Debates anb limed:011gs in Varliament.

PRINCIPAL BUSINEss OF THE WEEK.

Rom or Lorna. Monday, June 11. Irish Encumbered Estates Bill, referred to a Select Committee—Adjourned at 10 h. 12m. Tuesday, June 12. Navigation-laws Bill, read a third time and passed—Adjourned at 9 h. 40 m. Thursday. June 14. li Transportation for Treason (Ireland) BM, read a first time—Protection of Women BM, read a third time and passed—Adjourned at 7 h. 35 m. Friday, June lb. Transporta- tion for Treason (Ireland) Bill, read a second and third time, and passed—Beer-laws : Select Committee appointed on Lord Harrowby's Motion—Intervention at Rome— Adjourned at 7 h. 12 m.

[Time occupied In the four sittings, 14 h. 39m.

since the beginning of the Session, 157 IL 4 re.]

Horn or Commits. Monday, Jane 11. Canada : Conversation on Lord Elgin's Communications—Parliamentary Oaths Bill, read a third time and passed—Adjourned at 12 h. 15 rn. Tuesday, June 12. International Arbitration : Mr. Cobden's Motion debated ; " previous question" moved and carried—Adjourned at 12 h. 30 m. Wednes- day, June 13; noon sitting. Mr. Hume's County Rates and Expenditure Bill, referred to a Select Committee—Adjourned at 6 b. Thursday, June 14. Business of the Session : the Premier's Statement—In supply : Mr. Gladstone's Speech on Canada : Mr. Herriea's amendment : debate adjourned—Adjourned at 1 h. 45 m. (Friday morning.) Friday, June 15. Canadian debate resumed : Mr. Herries's Motion negatived—Transportation (Ireland) Bill read a first time—Adjourned at 1 h. 38 m. (Saturday morning.)

(Time occupied in the four sittings, 42 h. 8 m.

since the beginning of the Session, 626h. 25 m.] INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Mr. COBDEN made his long-advertised motion on Tuesday, in the follow- ing terms— "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct her principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with foreign powers, inviting them to concur in treaties binding the respective parties, in the event of any future misunderstand- ing which cannot be arranged by amicable negotiation, to refer the matter in dis. puts to the decision of arbitrators."

He commenced with a reference to a matter that had just been under the attention of the House—the expeditions voluntarily sent out by America and Russia to prosecute a search after Sir John Franklin and his companions. Such acts are proofs that we live in altered times; for at no former period has there been an instance of a foreign government's sending forth an expedition in search. of adventurers unconnected with their own community. He inferred that they might expect to take another and further step towards consolidating the peace of nations, and securing them from the greatest calamity of war.

Mr. Cobden humbly represented two classes,—the first, that body of Christiana who repudiated the resort to war in any case, whether offensive or defensive; the second, that numerous portion of the middle classes, with the bulk of the work. ing classes, who, while not acceding to the opinion that as Christians they may not resort to war in self-defence, abhor war, and desire that some precautions should be taken, and if possible some guarantee, against them in future. These classes find a common ground whereon to meet, in their agreement that war is a great calamity which it is desirable to obviate. His object, then, was to see whether they could not devise a means to dispense with war; and he pre. posed to effect this by resorting to the same mode between communities which is resorted to between individuals—the -mode of reference to arbitra- tion. He did not necessarily mean the arbitration of crowned heads and neutral powers ; though instances may be quoted in which crowned heads have heen eminently successful,—for instance, the case in which England medi- ated between France and the United States, Russia between those States and our- selves, and Prussia between those States and Mexico: and there was also the Maine boundary case, in which the King of the Netherlands arbitrated between the United States and ourselves. All these cases were successful, though not all immediately so; and at all events in none did war follow. But there are &facia_ ties as to crowned heads: a republic might not prefer such an arbitrator, and a monarchy might not like a republic as an arbitrator. For this reason, he prefer- red the resort to commissioners ; of which also there are precedents. Whether under the name of commissioners, plenipotentiaries, arbitrators, or any other de- signation, let men of this country be appointed to meet men of another country; and, if they could not agree, give them power to call in an arbitrator, as in all other and ordinary eases. He desired that absolute power should be given to these people, before quarrels came, to settle quarrels when they did come. In 1794, we had a treaty with the United States respecting certain claims to com- pensation, under which four commissioners were to be appointed, two on each side, with a proviso that they should unanimously appoint an arbitrator, and if they could not agree, a mode was prescribed for choosing one by lot; and it was declared that the commissioners should have power to decide by a majority all cases which might be brought before them. So the treaty of Ghent made an ar- rangement precisely similar for the settlement of the Canada boundary. What he proposed, therefore,: was no innovation: the principle is already in action; and all he desired was that it should be carried out a little farther. There is no difficulty as to the means or details.

