by her power ! A bright example he set to England ! There was a man who conspired to kill England's great hero, the late Duke of Wellington, there was a man, great too, but fallen in his greatness, and no one act of his life was more inconsistent with his greatness—who left a legacy to him who had attempted to assassinate the Duke of Wellington. My only explanation, my only excuse for that deed is that the great Napoleon's mind was shaken to its base ; I do not believe that in his right senses Napoleon would have perpetrated such an infamous act. But the man who had received the protection of England, who had come here after attempting crime after crime against his native land—that man, when he had climbed to his present height and power, what did he do? He paid to this foiled assassin the wages of his dirty deed. ("No, NO " from Mr. .Bowyer.) Oh! I have heard the honourable gentleman defend the King of Naples—(Loud cheers and laughter)—therefore I shall not an- swer him. This man has received his wages—he is now living in Paris ; and it was stated publicly and ostentatiously that the present Emperor of the French had paid the legacy left by the great Napoleon to Cantillou the disappointed assassin of the Duke of Wellington. (Cheers.) And now, in this House of Commons, panegyrics are showered profusely over the head of Louis Napoleon by the honourable baronet opposite. I hope he recol- lected this transaction—(Sir sTan Walsh, "I had not heard of it.") The honourable baronet says he never heard of it, and yet he pretends to speak upon this matter ! " Mr. Roebuck insisted that, even if it were necessary, this is not the time to alter our law. He made a pointed application of the popular belief in Lord Palmerston as a thorough F. bah Minister, the enemy of despotism in Europe. In conclusion, he called upon the Commons, " as freemen and the great protectors of the oppressed in Europe, to throw out the bill with all the ignominy which it deserves."

The debate was adjourned until the next day, on the motion of Mr.

WARREN.

The first notice on the paper on Tuesday was from Mr. Thomas Dun- combe—to admit Baron Rothschild by resolution ; but on an appeal from Lord PALMERSTON, Mr. BUNCOMBE consented to give way. In like manner, the other notices of motion were postponed, in order that the debate might proceed.

Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE was the first speaker. His main object, 'he said, was to correct a statement made by Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Gilpin, that Louis Napoleon had killed a man at Boulogne with his own hand. The facts were, that a pocket pistol belonging to one of the followers of Louis Napoleon "went off," and the ball went through the cheek of a man who was crying "Five PEmpereur !" Two persons only were killed, by the National Guards—a M. Paul and Count Dunin. The pis- tols of Louis Napoleon were never fired. As to the fire-eating Colonels, his constituents in Finsbury were not very much afraid of them. The excuse of the French Government for the insertion of these addresses was very lame.

After this interlude, Mr. WARREN. resumed the debate ; claiming the credit of speaking as an independent Member. In support of his oppo- sition to a bill ineffectual in itself; derogatory to the national spirit, and founded on a libel upon England, he cited two passages from history; reading in illustration of them long passages from Blackstone and the despatches of Lord Hawkesbury. One was the case of the Russian Am- bassador arrested for debt in 1708, an affront highly resented by the Czar. To appease him, Parliament passed an act "to prevent and punish such outrageous insolence for the future," and sent an apology to the Czar. Half a century later, Lord Mansfield described that act and apology as humiliation for the whole nation. That is not a precedent to be followed, The other case was the answer of Lord Hawkesbury to the demands of the First Consul in 1802. At that time, there had been

improper paragraphs in the English newspapers, but there had been more

improper paragraphs in the official Moniteur. Lord Hawkesbury said,

that his Majesty did not intend to interfere with the manner in which France was governed, and he expected that the French Government would not interfere with the manner in which the government of his do- minions was conducted, "or call for a change in those laws with which

his people were perfectly satisfied." That, said Mr. Warren, was a pre-

cedent which ought to have been borne in mind by Lord Palmerston Next, Mr. Warren showed that by the 6th and 6th Victoria a personae

attack on the Queen was a high misdemeanour, punished with trans);

portation or imprisonment and whipping. That was the wise legislation of an indignant people. But the noble loss proposed to make conspiracy a felony. Did he know the pains and penalties attached to misdemeanours, when he said that the present law could not cope with a great exigency, and asked for a new law ? In the case of Mr. O'Connell, Sir Robert Peel refused new legislation, resolved, as he said, "to walk in the light of the constitution." Sir Robert relied upon the efficiency of the law, and O'Connell was convicted on an indictment for treasonable conspiracy, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment and a fine of 20001. There was a case nearer to our own times. In 18.51, the attention of Sir George Grey was called to the proceedings of the refugees in England who put forth inflammatory proclamations from their confederacies. On that occasion, Sir George Grey said that the powers possessed by Govern- ment were amply sufficient to punish a violation of the law by foreigners, and the Government would not hesitate to meet legally and constitutionally any violation of the law. " If such was the deliberate opinion of the right honourable baronet in April 1851, with what face could he stand before the country now and say that the law on which he relied then as upon a firm staff was now but a bruised reed, which could no longer yield him any sup- port ? No case, therefore, had been made out for the introduction of this bill." (Cheers.) Mr. Warren proceeded to argue that the House had no " evidence " before it that there had been any conspiracy, or that the alleged con- spiracy had been carried on in this country ; and that, therefore, it was premature to legislate upon what might turn out to be all a mistake. He repudiated the intervention of any foreign power, and urged Lord Palmerston to yield to a manly sense of duty, and abandon his precipitate determination.

Sir GEORGE GREY replied to Mr. Warren. A crime has been at- tempted in France, which is a matter of general notoriety. It is

equally certain that this crime was the result of designs formed in Eng- land. Under these circumstances, the attention of the Government was, irrespective of any communication from the French Government, naturally and necessarily called to the state of the law. The case cited by Mr. Warren which occurred in 1851 does not apply ; for Sir George's answer related to revolutionary designs, not to attempts at the as- sassination of individuals. Now the Government is seeking to deal with

those who instigate and hire assassins to execute designs they are too cowardly to undertake themselves. And what is the state of the law ?

