Debates anb Vrourbings in Varliamtnt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE OP Loans. Monday, June 18. Leasehold Tenures (Ireland) Bill, read a third time—Passengers Bill, read a second time—Select Committee on Coal-mines appointed on the motion of Lord Wharncliffe—Adjourned at 7 h. 5 In. Tuesday,7une 19. Affairs of Canada : Lord Brougham's Motion, debated and negatived—Adjourned at 2 h. 5 m. (Wednesday morning.) Thursday, June 21. No business of Interest—Adjourned at 5 h. 40 m. Friday, June 22. Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill, reported—Post-office Negotiations between France and England—Tenants at Rack-rent Relief Bill, second reading negatived—Affirmation Bill, thrown out on second reading—Adjourned at

h. 4m.

[Time occupied in the four sittings, 14 h. 54m.

mince the beginning of the Session, 171 h. 58 m.]

HOUSE or COMMONS. Monday, June 18. Transportation for Treason (Ireland) Bill : second reading debated and carried : Squabbles and Scenes between Mr. Roebuck and Irish Members—Adjourned at 1 h. 15 m. (Tuesday morning.) Tuesday, June 19. Van- Couver's Aland Lord Lincoln's Motion—House " counted out " at 8 h. 30 m. Wed- nesday, June 20; noon sitting. The " Count-out " Explanations—Marriages Bal, read a second time—Adjourned at 611. Thursday, June 21. Honours for Medical Officers in the Army and Navy—Maintenance of the Poor : Lord Nugent's Motion debated and negatived—National Education in Ireland: Mr. G. A. Hamilton's Motion debated and negatived—Adjourned at 2 h. 15 m. (Friday morning.) Friday, June 22. French In- tervention at Rome : Question by Mr. Roebuck and Statement by Lord Palmerston— The Budget—Transportation for Treason (Ireland) Bill, passed through Committee— Adjourned at 1 h. 47 m. (Saturday morning.)

[Time occupied in the live sittings, 39 h. 47 m.

since the beginning of the Session, 666 h. 12 m.] CANADIAN AFFAIRS.

Lord BROUGHAM prefaced his motion to provide security against the compensating of rebels under the recent Rebellion Losses Act of the Cana- dian Legislature, with an historical review of the Canadian Colonies, from the time when we acquired them after conquest, under the treaty of Paris In 1762.

