Debates anal 41=EO:rings in parliament.

SEMINARY OF ST. SULPICE.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Bishop of EXETER moved an address to the Queen, praying the disallowance of the ordinance of the Governor and Special Council of Lower Canada for incorporating the Seminary of St. Sulpice, in Montreal. The Bishop gave an estimate of the value of the property ceded in perpetuity to the Seminary ; which he stated at 520,0001. or 30,0001. a year. While the miserable pittance of 4,0004 a year was given to the Church of England in Lower Canada, 30,0004 a year, intrusted to Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in a country where there was no provision for the poor, would enable them to plant triumphantly the standard of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the Province. When Canada was ceded to the British, the rights of the- French King devolved upon the King of England; who was bound to support the established religion of his own country, just as the French King had endowed the Seminary of St. Sulpice for propagating the established religion of France, the Roman Catholic, among the Indians.. Not but what the Bishop would have rendered a portion of the property to its Roman Catholic occupants as a concession of generosity. He denied that the subject had lost its interest among the opponents of the ordinance in Canada ; though he did not suppose that they would resist the law, if the ordinance were sanctioned by the Crown. The Crown,. however, had no longer the disposal of the property ; for its claim had been surrendered, along with other Crown rights, to the United Pio- vince, by the Act of Union, in consideration of the Civil List. The case of the incorporation of the Seminary of St. Nicolet was no prece- dent, because that was not an ecclesiastical corporation : it was not sufficient to constitute an ecclesiastical corporation that the eorporators were ecclesiastics, but the objects of the incorporation must be eccle- siastical. To pass this measure would be to commit a great national crime.

The Marquis of NORMANDY said, that the Bishop of Exeter had all along assumed, in respect of this ordinance, that it was a mere whim of Lord Sydenham's. Why, one of the very reasons that Lord Normanby had asked an extension of the powers of the Special Council was, that it could not render permanent an ordinance which was introduced under Sir John Colborne's government to give effect to the arrangement which had been made with the Seminary of St. Sulpice ; the Seminary surrendered a considerable part of its property, in order that it might enjoy the advantages held out by the ordinance. There had been a bargain, which was fulfilled on one side. The value of the property left to the corporation had been grossly exaggerated : it did not exceed 200,000!. currency. Lord Normanby showed that the rights of eccle- siastical seignieuries had been formally confirmed and recognized by the capitulation in 1759 ; by the treaty of Paris, which left the priests. of St. Sulpice in the enjoyment of the same privileges with those of the sister institution at Paris ; by the act of 1774, which was passed with- out opposition from the Bishops in the House of Lords, while in the- House of Commons it was denounced by Colonel Barre, expressly be- cause it made the Roman Catholic the established religion of the Pro- vince; and in 1792, Mr. Burke mentioned voting for the establishment of the Church of England, " conjointly with an establishment made- some years ago by an act of Parliament of the Roman Catholic religion among the French Canadians." Lord Normanby maintained that the Seminars of St. Nicolet, incorporated under instructions of Lord Bathurst, was a case in point : that corporation consisted entirely of ecclesiastics ; and if its objects were educational, so were those of the Seminary of St. Sulpice. The ordinance made very strict provision for the visitation of the corporation, and an account of its expenditure was to be submitted to the Governors.

The Earl of RIPON was at a loss to guess the grounds on which they were called on to disallow the ordinance, by doing which they would seriously endanger the peace and harmony of Canada. When he went to the Colonial Office, he found the Seminary in the peaceable posses- sion of all the advantages which were to be confirmed by this ordi- nance.

The Duke of WELLINGTON had been disposed to think that the bulk of the property of the corporation had been made over to the Province,. though some equitable concession ought to be made to the corporation ; but he was not then aware of many former transactions relating to the Seminary, which Lord Normanby had mentioned, and he had forgotten what had taken place under Lord Bathurst's Government, of which he was a member, until it was recalled to his recollection : but he now per- ceived that the two corporations of St. Nicolet and St. Sulpice were precisely similar. He had entreated the House a few nights ago to consider the documents which had been referred to by the Bishop of Exeter : he had himself done so ; and he had in addition looked into and considered documents which had not been quoted or referred to by the Bishop, but which ought to have been referred to by him, and other documents of which he had lost all recollection ; and the result of his. deliberations was the determination to vote against the Bishop's address.

