debates anti Vrouettinns in Varlitunent.

CANADA.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord STANLEY gave notice, that on Thursday be should take the sense of the House on the expe- diency of pledging the House, by resolution, to effect the legislative union of Upper and Lower Canada.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, it might be convenient for him to state, that his own course would depend upon that taken by Lord Stanley. If Lord Stanley contended against the principle of the proposed union of the Canadas, he should press his resolutions to a division ; but if lie only objected to the form of passing resolutions before the details of the measure to be founded on them were before the House, he would bring in the bill without pressing the resolutions.

Lord STANLEY would only repeat what he had said before—namely, that on Thursday he would take the sense of the House as to the expe- diency of pledging itself to the principle of a union between the two Canadas.

Sir ROBERT PEEL wished for some more definite statement of the course Ministers intended to pursue. It was inconvenient that the de- cision of Government should depend upon Lord Stanley's speech. His own objection to the Ministerial proposition was, the inexpediency of fettering the House by a resolution, when no legislation was intended during the session. If Lord John Russell withdrew his resolutions, there might, perhaps, be no objection to his motion for leave to bring in a bill ; but there was no necessity that the bill should be preceded by resolutions.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was sensible of the evil of a division which would seem to imply difference of opinion on the question of union, whereas it would really be evidence only of difference as to the expe- diency of embodying the principle of union in a resolution ; and there- fore he would withdraw his resolutions, and move for leave to bring in a bill.

Sir ROBERT PEEL asked, whether the bill would be proceeded with this session, or only laid on the table?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that he would move the second read- ing of the bill this session ; on which motion the question might he dis- cussed : but, in the face of the strong protests of the Assembly and Council of Upper Canada, he should not be justified in pressin gislation during the present session.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER wished to know whether the second resolution would be withdrawn ? It was that to which he was chiefly opposed. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he should take the same course with the second as with the first resolution—substitute a bill for the resolution,

On Thursday, the first resolution having been read,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL asked leave to withdraw it ; intending ;mine& ately to move for leave to introduce a bill.

Lord STANLEY said, that his objection the other day was to the mode of proceeding adopted by Government. He did not wish to pledge himself to the expediency or inexpediency for effectingeffoefctuinnigtinthgatthepltiurp.00sCeanaTdihs, until he saw the details of the bill

subject was of such high importance, that it was desirable there should

e

be no party debate upon it. He approved of the course now taken by Lord John Russell, and only regretted that there was to be no tion during the present session. • The resolution having been 'withdrawn,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved for leave to introduce two bills. Mei& ters had come to the determination that Upper and Lower Canada ought to be united ; but, in order to prevent irritation on the first meeting of the Assembly of the United Provinces, and provide for the settlement of difficult questions affecting Lower Canada, it was proposed to con. tissue the powers vested in the Governor and Special Council, and which would expire in November 1840, to March 1842. He did not say that this would be the precise period of extension necessary ; but it was better to fix a time beyond which it was improbable that the powers of the act would be necessary. The bill for extending the term also provided for the increase of the powers of the Governor and Council. The operation of what was called Sir William Folletes clause was limited to questions affecting the Protestant and Catholic clergy and the tenures of land, and power was given to the Governor and Council to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and to impose taxes for' strictly local purposes. It was intended to establish a central district at Montreal, where the government should be carried on and the As- sembly meet ; and to divide the remainder of each province into two municipal districts, for the imposition of taxes and rates for local pur- poses. In each of the five districts there would be nine divisions, each division returning two members to the Assembly ; so that there would be ninety members for electoral divisions or districts in the Assembly. In addition to these, he proposed that the four largest towns should each return four members ; so as to make ninety-eight in the whole.

Sir ROBERT PEEL asked, whether the Legislative Council was to remain constituted as at present ; and whether the municipal qualifica- tion was to be identical with the elective franchise ?

Lord JOIN RussEra. replied, that the Crown would still nominate the members of the Legislative Council ; but it was intended, pursuant to a resolution of that House, that men of some mark should be selected; and the members were to be appointed not for life, but for eight years, and the Crown might reappoint the same persons. The municipal and elective franchise was to be the same.