The settlers of the Lower Province were of French descent; those of the Upper Province chiefly of British descent: the former were British by accident, and French in blood, religion, manners, habits, customs, and laws; the latter were American Loyalists, who, impatient of the change which had taken place in the United States, abhorring the institutions of a republic, and panting for the in- estimable privilege of again becoming subjects of the British Crown, had repaired with their fortunes and their families to the province of Upper Canada,—there not to change their opinions with the sky, but to cherish with greater warmth than be- fore their loyalty to the Crown of England, and to clasp the more eagerly to their bosoms the principles which had rendered them exiles from the habitations of their birth. As was their origin so was their progress' through good and evil repute, good fortune and bad, alike distinguished by loyalty and attach- ment to the mother-country. Re meant no unfavourable contrast with the French Canadians, but could not shut his eyes to the material distinction of the two classes. The latter had no doubt shown no want of loyalty in their de- meanour; a consummation to be delighted in, one if not originated yet probably facilitated and contrived by the knowledge on their part of the great weight and in- fluence in treasure, authority, and troops of the mother-country, and the power she had to make herself respected and to stop revolt in all parts of her dominions. This might be one cane that had prevented revolt in the multiform population of the two provinces. But the time was coming when apprehensions at least were felt that the idea of severing the colonial connexion had entered into the hearts of the Lower Canadians; and in the years 1887-'8 a rebellion of a very serious na- ture broke out, a rebellion which had its roots and origin both in Montreal and in a nearer quarter of our extensive empire, and ittemtmerous branches in Yodels directions at a distance from the central authority orgovernment. In Montreal alone, 3,000 personsont of a.total population of 50,4300, young and old and of both sexes, were conspirators. The rebels were attacked; they resisted in arms, with which they were well provided; they fought; they met a battalion, commanded by his pliant friend [Sir Allan M`Nab) in the field; they *ere defeated, dispersed, and pursued out of the'land,—committing-every excess of spoliation, wrecking of property, and croelty to individuals, as they made their retreat Dr. Wolfred Nelson was mixed up with these acts, and he was a claimant of 23,0001. for losses under the Looses Bill ; though he has since kindly_arid geee.. musty given up half, and now only enters in for 9,0001. Such was the rebellio4 pat down by one now within their walls—his friend Sir Allan M'Nab--(Great cheers front- the Oppositiois)—who, by one of the most economic acts of a Gs. vernment that had raised individuals to the Peerage almost without number, and had lavished honours-and decorations without limit, was made a Knight "for those gallant services. [Sir Allan M'Nab stood near the Throne, together with Mr. Cayley and Mr. Hinckes.] The exigency of the ease was thought to de- mand the suspension of the constitution in Lei* Canada; and Lord Dur- ham fared forth to Canada with dictatorial powers to establish an arbi- trary government Lord Brougham read . passages. from...Lord Durham's report—as well because of the credit which is did- -to -those- who-drew it up, (he believed it was the joint production of Lewd 'Durham; -Mr: Charles Buller, and Mr. Gibbon Wakefield) as because it bore dot and'confirmed, nay showed that he had rather understated, the animosity borne by two races that peopled the two provinces. Lord Durham declared it vain for him to expect to impress upon the English public any such view of this animosity as personal experience had forced upon himself: he expected a struggle of principles, but found a war of two nations m the bosom of a single 'state—a war equally 'nning in the schools—where the very chigren divided into nations, and strove as nglish and French; pervading the.press, .and ruling over the social relations; so that the men cannot combine for any public object—cannot harmonize in the associations of charity—cannot even meet in the jury-box unless to the utter ob. struction of justice. Never again, says the reportewill the present generation of French Canadians yield submission to British government; never again will the English population tolerate the authority of a House of Assembly in which the French shall possess or even approximate to 's majority. ' Nay, Lord-Durham was _persuaded that the French Canadians would purchase vengeance or a momentary triumph by the aid of any enemies or the submission to any yoke: an American army might- rely on the cooperation of almost the entire French population of Lower Canada. On the other hand, the English inhabitants declared they would no longer be the sport of parties at. homes-" they must protect themselves "; they must be English, if it were at the necessary expense of not being British. '&turning from this descriptive episode of extracts from Lord Durham's report, Lord Brongham Bald there was much property of Loyalists destroyed in the course of the rebellion of 1837-'8 by military and Ring's troops. For some time nothing was done to compensate those loyal men who thus suffered for their loy- alty; but at last a bill was passed, which had the sole object of compensating the loyal sufferers; and that bill was certainly within the scope of the Government, which at that time acted under the advice of the British party—historically, and not invidiously, he would call it the Loyal party—then preponderating in the councils of the Governor. But these measures were followed by other events, and other measures, which Lord Brougham censured with great diffidence and dis- trust, —a policy of conciliation to opponents, which he feared had been accompa- nied by a lack of good faith towards friends; a base and bastard policy, which had a tendency to bring those who essay it into just contempt. Terms were offered to the enemies of Government, which the latter were well pleased to accept: the majority were no longer the Loyal, though he would not say that they were the French party or the disloyal party: and the new Prime Minister was M. Auguste Alexis Hippolyte Lafontaine, who though not "out in the '38" was virtually engaged in it, and was with- out doubt most forward and ostentatious in his disaffection: indeed, his writ- ten words existed in a letter to M. Girouard, another worthy of the Government, wherein he says—" Viger and Papineau will give you 20,000 lonis for the blue bonnets (that is, the rebels) of the North ": exciting language for a Minister of the Crown—language tending to fan the cinders into a fresh flame, and as much to breaking as keeping the peace. Lord Brougham commented on the new principle, much favoured by Lord Dur- ham—the principle of " responsible government, as it was called—under which it came about that M. Lafontaine was made Minister of the Crown. Without claiming perspicacity that would be invidious to his noble friend Lord John Rus- sell—who confessed the term did not carry a definite meaning—he believed that the phrase meant that whoever governed a colony should be bound to appoint and choose as his Ministers those to whom the Legislature of the colony was disposed to give its confidence, and to retain them whatever his opinion of their character and conduct, or remove them as soon as the Legislature thought fit to remove its confidence. Every colony is taken to be within the Parliamentary constitution. But if what is good at home must be good in the Colonies, he saw no tittle of rea- son for withholding it from any colony whatever. Lord Brougham then briefly touched on the appointment of M. Lafontaine by Sir Charles Bagot,—a most excellent servant; his dismissal by Lord Metcalfe,—to whose statesmanlike capacity, profound judgment, and deliberative calmness in the most serious complications, and under the agonies of a dreadful, horrible, and soon-to-be fatal disease, he paid an affecting and eloquent tribute of admiration; and the return of M. Lafontaine to office under Lord Elgin; with whom returned the ascendancy of that doctrine of responsible government the folly of which it was out of his power to describe. All matters of a purely local nature he would assign to the local legislature, and he would interfere as little as possible with the disposal of the local funds; but to any questions of an imperial nature, touching in the slightest degree on the sovereignty or the tie of the colony to the mother- country, he denied this responsible government was applicable. And this opinion he fortified by extracts from the ablest state paper he bad ever read—the despatch of 14th October 1839 by his friend Lord John Russell to Mr. Poulett Thompson, —which was an honour to him who by his other writings had illustrated, and by his legislation had improved, as his ancestors by their martyrdom had founded and secured, the principles of the British constitution. He called attention to the constitution of the Canadian Government. When, in evil hour and against the advice of the Duke of Wellington, the two provinces were united, the Legislature was settled at 84 members, half from each province. Upper Canada, altogether English, returns members almost entirely English; Lower Canada, about three- fourths French, returns 33 French members and 9 English. The French members vote together, but the English do not; and thus there is a large majority against the English. Besides the Assembly, there is a Legislative Council, to wine.? the Crown has the power of unlimited nomination. Sr Charles Begot in hie term appointed six members; Lord Metcalfe, in three years, six; but Lord Elgin in ten mouths has appointed twelve,- and of these twelve no fewer than eight were taken from the French party and only four from the Loyal party. In fact, it is believed in the colony that a blank list had been sent over, that so many " Peers" might be made as occasion required: M. Lafontaine demanded Peers, and he must have them; on the theory of responsible government, it was impossible to refuse him.