The address was withdrawn.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

In a Committee of the whole House on the South Australian Acts, on Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the following resolution- " That it is the opinion of this Committee, that her Majesty be authorized, by an act of the present session of Parliament, to guarantee a loan, not ex- ceeding 210,0001., to be contracted for by the Commissioners for South Aus- tralia; and that -provision be made out of the Consolidated Fund of the- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for the payment from time to time of such sums of money as may become payable under such guarantee." The Select Committee on South Australia, Lord John said, had dif- fered as to whether they should express any opinion upon the subject- of the loan; but all agreed that there should be no delay in bringing the question before the House. The Government had already under- taken the responsibility of the matter. But as the Committee had recommended, that in addition to the liabilities chargeable on the Com- missioners, there should be a sum of 56,0001. allowed for emigration, he felt it necessary to accompany his proposition by a general statement. Lord John described the provisions of the two acts regulating South Aus- tralia. Most colonies have been governed in one of two modes—by local government,consisting of a Representative Assembly, wholhave directed the taxation and expenditure in some measure under the Crown ; or by means of a Governor and Council, appointed immediately by the Crown. The constitution of South Australia differed from both these modes. By the first act, Commissioners were appointed by the Crown ; but when once that appointment was made, the direction of the whole of the expenses lay with the Commissioners.; and that, according to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, (who had been consulted with respect to the somewhat doubtful terms of the act,) without reference to. the Secretary of State or the Treasury. Ever since that decision had been given, the opinion of the Commissioners had always been ascer- tained, and then embodied in the orders sent to the colony. There were other difficulties. Under the first act there was a divided authority in the colony, vested in the Governor and in the Resi- dent Commissioner for the disposal of lands; and these two per- sons differed as to the power which each possessed ; and the settlers also disputed the Governor's authority. He was recalled, and suc- ceeded by Colonel Gawler ; who on his arrival wrote home a de- spatch which showed that the affairs of the colony and the finances were in a very bad condition. At that time the Commissioners thoughethat this state of affairs might be remedied ; but in the course of last year, not long after the new Commissioners were appointed, there arrived accounts of an expenditure in the colony far exceeding its revenue : while the revenue was 20,0001. or 30,000/. the expenditure had increased to 80,0001. or 90,0001. a year, and ultimately to the enor- mous rate of 130,0001. a year. Lord John immediately said that this rate of expenditure must be stopped ; that the Governor must be called to account for it ; and that, as the colony had been founded by acts of Parliament, he would, at the commencement of the next session of Parliament, move for the appointment of a Committee to examine into the whole question of what ought to be done with respect to the colony. In October last, the Commissioners found themselves totally unable to pay the bills which were drawn from the colony. With the concur- rence of the Treasury, he then gave the guarantee of Government for a loan to be raised by the Commissioners ; and though that guarantee did not produce a loan, it did quiet the alarm which prevailed, and induced parties to withhold demands which they had upon the Com- missioners. At the meeting of Parliament, he had thought it better to anticipate the claim for inquiry which would certainly have been made had he first offered his opinion for the adoption of the House. The South Australian Acts went upon two principles, one of which had his approval— One of them appeared to him to be an exceedingly sound and useful prin- ciple—a principle which had been acted upon before to a certain degree, and which had been acted upon since to a much larger extent ; namely, the prin- ciple that uncultivated public lands in a colony, instead of being, as in former times, granted in very large proportions to individuals without the means of cultivating them, should be sold at a certain price, and that the produce thus obtained should be employed in sending labourers to the market. He believed that this was a sound principle, because, on the one hand, it supplied capital to the colony, by inducing those who had capital to lay it out in buying lands in the colony, whilst, on the other hand, it supplied to the colonies labour from the money paid for the purchase of land ; and thus both capital and labour were brought forward to aid in the progress of a new colony. The other principle of the acts was unsound— That principle was, that the colony should be what was called " a self-sup- porting colony "; that is, that the whole of the expenses of its administration, of its judicial system and otherwise, incurred in its management, should be de- frayed by the colony at once, without any demand being made upon the mother-country. It was proposed that this should be done by two modes ; at first out of the revenues of the colony alone, and in the next place by the aid of a loan upon the emigration-fund—namely, the fund that would he derived from the sale of the lands in the colony. Now he did not think that it was probable a revenue could be raised in the colony itself, at its very commence- ment, which should be adequate to defraying all those expenses to which a new colony was naturally subject. There were certain expenses in a small colony which must necessarily be as heavy as in one much larger. For in- stance, the salaries of the officers and of the persons administering justice must be equally paid in both; and a colony at its first foundation could scarcely be able to defray all these.

A provision of the second bill authorized the raising of loans on the faith of the emigration-fund, with a proviso that not more than one- third of the proceeds of land-sales should be owing from the revenue- fund to the emigration-fund at the end of any one year. The colony was thus supported by loans. If there were certain sums to be derived from a revenue in the colony and other sums from a Parliamentary grant, the Treasury would take very good care that there should be no excess of expenditure ; but when the expenditure was thus intrusted to Commissioners, certainly encouragement was given to needless outlay. The plan too was founded on the assumption that there would be an inexhaustible supply of land fit for cultivation, of which they could not be certain in a colony laid out with certain geographical limits ; or the land might not be sold ; or the resources of the colony might be ab- sorbed by some accident, as foreign invasion or the violence of the elements ; or the proceeds might be anticipated in some unforeseen manner, as had actually been the case. Lord John certainly thought that Colonel Gawler had yielded to the temptation thrown in his way by the South Australian Acts. In spite of the present difficulties, however, he believed that if the colony were supported by Parliament, it would conquer them all. Lord John doubted the propriety of voting the 56,0001. at once for emigration, until the whole subject had been in- vestigated ; but at all events Parliament ought to relieve the Com- missioners from the compulsion of paying to the emigration-fund the money borrowed. And he thought that the principles of Government which were applied to other colonies should be applied to South Australia : if the Crown was to do any thing for the colony, the respon- sible Ministers of the Crown should have a more direct control. If the Committee thought that South Australia should govern herself, he should have no insuperable objection to such a course ; though that was not his opinion.

Lord STANLEY thought Lord John attached undue weight to the opinion of the Committee ; because the consideration of relieving the financial embarrassments of the colony was one for the Government rather than for a Committee. The members of the Committee had felt strongly on that point : a resolution had been proposed, pronouncing

that the responsibility rested with -the Government ; but it was rejected

by the casting-vote of the chairman, a member of the Government, with whom voted two other members of the Government. A singular scene had oocurred in the Committee. Lord John now objected to the specific sun of 56,0001.: in the Committee, Lord Stanley had abstained from voting for any specific sum ; but two members of the Government had actually advised that a specific sum should be recommended, Govern- ment taking the responsibility. Lord Stanley concurred with Lord John Russell in his view of the evil which was mixed up with the prin- ciple—under a certain restriction a sound one—upon which the land- sales were founded ; and in condemning the original error of establishing a colony upon the self-supporting principle, the system of loans, and the