It has been said that the Lord Chief Justice had daclared the law in its present state to be amply sufficient to meet cases of this kind : but Sir George protested against the doctrine that a judge, however high, is an unimpeachable authority as to the sufficiency of the law. When the judges have pronounced what the law is, their functions are discharged ; it is for Parliament to determine whether the penalties are sufficient to deter persons from the commission of crime. The Government hold that the law is defective ; too lenient in England, too severe in Ireland. An improvement can be effected ; and there is nothing in Count Walewski's despatch that should deter us from doing what we are convinced we ought to do. What Lord Hawkesbury refused in 1803, was the demand of the French Government that our press should be fettered ; he did not refuse to send refugees out of the country whose expulsion had been de- manded by the French Minister. " We have, thank God, no power to make such concessions to any foreign Government." In what does the course of the Government present an unfavourable contrast to that pur- sued by Lord Hawkesbury ? "Allusion has been made to the despatch of Count Walewski with re- ference to the insertion in the Moniteur of certain addresses presented to the

Emperor of the French. Now, I am not here to defend the publication of those addresses. They were, I admit, insulting to this nation ; they have been deeply felt by the people of this country. But even if no apology had

been made—if no regret had been expressed—for their publication, I should hesitate to agree with those who argue that, although we are convinced an amendment of the law is required, yet on account of the insertion of those addresses in theifoniteur we should abstain from taking that wise, ]udicious, and temperate course which, independently of the publication of such ad- dresses, we should have been disposed to adopt." But the French Go- vernment, on being informed of the view that was taken of those addresses, had expressed their regret, and the regret of the Emperor himself at their publication. (Some cries of " Where, where ?") As the despatch ex- pressing that regret was short, perhaps the House would permit him to read it. "It is a despatch from Count Walewski to Count Persigny, dated Paris, February 6, 1858,' and is in these terms-

' M. le Comte—the account you give me of the effect produced in England by the insertion in the ..Itoniteur of certain addresses from the Army has not escaped my attention, and I have made a report of it to the Emperor. You are aware of the sentiments by which we have been influenced in the steps we have adopted with her Britannic Majesty's Government on the occasion of the attack of the 14th of January, and of the care we have taken, in applying for its concurrence, to avoid everything that could bear the appearance of pressure on our part. All our com- munications manifest our confidence in its sincerity (lokaute), and our deference for the initiative being taken by it ; and if, in the enthusiastic manifestations of the devotion of the Army, words have possibly been inserted which have seemed in Eng- land to be characterized by a different sentiment, they are too much opposed to the language which the Emperor's Government has not ceased to hold to that of her Britannic Majesty for it to be possible to attribute them to anything else than in- advertence caused by the number of those addressee. The Emperor enjoins you to say to Lord Clarendon how much he regrets it. [Loud cheers from both aides of the House.] I authorize you to give a copy of this despatch to the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.' " I think that letter or despatch, which I trust from the cheers with which it has been received is satisfactory to the House—(Renewed cheers)— shows that no valid objection can be made to the introduction of this bill at the present time on account of the insertion of certain addresses in the Mo- triteur by what appear to have been acts of inadvertence on the part of the Government of France." (Some cries of "D0, no !") The bill was opposed by Mr. BoveLL, Mr. WARD HUNT, Mr. MONCH- TON Mineens, and Mr. DENT; and supported by Mr. COLLIER, Mr. Wurreezeo, and Mr. NAPIER. Mr. COLLIER defended the bill as a measure of law reform. Until the Lord Chief Justice made his state-

ment, there was no lawyer in Westminster Hall who could affirm with positive certainty that a conspiracy of two foreigners to murder a fo- reigner out of this country was an offence against our laws. The law would apply to two Englishmen who conspired to murder the French

Emperor, but not to two foreigners. Then it was absurd to rank con- spiracy to murder with conspiracy to defraud tradesmen. Mr. NAPIER

regarded the bill with favour, as one that assimilated the law of Eng- land and Ireland, and was in itself a just, wise, and equitable amend- ment of the criminal law.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the bill. He began by pointing out the disadvantages of the discussion. It led them to discuss the conduct of

the ruler of France - it called forth adverse opinions which cannot but be distasteful to the French nation, at a time when all should join in expressing horror at the atrocious attempt on the life of the Emperor. It was assumed that the bill would be an improvement of the law ; and they were asked if they would be so unjust as to

refuse to improve the law because it would be agreeable to the

Government of France. Now to argue so was to confound two dis. tinet questions. He would discuss them apart. He desired to observe that respect due to the ruler of France,—a sovereign who has deserved well of England, and one who has consulted the interests of Europe, and the balance of power, both in wars and in treaties. If the measure would give safety to the life of the Emperor, Lord John would willingly support it ; but considered as an improvement of the law, he was very sceptical as to its merits. If it were so urgent, why did Mi- nisters, who had extended their vigilance to the protection of deer and rabbits, remain silent on the subject until they received Count Walew- ski's despatch ? The law-reformer is compelled to consider not only what punishment the criminal deserves, but how the crime may be pre- vented. For many hundred years, conspiracy to murder has been treated as a misdemeanour ; and no subject of the Queen has felt that his life

was insecure under that law. Lord Hawkesbury would have held that a law which has been found sufficient for all the subjects of the Queen should not be altered at the wish of a foreign power. Has life been more safe in Ireland, where the punishment for conspiring to murder is death ? Juries are accustomed to consider the punishment affixed to a crime; and it might happen that they would deem evidence of the kind pro- duced in these cases, sufficient to convict a man of misdemeanour, but not of felony involving transportation for life. It does not therefore follow that a higher punishment would prevent this horrible crime. The spirit of the proposed bill is contrary to the whole course of our legislation since the days of Romilly. Look to the nature of this crime--conspiracy to murder. The men who from political exasperation risk their lives in these attempts are not likely to be deterred by the substitution of penal servitude for two years' imprisonment. He related two instances to il- lustrate the spirit by which these misguided men are actuated. The night before the assassination of Rossi the Minister of Rome, some young men met at their club, and declaimed against Rossi's despotism. One said, they spoke brave language, but none were prepared to kill the tyrant. Upon this some said they were ready to do it. The next day Rossi was stabbed to the heart. Would any one have had the least influence with them if in the midst of their deliberations he had said, " Recollect you are conspirators ; • you are conspiring to murder ; and if you commit the crime you may be condemned to penal servitude for life' ? Such an in- timation would not have had any effect whatever. The other instance was that of a man of high station sent by Mazzini to stab Charles Al- bert. Was either he or Mazzini the sort of man to be deterred by pains and penalties ? What they wanted was the detection, not the punish- ment of the crime. Your bill serves no purpose of detection, and so far as the amendment of the law is concerned it entirely fails.