But the objection is made, " Who will observe these treaties? These treaties will not prevent war, for the parties cannot be prevented from disregarding them." The objection is too wide, and is answered by the question, " What is the use, then, of any treaty? what the use of the Foreign Office, and of diplomatists? If one is bad, all are equally so; and you should shut up your office, and cashier your diplomatists." But the use of treaties cannot be questioned, at all events by those who only take this exception to this particular form of them. As a rule, treaties have been observed; and as a rale, wars arise not out of violated treaties but accidental collisions, for the amicable settlement of which no means had beforehand been provided. The advantage of such a treaty is, that no nation who had signed it could go to war in violation of it without the brand of infamy on its cause. But it is objected also, that the honour and the great interests of this empire could not be trusted to individuals—to commissioners. Why not ? It has been done repeatedly: it is the practice. Lord Castlereagh represented this country in framing the great treaties of 1815. Mr. Whitbread brought forward a motion in the House of Commons censuring the Government for those treaties. Lord Castlereagh in his speech distinctly told the House of Commons, that he could not wait for instructions at Vienna; that he never could have allowed the machine of the Congress to stand still. " I took the responsibility," he said, "on myself; and, if the interest and the honour of England have suffered, I stand here, who am alone responsible." Could not another man as worthy as Lord Castle- reagh be found to prevent the continuance of war? The object is to urge the propriety of framing machinery which shall always necessitate a first attempt to settle differences by the arbitration of individuals before the contest of armies be- gins; and whatever instructions a Government might give, it must allow a dis- cretionary power for the binding of the country by the plenipotentiaries. It might possibly be objected, that there are already signs of a very pacific ten- dency and policy on the part of this country; so that the motion was "un- necessary." Bat he could see no proofs of this in the increased expense of ar- maments during the past five or six years. Since 1836, we have added 60,000 men to our forces, and augmented our expenses for armed men by 60 or 70 per cent. We have stored up 170,000 barrels of gunpowder, and provided 65,000,000 ball-cartridges. We have got 50,000 pieces of cannon besides those afloat and in arsenals, 5,000,000 shells and balls, and 1,500,000 sand-bags. Our provision of these stores during the last three or four years is equal to three years' consump- tion of them during the height of the French war, and to fifteen years consump- tion in peace. This looks nothing like confidence in peace. In the last five years, we have spent twice as much on fortifications, dockyards, steam-basins, and other means of aggressive and defensive warfare, as during any similar period since the peace; and the honourable Member for Montrose, whose attention he had directed to the subject, said he believed that more had been spent for those objects within the time specified than was spent on them in any year of the war. He repeated and defied contradiction to the statement he made last session, at which the Chan- cellor was so incredulous. As much money has been expended on our steam navy as was invested in the whole of our mercantile steamers. And farther, more money has been spent in stain basins and docks for building and repairing war- steamers than has been invested in the dockyards in which our mercantile steam- ers were built. Can it be said that we are in no want of better guarantees for the maintenance of peace than such burdensome armaments as these? It might be said that his plan would not suit all cases: but surely it would do better than these costly plane now in use; and no one can deny that it is more rational to arbitrate than to draw the sword. But for every imaginary case in which it might be said his plan would not apply? he could cite from history four cases in which it would have applied; and this Is a question to be decided by experience. All the unavoidable quarrels in which we have been engaged during the last twenty years could have been more fitly deter- mined by arbitration than in any other way: the case of the Vixen in the Black Sea, the Maine boundary dispute, the Oregon dispute, the M'Leod dispute, the Tahiti case, were all cases in which the Ministers of the time on both sides would have been thankful indeed to have found the machinery of arbitration existing. far the reference of the dispute at the very beginning, and before national passiors and jealousies had been roused. In conclusion, Mr. Cobden explained that he did not act with those gentlemen who advocate a congress of nations, with a code of laws, a supreme court of ap- peal, and an armed force to execute its decrees. Such.; plan as that might per- haps be productive of more interference than the existi,g system. And be warned Mr. Urquhart, who is fond of tacking on amendments to other people's motions, that if he had prepared a long speech to support his amendment on any such supposition, it would be unnecessary to trouble the House with it. Mr. Cobden world deal with a violation of an arbitration-treaty precisely in the same way ID which the violation of a treaty would he dealt with now. If an appeal to arms would be necessary in one case, it would be in the other; but the country which entered upon war to support the violation of an arbitration-treaty would do so with infamy stamped on its front.

The motion received the support of Mr. EWART, Lord ROBERT GROS- VIINOR, Mr. MACKINNON, Colonel THOMPSON, and Mr. HOBEIOUSE.

Mr. COCHRANE opposed it; and Mr. URQUHART read an amendment, which he said he should not press to a division, " That to settle differences by any extranational judicatory, would, if practicable, be the subversion of the independence of each state, and the extinction of the law of mauls."

Lord PALMERSTON, in rising to oppose the motion, was far from desiring to speak of the sentiments which Mr. Cobden had expressed, or of the opinions of those with whom he acts, with anything but the greatest pos- sible respect.

He agreed with him and them in the greatest detestation, he might say horror, of war in any shape; and he could not but say he was glad that he had made his proposition, and enabled Europe to see how in this assembly, and the vast masses of men it representa, there is a sincere and honest desire to maintain peace. But he would guard against the impression—which should not be anywhere enter- tained—that the fervent love of peace which prevails in this country has caused the manly spirit of Englishmen to die, or that England is not as ready as ever to repel aggression and resent injury—to defend her own rights, though not to at- tack the rights of others. Nothing could more jeopardize the peaceable relations of this country than the spread amongst foreigners of the idea that our aversion to war is so great as to prevent our repelling an injury. As to Mr. Cobden's proposal, he thought it founded on an erroneous principle and impracticable of exe- cution. The analogy suggested between individuals and communities fails in this important distinction, that between states the element of superior force, to carry out the dicta of the arbitrators, is wanting. True, Mr. Cobden perceived and fair- ly acknowledged this peculiarity; but he did not admit the consequences. This is because the distinction is forgotten which exists between arbitration and media- tion,—arbitration consisting in the pronouncing of a final decision by a third party, whose dictum can be enforced; and mediation consisting in the good offices of a third party, endeavouring to bring about an amicable termination of differences by the consent and acquiescence of the other two. Mr. Cobden was so conscious of the difficulty attending the practical execution of his own idea, that he has been "obliged to abaneon what most persons imagined " to be his plan.