divided authority. When he was in office, be had refused to sanction the establishment of the colony until more was known about the site where it was to be placed; but within two months after he had vacated office, his successor pressed the measure through both Houses of Par- liament. And what was the result?— When they saw that at the expiration of four years from the commencement of a colony there was an expenditure of 140,000/. per annum, the revenue of the colony not bring more than 20,000!. ; that the Government house had been built at an expense of 24,000!,, on sanctioned authority ; that 22,000/. had been laid out in the formation of a road across a swamp, for the purpose of improving a harbour badly chosen; that lands bought for 12s. an acre were sold in the hardly-created town of Adelaide for 500/., 1,0001., or 1,500/. an acre—a price which he would venture to say would hardly have been obtained in Liverpool itself for any large quantity amounting to an acre ; that there had been esta- blished three banks, carrying on business and issuing their own paper; that labour had readied the price of from 6s. to 12s. per day ; that a body of police was established, paid at the rate of IL 19s. per week each man, who complained of the inadequacy of their wages, because they were unable to procure their white trousers and gloves to he washed for it—(" Hear, hear ! ")—all of which showed a disposition to transfer all the comforts and luxuries of the civilized world to a barely-formed colony at the Antipodes—they could not be surprised at what had occurred. What, be asked, was the consequence of all this ? That there were not two hundred acres of land in the colony actually under tillage for the support of the colony ; and instead of the first ce`onists who went out attempting to cultivate the land, they suffered themselves to be supplied with flour sent from England to New South Wales, and then imported from other colonies at an enormous price; and that the whole of the colonists di- rected their attention to land jobbing and speculation, and that a profligate waste of money had taken place, in a manner utterly inconsistent with the success of the colony.

Lord Stanley objected to the uniform price. lie would fix a minimum ; for land which at one time might sell for 20s. would at another sell for 30s. or 40s., and thus so much would be lost to the funds of the colony if the price were fixed at 20s. The want of a survey with the delay in the appropriation of lands was one cause which had drawn the attention of the settlers in South Australia to land-jobbing and speculation, in- stead of the cultivation of the soil. He concurred with Lord John Russell as to the general prospects of the colony, and as to the necessity of assisting the 15,000 settlers ; but before Lord John asked for an advance, he should have embodied his views in a measure to be sub- mitted to the consideration of the House. Lord Stanley hoped the motion would •-.,e postponed until Lord John should state those views.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that on the subject of a loan the Committee above all things deprecated delay : the measure for the future govern- ment of the colony, which might be more contested, could be brought in afterwards.

Lord HOWICK objected to delay. It was unfortunate that there had been any delay at all: there must have been some mismanagement.

Mr. Hurr defended the colony from Lord Stanley's unfounded charges— The colony had not, up to this period, cost the country one sixpence of ex- pense, either for military or naval stations, or other establishments. Yet the population amounted to no less than 15,000 people ; of whom the noble lord the Secretary for the Colonies had remarked that they exhibited every indica- tion of activity and good conduct. Although the colony had only existed four years, it already contained a far larger amount of stock than there was in New South Wales after thirty years of existence as a colony. The fixed ca- pital of the colony was out of all proportion even to the floating capital. All this had occurred under the administration of the Commissioners, and the colony was generally iu a most prosperous state, when the management of its affairs was handea over by them to the successors appointed by the Govern- ment. Since the appointment of those successors, however, every thing seemed to have gone wrong. He did not impute any thing to them, but he was bound to state the facts—that the land-sales had ceased, and that emigration had almost entirely ceased; and now had come over these untoward bills. The Commissioners had deferred raising the necessary money to meet them until it was too late—till the colony had lost its credit, and they could not get any one to lend the money.

Mr. MACKINNON followed to the same effect.

Mr. VERNON SMITH defended the new Commissioners at the expense of the old. The I ew Commissioners had had to look into the affairs of the others ; and they found that their system was leading not to pro- sperity but to bankruptcy. The foundation of South Australia would be useful, if it were only to prove that the experiment of a self-support- ing colony was a failure. Mr. Smith, however, admitted that the con- stitution of South Australia was an anomalous mixture of a self-sup- port and a Government control. Taken as a Crown colony, however, at the proposed terms, he did not think that it would be a dear bargain. Western Australia, with a population of 2,000, had cost the country 25,000/. in one year ; while South Australia had a population of 15,000. Mr. Smith quoted the following opinion, delivered by Colonel Torrens as to the failure of the self-supporting system- " Experience has proved that the plan upon which the colony of South Australia was established was essentially erroneous. The expedients which were devised for the purpose of divesting the Government of pecuniary re- sponsibility, have bad a practical effect directly opposite to that which was in- tended. The situation and boundaries of the province were fixed by act of Parliament before any adequate knowledge of the country had been obtained ; the money required for defraying the preliminary expenses of establishing the colony was raised at an exorbitant rate of interest; while the divided powers

created by the act, by leading one party to conceive that they were upholding

the prerogative of the Crown by weakening the influence of the Colonization Commissioners, and another party to imagine that, by opposing the represen- tative of the Crown, they were defending the peculiar principles of the colony, occasioned such a relaxation of authority, that the administrative functionaries in the colony deemed themselves at liberty to act upon their own responsibility and discretion, regardless of the most precise and positive instructions. The incongruous scheme upon which South Australia was established has now broken down ; and the only means by which the principle of self-support can be brought into practical operation, is for the Government to retrace its steps, and to take into its own hands the financial responsibility and control." Sir ROBERT PEEL did not think Lord Stanley's proposition unreason- able. Was Lord John Russell quite sure that 210,000/. would be suffi- cient for the emergency ? that no supplemental vote would be needed?