Lord John next considered the question as an amendment of the law asked for by the French Government.

" What the French Government wants is to put an end to these assem- blages of fanatical politicians in London ; and that can only be done by sending them out of the country before any crime can be proved. That, in fact, is the real question. An honourable friend of mine has lately quoted the despatch of Count Walewski ; but I will take the liberty of reading the passage again, in order that the House may see what it really is that the French Government desires. Count Walewski says- . It is no longer the hostility of erring parties manifesting itself by all the excesses of the press and every violence of language ; it is no longer even the labour of the factious seeking to agitate opinion and to provoke disorder : it is assassination re- duced to a doctrine, preached openly, practised in repeated attempts, the most re- cent of which has just struck Europe with stupefaction. Ought, then, the right of asylum to protect such a state of things ? Is hospitality due to assassins I Should English legislation serve to favour their designs and their manoeuvres ; and can it continue to protect persons who place themselves by flagrant acts outside the pale of the common law, and expose themselves to the ban of humanity?'

—The Ambassador of France, taking certainly a very unusual course, but a course with which I will not at present find fault, because he is a gentleman of great frankness and great honesty, very much attached to his master, and, I believe, very friendly to this country, and because I believe his object was to produce concord between the two nations—said, in answer to the address of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of London-

. Permit me to tell you what is the true question. It does not lie in the attempts at assassination in themselves, nor even in the crime of the 14th of January, which your Government would have hastened to warn us against if it could have known it beforehand ; the whole question is in the moral situation of France,. which has be- come anxiously doubtful of the real sentiments of England. Reasoning in effect by analogy, popular opinion declares that were there in France men sufficiently in- famous to recommend in their clubs, in their papers, in their writings of every kind, the assassination of a foreign sovereign, and actually to prepare its execution, a French Administration would not wait to receive the demands of a foreign Govern- ment, nor to see the enterprise set on foot. To act against such conspiracies, to an- ticipate such crimes, public notoriety would be sufficient to set our laws in motion, and measures of security would be taken immediately.'

—Therefore my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will that it is not this bill for which the French Government wishes. What they want is security against the'whole body of refugees." M. de Persigny says that assassination is openly preached : if that is so, why does not the Government prosecute, since the ordinary laws are suffi- cient for the punishment of those who preach it? That question was settled more than half a century ago in the case of Peltier, against whom the law was put in force. " It is a matter of astonishment to me, that Count Wa- lewski should have written his despatch and no answer should have been made to it. Because the answer seems to be quite obvious. I should have thought that anybody who valued the reputation of the British name and had any regard for the honour of Great Britain, would have said—' We are not a nation that protects assassins, as seems to be supposed : the crime of assassination is abhorrent to all our feelings ; we cannot sufficiently con- demn it ; show us that these men have been preaching the doctrine of as- sassination, and we will bring them before our courts of justice without the loss of an hour ; make out than it ball been. advocated by them in any of their clubs, and they will no doubt be convicted as Peltier was convicted. Such seems to me to be the plain language which ought to have been used. The noble lord at the head of the Government says, to my surprise, that an unfounded notion has been prevalent on the Con- tinent that this country favours assassination, and therefore he brings in this bill. This does seem to me the oddest consequence that there ever was. How much better it would have been to have put the ordinary law in force. How much better it would have been to ask for the names of those persons who had been guilty of the crime in question; and if, as very likely would have been the case, no person could be found who could be convicted by due course of law, then would have been the time to say—' We punish offences but those Offences must be duly proved by the evidence of witnesses openly heard ; and that evidence must be weighed and summed up by a judge sitting on the bench, and a true verdict returned according to that evidence by the jury.' If that answer had been given, I think strong ground would have been taken. Whereas look at our position now. It is a position as regards the future which I confess fills me with considerable alarm. You do not propose to do that which the French Government wish you to do ' • that which, unhap- pily, is enforced by the threats of the military bodies whose addresses have been so inadvertently inserted in the 1foneteur. You do not do this by any means ; but you say that you will change the law, and thus make a de- claration of your sympathy with the French Government. But look at the consequences. If you had attempted to alter the laws with regard to aliens —if you had attempted to give power to the Government of the day to send away any aliens upon the representations of a Foreign Minister—you would then have roused the anger of the people of England, and you could not have carried your measure. If you had given a refusal—if you had said, r Our laws are sufficient, and we will simply put them in execution,'—you would then, no doubt, have disappointed the wishes of the French Government by acting in conformity with that opinion, and that statement of Lord Hawkes- bury to which I have previously referred. This measure seems to me an exceedingly skilful, I may say, an exceedingly cunning artifice, by which it is intended that neither the people of England nor the Emperor of the French should be offended." If there are fanatical men still plotting assassination they will continue to plot after the bill has passed. Then the French Go- vernment would say that England was still a den of assassins, and that the object sought not having been effected, the English Government must devise other means. What means ?—only means violating the sacred right of asy- lum. The country would not consent, and France would have a far greater grievance than she has now.

"Surely it would be better to saw at once—' This is no light matter, the changing a misdemeanour into a -felony, a punishment of one kind into another still more severe ; we must tell you the plain truth, that asylum which you call a den of assassins must remain sacred. We do not mean to change our laws, but if any case can be pointed out to us in which these laws have beeh violated, we shall act as we have done for the last fifty years ; we shall act according to the practice which has existed in England ever Bine° she has been a nation ; we shall admit aliens to our shores, but shall take care that no offence shall be committed against the head of a foreign state without its being brought into our courts ofjustice.' In that way your position would have been strong. The position of the Ministry at present, I am sorry to say, is not strong. (Cheers and laughter.) I mean, of course, their position in argument and as regards France, whose demands are evaded rather than satisfied."