Mr. COBDEN—"I have never altered or abandoned my motion in the slightest degree." Lord Patarenerosi—" He has not abandoned, but has been obliged not to propose, what many persons, myself included, imagined to be his plan, namely, that the court of arbitration should consist of some foreign government or governments." In turning over the matter, he has found it necessary to substitute commissioners taken from private life. This has never before been attempted; and he could not hope, in the present imperfect condition of human nature—governments, like indi- viduals, being actuated by unfounded and suspicious jealousies of each other, be- ing ambitions as men are covetous, and being influenced by various bad motives and conflicting interests—in this condition of the world he could not deem it possible to find a third party whose judgment each of the two contending parties would place confidence in and regard as final. The case of the Maine boundary is a most unfortunate allusion. It could hardly be imagined how much time elapsed be- fore any agreement could be come to in the choice of a sovereign arbitrator; and in that very case the award which was made was disregarded by the United States, and the matter put in a worse position than before. The intrigues and the hostile policy of nations in the choice of a crowned head or government are to be avoided by the choice of commissioners. But if it is objectionable to commit the interests of a great country to the final decision of a government, the objection is not thus removed: a government is at least a public and responsible body, acting in the face of the world, and accustomed to deal with such matters; a private person is perfectly irresponsible, his pursuits may not have qualified him for the task of deciding the special questions that:may arise, and experience does not give hopes that such persons are more likely to agree than sovereigns or governments. Take, for instance, the case of the commissioners appointed under the treaty of Ghent who had to decide on a simple matter of science, the running of a latitude parallel. The difficulty of finding true longitude and the facility of fixing lati- tude are equally notorious; but on this easy matter the two learned geographers found not a chance of agreeing. One calculated from the centre of the Earth, and the other from the centre of the Sun, and neither would yield to the other's mode of computation: they accordingly remained not only as far as the Poles asunder, but as far asunder as the Earth and Sun ; and neither M. Humboldt nor the learned professor associated with him arrived at any satisfactory result on a matter that could be settled by any one able to set a village sun-dial. The mode in which Lord Castlereagh's case had been quoted showed the ne- cessity of mentioning to the House, "that no person goes out from this country, or usually from any other, with full powers, in the strict sense of those words." Some discretion is left, but never fall and entire discretion; quite the contrary. Every plenipotentiary receives instructions, and as long as he confines himself to them he may proceed with confidence; but his government is not bound. Nothing is binding unless it is in strict accordance with communications made to other governments in the precise words of the instructions. "A treaty may be signed and concluded, but it is of no value without ratification; and this sort of pro- vision is necessary in order that no government may be bound by the indiscreet or misuilisrized act of any of its agents; and therefore, if an envoy should go against his instructions, the arrangements he may make are of no value beyond the paper on which they are written." The cases Mr. Cobden mentioned were not cases of arbitration, but of mediation; or else they were cases of no mediation at all, settled neither by arbitration nor by intervention,—such as those which he mentioned between Russia and England, and the case also of the Vixen. In the boundary case, it seemed as if there had been some show of arbitration ; but it was notorious that in that case arbitration failed ; and when arbitration had totally failed the parties concerned settled the matter for themselves in the usual way. The case of the Caroline was one in which arbitration would have been totally out of place; it was a case of defective powers in the Federal State, which was well disposed but unable to negotiate. It would be satisfactory to the House to learn that mediation has been of much more frequent occurrence in late years than in times past; but they must see plainly that arbitration is totally unfitted to the present state of Europe. The wars now proceeding in various parts of Europe do not arise from international differences; it is to civil war that they are to be attributed; and except in very rare cases, the intervention of any third parties as arbitrators would be more likely to be mischievous than beneficial.

In conclusion, Lord Palmerston repeated, that he did not quarrel with the Principle of the motion, but he thought its practical effect would be dangerous to this country, and its practical adoption impossible by other countries. It would be peculiarly dangerous for this country, because there is no country which, from its political and commercial circumstances, from its maritime interests, and from its colonial possessions, excites more envious and jealous feelings in different quarters than England does; and there is no country that would find it more difficult to discover really disinterested and impartial ar- biters. He could not assent to the motion ; but should be sorry to meet it in a Way that might, even by misconstruction, be considered as negativing the prin- ciple Open which it is founded. The " previous question " is not technically ap- plicable to this case, but he adopted that form of negation, as being the most courteous mode of disposing of the motion, and one less liable than any other to the imputation of negativing the principle of peace. Mr. MILNER GIBBON adduced the authority of Vattel for arbitration; quoted an eloquent article of the Times of 1846, in reply to the Times of June 1849; drew a picture of the horrors of war; and vindicated M. Max- zini from the false and malicious statements which had been made respect- ing him as one of the Roman Triumvirate.

Mr. ROEBUCK said, without flattery, he had never listened with such unmixed pleasure to any speech as to that of Lord Palmerston ; and he only regretted that its large, general, and statesmanlike views were followed by so unsatisfactory a conclusion—

It was proposed that England, standing in the van of civilization, should forego the advantages of her empire, her power, and her skill, in any dispute with another nation, and be content to refer her quarrel to the arbitrament of a third party.

The noble Lord admitted the strength of that pro 1, but said he thought there was danger in it to our interests; " and therefore," said he—what ? not that he would negative the proposal, but that he would take a course which had always been regretted by those who had adopted it—he would move the previous ques- tion. Mr. Roebuck had no notion of the advent of such an Utopia as that Man- kind were to assemble together in one family, and that we were all to become ra- tional beings; but do we laugh, or do we lament, that Vattel, Puffendorf, and Grotias, have no influence over the councils of nations? Consider what influence this night's debate might have upon Europe. If it had gone forth that there was a member of that House who proposed that the nations of mankind should adopt a civilized and rational mode of arranging national disputes, and that the propo- sition was sanctioned by the chief men of the nation, selected to be at the head of the councils of the people, could they bide from themselves that such a proposi- tion, so supported, would read a moral lesson to the now combative, confused, and miserable people of Europe? But the noble Lord had lost the glorious opportu- nity.

Mr. MoNcirron MILNES thought the proof had failed, that this was the time when the motion could be fitly pressed. There are worse things than war—to be deprived of liberty, to be doomed for centuries to a sleep of de- gradation and slavery. It was worse than war that Italy should be as she had been.

Mr. HUME expressed himself more pleased with Lord Palmerston's de- clarations as a friend of peace than with anything he had ever heard from him before; but was surprised at his hesitating conclusion with respect to the motion before the House. Lord Palmerston took a just pride in the change of late years made in the mode of settling national disputes; but if such quarrels are so much more easily settled, how does he justify his defence of larger military establishments?

Lord Jotter RUSSELL took exception to the motion, not because it is Utopian, but because it is too practical. If assented to, the day after the address shall have been presented to her Majesty it would be incumbent On the Foreign Secretary to transmit a proposal to every foreign power, that every future misunderstanding shall be settled by arbitrators appointed for the purpose. It would be impossible to assent to the motion without being prepared to act on it immediately; and the Government are not so pre- pared. For his part, he did not believe the plan would better secure peace than the plans at present in use. We have it now in our power to adapt the course as the case arises; and that is a better situation than to bind ourselves to a course, when questions may arise involving the national honour and safety, in which public opinion would totally prevent the ma- chinery from coming into operation, or totally set aside the result. At the same time, he did not see why the influence of the great powers of Eu- rope should not be used for the purpose of discouraging war—for the purpose of mediating between nations in cases of dispute, which although having some foundation, so as to justify a difference of opinion, was yet not such as to justify their going to war. Therefore, he could not differ from the general object which Mr. Cobden had in view; nor could he regret that he had thought proper to bring the question under the consideration of the House. Captain ELutuis opposed the motion. Mr. COBDEN replied briefly. The House divided; and "the previous question" was carried, by 176 to 79— majority against Mr. Cobden's motion, 97.