How could he be secure that his instructions for a diminution of expen- diture would be heeded? Sir Robert, as a specimen of the value of the official information on the subject, contrasted Colonel Torrens's account of the prosperity of South Australia, written in January 1840, with the new light which the Colonel, according to Mr. Vernon Smith's extract, had received.* The Governors had not only been to blame ; the tree-

• Since this debate, Colonel ToxaxNa has sent to the newspapers a letter addressed by him to Sir RoBERT PRE L. to Show that Sir ROBERT'S "present iniperfeet ku milesige" of the subject has betraled lum into a mistake : Colonel Toaasss s account in 1840 wirers of the colony had been guilty of gross irregularities. Sir Robert Suggested a plan for reconciling the difference between Lord Stanley and Lord John Russell— It was admitted on all hands that the demand on the part of the colony should be acceded to for some assistance from the Government, and also that steps should be taken to place the colony on a better foundation. To meet the present difficulty, then, he would suggest that they should postpone the propo- sition for a loan, or for the guarantee of a loan, for a short time ; and that the Government, in the course of the next day or two, should place on the table of the House an estimate of the expense likely to be incurred, and that they should afterwards propose, in the next Committee of Supply, a vote of credit to make provision for such charge. Lord JOHN RUSSELL concurred in the suggestion. Mr. GROTE combated the disparaging account which Mr. Vernon Smith had given of the colony : be would take Mr. Smith's own testi- mony against himself, when he said that the colony would not be a dear bargain on the terms proposed— The Committee should not forget, that according to the evidence given be- fore the Select Committee by a highly-respectable witness, the amount of ca- pital now in the colony was not lees than two millions and a half of real bond fideproperty put into the colony. There were 180,000 sheep and 15,000 bead of other cattle there; and instead of the colony being, as anybody would sup- pose from the noble lord's speech, a place in which nothing but cheating and jobbing had been going on from the beginning: it was a place in which honest and intelligent industry, coupled with well-directed capital, bad been intro- duced in a greater and more continuous stream than ever was the case in any previous colony established from the English shores. Nor was it to be for- gotten, that though this colony was now reduced to the painful necessity of asking for Parliamentary aid, this might equally have happened to a colony established on other principles. The evil of a Governor of a colony being ex- travagant, and utterly mistaking his duty, was not necessarily peculiar 'to a colony established on the self-supporting principle. Lord ELIOT supported Mr. Grote's argument— The conduct of Colonel Gawler was the proximate cause of the difficulties of the colony, and it seemed very bard that the colonists themselves should suffer; for it should be borne in mind, that they had no control whatever over one single item of the expenditure which the Governor had authorized. It was, at the same time, to be admitted, that much of the expenditure of the Governor in internal improvements, such as roads, buildings, &e. was calculated to effect a permanent benefit, however little it might buildings, suited the existing means of the colony.

- The resolution was withdrawn ; the subject to be brought forward again on Friday.

THE SOUND-DUES.

On Tuesday, Mr. Hiner, after presenting a petition from the mer- chants and shipowners of Hull, complaining of the dues exacted from British ships passing Elsinore, proceeded to move a resolution on the subject. The dues, Mr. Hutt said, were opposed to the principles of international law, to the usages of civilized nations, and in direct viola- tion of the treaty of Vienna. Such dues had existed from a very remote date, and were formally recognized and sanctioned by the treaty of Christianpol in 1645. That treaty imposed specific duties on most articles of commerce, and an ad valorem duty on the rest. By a second treaty, the King of Denmark bound himself to defray the expense of lighthouses on the shores of the Cattegat. A. treaty in 1701 confirmed the treaty of Christianpol, and the King of Denmark bound himself not to augment the dues then fixed by the tariff. Such was the case with the last treaty between Holland and Denmark ; the provisions of which were extended to this country, and all the assurances were renewed by the treaty of 1814. Denmark, however, had entirely disregarded these obligations : the dues exacted on unenumerated articles, instead of 1 per cent., amount to 5, 6, or sometimes 8 per cent.; and of 600 spe- cified articles, 103 paid higher duties than those set down in the tariff of 1645: flour paid 42 instead of 24 per cent.; hemp, 18 instead of 9 ; Norway deals, 100 instead of 50 ; and laths were charged 5,000 per cent. over the proper amount. This country was suffering much from the present exactions, and our commerce in the North was already diminishing. Mr. Hutt moved—" That, in the opinion of this House, the tariff of Sound-dues now levied at Elsinore is not a tariff which the King of Denmark is entitled to maintain ; and that the Sound-dues require such revision as will facilitate the commercial relations of this country with the Baltic ports."

Lord PALMERSTON assured Mr. Hutt that the subject did not now come before Government for the first time, and he urged him not to press the motion. Negotiations were pending ; and such being the ease, it would not be desirable to express the opinion of the House, especially as the Danish Government manifested a disposition to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement of the question. Lord Palmerston, how- ever, could not agree that the trade had been diminished by the over- charge of the dues; in fact it had increased. Still, trade had been interfered with and perverted from its natural course. Instead of a quarter of a century, however, as Mr. Hutt had anticipated, Lord Pal- merston hoped that a quarter of a year would suffice for the settlement of the question.

Sir ROBERT PEEL could not concur in Lord Palmerston's position that the Howse ought never to interfere while negotiations were pending. Hit were true that an immediate adjustment were likely to take place, the House had better not interfere. But this claim had been urged upon Denmark for a series of years ; and if the Government could not procure redress, what was to prevent the House from coming forward to fortify the remonstrance of the Crown ? It was idle to say that there had been no diminution of our commerce ; for, comparing 1940 with 1820, not to increase was to decrease. But that was not the question : if the dues exacted were greater than the treaty justified, we had a right to call for this reduction. Sir Robert recommended Mr. Hutt to withdraw his motion for the present ; but should the present negotia- tions fail, and Mr. Hutt again bring forward his motion, he would most willingly support him.