He trusted that the House of Commons would stand upon the established laws of England. Those who voted for the bringing in of the bill will incur a vast responsibility. It is the first breaking in upon that system declared by the Government of 1803 and kept- intact until the month of February 1858. If he voted for the bill, he should feel shame and humiliation. " Let those who will support the bill ; in that shame and humiliation I am determined not to share." (Cheers.)

The Somerros-GmEns.r, repeated Sir George Grey's argument, that the bill is intended to reach not those who risk their lives in committing murder but the conspirators who remain in comparative security. The bill could not have been placed along with those measures of legal reform prepared by the Statute-Law Commission, because it would have been inconvenient to introduce such " totally novel legislation as that contem- plated by the bill" among the measures sanctioned by the commissioners. Mr.Disitssu took up a middle position. He brought forward precedents to show that it is not unusual for Parlia- ment to legislate with a view to special cases. The assault upon Mr. Harley by Guiseard led to a special act making it felony even to assault a Privy Councillor. The prevalence of conspiracies to murder in Ireland led to spe- cial legislation. In the present case, if nothing had happened bdyond the attempt on the life of the Emperor it would have been the universal opinion that we should respond to his feelings with perfect sympathy. But much has happened to disturb the generous emotion of the people of this country. The despatch of Count Walewski is not written " with that dignity,. good

temper, and good sense which usually characterize his lucubration."(Laughter.) The observations of the hrench Colonels amount to "the height of impertinence." The publication of those observations in an au- thentic journal was an " act of signal indiscretion." But after the frank and full expression of regret on the part of the Emperor, he was not disposed to dwell upon those phrases. Other nations, nations as great as England, have been subjected to equally flagrant annoyances, and have borne them with great forbearance. In 1863, some eminent statesman of England denounced

the Emperor of the French as a tyrant, usurper, and per ; and when Mr. Disraeli brought those speeches under the notice of Parliament, they saw Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister rise and apologize for the offen- sive expressions he had used. That was a salutary spectacle, and it con- duced to the maintenance of the peace of Europe only because the Emperor of the French is a forbearing and forgiving man. " If the French Emperor and the French nation could endure with equanimity the insults heaped upon them by English Cabinet Ministers, the people of England might afford to pocket the insults of the French Colonels." Mr. Disraeli proceeded to show, that to preserve the French alliance, that "keystone of modern civilization," something should be done. He was willing to vote for leave to introduce the bill ; but he should reserve his right to consider the principle on which it is founded when it reached the second reading, if it ever reached that stage.

Mr; Sumer HERBERT delivered his opinions in a short but compre- hensive speech. The Government, he said, had abnegated its duty in conducting our foreign affairs, and had left to the House of Commons the duty of answering the despatch of Count Walewski. It behoved them not to add to existing irritation feelings of chronic hostility. He had never been an adulator of the Emperor of the French. He rejoiced that under his guidance two great nations had been brought into rela- tions of greater amity ; but his attachment to constitutional principles was not so shallow as to make him say that he wished to see France the leader of European civilization. A change has occurred in the feelings of this country with regard to the Emperor; and he traced that change to the address of Count de Moray, the publication of the addresses of the Colonels in the Moniteur, and the despatch of Count Walewski. The Emperor could not be held responsible for the address of Count de Morny, but he was responsible for the other fact, and for that he had frankly expressed his regret. But the despatch of Count Walewski had not been answered. In that despatch things are assumed as facts for which there is not a little of evidence. But before it is answered several other things ought to be answered. "I want several lawyers of high authority to expound the state of the law, upon which, if rumour be true, they do not entirely agree. I want to blow whether the law is sufficient to reach aliens conspiring to obtain the death of another alien in a foreign country ? Before we say aye or no upon the merits of this measure as one of legal reform, I want to know that which the Foreign Office alone can answer—is it true, or is it not true, that the Go-

vernment have given notice,—and if they have, they have done it most pro- perly,—whenever any information has come to their hands which has leh them to believe some plot or crime was being concocted, and that the Frencd. • police, being so warned, have been entirely unable to detect the criminals. I want to know, again, whether it has ever been the practice when men have been thought dangerous and troublesome, ' pour soupcons graves,' to ship them in steamers at Boulogne and put them upon the English shore. I want to know what is the effect of converting a misdemeanour into a felony, as regards the power of the police to enter a house or to search a house, or to invade the free action of suspected persons. If we have French police in England, which—of course—we have, they may make charges against men which may put them to great inconvenience, although the accusation be utterly groundless ; and I am not sure that conspiracies on the part of the police are not worse than any other kind of conspiracy. For all these causes, I plead for time before we come to an ultimate decision. But I have another reason for pleading for time. As I said before, there is no doubt that de- spatch is to be answered by this House. It is not often that a popular as- sembly is trusted to answer the despatch of a foreign government upon a very grave international question upon which public opinion on both sides of the Channel is very much heated. For the character of the House, I say do not let us answer it by a precipitate decision." Let us take care that in the answer does not appear the tone and spirit of the 82d of the Line. He asked them not to refuse the Government leave to bring in the bill, but to consider its merits with due deliberation on the second reading.

Lord PALMERSTON brought the debate to a close with a general reply to the various speakers. He said that England does harbour assassins, though not intentionally ; and that fact prevented him from making an indignant refutation of Count Walewski's despatch. He repeated Sir George Grey's statement that the Government had taken the law into consideration before that despatch was received. Lord John Russell's argument respecting the efficacy of mitigated punishment he met with the old rhyming joke-

" Then 'twould be greater if 'twere none at all."

He contended that the bill, in spite of the maxim of the Barons, and Lord John's new-born attachment to the old laws of England, is a great improvement of the law. We have our honour and character to maintain, and it would be disgraceful were we to refuse to stamp these conspiracies with our condemnation by a new law. We should be open to censure were we, "upon any paltry feeling of offended dignity, or of irritation at the expressions of three or four Colonels of French regiments, to act the childish part of refusing an important measure on grounds so insignifi- cant and so trumpery."