THE ARCTIC EXPEDITION, RUSSIA AND AMERICA.

Lord PALMERSTON having laid papers on the table of the House of Com- mons respecting the expedition sent out by the American Government in search of Sir John Franklin and his associates, Sir ROBERT INOLIS called the particular attention of the House and the country to this noble deed. Lady Franklin had written one of the most beautiful letters ever penned, to induce the American President to lend his aid; and the President had responded by sending out two expeditions. Such conduct did honour to the Government of the United States, and must tend powerfully to rivet feelings of attachment and friendliness between the two countries. Russia had cooperated in the same laudable work, by despatching an expedition towards Behring's Straits.

Thus, three powers possessing the greatest extent of territory in the world had been found willing to cooperate,, not in schemes of conquest or aggrandizement, but in a philanthropic attempt to save the lives of gallant and devoted men ; an effort, the existence of the spirit shown in which ought to go far to promote the cause which they were presently to hear advocated by the honourable Member for the West Riding. (" Hear, hear! ")

Lord PALMERSTON heartily concurred in these sentiments, and thought such acts would foster feelings which would be found to be the beet preser- vative of peace. Mr. DISRAELI .agreed that the conduct of the American President did equal honour to "his heart and his nation " and would cer- tainly tend more to preserve peace than any of the political phantaaies of the day, or any political nostrums such as that which would soon engage the attention of the House.

CANADIAN REBELLION LOSSES.

On the motion to confirm a vote of the Committee of Supply, granting a sum of 16,0001. to her Majesty for the expenses of Militia and Volun- teers in Canada, Mr. GLADSTONE rose " to call the attention of the House to certain parts of a recent Act to provide Compensation for Rebellion Losses in Canada, and other papers relating to the same subject "; which he did in a speech of considerable length. He explained that he did not make any specific motion on the subject, because he wished to avoid a heated discussion, and to obtain something like an united expression of opinion. He abstained from criticizing the conduct of Lord Elgin or of the Government in Canada ; considering that the House had nothing to do with the divisions of local parties. He thought, however, that Lord Elgin had been left in too isolated a position—charged with too much responsibility, without sufficient instructions from the Government at home. The questions for them to consider were three-1. Did the Rebellion Losses Act propose indemnification for those who bore arms against the Queen's forces in 1837-8? 2. Was the subject involved a local or an imperial question? 3. If imperial, did it involve the honour and dignity of the Crown? That it was an imperial question, Mr. Gladstone

judged on the strength of texts taken from the writings of Lord John Russell and Mr. Roebuck. He took the third question for granted; and entered at con- siderable length into a consideration of the facts, for the purpose of showing that the hill did contemplate the indemnification of rebels. By " rebels," without entering into many refined applications of that phrase, he meant persons who had borne arms against the Sovereign. Among the proofs which he ad- vanced, that under the terms of the act rebels would be enabled to make good claims for indemnification, were the following. The strange language adopted in the act respecting losses unjustly, unnecessarily, or wantonly inflicted, indicates more than meets the eye. Persons convicted, transported to Bermuda, &c., are professedly excluded; but, inasmuch as they were convicted before courts-martial, and there is no authority in the empire to erect courts-martial into regular tri- bunals, the professed exclusion would break down. Among the claims are about 400 for guns—guns lost in action with her Majesty's troops! Mr. Mucks and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly had said that there was no intention of paying money to actual rebels. but Mr. Jones, an independent member of the Le- gislative Council, named to the Colonial Prime Minister three or four persons who were known to have committed overt acts of rebellion, and asked if they were to be excluded from the compensation ? The frank answer was, that no objection could be sustained against those individuals. Mr. Gladstone contended, without reference to the wantonness of the destruction, that no person who had borne arms against the Sovereign could claim compensation: having taken up arms against the order of society, he must be considered as absolutely excluded from the right to invoke its law ; and in the case of Canada the proof of inno- cence should be thrown upon the claimant. The amnesty made no difference: it could not annul the fact of rebellion, nor qualify claims arising out of that rebellion. Mr. Gladstone entered into some details to show that on a par- ticular occasion, contrary to the general assertion, a majority of the Upper Ca- nadian members had not supported the bill. He also complained of the manner in which the petitions were treated. Of the papers presented to Parliament, about 40 pages were filled with petitions in support of the Government; only one petition against it was given, and the Governor only mentioned that " there were a considerable number sent up against the bill": was that even-handed justice? Where were the other 40 pages of those petitions? Indeed, it did not appear that of the petitions in favour of Government more than one or two expressed in terms approval of the bill. It had been said that rebels had been compensated under the indemnification in Upper Canada; and Mr. Mocks specified five cases. But on proof it appeared that they were mistakes: the

i

money had not been paid, or it had been paid for supplies, not for compensation. Mr. Gladstone did not propose to ask Ministers to advbe the Crown to disallow the act that the Colonial Legislature had passed; a milder course might be pur- sued: but he hoped that the noble Lord would be able to give the House an assu- rance that under the act no persons would receive compensation who had really been rebels—not merely those who had been convicted rebels, but that were known to have been concerned in that rebellion—proved to have been so upon some- thing like reasonable evidence, on affidavit or some similar species of proof. If the noble Lord could not give that assurance—if the effect of the act would be that those who had been in arms in 1837 and 1838 were to receive compensation. as though they had been true subjects and loyal men—then milder measures than absolutely disallowing the bill might be resorted to: for example, the Crown might be advised to delay its final ratification of the act—it might be suspended until an opportunity was given to the Canadian Legislature to amend it, and to provide in another bill that compensation should not be awarded to any persons who had borne arms in the recent rebellion. That was what he asked.

As to what might prove the termination of the struggles in Canada, it would be no easy matter for any one to attempt to foresee; every person, however, could perceive strong proofs that very great straggles were approaching: he earnestly and ardently hoped that those struggles would terminate in a manner most con- ducive to the happiness of the people of that country: if they did so terminate in the happiness of the Canadians, the people of this United Kingdom could have no wish ungratified on the subject. But he begged to remind them, that nothing -could be for the happiness of the Canadian people which was inconsistent with the honour of the Imperial Crown. The present state of feeling in Canada might possibly lead to a union under one government of all our North American Pro- vinces, Canada being divided into two or three states: but, whatever change of that kind might occur, he earnestly hoped for a happy issue to this ill-omened beginning; he hoped for a result that would give additional firmness to the go- vernment of those states, and permit that government to be carried on at diminished costs and charges, and that additional security might be derived from such a consolidation of colonies.