Mr. LABOUCHERE observed, that so far from the claim having long been

urged, the attention of this Government was not drawn to the subject until last year ; and Denmark had at once met the demand in a spirit of fairness, with the express desire of settling the question before the opening of the navigation for the season. As an earnest of its sincerity, that power had already made some concessions—totally inadequate, no

referred to the success of the " Wakefield system " of colonization ; his new statement, to the financial arrangement under which the control over the public expenditure of the colony is transferred from the Lords of the Treasury to the Board of Commission- ers. Colonel Tontines now reaffirms both these distinct and independent assertions.

doubt, to settle the question ; but as they did not interfere with the pro- gress of the negotiations, Government had felt it their duty to accept them.

Mr. PEASE, Mr. Vtuaaas, and Mr. A. WHITE supported Mr. Hatt ; but Mr. VILLIERS recommended that the resolution should be withdrawn for the present. Mr. How, acting upon Sir Robert Peel's suggestion, allowed the motion to be disposed of by "the previous question."

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

On Thursday, Mr. RICE moved for a Select Committee on the state of the harbours of the South-eastern coasts, to which the report of the Commission of 1840 should be referred. The state of our harbours, he said, was a subject of national reproach ; and while we were neglecting this important point, France had voted upwards of 5,000,0001. for the improvement of her ports.

Mr. PLANTA seconded the motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the Exeumatran did not see any object to be gained by further inquiry into the general subject; as it had been more fully investigated by a Commission than it could be by a Committee of that House, in which there would be only a struggle of local interests. There was one point, however, in the report of the Commission which was left in doubt— Three different plans were proposed, and the expenses were estimated at 6,000,0001. Now, he doubted whether means could not be adopted for effect- ing the purpose at a much less expense. That would certainly be a fair sub- ject of inquiry. He had reason to think that estimates would be laid before Government to show that it could be done at one-fourth of the expense ; and he would be happy to receive information of that sort, whenever it was prof- fered ; but any person capable of giving such information had better furnish it to the Ordnance Department, or to the Admiralty, than to a Committee.

On a division, the motion was rejected, by 102 to 38.

PRESENTATION OF -PETITIONS.

Mr. Easrnoan, on Tuesday, moved that a petition which he had pre- sented from Mr. William Baines, now a prisoner for non-payment of church-rates in Leicester Gaol, be printed with the Votes. A discussion arose, which had a general bearing on the presentation of petitions. Several objections to the motion were raised. Lord HOWICH objected, because a Committee of the House had recommended that no petition should be printed, not only unless a motion was to be founded upon it, but unless the case was one of pressing importance ; Lord STANLEY, because the Petitions Committee had not ordered it to be printed, and their attention having been drawn to it so early. in the session, they must have been satisfied of the impropriety of printing it ; Mr. LABOU- CHERE, because the rules required a specific motion to follow the print- ing of a petition, whereas the prayer of the petition was general ; Mr. BROTHERTON, because it was necessary that a petition, to be printed with the Votes, must complain of a personal injury, and because the matter should be left to the discretion of the Committee ; Sir ROBERT PEEL, because Mr. Easthope bad not given notice of his motion at the same time that he presented his petition. In reply to those objections, Mr. WARBURTON and Mr. DUNCOMBE deprecatedfurther restriction of the right of debate on petitions; Mr. BAINES observed that the grievance complained of in the petition was not only general, but of a highly personal nature; and Mr. DUNCOSIBE maintained that Mr. Easthope had fulfilled every re- quirement of the rules, by giving notice of a motion on a particular day. Mr. EASTHOPE said his motion would not relate to the general question of Church-rates, but merely to the special grievance ; and he did not object to limiting the use of the printed petition to Members of the House. On that understanding, the motion was agreed to.

CHURCH-RATES : IMPRISONMENT OF MR. BAINES.

On Thursday, Mr. EASTHOPE moved a resolution, to this effect— that to imprison William Baines for refusing to pay for the expenses of a church from which he dissents, is to punish him - for acting in accordance with what he regards as a religious duty, and vio- lating the principles of religious freedom. Mr. Easthope set out with saying that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to state the case of William Baines without making some reference to the general question of Church-rates ; but he would do his best to keep to the special case. He did not mean to argue that the ease had been dealt with differently from others; but he urged the in- expediency of continuing to enforce a law which was considered so odious ; citing the petitions which had come up from Leicester, signed by 6,000 inhabitants, including nearly all the municipal authorities, and by 7-,000 females, to show the feeling which prevailed upon the subject. While in prison, Mr. Baines had been elected a member of the Cor- poration. Before these proceedings were commenced, a parish meeting, called by the Churchwardens to consider the course to be pursued with Mr. Baines, had determined not to proceed further; and Mr. Easthope believed that they counted on the sentiments avowed in Parliament for prognosticating a change of the law. They counted especially on Lord John Russell's declaration in July last year, that " he thought that those persons who, from a conscientious feeling, sought to make the laws respected by enforcing the punishment of imprisonment against those who violated the laws, did no good whatever in the way of maintaining a respect for the law when they acted not in accordance with the general feeling of the community " ; and that "as to the general question of the state of the law, he was not one of those who wished the-present system to be continued : he wished very much they had some substitute by which the sums now collected for the repairs of the church could be raised in a less objectionable and onerous manner." In the town of Leicester, no church-rate was levied in any but one parish, that in which Mr. Baines resided. In all the rest, the churches were duly sustained; while the harmony among the inhabitants was uninterrupted. But in the one parish there was continual schism and bickering ; and the resident clergyman, the Honourable Mr. Erskine, had told Mr. East- hope that these conflicts were one of the greatest discomforts of his life.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that the form of Mr. Easthope's notice had by no means prepared him for the very wide and sweeping resolu- tion which he had moved. It went quite beyond the question ; not seeking the release of Mr. Baines, but denouncing the general law. The resolution was proper enough to submit to the consideration of the House, but it was not proper to the occasion. The question was not whether the law was politic, but whether Mr. Baines was to be sane- tioned In setting up a standard of his own, as to what should and what sbould not be law for him; declaring that what was oppressive to the conscience was no longer to be observed. Lord John had no hesitation in giving a decided negative to such a position—