Mr. Cox moved the adjournment of the debate ; but, at the instance of Lord PALMERSTON, he withdrew his motion. At the suggestion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. RINGLAXE withdrew his amendment—the papers he wanted having been read in the debate.

The House then divided on the question that leave be given to bring in the bill, and the numbers were—Ayes 299, Noes 99.

The bill was brought in, and read a first time.

THE Vo•rhs OF THANKS.

Resolutions conveying the thanks of Parliament to Lord Canning and the civilians, to Sir Colin Campbell and the military chiefs, to the troops and sailors, and to persons not holding military rank, for the energy and ability displayed in suppressing the Indian mutiny, were moved and car- ried in both Houses on Monday. In the House of Lords, the mover of the resolutions was Lord Em- mons. His speech on the occasion consisted of an enumeration of the services of, first, the officers under whose administration operations have been carried on,—Lord Canning, Lord Harris, Lord Elphinstone, Sir John Lawrence, Mr. Frere ; secondly, of heroic commanders,—Sir Colin Campbell, Sir James Outram, Sir Archdale Wilson, Sir John Eardley Wilmot Inglis ; thirdly, of the officers of the Army and Navy; fourthly, of the troops engaged, and of the persona not holding military ranks. With the facts mentioned by Lord Panmure in connexion with these names the public have been long familiar. Lord Panmure also paid a tribute to the memory of Anson, Barnard, Havelock, Neill, Nicholson, Home, Salkeld, and Willoughby.

When the War Minister had finished his long eulogium, the Earl of DERBY rose and. took exception to the mention of the name of Lord Canning in the resolutions. The time is not ripe for conferring upon him such an honour as the thanks of Paxliament. Giving him the highest credit for personal courage, calmness, and firmness, yet he neither displayed his energy so early or so effectively as he might. In the first instance he underrated the revolt; and his conduct was characterized by vacillation. The inhabitants of Calcutta have petitioned for his recall ; and to give him a vote of thanks with that petition unanswered, looks like screening him from future charges. Lord Derby mentioned some instances of irresolution. Lord Canning first asked for, then rejected, and finally accepted the assistance of Jung Bahadoor and his h oops. He summoned the 84th Regiment from Rangoon, ordered them back again, and then countermanded the order. When the inhabitants of Calcutta volunteered to arm themselves, he rejected their offer, and said it pro- ceeded from a groundless panic : in a short time the Government were glad to avail themselves of the assistance they had refused. Lord Derby said he did not wish to be the accuser of Lord Canning; he only wished to show that our information is imperfect. He desired that the vote should be confined to the officers of the Army and Navy, whom he highly praised; and that the names of Lord Canning and the Governors under him should be omitted.

The Duke of ARGYLL rectified some of Lord Derby's statements. Lord Canning, for instance, had at once accepted the offer of the inha- bitants of Calcutta to act as special constables, but he had attempted to discourage the feeling of panic among them. Then, the first offer made by the Governor of Nepaul was to send his troops into quarters where they would have done'little good ; but Lord Canning at once accepted the offer of Jung Bahadoor to proceed to the relief of Lucknow. The Duke explained that Lord Canning was not in such a favourable position as regards the disarming of the Native troops in Bengal as Sir John Lawrence was in the Punjaub. In Bengal, there were 45,000 Native to 2300 European troops ; in the Punjaub, there were 42,000 Natives to 12,242 Europeans. Ministers have included the name of Lord Canning in the vote, not because the omission of his name would have been a slight, but because they sincerely believe that Lord Canning occupied a prominent place among those to whom the salvation of our Indian em- 7! pine is due. The Duke of CAMBRIDGE added some warm words of praise to the

military men engaged, and detailed their services at some length. Lord Fiiactian testified to the great services of Mr. Frere in Scinde. The resolutions were agreed to nem. con.

The proceedings in the House of Commons were of a similar character, but the opposition was more distinct. When Lord Palmerston rose to move the resolutions, Mr. DISRAEL/ wished to know whether it was not usual for Orders of the Day to take precedence of Notices of Motion. The SPEAKER said that votes of thanks took precedence of all other bu- siness. Mr. Thomism raised another point of order : Lord Palmerston had given a verbal notice of a vote of thanks to the Army and Navy ; but in the written notice on the paper, he had, to the surprise of many, in- eluded in the votes thanks to the Governor-General,—was Lord Palmer- ston justified in proposing a vote of thanks to the Governor-General, while the notice given was simply of a vote of thanks to the Army and Navy ? The SPEAKER ruled, that a general notice was sufficient. Not content with this, Sir JOHN PAKINOTON respectfully submitted that Lord Palmerston had not given a general notice : not a man in the House thought there was to be a vote of thanks to the Governor- General. Lord PALEERSTON said, that in point of order it was not necessary to give any notice at all : the rules of the House would permit any one to get up and move a vote of thanks on the spot. The SPEAKER again repeated his former decision, and called on Lord Palmer- ston to proceed. Lord ParannuvroN then moved resolutions similar to those submitted to the Lords. In his speech he took an order different from that of Lord Panmure ; speakina° first of the dead, and then of the living. He defended Lord Canning from the attacks made upon him. As a speci- men, during the Persian war a Calcutta paper stated that Lord Canning had crowned all his follies by appointing on the staff of the Army in Persia a worn-out Redtapist—an officer fit for nothing but to sit at table with a dinner before him. And who was the officer so characterized? why, the distinguished General Havelock !

In mentioning the names of those who had done signal service, Lord Palmerston went beyond Lord Panmure, and included a larger number of names familiar to the readers of Indian despatches.