Lord Jour( RUSSELL had hoped from Mr. Gladstone's beginning, that he did not intend to raise any question which could call for division of opinion: but he was doomed to be disappointed; for if anything could revive the contest which was sinking into oblivion, it was the sentiments expressed by Mr. Gladstone that night—he had endeavoured most ingeniously to supply every argument which appeared wanting to the case of the Canadian Oppo- sition against the Governor-General and the Administration. Lord John denied that the Governor-General had been debarred from asking the advice of the Government at home. He had only been left with the general discre- tion reposed in every Governor-General of distinguishing between local matters and those which concern the honour of the Crown. If Ministers believed Lord Elgin to have erred in his course, they would not have hesitated in the painful duty of recall- ing him. But, believing him, as they did, to have rightly consulted the interests of -Canada and of this country and the honour of the Crown, they would be the basest of men ,if they were to desert him now. Lord John quoted official documents [already familiar to the readers of the Spectator] for the purpose of making out that the Rebellion Losses Bill was the necessary sequence of measures adopted by previous Governors and Administrations in Canada. He recited the case of the mistakes which Mr. Gladstone mentioned as having been made by Mr. Mucks, to show how impossible it would be at this period to make any infallible distinction between persons who had or had not been rebels; the decision necessarily turning upon the actual merits of the claim in each case. Mr. Gladstone's ingenious ar- gument, that persons found guilty by courts-martial might not be legally con- victed, falls to the ground before the fact that Sir John Colbourne had proclaimed martial law in Canada: under such circumstances, courts.martial are formed by authority of the common law. Lord John had no doubt that the directions issued to the Commission for adjudicating the claims would be such as to com- pensate losses caused wantonly and unjustly during the rebellion. That any in- structions could be so framed as to prevent any person who may in any way have countenanced the rebellion from receiving compensation, without going to the danger and difficulty—he might say the torture—of new trials for high trea- son, he did not believe; but be did believe that all that regard for the honour of this country, all that respect forjustice, all that sound judgment could require, would be done by Lord Elgin in his capacity of Governor-General. Mr, HERMES contended, that it is not in the power of the Attorney- General, or of the Government at home, to alter or modify the bill in its application, They could but give or refuse their assent; and the only safe course would be to allow the Canadian Legislature to remedy the objec- tions to the measure by an act of its own: he therefore moved, as an amendment on the motion for confirming the resolution of Supply, " That an address be presented to her Majesty, praying that the Royal assent may be withheld from the Rebellion Losses Bill, until a satisfactory assurance tihhll be received that no persons engaged in or having aided or abetted that

unnatural rebellion shall be permitted to participate in that indemnification so to be granted."

In the discussion which ensued, Mr. Custertim BRUCE supported the Government. Mr. 13..w.r.re COCHRANE attacked it, with a special assault on Mr. Roebuck for having formerly been " the advocate of rebels,"—re. torted by Mr. ROEBUCK with the averment that the accusation was " not true."

Mr. GLADSTONE asked Mr. Harries to withdraw his motion, as tending to take the House by surprise; and Lord Jour( Russztx pointed out that it is most unusual to foist a specific motion on the notice of another Mem- ber merely " to call attention" to a question. Mr. HERMES intimated his willingness to withdraw the motion, and not to reintroduce it, if Lord John Russell would give the pledge that he would carry into effect the inten- tions which it expressed: but Lord Joins RUSSELL declined to give that pledge. After a good deal of wrangling, the motion for the adjournment of the debate, moved by Mr. BROTHERTON, was carried, by 172 to 107.

ROMAN INTERVENTION.

The Ministers have been questioned repeatedly, in both Houses, con- cerning what share our Government has taken, or whether it has taken any share, in the intervention of foreign powers at Rome. The sum of the information given by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE and Lord PeuitEnaroti is this—which Lord Palmerston does not mean to qualify in the least degree—" that the British Government has had no par- ticipation of any kind in any proceedings which have taken place on the part of any power whatsoever." A comirmnication from her Majesty's Government made to the Pope's representative at Paris, through an Am- bassador, would be laid before Parliament, and would show the views of the British Government on the Roman question.

NAVIGATION-LAWS.

On the motion to give the Navigation Bill a third reading, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH could not refrain from touching upon the measures which

it would be absolutely necessary to adopt for the security of British ship- ping under the new system. It is only fair that the shipowner should now be relieved from all duties on timber. Government should promptly in- troduce measures for the examination of masters and mates before their appointment, and for their trial upon the loss of ships; also for the esta- blishment of a fund for the support of worn-out seamen, similar in principle though not in extent to that now made for seamen of the Royal Navy at Greenwich Hospital; and a measure for the registry of ships, as the present system is totally erroneous and deceptive.

Earl Gnewvu.LE offered brief explanations with regard to these sugges- tions. He agreed with Lord Ellenborough as to the reduction of the tim- ber-duty; and as to the new registration he was not prepared to say he saw any great objection to it. As to the merchant seamen's fund, the at- tempt made last year was opposed and defeated by the shipowners them- selves: the subject still deserves the best consideration, and he thought that such a measure must some time or other pass. It is intended to bring in a bill to improve the discipline of the mercantile navy.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA regretted that this bill had been carried by the Bishops; whom he once warned that if the day ever arrived when measures

of a secular character injurious to the best interests of the country should be carried by their votes, England would again wish to see the Houses of Convocation restored, and the Bishops represented in that House by a few chosen from themselves to state their opinions only on religious matters.

Lord STANLEY left the whole responsibility with Ministers; and should satisfy himself with saying non-content, and with registering his protest against so dangerous a measure.

Lord BROUGHAM saw some explanation of the extraordinary phenome- non of this bill's passing, in the sudden appearance on the floor of the House of diplomatic characters from all quarters, at a time when the affairs of Europe are more critical than they have been for many a year.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE remarked on the extraordinary progress, of a most unexpected nature, which this bill had produced in the opinions of Conservative Peers.