Thus armed for success, they prepared to bring in such a bill as was never before introduced into a legislative assembly—a bill to give compensation to rebels indiscriminately with the loyal. If it Is said this was not meant, he denied it, and asserted that it was meant to compensate rebels. The journals of the As- ratably prove that no wholesome tone was intended. In the first place, the act was originally introduced without any exception whatever. Then, when the ex- ception was introduced, it was done so hastily, like all works of violence—so Mr- perfectly, like all deeds of faction--so rashly, like all the proceedings of a tyrant majority temporarily in possession of the government—that several classes of rebels will not be excluded ; for the qualification of the exception is threefold and ennjnactive, and all persons not expressly excluded though notorious traitors and rebels will be entitled to compensation. Furthermore, a motion made by Mr. orannn, to the simple and proper effect that all persons guilty of aiding and abet- ting the rebellion should be excepted, was defeated by a majority of 16. These things proved that the Government, with its eyes open, refused to draw any line between treason and loyalty. On this division there was a large majority of upper Canadian and of English members in favour of the amendment; which was carried by the French party in combination with the Lower Canadian English members. For the amendment there were 28; against it, 43: of the 28, 27 were English and only one French; and of the 43, 29 were French, 2 Lower Canadian English, and only 13 Upper Canadian English; and if from the 15 English mem- bers the Ministers were anbtracted, the English were three to one in favour of the amendment. Lord Elgin plumed himself on the addresses he has received; bat a careful inspection shows that these addresses, with one or two exceptions, related to the late nuts, and have no bearing upon this measure, for or against the bill. Then they are but bole-and-corner affairs, signed by persons who are induced to believe that they will better themselves by being addressers as well as Loyalists; and, on the other hand, a vast number have been presented expressly against the bill. He read a letter in which the writer stated his fear that if the bill is con- sented to by the Crown the Canadas are lost. Nations proverbially feel irritated, vexed, and tormented, more by what outrages their teenage than by what damni- fies their interests; and when the outrage consists not only of desertion by their natural superiors, who had ever received allegiance and attachment, and who owed

tection, but had in return met with trampling and contumely,he thought it the

den duty of their Lordships to interfere and stay the further severity of such intolerable infliction. He anticipated the to quoque argument that this bill only did what the former bill had done: he took issue, and denied that there was any- thing in the former bill about compensating rebels—indeed, that Upper Canada even rose in rebellion at all, or that any rebel had been compensated under that bill: the instances quoted by a gentleman named Hinckes were all a mistake— the money paid in each of those instances was paid for goods supplied under con- tract, and had nothing to do with compensation.