Mr. CHARLES BULLED would not permit the bill for continuing the powers of the Governor and Special Council till 1842 to proceed a single stage without giving it his strenuous opposition. He knew, how- ever, front experience, that leaving the Special Council with its present

limited powers, was leaving the colony without any legislative power at all. A bill, therefore, to increase the powers of the Council, must pass in some form or other ; but lie would oppose the present attempt to continue arbitrary power in Lower Canada.

Sir CHARLES GREY supported the Government measures.

Leave given to bring in the two bills.

JAMAICA.

The Commons, on Monday, resolved themselves into a Committee of the whole House on the Jamaica Bill. The question " that the first clause stand part of the bill" having been put by the Chairman, Sir EDWARD SUODEN addressed the Committee. He wished Mem- bers to dismiss from their minds the notion that they were discussing a question If slavery. Such was not the case. They were asked to de- cide a qiestion between the Government at home and the Jamaica Legislature. He considered it necessary to prove that the former bill was unnecessary as well as unconstitutional ; because Mr. Labouchere still maintained that the suspension of the Jamaica Constitution was the wisest course of proceeding. Sir Edward laboured this point for sonic time; referring to the despatches of Sir Lionel Smith to show that he had unwarrantably, and in the teeth of evidence given by the Assembly of their willingness to carry out the Emancipation Act, assumed that they never would legislate in the spirit of justice to the Negroes. le then went on to argue that the present bill was as ob- jectionable as the last. It was a farce to say that it afforded a locus paRitentia: to the Jamaica Assembly, or allowed it the opportunity of resuming regular course of legislation. But was it necessary for the protection of the Negroes ? That was a question he was prepared to answer in the negative. The laws which, it was pretended, gave Magistrates power m inflict cruel punishments, and which ought there- fore to be abolishe, had been repealed—they no longer existed. This was especially the case with regard to the Local Vagrant Act, 35 C. II. ch. 2. It was only necessary, now that the Emancipation Act had expired, to revive some old laws, which the Assembly might revive. He therefore moves that the first clause, which empowered the Go- vernor and Council :o make laws and ordinances without the consent of the Assembly, be omitted.

Mr. LmioncuEanregretted that Sir Edward Sugden had not been pre- sent at the discussion on the former bill, as in that case he would not have thought it necessary to direct so much argument against a measure no longer in existence. He would not follow him in that course, but would go at once to the bill before the House. The principle of the measure

was to afford a locus pomitentice to the Jamaica Assembly, but at the same time to take precessions that the mass of the community in Ja- maica did not suffer from the continued contumacy of the Colonial Le- gislature. The questioi, then, for Members to decide, was, whet er the bill went beyond whit was necessary to carry out the Emancipation Act, the provisions of which they were pledged to their constituents to see duly executed ? Now, he would remind Sir Edward Sugden, that be had successfully pressed upon Government the adoption of many clauses in the Emancipation Act, designed to protect the apprentices ; and would he, when the Emancipation Act had expired, refuse to con- tinue that protection, which was as much needed during the state of freedom as during the apprenticeship ? Mr. Labouchere entered into a variety of details to prove, that with respect to vagrancy, service, and "squatting," there was need of speedy legislation, and that the Orders in Council on these subjects had worked well in the Crown Colonies. Thence he inferred the propriety of providing that similar enactments i should come into force in Jamaica. He trusted that the Committee would redeem the pledge given by the British Parliament, and instead of playing fast and loose with the question, evince its determination to protect the emancipated population in Jamaica. Mr. GLADSTONE entirely agreed in the necessity of preserving steadi- ness in legislation. (Loud cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) lie also agreed that the power of Parliament over the Colonies was su- preme; but he contended, that true policy would prevent interference in the local affairs of the Colonies unless when it became absolutely ne- cessary. He denied that necessity of such an urgent kind had arisen in this case ; and he would contend that the bill before the Committee did not in fact provide a locus prnitentite for the Jamaica Assembly, inas- much as it did not give them a fair opportunity to legislate on the three subjects mentioned by Mr. Labouchere. Suppose the bill passed by the middle of July, it would not reach Jamaica till the middle of August; and if satisfactory measures on three wide subjects were not passed by the first of October, then the Governor and Council were to supersede the powers of the Legislature as now constituted. Now lie maintained, that it would be such better to summon Parliament earlier, in case the Assembly should refuse to pass the bills said to be necessary, than that they should send out to the colony such a measure as this, which vio- lated its constitutional rights. Similar proceedings were not taken with respect to other colonies.