In a short half-hour, they had heard one noble Lord expressing doubts how far it might be fit that a class of members intimately connected with the constitution

and privileges of their House should continue to sit in it; another disposed to in-

quire into the future propriety of voting by proxy; and a third doubted if diplo- matists are capable of judging commercial questions—(Cries of " No, no! ")— well then, expressing an opinion that though they are so capable, they should be deprived of the right. But such considerations ought not to be entertained. As to the bill, he believed that its general and ultimate effect will be to increase our shipping and multiply our sailors.

The Protectionist Lords now withdrew in a body, and the bill was read a third time.

On the question that the bill do now pass, the Bishop of OXFORD proposed to add a clause by way of rider, which was not read to the House, but which provided that " The said privileges shall not extend to the ships of Spain, or to foreign ships exporting the produce of the West Indian colonies of Spain, or to the ships of or to foreign ships exporting the produce of Brazil, until her Majesty shall declare, by orders in Council, that the Governments of Spain and Brazil have respectively given to her Majesty full satisfaction as to the fulfilment of the treaties into which they have entered with her Majesty for the suppression of the slave-trade." In support of this he argued, that Brazil is the great mart of slaves ; that the ob- ject of this bill is to quicken trade, to make Brazil a better customer by increasing her imports and exports; and that the necessary consequence will be the increased

demand for slave-labour and the increased activity of the slave-trade. This clause affords the only means remaining of influencing the government of Brazil. We have a cases bell with Brazil for breach of treaties regarding the slave-trade, and should be justified in blockading the whole line of the Brazilian coast; but we abstain, be- cause the Government is powerless to carry out its own worthy designs. A few Portuguese slave-traders at Rio are supreme throughout the land: as mortgagee' of almost every slave-cultivated estate, they control the elections at their will. In such a state of things, we should enable those who are really anxious to execute the treaties to point to our tariff-exclusion of their produce, and our refusal to grant them the privileges of other nations.

Lord BOWDEN called to mind that there is now in existence, suspended only to give foreign nations time to conform themselves to its terms, a Brazilian decree charging a differential duty of one-third on the ships of all nations not treating Brazilian ships on a footing of perfect equality. To pass this clause, would therefore be the very way to make true those, prognostications of evil to our commerce which had been heard. The commercial marine of Brazil is entin-ily employed on its own *toasts, or, nn fortunately, the coast of Africa—none of it comes here; so that Brazilians will escape, and our own shipping suffer. Lord DENMAN would vote for this amendment, or indeed any amend- ment of his right reverend friend. He saw but two parties—the infamous slave-trader, and the wretched suffering slave: they had nothing to do in order to suppress the slave-trade but to make their demonstration power-

fully 'rho Earl of Weasvion refused to support an amendment brought for- ward at the eleventh hour, which if brought forward at a former stage might haie stood some chance of support.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE urged, that the moral influence of this country must ever rest on its commercial influence: if we deprive our- selves of the one, the other must cease. No man has laboured more as- siduously to accomplish the extirpation of the slave-trade than the Secre- tary for Foreign Affairs; he thinks this amendment would only weaken his hands.

On a division, the amendment was rejected, by 23 to 9; and the bill was

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

The third reading of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill, on Monday, was op- posed by Mr. Lew; who moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months, and renewed those staple objections to the measure which es- pecially regard the exclusion of Jews from Parliament. In the debate that followed, the arguments urged, to use the words of Lord John Rus- sell, had very little in them different from those urged on former occasions: so that it will suffice to give some points from the eloquent speech of Mr. SHELL, to indicate Mr. ROEBUCK'S position on Eris first appearance in the discussion, and to enumerate the remaining speakers on either side.

Replying to the " unchristianixing of our Legislature " objection, Mr. Sun. said-

" Will the Member for Warwickshire contend that the Congress of the United States, in which Jews are admitted, is less Christian than the Congress of Mexico, where Jews are excluded? There were four Jews in the late Constituent As- sembly of France,—M. Cremienx, M. Goudchanx, M. Fonld, and M. Serpent. Did an irreligious sentiment ever escape their lips; or did they expostulate against the celebration of those august ceremonies of Catholicism which happily indicate a restoration of that faith of which, in the opinion of all its statesmen, France stands so much in need? I will not notice the sanctimonious sophistication of the men by whom we are informed that we should make ourselves the auxiliaries of Omnipotence, and lend our aid to the Almighty in the fulfilment of the pro- phecies, by shutting the Rothschilds and the Goldsmidts and the Montefiores out of the House of Commons. Their assertion deserves almost as little regard who tell us that into a genuine Englishman you cannot turn a Jew. Enough to say that the Jews are good citizens and good subjects—loyal to their Sovereign and attached to their country, lovers of order and obedient to the laws; that many of them are eminent for their virtues and distinguished by their almost boundless charity; and that upon misery in every form, whether it be Jew or whether it be Christian they look with an eye of indiscriminately munificent commiseration. Not only has the City, properly so called, returned a Rothschild to Parliament, but by the representatives of the multitudinous Metropolitan constituencies this bill is zealously supported. It will not be said that two millions of Englishmen are indifferent to the interests of Christianity. In no city on the face of the earth is Christianity more prized and reverenced: from the summit of that majestic temple, dedicated by England to the name of that famous Jew who so essentially contributed to disseminate the religion of charity through the world—over the vast expanse of wealth, and greatness, and grandeur, and power, in which so many of the glories of Imperial England are assembled—the cross appropriately ascends. It is the memorial of a great sin, but it is the symbol of a measureless mercy; it is the type of a religion with which penalties for the sake of its propagatica are incompatible. The cause of Christianity and the cause of toleration are identified; they are highly and holily the same. The victory of the one is the triumph of the other; and as for the achievement of that victory and the consummation of that triumph I fervently pray, so in that achievement and in that consummation I most trustfully confide." (Much cheering.) Mr. ROEBUCK deemed that the gentlemen opposite had dug'up their old arguments, and endeavoured to resuscitate them, in order to influence the proceedings of the other House of Parliameut.