Mr. Thomism, having paid a tribute to the dead and the living, am- plified the objection to the vote of thanks to Lord Canning. There can be no question as to the services of Sir John Lawrence, Lord Elphin- stone, and Lord Harris; but there are passages in the conduct of Lord Canning that require explanation and vindication,—the negotiations with Nepaul, the orders issued to the 84th Regiment, the failure to provide carriage for the troops, the restrictions on the English press. It is said that chiefs of the highest character and influence in Oude attempted to negotiate, and that Lord Canning might have pacified Oude. This too requires explanation. Mr. Disraeli suggested that the first resolution, voting thanks to Lord Canning and the Governors under him, should be postponed. Let not the House be precluded in this surreptitious man- ner from exercising its highest functions. Let there be fair notice; let the conduct of Lord Canning be satisfactorily discussed ; and if a vote of thanks be passed, let it be passed in a manner gratifying to Lord Can- -ning. He moved the " previous question." Mr. LA/10170HEAR said that Mr. Disraeli's speech placed the state of things in a false light. The House was not asked for a vote of approba- tion on the entire administration of the Governor-General : the vote was addressed to one point—the manner in which the military operations have been conducted. Mr. Disraeli said this was a surprise ; but any one who looked at the precedents would see that the surprise would have been the omission of Lord Canning's name. The Government are quite prepared to defend Lord Canning, but this is not the proper occasion. The more closely Lord Canning's policy is inquired into, the sooner justice will be done to him, and the Government have no wish whatever to avoid a discussion of that policy.

Sir Jona Parasol-oar now reinforced Mr. Disraeli, and went rather minutely into the accusations against Lord Canning,—his abrupt and offensive refusal of the services of the residents in Calcutta ' - his first re- fusal of aid from Jung Bahadoor ; his neglect to disarm the Dinapore regiments ; his suppression of the English newspapers. Until the impu- tations on the conduct of Lord Canning were removed, he could not con- cur in the vote of thanks. Mr. MANGLES replied to Sir John Pakington and Mr. Disraeli ; and repeated as specimens of Calcutta falsehoods seve- ral idle stories circulated against Lord Canning. Colonel SYKES read some extracts to show the factious character of the European population who assailed the Governor-General, and the difficulties which even some of the well-meaning Europeans had occasioned.

Mr. WALPOLE said, the House was placed in an unfortunate position. They had great difficulty in agreeing to the vote, because there was a memorial impeaching Lord Canning's conduct before them. Still he thought, that as Lord Canning had deserved the gratitude of his country, to postpone the vote would place a public servant under a cloud. He must press upon Mr. Disraeli the propriety of not persisting in his mo- tion, it being understood that assent to the vote did not prejudge the memorial from Calcutta. Lord Rata RUSSELL supported this suggestion ; and praised Lord Canning for one thin g—the measures he took to temper the animosity of the Europeans against all Natives. Had he not done so, it would have been impossible for us with all our bravery and skill to have kept India for any length of time. Mr. BENTDICK supported Mr. Disraeli.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT cordially approved of the proposal of the Go- vernment to include the name of Lord Canning in the vote of thanks. It would have been unworthy of the Government to have put so marked

slight upon Lord Canning as to have omitted his name, especially when they knew that to his firmness and courage they owe in a great measure the success that has attended our operations in India. His fame will rest upon his proclamations, and his masterly arrangements for con- veying troops to the scene of action by relays of bullock-carts and horses; so that Calcutta was never burdened with a single regiment, and not a foot-sore man reached the scene of action.

" I, like every one else, have heard these accusations against Lord Can-

n ing : but day day, and one by one, they melt away, like snow before the sun ; and I d things which at first were with such minute

particulars as to almost render it impossible to refuse credence to them turn out to be without a particle of a shadow of a foundation, until I have made op my mind, whenever I hear any story with the name or date of Calcutta $o it to be upon my guard as to believing it." Mr. WILLOUDEBY, Sir Ds LACY Evans, Lord HARRY Vert; and General THOMPSON, concurred in the vote. Lord CLAUD HaauvroN spoke against it. Mr. DRUMMOND defended Lord Canning, and de- nounced the Calcutta falsehoods " in a humorous and sarcastic speech. Mr. HENLEY added his testimony to the merits of Lord Canning-

" I think, that for the last six months Lord Canning has been placed in a most unprecedented difficulty; that he has acted in the main with great resolution, and that he is one of those rare men who have the moral courage to be just. He is not to be swayed or driven from one side to the other against his own judgment, and there is nothing to lead me to think that he has acted wrongly. Lord Canning has dealt successfully with a state of things for which it was impossible to be prepared. We are not now asked to say whether any other man might have dealt with the crisis more ably ; all that we are asked to pronounce upon is, whether his conduct deserves our thanks : I think it does, and I shall join in the vote."

After this, Mr. DISRAELI withdrew his amendment, and the reso- lutions were carried nem. con.

Govinixarstrr or INDIA BILL.

The petition of the East India Company has been brought before both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, the petition was presented by Mr. THOMAS Bertram. The forms of the House precluded him from doing more than make an extended statement of its origin and purport. Later in the evening he gave notice that on leave being asked to bring in the India Bill, he should move as an amendment, " that it is not at present expedient to legislate for the go- vernment of India."