Sir GEORGE GREY stated, that the Chief Justice and Attorney-General of Jamaica were decidedly of opinion that the laws proposed to be enacted were necessary. On the authority of those learned persons, he contended that the actual state of the law with respect to vagrancy was misapprehended by gentlemen opposite.

Sir R. ROLFE, in a very noisy House, argued the legal question with Sir Edward Sugden and Mr. Gladstone.

Mr. GOULBURN said, the present bill was more odious than the former measure ; from which it differed hat little, but it differed for the worse. It gave a premium to the Council to quarrel with the Assem- bly and reject its bills, in order that its own authority might be ren- dered paramount. What would be said if the House of Lords had power solely to pass bills for purposes on which the enactments of the House of Commons was unpalatable to them?

Mr. SLIEIL supported the bill, in a long speech, very imperfectly reported ; towards the close of which the Committee became very Impatient.

A division took place—

For the clause 228 Against it 194 Majority 34 The remaining clauses of the bill were agreed to without alteration ; and the House "resumed."

On Thursday, Sir ROBERT PEEL gave notice, that on the third read- ing of the bill, he should take the sense of the House on the clause which provides for permanent legislation. Lord JOHN RUSSELL asked whether Sir Robert intended to move the omission of the whole of that clause, on which the sense of the House had already been taken ? Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that he did.

Mr. BERNAL brought up the report on the bill ; and Lord JouR RUSSELL announced the third reading for Monday.

PETITIONS OF CATHOLIC PRELATES.

Mr. Du.r.osi BROWNE presented a petition, on Thursday, from the Catholic Archbishop and clergy of the diocese of Tuam, against the system of National Education in Ireland.

Mr. Lew asked Mr. Browne, whether the petition emanated from a person calling himself the Archbishop of Tuam? In that case, he should move that the petition be rejected.

Mr. BROWNS.; said, the petition was signed " John M'Hale." The heading of the petition purported that it came from the Archbishop and Clergy of Tuam, but it was not so signed.

Mr. Lew moved that the petition emanating from a person, falsely calling himself Archbishop of Tuam, be rejected. Mr. O'Cosixer.r„ with much warmth, said that the honourable Mem- ber for the University of Cambridge had himself stated that which was "false."

Sir ROBERT Nous called upon the Speaker to protect Mr. Law from the attack of Mr. O'Connell ; who though not answerable for what he might think fit to say out of the House, might be compelled to apologize in the House for applying the word "false " to Mr. Law.

Mr. O'Coxxma. rose, but was stopped by cries of "Order!"

The SPEAKER said, that Mr. O'Connell's conduct was most dis- orderly ; and lie called upon him to apologize for the word " false."

Mr. O'CoNsami. yielded to the Clmir, and apologized.

The petition was brought up. Sir ROBERT INGLIS examined it ; and said, there was the signature of "John M'Ilale," with a cross annexed ; but then, to his eye, there had been an evident erasure. Could Mr. Browne say whether or not there had been an erasure?

r. BROWNE explained, that he had received authority from Dr. bIllale to erase the words n Archbishop of Ttlam,” attached o his

fienature, on his representation that the petition woold not be received if so signed.

.9n the question that the petition "do lie on the table,"

MA LAW contended-, that as the petition purported to come from the

"Archbishop of Tuam," notwithstanding the erasure, it could not be received.

Mr. WARBURTON said, that precedent and practice were in favour of receiving the petition ; which was not that of an individual, for then it might be rejected, but of a body of clergy professing the Roman Catholic religion. It ought to be received as the petition of the Roman Catholic clergy of Tuam, who signed it.

Mr. WYNN said, that the heading of the petition was a sufficient ob- jection to its reception. It was a breach of law in any person to assume the title of Archbishop of Tuam.