The petitioner stated that he had received a citation from the Ecclesiastical Court, to which he had given no attention. Now, was that a justifiable course? Were the Lords or Commons to say, so long as there was a court

appointed to try such causes, that when that court, proceeding in the regular course) cites a party who questions the validity of the rate to appear and justify his conduct, the party should himself be permitted to decide that the law was not one to be obeyed, and that he would pay no attention to the citation ? Was the House, in such a case, to come forward and pass a resolution in favour of such a person, on the ground that the law was oppressive? Could they keep up any law, if such a principle were sanctioned? What would be the rule of obedience ? Mr. Baines thought the existence of rates for the support of an established church oppressive, and the decision of a court appointed by the law of the land to decide in such cases a violation of the rights of conscience. An- other man might think the same thing of some other law. Another man might think it a violation of the rights of conscience to be asked to contribute to the expenses of the Army or the Navy, or any tax to be used for the pur- poses of war, or in a way to produce bloodshed. Another might deny the right to imprison or take away life, according to the provision of the criminal law, and refuse to pay taxes for its enforcement. In this way, the payment of any tax required for the support of the law might be refused, on the ground that the particular individual felt it a violation of conscience to contribute to the expense of what he thought unlawful, unjust, or unchristian.

Lord John certainly regretted that there was not a less objectionable mode of providing for the repair of churches ; but there was one altera- tion of the law, which nothing but what appeared to him indifference on the part of Dissenters had prevented from taking place—an altera- tion which would transfer the enforcement of the law, such as it was, from the Ecclesiastical to the Civil Courts.

In the debate which followed, and which turned in great part upon the general question, the motion was supported by Mr. HAWES and Mr. HOME ; and opposed brSir ROBERT INGLIS, Dr. NICHOLL, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Mr. HALFORD. Dr. NacHoLz. gave some explanation of the law of the matter. In the recent case of the Braintree church-rate, eight of the most learned judges that ever graced the bench unanimously de- cided, that the obligation on the parishioners to maintain the fabric of the church, and to supply all things necessary for Divine service, was imposed by the common law of the land ; and that where repairs were needed, the only question was, not whether they were to be made, but how and in what manner the common-law obligations to make them could be most effectually and at the same time most conveniently ful- filled. Dr. Nicholl remarked, that Mr. Baines's petition complained of injustice in being cited before the Ecclesiastical Court ; while in point of fact, Mr. Baines's own lawyer, when the ease was first brought before the Magistrates, declared that Mr. Baines meant to contest the validity of the rate in the Ecclesiastical Court, that being the only mode by which the original jurisdiction of the Magistrates could be set aside.

On a division, the motion was rejected, by 45 to 40.

STAFFORD AND RUGBY RAILWAY.

When Lord FRANCIS EGERTON brought forward the Stafford and Rugby Railway Bill for the second reading, on Wednesday, it excited more interest than is usual with private bills. Mr. GISBORNE moved that the second reading should be postponed to the 24th instant, to allow time for the Report of the Government Rail- way Commissioners to be printed. This motion was opposed by Lord FRANCIS EGERTON—who observed, that whatever the Commissioners' report contained which related to the question, could be considered in the Committee upon the bill ; and by Mr. LABOUCHERE—who had heard from Sir Frederick Smith, the Railway Commissioner, that the Stafford and Rugby line was only incidentally mentioned in the report. Mr. WILBRAHAM then moved that the bill be read a second time that day six mouths, because the Company did not mean to carry out their pro- ject, but only to forestal any other company by occupying the ground ; an assertion which Mr. MARK PHILLIPS denied.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the bill would effect a saving of nine miles and a half between London and Liverpool, with better gradients. It derived importance from the proposed termini—the Metropolis at one end and the great manufacturing districts of Lancaster and North Wales on the other. The House was bound to encourage competition, and not to allow the monopolists of the London and Birmingham Rail- way Company to interpose for the purpose of quashing a rival under- taking. There was, however, one objection to the line—that two junc- tions with existing railroads were proposed; and competent witnesses should be examined by a Committee to ascertain how far the danger to human life arising from that circumstance ought to bar the completion of the project.

Lord STANLEY admitted that the question as to tunnels and gradients might very fairly be submitted to a Committee ; but when a saving of only ten minutes of time in the journey was to be realized at an expense of 1,300,000L, he thought the House might be called upon to oppose the second reading. Sir Robert Peel, be remarked, "with all the ingenuity and art with which he knew how to dress up a statement for that House "—(Immense cheering on the Ministerial benches and laughter on the Opposition)—said that they ought to look at the termini, London and Liverpool; but the real termini were the respectable but unimportant towns Rugby anal Stafford. He recommended Mr. Gis - borne to withdraw his amendment, in favour of Mr. Wilbraham's.

Mr. GISBORNE did so, and the House divided : the second reading was negatived, by 154 to 94.

MEDICAL REFORM.

Although urged to postpone the Medical Profession Bill, against which a number of petitions were presented, on Wednesday, Mr. HAWES proceeded to move the second reading. The evidence before a Select Committee in 1834 had proved that there is a total want of uniformity in the education of medical students, and that the medical corporate bodies do not enjoy the confidence of the profession. The College of Physicians employ their powers for their own exclusive advantage, the numerous body of licentiates being excluded from the privileges of the institution ; and the College of Surgeons may be considered as a voluntary body, conferring diplomas, but without the power of giving legislative protection to its members. Without invading the powers of any existing corporation, the bill went to remedy those evils. Its chief provisions were directed to the attainment of uniformity in the educa- tion of medical students, an authentic registration of medical practi-

tioners, and the establishment of a superintending body elected by the profession. The profession at present was governed by nineteen self- elected bodies ; under his bill it would be governed by a Council in each of the Three Kingdoms. Mr. Hawes cited high medical authority in support of his plan ; mentioning the names of Brodie, Green, Elliotson, Copland, and Arnott. •

Mr. EWART seconded the motion. Mr. DARBY began a speech

against it; upon which the House was counted out. •

POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION IN IRELAND.