That other House had been described as composed of men who were better judges of what was fitted for the religious government of the country than the Representatives of the People. With all possible deference for that House, he was not about to place among its qualifications that of superior religions ob- servance and knowledge as compared with other classes. Not among them should he find the peculiar devotion which distinguishes the people of this country; but if he sought he should do so among those modest middle classes which have given a distinctive character to England, and which above all things have made her what she stands before the world. Mr. Newdegate, on the authority of some lec- tures delivered at Birmingham, bad declared that one doctrine of the Jews was that they " were ordered to obey the words of the Rabbi in preference to all law; and that on one of their grand festivals they were absolved from all the oaths they had taken during the year." The honourable Member had the courage—but that was not the right word—to say of men as respectable as himself in every re- lation of life, that they were utterly regardless of their oaths. It would be easy to quote from almost every class of Christian writers the exceedingly strange and twisting arguments to prove that men might be absolved from the most sacred obligations; but would he therefore be justified in imputing to Chriltians at large a disregard of oaths? When Pascal wrote his Christian Letters, he did not at- tack the Christianity of the world because certain Jesuitical writers had endea- voured to twist the grave obligations of religion. The honourable Member's con- duct was unfair towards those who were not present to defend themselves. He had endeavoured to blast the character of a whole sect by a groundless imputa- tion. Jews were as honest and sincere in their religions belief, and as upright in all their dealings, as any Christians. On the general question, Mr. Roebuck reminded the House, that a Jew had been Alderman; one was now Sheriff; and he probably would be Lord Mayor; what harm could arise from conferring another privilege upon him, and admitting him to Parliament? A Jew must be sent to the House by the votes of his fel- low countrymen. Would not that, in itself, constitute a guarantee for the pro- priety of his conduct as a legislator? Mr. Roebuck's experience of large consti- tuencies had taught him that the people were steadfastly attached to the principle Of religions liberty, and that they were indifferent whether that principle was to be established for the benefit of millions, thousands, or of only half-a-dozen. He hoped that when the bill reached the House of Lords, that assembly would defer to the wishes of the people of England, twice constitutionally expressed through their representatives in the House of Commons. Mr. Law's amendment was seconded by Mr. RAPHAEL,_ and supported by Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. GORING, Mr. SPOONER, Mr. GouLBoRN, Mr. NAPIER, and Mr. PLUMPTRE: it was opposed by Mr. KEOGH, Mr. CROW- DER, Mr. SADLEIR, Mr. PAGE WOOD, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL. On a division, the third reading was carried, by 272 to 206; cheers greeting the announcement of the numbers.

SALE OF ENCUMBERED ESTATES IN IRELAND.

The second reading of the Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill was moved by Lord CamesELL, with a speech recapitulating the reasons for

posed- introducing the bill, explaining its principle and mode of operation, and meeting some objections. He at once avowed that the bill was of a most arbitrary nature; it was one which could only be justified by the lament- able situation of unhappy Ireland. He took its principle to be the ap- pointment of Commissioners in whom great confidence was to be reposed.

These Commissioners were to be three in number; and it was not proposed to name any qualification, such as that they should be of a certain standing at the bar, but to leave with Government the responsibility of making the best appointments they could. The Commissioners so appointed by the Government were to act in Ireland with all the powers of the Court of Chancery, but without its delays., without its expense, without its formalities, and without appeal, unless with their own consent, which be believed would never be withheld where there was any good ground for it. The Commissioners were to have power to make general rules for the regulation of their proceedings; and those roles must be approved by the Privy Council of Ireland before they could be enrolled. There was to be an appeal to the Privy Council against the orders of the Commissioners; the Lord-Lieutenant appointing a Judicial Committee of the Council to hear and re- port on the appeal ; and the order of the Privy Council on the appeal was to be final.

Among the objections he replied to, was one, that the establishing of this Com- mission would supersede the Court of Chancery. It would; but only for particu- lar purposes, and in a particular department, in which the Court of Chancery had been found wholly inefficient. He had authority to say, that this measure was highly approved of by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who most earnestly desired that it should become the law of the land. Lord Campbell stated that the bill gave no new power. Every Irish mortgage was at present accompanied with a power of sale; and on application to the Court a sale would be decreed. This bill only facilitated the exercise of that power, in a manner most advantageous to the owner. The bill would not by itself effect all the reformation that is to be desired ; but he hoped before long that a measure would be proposed by the Go- vernment to remedy the evils arising from judgment debts in Ireland and from. those judgments being assigned, and that a reformation would also be made in the registration-law of that country. Without such an amendment in the re- gistry, the whole operation of the bill would be neutralized; for, though the pur- chasers of the present encumbered estates were to start afresh, free and unencum- bered, they would soon become as involved as the old estates had been. Lord BROUGHAM observed, that the measures last alluded to should have preceded the one now under discussion; and that they were now taking the measures in an undue and illogical order. He criticized the very extraordinary powers given to these Commissioners, who. might or might not be lawyers. As to the favourable opinion given concerning the bill by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland—when he considered that it would re- lieve that officer of the great bulk of his duty, it was easy to imagine that he would have no great objection to listen to the proposal of such a measure. But he had been informed, on authority which explicitly governed his opinion, that the Lord Chancellor stood very much alone in that opinion. The Master of the Rolla and one of the Masters in Chancery are coming over, and "he should like to know their opinions." The learning and bulk of opinion among the Irish Common Law Judges is against the bill. He was not prepared to say that he would offer any very strenuous resistance to the further progress of the measure, if he found that all the Irish proprietors, and Irish Judges and lawyers, were in favour of it. He had done his duty as an English lawyer, holding a high position among the Judges who had to deal with matters similar to those affected by the bill, and had expressed to their Lordships his opinion, however imperfectly that opinion might have been formed. In conclusion, he suggested one or two alterations. Instead of giving an tine limited power to any owner or encumbrancer to sell, on application to the Com- missioners, they should confine the power of sale to cases in which one-half or two-thirds of the rental were eaten up by the interest of the mortgages upon the estate: and the 'power of sale should be limited in another way—so sale, for in- stance, should be made at less than a certain number of years' purchase. The Earl of GLENGALL spoke at considerable length in decided oppo- sition to the, bill. Lord MONTEAGLE opposed its mode of action, while fully approving of the principle that greater facility should be given for the sale of encumbered estates: he thought the greater part of the defects now complained of might be remedied without this bill. A conversation then arose on a suggestion from Lord BROUGHAM, backed by Lord STANLEY, to refer the bill to a Select Committee; Lord Brougham stating that he considered the principle of the bill affirmed; and Lora Stanley engaging for the opposers of the bill, that the proposed Committee should deal with it upon the assumption that new machinery should be formed, to which the power of selling encumbered estates should be trans- ferred.