Mr. O'CoxN ma. said, Mr. 'Wynn was mistaken—there was no law prohibiting a Roman Catholic Archbishop taking the title of Arch- bishop of Tuam ; for there was now no province of Timm in the Esta- blished Church.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS could not vote to reject the petition ; for, by au- thorizing the erasure of the words " Archbishop of Tuam," Dr. 311-laic had publicly renounced his right to the title.

Mr. 1)ILr;oN Ilitowsu begged Sir Robert Inglis to understand, that

Dr. had not the most remote idea of rdinquishing the title.

Mr. PRESIIFIELD said, the title had been adopted—that was the main point ; and therefore the petition could not be received.

Sir STEPHEN LUSHINGTON said, there was no violation of the law iu assuming the title of Archbishop of Timm ; and he warned the House, that an evil impression would be created in Ireland by rejecting the pe- tition, though an informality might be established against it.

Sir GEORGE CLERK suggested, that Mr. Browne had virtually autho- rity from Dr. 3I'llale to alter the heading as well as the signature; and by so doing the difficulty would be got rid of.

3Ir. BROWNE said, his authority had not that extent ; for the petition was not Dr. M'Ilale's, but emanated from a large body of the Catholic clergy.

Mr. GouLurrnx suggested, that the word "Tuam" might he erased.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL reluctantly opposed the reception of the pe- tition ; for the heading militated against the spirit, if not the letter of the law.

Mr. M. J. O'Cosxem thought that the operation of a penal enact- ment ought not to extend one jot beyond what its letter warranted. The House divided—

For receiving the petition 82 For rejecting it 165 Majority 83

MISCELLANEOUS.

CHURCH IN CANADA. In reply to questions put by Mr. PARING- TON in the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. Lenouclienu stated, that it was intended to erect Upper Canada into. a separate bishopric ; that Archdeacon Strachan had agreed to accept the office, with the salary attached to his archdeaconry only ; but that until a reply to a communication to the Bishop of Montreal had been received, no arrangements would be definitively made. The salary of the Bishop of Montreal would not be increased, but would continue at 1,9001. a year-10001. voted by Parliament, and 9001. from sources in Canada.

SLAVERY IN TILE MAURITIUS. Being questioned on this subject by Sir STEPHEN LUSHINGTON, Mr. LABOUCHERE said, he had no official information of the termination of the Negro apprenticeship in the Mauritius ; but, front what he had seen in a Mauritius newspaper, he had no doubt that the Orders in Council sent out to the Governor had been received, and that a proclamation had been issued, fixing the termination of the apprenticeship for the 31st of March last.

HAYTIAN COFFEE. Mr. THORNELY had a notice on the paper for a motion on this subject ; but he put it off, on learning from Mr. Poulett Thomson that a negotiation on the question between the British and Haytian Governments was in progress.

PRINTING OF PETITION. By a majority of SI to 23, the House re- fused to order the printing of a petition front Mr. Samuel Wells, on the financial state of the country.

BIBLES IN SCOTLAND. Replying to Sir JAMES GRAHAM, on Tues- day, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, that the exclusive right of publishing the Bible in Scotland would be given to a Board of five persons— It was proposed to incorporate a limited number of persons, say five, to whom would be granted the exclusive right of printing and Ithi1Shing the Bible. One of these was to be the Moderator of the .V-,4-• ably of the Church of Scot- land, two others were to be divines of the Church of Scotland, and two others were to be laymen but members of the Church of Scotland; and if any larger number than live should constitute the Board, it would still be constituted on the same principle. It was proposed that this Board should have the exclusive right of printing and publishing the Bible, upon condition of allowing the free importation of the authorized version of the Bible printed by authority in England. Another condition was, that the Board should have power to grant an imprimatur for Bibles to be published by certain publi,liers; but that such liberty should not be granted unless the Board appointed correctors of the press, or unless some person was appointed by the Board to supervise the Bibles so printed, and see that the version was correct. With these limita- tions, it was proposed generally, that no preference should be given to parti- cular publishers ; but the publishers must in addition cutter into conditions by bond to pay any costs that might ensue from a failure in the performance of any one of the conditions, or the costs occasioned by any incorrect version which might be circulated in consequence of the imprimatur grunted to them.