The House of Lords was occupied the greater part of Tuesday even- ing with the examination of Mr. W. Stanley, the Assistant-Secretary to the Irish Poor- law Commissioners ; who attended to explain some inaccuracies which had been discovered in a return to the House. The examination was conducted by the Earl of GLENGALL, who had first brought the subject forward. The inquiry turned upon the appointment of a returning-officer for Clonmel Union. Two persons had applied for the office, a Mr. Butler and a Mr. George Fennell ; the latter filled the post of High Constable of the barony of East Offa. Mr. Stanley stated that the office in Dublin kept no letter-book, but letters received were numbered and entered upon a register, in a book which was kept by one of the register clerks. To the best of his belief no person had access to that book. The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland frequently called at the office, and could have inspected the bock ; but Mr. Stanley did not know that he had done so. Mr. Stanley had made a return to the House in May, and he had no doubt that at that time it was a full return. It con- tained a letter from Messrs. Hancock and Hawley, the Assistant-Com- missioners to Clonmel Union, dated Clonmel, 16th February 1839, re- commending Mr. Butler for the appointment of returning-officer of Clon- mel Union. The 17th fell on Sunday, and the letter, which came by post, was entered as received on the 18th. The return contained an- other letter from Mr. Fennell, offering his services ; it was dated 15th February 1839, and it was received on Saturday the 16th. A reply to Mr. Fennell's letter was comprised in the return : it was dated 18th February, and was to the effect that his application had not been re- ceived " nntil after the Assistant-Commissioners for the Union had re- commended the appointment to be conferred on another candidate."

At this point, another letter was produced by Lord Glengall; and on it being shown to Mr. Stanley, he admitted that it was in his handwrit- ing. It appears to be the letter which was actually sent to Mr. Fennell. It was dated 19th February, and it tells Mr. Fennell that his application did not arrive " until after an appointment was made in favour of another candidate."

Mr. Stanley explained, that when letters were brought to him for sig- nature, he sometimes made corrections on the drafts of the letters. In this case he saw an inaccuracy in the letter, and he amended the draft ; but it r.-as possible that he might have signed the letter before he detected the error. He seldom or never read the letters which were brought to him for signature, and was not responsible for their general accuracy : the correspondence was left to the corresponding clerk, who took instructions from Mr. Erie or Mr. Phelan, the Assistant-Commis- sioners in Dublin. The discrepancy of the dates might arise from the clerk copying the letter on the 19th, and neglecting to alter the date on the draft so as to make both agree. Mr. Stanley produced the original draft of the letter to Mr. Fennell, with the corrections in his own hand- writing. Those corrections were not made on the letter at the time it was written, because the words inserted were just sufficient to fill the space occupied by the words to which he took objection ; but some of the erasures were made subsequently to the date of the letter.

Lord GLENGALL—:" Of that I have no doubt whatever."

Mr. Stanley accounted for Mr. Fennell's having been told that his appli- cation did not arrive until the appointment had been made, by supposing that the appointment had in fact been made, and that Mr. Phelan must have mentioned the circumstance at the moment when Mr. Fennell's letter was shown to him ; and so, Mr. Stanley presumed, when the cor- responding clerk told Mr. Fennell as much, he did so from previous knowledge, and without reference to the letter of Messrs. Hawley and Hancock. Mr. Stanley admitted, that in a letter which he had written he had described Mr. Butler as a retired tradesman, living like a gentle- man at Clonmel ; while in fact he was a bankrupt—that was the very reason of Mr. Stanley's statement : he " thought it would be more re- spectable for him to appear so." Mr. Stanley averred that the Com- missioners appointed Mr. Butler without any further inquiry than that which elicited the recommendation of Messrs. Hawley and Hancock ; and that there was no other correspondence on the subject. He was asked how it happened, then, that a letter had been written by Mr. Hancock, stating that " Mr. Bianconi recommends most highly Mr. Butler," " the nephew of Dr. Slattery, the Catholic Archbishop of Cashel—the only Archbishop of Cashel?" The original of a letter from Mr. Butler to Mr. Phelan, containing his original application for the office, was then produced, and compared with the copy in the return. The letter requested Mr. Phelan to use his influence to procure him the situation. A passage was omitted in the printed copy ; which, Lord GLENGALL said, proved not only the political feelings of Mr. Boiler, but exposed the secret of his influence with the Commissioners. It ran thus--" The Attorney-General has done no- thing for me as yet, although he has made several promises. Pray men- tion the circumstance to him." In the place where this passage should have stood in the printed copy, was a note, signed " W. Stanley," stating that " The remainder of the letter relates to matters unconnected with the appointment of Mr. Butler as returning-officer, and unconnected with the administration of the Poor-laws."

The examination of Mr. Stanley was adjourned to Thursday ; Lord NORMANDY promising that Mr. Phelan also should attend on that day. On Thursday, the Marquis of NOR3IA.NBY informed the House, that be had received a letter from Mr. Shaw Lefevre, one of the Poor-law Commissioners, declaring that the writer, and Mr. Cornwall Lewis, another Commissioner, had looked over the return to the House, and had approved of the omission in Mr. Butler's letter of application, as they did not conceive the omitted passage to apply to the election of returning-officer for Clonmel The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that the letter proved Mr. Butler to be a dealer in politics : he had supposed that the Irish Poor-law Com- missioners prided themselves on having nothing to do with politicians. Lord Ere varnonomau thought the suppressed passage was to refresh

the memory of the Attorney-General, and to suggest his support for the application made in the letter. The Marquis of NORMANBY believed that the Commissioners were bona fide most anxious to appoint persons as little conversant with poli- tics as was possible in Ireland. It could not be said that Mr. Fennell • was not a partisan. The Earl of GLENGALL said that Mr. Fennell's brother was the par- tisan.