The petition was presented to the House of Lords on Thursday night by Earl GREY; and a discussion of the subject formed the principal part of the evening's proceedings. Earl GREY began by complaining of the discourtesy shown to the Court of Directors, by the refusal of the Government to consult the Court. Only one hour before he reached the House, he had heard that the Government had, that morning, communicated the heads of the mea- sure tb the Directors. The present Cabinet does not stand so much above all preceding Cabinets in point of ability and judgment, that to consult a body like the East India Company can be considered as altogether super- fluous. Lord Grey recited the main arguments of the petition at length, and its prayer ; and proceeded to comment upon its many " unanswer- able" statements. The purport of his reasoning was, that the govern- ment of India cannot be safely and efficiently carried on without the aid of a Council, independent of the Minister; because without a double go- vernment Indian administration would furnish weapons to party, and India would be used to wound or perhaps destroy a Ministry. His illus- tration of the effects of direct government of India by the Crown was the case of Lord Torrington in Ceylon, whose energetic and highly creditable measures in suppressing an insurrection did not shield him from party attack. Next, the Court of Directors had, as in the case of the bankers of Oude, been able to resist the Minister when he was 'wrong. The Court of Directors is a moral power, and if it be abolished the check upon party influences it now affords will be destroyed. Not that Lord Grey is satis- fied with the constitution of the Court : he objects to the system of can- vass, to the power of election in the hands of the Court of Proprietors, and would prefer that the Court of Directors should itself fill up vacancies in its own body subject to the approval of the Crown. As a reason for not destroying the Court of Directors, he elaborated that argu- ment in the petition which traces the defective administration of India to the Crown—its restless and aggressive policy, its external wars ; a policy and wars with which the Directors have had little or nothing to do. But he disagreed entirely with the prayer of the petition ; holding that in- quiry is unnecessary, and that it would be injurious if there were to be legislation, it should be carried into effect with the least possible delay. The Duke of ARGYLL, in reply, said that it was not for him to antici- pate the statements which Lord Palmerston would make in the House of Commons on Friday ; but he was willing to debate the preliminary question of time and opportunity. Treating of this, he showed that the proposal to transfer the government of India to the Crown had been con- sidered by Lord Aberdeen in 1853 ; that although his Government was not prepared to adopt that change, it was foreseen that the simple re- newal of the Company's charter without fixing a limit of its duration would prepare the public mind for a still greater and inevitable altera- tion. The double government proVed to be a source of embarrassment, misunderstanding, and weakness. All the attacks upon the Government of India were directed against the form of the home government. The Company has ceased to be a company, and has become a mere council to assist the Minister. He urged upon the House that a delay in making the change to give time for a preliminary inquiry would be productive of great agitation in England and India, and great danger.

If the structure of the Indian Government requires some change, we ought to make that ohange as speedily as we can. Let us evade the evil that the East India Company dread—namely, that the change will be ac- companied by a change of policy. Let us make that change first, and then let us deal wisely and considerately with the great questions connected with India."

The Earl of ELLENEDROIIGH expressed his opinion that the simple transfer of the government of India to the Crow; accompanied by some subsidiary alterations, would conduce to a satisfactory settlement of our difficulties. But he contended that the time is inopportune. He took a military survey of our position in India, and came to the conclusion that all the forces we can send will be scarcely sufficient to restore our supre- irat of all refistablish your empire. Show you have the power every where to put down all opposition to your rule. Stand as sovereigns of the country before you think of forming a new government." We have to con- tend not only with mutiny but revolution. The feeling of confidence in the Natives is gone. If the Government put aside more extensive changes, and simply substituted the name of the Queen for that of the Company, it would make the civil servants more ready to obey orders than they are now, and it would beparticularly agreeable to the Native Princes of India.

"My Lords, I regard with distrust the measure whatever it may be which the Government intend to propose. I must say I always view with great distrust extemporized constitutions. Time and God's Providence alone make the constitutions of great empires."

Earl GRANVILLE defended the course pursued by the Government, in a short speech. The Earl of DERRY enforced Lord Grey's complaint that the Company had been treated with discourtesy; and described the con- duct of Ministers, in raising such a question as that of the government of India when revolt is not put down, as "perfect madness."

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

THE OATHS BILL.

At the Wednesday sitting, Lord Joan Russear. moved the second reading of the Oaths Bill, without making any speech. Sir FREDERICK TIMMER at once intimated that he approved of the form of oath, but said that in Committee he should move the omission of the clause refer- ring to the Jews. After this, Mr. HASSARD started a fruitful theme of discussion, by suggesting the omission of the words—" that no foreign prince or poten- tate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms." They are a burden to Protestant consciences, be- cause they are not true, seeing that the Pope does exercise spiritual jurisdiction in Ireland. Mr. NAPIER said that no private person had a right to put his own interpretation on the oath ; it must be taken " se- cundum sensum imponentis." Mr. AYRTON, Mr. Comers, and Mr. BAGWELL, supported Mr. Haggard. Lord Joins Russers, said he should like to see one form of oath adopted for Protestants and Roman Catho- lics. As to the words objected to, he understood them as implying the denial not of any mental influence, but of any authority capable of being enforced in any of our courts. Mr. WALPOLE elaborately described the oath, and contended for the correctness of the meaning ascribed to the words in question by Lord John Russell. Mr. ROEBUCK struck into the controversy, and stoutly maintained that the words were untrue. Before he sat down, he raised another controversy-- -

How few of mankind have any reason for the faith that is in them ! The vast majority of mankind merely inherit their belief. Very few have made any inquiries or come to any conclusion in their own minds as to the religion which they profess. The Jew is born to his faith, so is the Chris- tian. The Catholic is born to his faith, so is the Protestant, Out of many millions of different faiths, he did not think that there is one man who has carefully instructed himself in the grounds of his belief. They believe be- cause they are so taught. He thanked Lord John Russell for having brought in this bill for doing away with the last rag of intolerance which disgraced the House. The bill might be lost, but he felt assured that the time would come when the Jew would be admitted to a seat in that House ; when all these forms for securing the exclusion of men on account of their religious belief, which we ought to regard with feelings of indignation and humiliation, would be done away with, and when we should really be what we profess to be, Christians at heart.

Passing by this statement, Sir GEORGE GREY simply repeated that the words in the oath are true, and that had he thought them untrue he would have never taken the oath. But Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr. BOWYER. plunged into the wide question raised by Mr. Roebuck, and spoke upon it at some length.

The debate then languished, and shortly afterwards the bill was read a second time.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

Sir Josh PAKINGTON moved for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the present state of popular education in England, and to re- port what measures, if any, are required to extend sound and cheap ele- mentary instruction to all classes of the people. He supported his motion by a great array of statistics, and of passages from the reports of the School-Inspectors, showing the pressing want of education. There had been no extensive inquiry since 1838. Lord STANLEY seconded the motion.

Thereupon ensued a long debate. Mr. HARDY opposed the motion, on the ground that the present system is working extremely well, and that a commission would throw everything into confusion. Mr. HAD- FIELD opposed it as a voluntary. Mr. HOPE spoke against the motion at great length. He was for leaving our system of education, which has gone on improving from year to year, to itself, without having a Coroner's inquest to sit upon it. Mr. ADDERLEY took the same ground, and urged the cost of the commission.