All this the Queen could do, jure corm e; therefore no bill would be required.

RATING OF TENEMENTS BILL. Mr. ROBERT GORDON, on Wednes- day, moved that this bill be recommitted. Mr. JOHN JERVIS stated several objections to the measure. The bill provided, not that all rates should be paid by the landlord, but that rates on houses rated under 91. per annum, should be paid by him, when the tenancy was from year to year, or for a shorter term. He considered that these provisions bore hard upon the owners of such property ; and upon the tenants, whom the landlords would compel to pay a higher rent than the former rent and rates combined, to secure themselves from loss ; that they would disfranchise many municipal voters who resided in houses of less value

than 91. a year, although a power to demand being rated was given ; because applications would not be often made : besides, the Govern- ment ought rather to compel every one who had a right to the fran- chise to exercise it, than leave it as a matter of capricious choice whe- ther it should be exercised or not. For these reasons, he moved that the bill be committed that day six months.

Mr. GEORGE PAL3IER said, that many occupants of cottages paid no rent at all ; and if the landlords were compelled to pay rates on these habitations, they would pull them down, and so the poor would suffer. Lord SANDON, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. PRYME, and Mr. SCROPE opposed the measure,—chiefly on the ground that its operation would be felt as injurious to the poor occupants of low-rented dwellings. Mr. GORDON, Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, Mr. BRISCOE, and Mr. BLANEY supported the bill, on the ground that it was favourable to the poor, who, under the new Poor-law, were called upon to pay rates from which they had formerly been exempt ; and that under the present law land escaped rating as soon as some small tenements were erected upon it ; which was unfair. On a division, Mr. Jervis's amendment was carried, by 94 to 70 ; so the bill was lost.

THE CUSTODY OF INFANTS BILL went through the Committee on Wednesday. Sir EDWARD SUDDEN allowed the first clause to pass with a verbal alteration ; but moved the omission of the second and all the subsequent clauses, on the ground that they would lead to divorces and separations. His motion was rejected, by 49 to 11; and the Committee rose.

THE ELECTION REMOVAL BILL, introduced by Mr. Ginsees to prevent removal between the time of registration and voting from being a dis- qualification, was supported by Mr. SPRING RICE, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, and Sir ROBERT ROLFE ; and passed through the Committee, without opposition.

SUGAR-DUTIES. In a Committee of Ways and Means, it was agreed to renew the existing Sugar-duties ; although Mr. EWART, Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, and Mr. THORNELY pressed for a modification of them, so as to admit foreign sugars ; and Mr. SPRING RICE admitted that a recon- sideration of the duties would be desirable.

REGISTRY APPEAL COURTS. On the motion of Mr. CHARLES BUL- LER, a bill was introduced and read a first time, to establish a Court of Appeal from the decisions of Revising Barristers.

CHURCH LEASES AND RATES. Lord JOHN RUSSELL informed Mr. LaniBTON, on Thursday, that nothing would be done this session on the subject of Church-rates and leases ; but he hoped early next session to submit sonic measure satisfactory to the House and the country.

METROPOLITAN POLICE 13ILL. A number of clauses, from the 22d to the 87th inclusive, were agreed to in Committee, on Thursday— with slight alteration, except in one instance. Clause 67th was amended, on Mr. THOMAS DUNC03113E'S motion, so a,s to reduce the extreme of punislnuent for drunkenness in the streets from fourteen days' imprisonment to seven.

NATIONAL Emma rims. Petitions for and against the Government plan of Education were presented in the House of Lords on Monday : and a conversation arose, in which the only point to be noted is, that Lord BROUGHAM stated that he should bring forward his bill on Na- tional Education on Thursday the 20th.

THE CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL was referred to a Select Committee, on the motion of the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, with the " warm approbation" of the Bishop of EXETER.