In the end, upon these specific assurances, Lord CAMPBELL and Lord LANSDOWNE assented to the course suggested, of referring the bill to a Se- lect Committee.

PREROGATIVE OF MERCY IN IRELAND.

Lord CAMPBELL explained the circumstances under which he intro- duced a bill authorizing the Crown to commute capital sentence for high treason. He recapitulated the circumstances of Mr. O'Brien's convictioa and sentence to be hanged; the mercy of the Crown was extended to him'; but, instead of receiving the boon thankfully, the convict insisted that there was no power in the law to force that commutation on him, and he rejected the condition on which his life was to be spared. There does ex- ist a doubt respecting the law in Ireland. The act 6th George III., which extends certain English laws to Ireland, only mentions "felonies "; and the practice in that country differs somewhat from the practice in England with regard to high treason. Lord Campbell had come to the conclusion that the prerogative of pardon carries with it the right to rnitiotte the sentence; but, to remove doubts and litigation, it would be advisable to pass a declaratory act. The bill was read a first time.

COUNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE.

In moving the second reading of the County Rates and Expenditure Bill, Mr. HUME explained, that it was drawn up after the presentation of a report by the Commission on that subject appointed in 1834; the report was presented in 1835; he introduced a bill in 1837, which was rejected. The principle of the present bill is to place county-rates on the same foot- ing as borough-rates; and it only differs from the bill of 1837 in ao far as that gave the election of all the members of the Financial Board to the rate- payers in the counties. He now proposed that one-third should be magis- trates; and was not so wedded to his own system as to reject a halt of magistrates. Since his first bill, the Poor-law Union Divisions have been established; so he proposed to take the other third of the Financial Board from the Boards of Guardians. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND seconded the mo- tion; thus signifying his approval of establishing a board for financial ar- fairs separate from the magisterial board; but taking exceptions to details. Sir Joint PAKINGTON, who had given notice of a motion that the bill be read a second time that day six months, now changed his plan; And, after designating the bill as most unheard-of and objectionable, he moved its' re- bronco to a Select Committee instructed to inquire into the mode of levy- ing and expending rates, with a view to more effectual control and greater economy. Mr. ROBERT PALMER seconded the motion, regarding the bill an insult to the magistracy- Sir GEORGE GREY stated, that if Sir John Pakiugton had persisted in his first motion, he should have opposed it and voted fbr the second reading; but he disapproved of the details of the bill. Several Members expressed similar views. The question on the second reading was first put, and negatived, by 154 to 96. A very prolonged dis- cussion then arose on an addition to the amendment, by Mr. MILNER GrB- soN, introducing the subject of " representation " into the instruction of the Committee; which the County Members resisted. Sir GEORGE GREY and Mr. GLADSTONE gave their adhesion to the principle of granting the ratepayers control by giving them a voice in the election of the County Financial Boards. Mr. DISRAELI and others more or less openly opposed this principle. The efforts of the latter party to stave off a division were successful; for the hour of six came, when Mr. EVELYN DENISON was rising to speak; and the chairman adjourned the House, "amidst laughter:,

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.

Mr. DISRAELI called for information with respect to the probable pro- gress of public business.

From a Parliamentary return of the business of last session it appears, that in the month of June there were 19 Government bills introduced, of which 13 passed; that in July- there were 33 public bills introduced, of which 26 passed; and that So late as in the month of August there were 42 bills introduced, of which 35 passed: as that, in those three months, 94 public bills were introduced, of which 74 passed; and the greater proportion of those 74 passed in the month of August. Up to this moment, Government have introduced, during this session, 64 bills; of which 32 have passed this House, 2 have been withdrawn, and 30 still remain upon the table. Daring the session, 14 Government measures relating to Ireland have passed, 11 are still on the table; 6 Scotch bills are on the table in their first stage; and 13 miscellaneous bills in various stages. He should regret to see a bill of so much importance as the Australian Colonies Bill introduced in August, or even late in July, or to see one sent up, as it was last session, so late as the 1st of September. He suggested the adoption of a rule similar to that adopted for private bills, fixing a term for the introduction of public bills. " These are the inquiries I think it necessary to make, first, because we ought to have a fair state- ment of what course is intended to be taken with respect to the measures brought before Parliament this year; and secondly, because I thought by these observa- tions I might in some measure check the tendency to pass laws at a time when the House is attended by few Members, and when public business is conducted in the hurried manner which we all so much deplore.'

Mr. EDMUND BOURKE ROCAS hoped that Lord John Russell did not mean to abandon any of his Irish bills, or to cut short the session? Lord JORN RUSSELL assured him that there is no intention of cutting short the session; and he reminded Mr. Disraeli that 480 Members voted in the division the other night, so that there is no fear of an insufficient attendance. He would undertake before the 1st of July to state the course that Government mean to pursue.

Ooe of the first measures to put forward would be the Irish Poor-law Bill: he should proceed with the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, the Irish Collection of Rates Bill, and another bill relating to the Dublin Corporation. Government would pay every attention to the Bankruptcy Bill, with the view of passing it. The opening of the Irish Colleges had been fixed for this year; and they propose to take the full estimate in Committee of Supply, instead of the half as hitherto. The Ordnance Estimates also remain to be voted. He should not proceed with the Qualification of Voters Bill, or the Election and Polling Places Bill. With respect to other measures, he did not think it necessary to state his decision till July. He agreed with Mr. Disraeli in objecting to the late introduction of mea- sures; but the proposed rule would be impracticable, and must be broken down by repeated violations. It would be impossible to adhere to it, for instance, when circumstances should imperatively demand the introduction of a measure of a re- strictive or coercive nature.

REPORTING IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL gave notice, on Monday for Thursday, of a reso- lution to abolish the standing order which prohibits the presence of stran- gers, as " a fiction in practice," " unworthy, obsolete, and absurd." On Thursday, when the Speaker called on Mr. O'Connell to fulfil his notice, Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, and moved that a Select Committee be ap- pointed " to consider the present practice of this House in respect to the exclusion of strangers "; which was agreed to.