On the other hand, Sir John Pakington found stanch supporters in Mr. AKROYD and Mr. W. J. Fox.

Mr. COWPER said, he felt it very difficult to accede to the motion, mainly because its terms were so comprehensive. He suggested an alteration of the terms, somewhat limiting the scope of the inquiry. Sir Joan PAKINGTON accepted this compromise. Then followed a discussion between Mr. HENLEY and Lord Joan RUSSELL, and Sir JOHN PAHINOTON in reply, respecting the comparative merits of systems of education as pursued in this country and on the Continent, and their results on the people.

The House divided upon the resolution as modified : and it was car- ried by 110 to 49.

Cann= OF ENGLAND SPECIAL SERVICES.—The Earl of SHAFTESBURY withdrew his bill on this subject on Monday, because he found he could not carry it : and intimated his assent to the bill of the Archbishop of Canter- bury, which was read a second time. [This bill enables a bishop, after communication with an incumbent, to direct special services in his parish : in the event of a difference of opinion between them, the archbishop is em- powered to give a final decision.1 Joiarr-Sroes BA ins.—Mr. HEADLAM obtained leave on Thursday to bring in a bill to abolish the distinction between joint-stock banks and other joint-stock companies with reference to the liability of their partners. The measure would extend the principle of limited liability to joint- stock banks. This raised some debate ; in which Mr. HANKER, Mr. SLANEY, Mr. BART/Me and Mr. MALINS contended for that principle, against Mr. DRUMMOND. The CHAINICELLOR of the EXCHEQUER took a middle course, and reserved his opinions for the second reading.

MINISTER OF jusnee.—In reply to Mr. EWART, Lord PALidnasron said that it would be impossible to have a Ministry of Justice such as that which exists in France, because its functions are inconsistent with our practice. [Mr. EWART said he had no such model in his mind.) Lord PArassasron said—" It has been suggested, and the suggestion is deserving of considera- tion, that some arrangement might be made for the better examination and preparation of bills proposed to the two Houses. That is an arrangement which has been under consideration ; there are some difficulties attending it and I cannot say at present that there is any measure prepared with respect to it. All that can be done is to see that no mistakes creep into acts ofPar- liament ; that provisions are not inserted clashing with enactments already in force." He added, that no steps had been taken towards the appointment of a public prosecutor.

GENERAL ASHBIJRNHAM.—In the course of the proceedings on Monday evening, Lord PALMERSTON explained that General Ashburnham had re- turned home because there was no employment suited for him in India. General PEEL read a letter from General Ashburnham, to the effect, that he bad been offered the command of the Lahore division; a command he did not take, because it would do injustice, by excluding officers who had per- formed brilliant services during the mutiny—Sir Archdale Wilson for ex- ample—from the best appointment open to a soldier in India. Not finding any force in active service open to him, he came home.

Loan 02,mm:se's DEFENCE.—Among the papers relating to India laid before Parliament last week, is a letter from Lord Canning to the Court of Directors, dated 11th December 1857, in explanation of what have been called the " clemency " measures. To the accusation that martial law was not proclaimed throughout India, Lord Canning answers, that martial law was proclaimed wherever it was necessary,—at Delhi, Meerut, Rohilcund, Agra, AP:acre, Neemuch, Allahabad, Benares, and Patna, in May and June, and at Chota-Nagpore in August. In Oude and the Punjaub, non-regula- tion provinces, the authorities acted as if it had been proclaimed. But in truth measures far more severe than martial law were taken. Under mar- tial law, military officers must form the courts ; and in Bengal by the Ma- hometan law, persons could only be punished for treason and rebellion if they had been taken in the actual commission of an overt act of hostility. The Government therefore, as early as May 30, gave larger powers over life and property, not only to military officers but to civil servants and independent gentlemen not connected with the East India Company. The Supreme and Local Governments were empowered to send commissions into rebellious dis- tricts vested with absolute and final authority ; to inflict capital punishment, confiscate property, and take possession of arms ; to punish for sedition and exciting to sedition, for harbouring offenders, for crimes of personal violence. The punishments were death, transportation, imprisonment, and forfeiture of property. These were measures far more stringent than any martial law.

Having set this forth, the Governor-General states, that it was found, in July, that these great powers were abused, or used without proper discri- mination; and it was to meet that state of things that the " clemency " instructions of July 31 were issued. They were intended to prevent the in- fliction of indiscriminate punishments. Capital punishment was inflicted for trivial offences ; and "in some quarters the fact of a man being a Sepoy was enough, in the state of excited feeling which then prevailed, to insure his apprehension and immediate execution as a deserter." Some men were absent on leave, others had defended their officers. " To punish these men indiscriminately with death as deserters or mutineers would have been a crime. To prevent their punishment, was an imperative duty of the Go- vernment."

" The instructions in question were issued for the guidance of civil, not military officers, and were of necessity in force only where civil power was exercised. They prescribed discrimination between the guilty and those who might reasonably be supposed to be innocent. They sanction no lenity to the guilty. They give to the civil authorities no power of finally re- leasing even the innocent. They do not exempt mutineer or deserter, or in fact any officer or soldier, from trial by court-martial Upon the action of courts-martial, or upon the proceedings of any military authority whatsoever, they neither were intended to have, nor have they had, any re- strictive effect. Their tendency, on the contrary, so far as military tribunals are concerned, is to extend the jurisdiction of those tribunals, and to trans- fer to them cases which in ordinary course would have been dealt with by civil officers. They impose no labour upon the European troops ; the trans- port of the arrested men to Allahabad or other military stations being as- signed to the police or local guards." As regards rebels, the civil servants were directed first to strike terror and restore order, but afterwards to punish with discrimination. The effect of the instructions was, that villagers who had fled returned to their occupa- tions, and its success was shown " by the fact that even in the most dis- turbed districts the breadth of cultivation has not been very seriously dimi- nished."