The exarnination of Mr. Stanley was then continued. It appeared from his answers, that on the 14th of March, Mr. Bagwell, a gentleman of property, wrote to the Commission, stating that Mr. Butler was a very improper person to fill the office. The Assistant-Commissioners were ordered to make fuller inquiries : they replied, that the alleged unfitness must refer to Mr. Butler's connexion with Dr. Slattery ; but it does not come out that they actually made any further inquiry. The witness thought that Mr. Phelan was " the primary instrument of Mr. Butler's selection for the office." The latter was selected before the Assistant Commissioners' recommendation was received. His appoint- ment was confirmed by the Commissioners. The witness never knew a contrary instance ; as the Commissioners considered the Assistant- Commissioners responsible for their recommendations. Mr. Bianconi is a gentleman of large properry ; a Reformer, but not a Repealer. A letter, dated Clonmel, May 10th, from Mr. Henry Pedder, complaining of Mr. Butler's conduct as returning-officer, and stating that the rate- payers were expecting some inquiry into his conduct, had been received by the Commissioners ; but it was not in the return. Mr. Butler was elected valuator of Clonmel ; but the Poor-law Commissioners disal- lowed the appointment, and a person named Wall was appointed. Mr. Pedder wrote, in July, protesting that Wall was Butler's brother-in- law, and merely his locum tenens : that letter was omitted in the re- turn ; and a protest from Mr. Smith, a Magistrate, on the same subject, was also omitted. In reply to Lord NORMANBY, Mr. Stanley said, that the number of letters received each day was from ten to twenty : at first he had only a clerk and a boy in his office, but latterly the amount of business had been so overwhelming that he kept ten clerks at work.

Mr. Wordsworth, the corresponding clerk, was then examined. He

partly explained the circumstance of the letter which was sent to Mr. Fennell having been written according to the original draught, by the fact that Mr. Stanley had only erased the passage to which he objected in the draught, without writing the words which he ordered to be sub- stituted. Mr. Erle had written on the draught a minute for another letter, to the effect that Mr. Fennell's application would be considered: that minute must have been revoked, or the letter would have been written. The clerk who had wrongly copied Mr. Stanley's corrected minute, had since been dismissed for repeated irregularities.

When the witness had withdrawn, the inquiry was adjourned till Friday.

MISCELLANEOUS.

ENROLMENT OF BURGESSES. On Tuesday, Mr. BAINES obtained leave to introduce a bill for the better enrolment of burgesses of boroughs divided into wards in England and Wales, and for altering the times for certain elections in such boroughs.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IN SrOTLL/CD. The second reading of this bill passed on Monday, after some opposition by Sir WILLIAM RAE, who objected to the provision by which the Speaker is to appoint the judges, and to the inadequacy of the proposed Registration Courts to their purpose. All the Scotch bills introduced during the last ten years, said Sir William, had something to do with the increase of patronage. The LORD- ADVOCATE proposed to reserve the details for discussion in Committee.

Lusa TITHE Composmosr. On the third reading of the Irish Tithe Composition Bill, on Tuesday, Viscount OUMCANNON moved an amendment giving the Attorney-General power to proceed against in- dividuals for arrears without further notice. The Earl of WicsLow objected to the injustice and innovating nature of the amendment ; and the Earl of GLE!CGALL andahe Marquis of DOWNSHIRE also opposed it. The bill was postponed for a week.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN BOROUGHS. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on Tuesday, introduced a bill to facilitate the administration of criminal justice in Manchester and Bolton. A question had arisen respecting the power of the Corporations, under their charters, to build gaols ; and the bill was to remove doubts on that subject, and to authorize a loan for the purpose.

EAST INDIA RUM DuTrEs Bus.. When this bill was reported, on Monday, Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he had procured information, from which he learned that if date sugar rum were excluded, the bill would be a dead letter : in Bengal Proper, sugar was made indiscriminately from the cane or from the date-tree ; and about Bombay, sugar was made from the latter. He therefore moved an amendment which in- cluded sugar made from the date or palm-tree. This amendment was adopted. The bill having finally passed the Commons, was read a first time in the House of Lords on Thursday ; to be read a second time on Tuesday.

DRAINAGE OF LANDS. On the second reading of the Drainage of Lands Bill, on Monday, Colonel SIBTHORP moved its rejection. It was opposed also by Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY, Mr. DARBY, and Mr. MILES. Mr. HANDLEY thought the bill woul I be beneficial in many places ; and the details might be improved in Committee. On a divi- sion, the second reading was carried, by 31 to 19.

CAPTAIN LAROCHE'S CASE. Mr. ALSTON, on Thursday, moved that the petition of a naval Captain, named Laroche, should be referred to a Select Committee. The petitioner complained that the Admiralty had left him for very many years unemployed, in consequence of an intem- perate letter addressed by him to their Board, in which he had reflected on the conduct of the officers composing a court-martial upon some part of his previous conduct, and because he had refused to withdraw the letter at the Board's suggestion ; and he further complained that he had been passed over in a late promotion. After a short discussion, the motion was negatived, without a division.

SIB WALTER SCOTT. On Monday, Sir WILLIAM RAE moved for leave to bring in a bill for the erection of a monument to Sir Walter Scott in the city of Edinburgh. The bill was rendered necessary, as two acts of Parliament obstructed the choice of a proper site. Sir

William mentioned, as a hint to the English, that the subscription for the monument was deficient by about 2,0001. Mr. Fox MAULE seconded the motion ; and it was agreed to.

Loan KEANE'S ANNUITY Bus. was read a third time, in the House of Lords, on Tuesday, and passed.