ARMED ASSOCIATIONS. The Duke of BEAUFORT, on Tuesday, re- quested Lord Melbourne to give him more precise information of the Intentions of Government in regard to arming the people. Lord John Russell had written a circular letter to the Lords-Lieutenant of Coun- ties, which had been differently interpreted— Their Lordships had probably seen a communication from a body calling itself the Salford Radical Association, requesting to be furnished with 1,200 stand of arms. He found also that a similar application had been made from Bath. In fact, the consequence of the noble lord's circular had been, that large bodies of men had associated themselves in different parts of the coun- try, and had obtained possession of arms for the ostensible purpose of affording protection to life and property. He thought, however, that nothing could be more dangerous than to place arms in the hands of such persons, unless some military officer were appointed to command and control them. In the absence of such control, there was no security for the manner in which those arms would be used. Ile had received several upplications from persons who had formed themselves into associations, and were desirous of being furnished with arms ; but his recommendation to them had always been to do nothing of the kind.

Lord MELBOURNE agreed in the general principle, that no bodies of men should be armed unless under the command of one of the Queen's officers ; but circumstances might occur to render a departure from that rule indispensable. Under such circumstances Lord John Russell's circular had been issued—

In consequence of the manufacture and purchase of arms, which was said to be becoming general, sad the menacing appearances which presented them- selves in many parts of the country,—appearances which, as upon other occa- sions, had seemed to be extremely menacing, but which as soon as they were approached sunk into comparative insignificance,— in consequence of such appearances and of the apprehensions which were entertained in certain parts of the country, his noble friend the Home Secretary issued to the Lords-Lieu- tenant of several counties the circular to which the noble duke had referred. It was confined to those counties where the illegal practices to which he had adverted most prevailed, and in which the danger appeared to be most imminent. It simply stated, that if the Lords-Lieutenant, in their discretion and upon their responsibility, would state that it was necessary for the preservation of the public peace that bodies of men, who were willing to undertake the duty and would form themselves into associations for that purpose, should be arnica, the Secretary of State should have no objection to furnish them with arms, trusting entirely to the discretion and prudence of the Lords-Lieutenant to decide what bodies should be so furnished. That was the extent of the circular issued by his noble friend, and such was its intention.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that he was not one of those Lords-

Lieutenant to whom the circular letter had been addressed ; but lie had heard something of it, and should like to see it. He wished to know whether the persons whom Magistrates were allowed to swear in as special constables, were those whom Lord John Russell intended to to -

arm ?—whether the Police raised and maintained under the Municipal Act were to be armed? In that case, different parties would be twined according as this or that set of politics prevailed in a borough. Re wished to see copies of these circulars to the Lords-Lieutenant the Home Office.

Lord MELBOURNE was quite ready to produce the papers. Ile could say, that it was not intended to supply arms to the persons mention & At the same time, it was competent to the Magistrates in arme persons on certain occasions. The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that if the Mayor of a town or anyMagistrates distributed arms, they were responsible to the law for their acts ; but under the circular, the present Mayor of Bath might arm 1,000 men of one set of politics, and next year another Mayor might arm another set of opposite politics. Lord ELLENBOIIOUGH believed that difficulty had arisen from want of precision in two circulars issued by the Home Secretary— By the first, leave was given to certain asscociations to arm themselves for the protection of life and property ; but the Secretary of State issued another circular to the Magistrates, by which they were directed to put in force the law against tiny persons found training for martial purposes. Under the first circular, the parties having obtained arms, wished to acquire some degree of military instruction ; but the moment they commenced training for that par. pose, they were taken up by the Magistrates under the second circular.

CANADIAN PRISONERS. Lord BROUGHAM, on Thursday, presented a petition from the nine Canadian prisoners in Newgate, Praying for the interference of the House in their behalf. He stated the case of the petitioners ; the substance of which was, that being in custody in Upper Canada on a charge of high treason, they had confessed their guilt in a petition to the Governor, on the assurance that they would thereupon receive a free pardon ; whereas, under an act passed by the Upper Canada Legislature, of which they were kept in ignorance, they were ordered to be transported to a penal colony ; so that they lost the benefit of a trial, and found that their punishment was only commuted, not remitted— And when was it that they were first informed of the conditions which were to be annexed to the pardon offered to them ? Was it in Upper Canada? Was it in Quebec ? Was it in the passage to England ? Was it on the landing in Liverissol ? Was it in London ? Was it in Newgate ?—No: the first time that they heard any thing of those conditions was when they were upon the floor of the Court of Queen's Bench. The consequence of those conditions was, that they were now threatened with transportation to one of the penal colonies of this country. This was the leading feature and outline of their case. The petitioners proceeded to state that they had lever been arraigned—never tried—never convicted—never sentenced ; and, indeed, it was admitted by the Attorney-General in the Court of Queen's Bench that they could not be regarded as convicts. That admission on the part of the At- torney-General ran through the whole argument which had taken place upon the subject, both in the Court of Queen's Bench and in the Exchequer.

Lord Brougham made some indignant remarks on the attempt of the Attorney-General to give such a gloss to the Habeas Corpus Act as would have deprived the petitioners of its protection ; which attempt had been frustrated immediately by the unanimous decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. But though the Crown lawyers had failed to procure the sanction of the Courts of Justice for the transportation of these prisoners, it was nevertheless apprehended that the unfortunate men were about to be transported. All that the prisoners now asked was to be sent back for trial. They said—" We did not ask a pardon with a qualification added behind our backs ; but let us go before a jury (English or Canadian, we care not which) and let them decide on our case."

The Marquis of NORMANDY said, that many of the allegations in the petition were new. The case was under consideration ; and he could not, in the present state of the business, say any thing decisive as to the intentions of Government.

Petition laid on the table.

POOR-LAW. Earl STANHOPE, on Thursday, presented several peti- tions from parishes in Kent, charging the Commissioners at Somerset House with cruel and capricious conduct, and calling for important alterations in the law. Lord BROUGHAM and the Duke of RICHMOND defended the law, and the persons who executed it. Lord MELBOURNE read a letter from Colonel A'Court, an Assistant Commissioner in Hampshire, explaining certain expressions imputed to him by a peti- tioner, Thomas Coombs, whose case Lord Stanhope had taken up. According to Coombs' statement, Colonel A'Court has said that no man was entitled to relief unless he fell down in the streets from exhalation, emaciation, and destitution ; whereas Colonel A'Court really said, that Overseers, not paid Relieving-officers, would be justified in giving im- mediate relief in cases of extreme destitution—if, for instance, they saw a man falling down in the streets from weakness or illness. The Duke of WELLINGTON, in strong language, reproved Earl Stan- hope for his practice of continually bringing forward charges, which generally turned out to be unfounded, against parties who were not pre- sent to defend themselves. Lord Stanhope ought to proceed in the regular way—move for papers, obtain information, and then found a motion on it. The Duke expressed high approbation of the Poor-law, and of the manner in which it was administered.

Earl STANHOPE considered the charges against him unjust. Oppor- tunity of defence was given to those whom he attacked. Colonel A'Court was defended by Lord Melbourne. He would not be intimi- dated—for intimidation might be got up on both sides ; and he was not disposed to become a public accuser. The Duke of WELLINGTON reiterated his remarks on Earl Stanhope's mode of proceeding. After further conversation in an angry tone between Earl STANHOPE and the Duke of WELLINGTON, this dialogue is reported— Earl STANHOPE asked the Duke of Wellington to move the adjournment. The Duke of WELLINGTON—" No, I shall not Earl STANHOPE—" DO ; move the adjournment."

The Duke of WELLINGTON—" Have you done yet ? "

Earl STANIIOPE—" Yes."

The Duke of WELLINGTON—" Then move the adjournment.

I shall

not do so."

The House adjourned, on Earl STANHOPE'S MOtIOL Logo • LONDONDERRY, LORD BROUGHAM, MR. GRATTAN. In the course of a desultory conversation in the House of Lords, on Monday, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY alluded to Mr. Henry Grattan's attack upon the Tories in his speech at the Dublin meeting. Lord Bnoucinam replied, that Mr. Grattan had denied certain very coarse expressions imputed to him. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY asked, whether Mr. Grattan said he did not use the words imputed to him ? Lord BROUGHAM replied, that Mr. Grattan averred his expressions were not so strong as they were represented. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY then read an extract from a speech by Mr. O'Connell at that meeting, from which Mr. Grattan had not dissented : did Mr. Grattan say less than that? Lord Londonderry characterized the language used at the meeting by Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Grattan as "base and infamous."