Lord Brougham did not ask their Lordships to interfere with the Royal prerogative and wish for an absolute refusal of the assent; but that the as- sent should be suspended till the provisions of the bill are made intelligible, its exceptions distinct, and any other error or blunder corrected before mis- chief be done. He concluded with a warning lest they should think that America—a country with a rapidly increasing population and a democratic government, without the lion's mouth to control the aristocracy of peace as in Venice of old—that America for the first time furnishes the miraculous example of a popular government without ambition. If they should fancy that because she had now more land than she can cultivate, more people than she can govern, she looks not to the North for further dominion and more extended empire, they expected what was contrary to the history of human passions, human prosperity, and human crime. Far different will the reality be. The United States counts every day an age till this bill shall have received the Royal assent, and till England plunged into the yawning gulf before her. Therefore he conjured their Lordships to hasten not the catastrophe of a severance by adherence to the whim of 'responsible government." The terms of his motion were- " That by an act passed in the Parliament of Canada, entitled' An Act to pro- tide for the indemnification of parties in Lower Canada whose property was des- troyed daring the rebellion in the years 1837 and 1838,' no security is afforded against compensation for losses sustained in the rebellion in Canada in 1837 and 1838 being given to persons engaged in the said rebellion. "That it mina and necessary, either by recommending a farther and amend- ing bill to the Legislature of Canada, or by such other means as may be effectual, to provide security against any compensation for losses sustained in the said re- bellion being given to persons engaged in or having aided or abetted the same."

Earl GREY contrasted the unwise and ungenerous spirit of the historical preface of Lord Brougham's speech, with the spirit of the declarations and actions of Lord Chatham towards the Highlanders of Scotland only twelve years after that invasion of this country which nearly shook the house of Brunswick to its fall. The same men whom jealousy would have left a prey to the artifices of your enemies, Lord Chatham brought to combat on your side: in the words of Chatham, " Detested be the national reflections against them! they are unjust, groundless, illiberal, unmanly." Was it den asked who had been out in '45? was there then a hunting for evi- dence of disloyalty twelve years after the offence? or was not the policy that of burying the animosities and the rankling hatreds of the past, and calling upon all alike faithfully to serve the Crown,—a policy entirely successful all over the globe. Lord Grey defended M. Lafontaine as not implicated in the rebellion: the story of the 20,000 Ionia was a joke at the expense of M. Papineau's notorious parsimony. He quoted from the same despatch of Lord John Russell which produced Lord Brougham's well- deserved laudations, a passage explicitly approving of Lord Durham's par- ticular views of colonial government—views since adhered to and approved by Lord Stanley. He defended the bill as parallel in its principle and in- tended operation to that of Upper Canada; and, though admitting that the "ads of the exception might have been more precise, he considered the ex- ception sufficient for its good purpose. He repeated the arguments used by the Government against Mr. Wilson's amendment, and thought that whether they were right or wrong they were worthy of consideration: they amounted tb thisthat after so long a time, the discovery of those who aided and abetted rebellion would be so difficult, and the inquiry for them so calcu- lated to exasperate existing animosity, that it would be wiser to give no corn- Pensation at all than compensation so discriminated. As to the alterations in the Council, the practice is old; and after all, the proportion of the English I}? the Frenoin is that of 31 to 15 even in the present Council; though the Preach are still most numerous in Canada. He mentioned as a fact pregnant with meaning, that the same party who lately clamoured for a dissolution aE the local Parliament are by the last accounts protesting against it dis- hafal of an appeal to a constituency nearly the most popular that can mist. The opinion of the people is truly represented by the Assembly; and their wishes, declared as they have been, ought not to be overruled by glair Lordia4pa, Lord LYNDHURST felt imperatively called on, after many years' silence r° their Lordships' House, to express his entire disapprobation of the mea- Pre to which their attention had been called. In a speech of considerable 4ngth, he forcibly argued the very narrow question, which he thought was the main one, whether the bill does or does not embrace rebels within its bfilefits: and he illustrated the consequence of that peculiarity of the bill

by quoting the instance of M. Papineau himself, the instigator and

of the rebellion, who would not be included in the words of the exoepticaud clause, and will therefore be a participator of the benefits given by the bill He assured Lord Grey, too, that he was quite misinformed as to M. Lafon- taine's non-participation in the rebellion: persons now present perfectly well know he was engaged in the rebellion of 1837—that he came to this country, and remained here till a warrant was out for his apprehension— that he escaped to France, and returned to Canada when the rebellion was suppressed, under the amnesty; of which amnesty Lord Lyndhurst fully approved. But M. Lafontaine himself bad bean pressed to state precisely what was intender on this point of the bill, and had never given a satisfac- tory answer. Lord Lyndhurst thought nothing could be more preposterous or monstrous than that persons should be compensated for the consequences of the acts they themselves had taken part in. As to the difficulty or ascertaining who were rebels ten years ago, the Commissioners would only reject those claims where the failure of the claimants to clear themselves from participation in the rebellion was palpable—they would not exclude in cases of doubt: they could examine on oath, and there would be no ob- jection to any testimony, as the amnesty now protects all from the con- sequences of what was then done.

Lord CAMPBELL spoke shortly against the resolutions; and in reply to the speech of Lord Lyndhurst, whom he taunted with his changes of opinion.

Lord STANLEY eulogized the perspicacity and foroe still exhibited by Lord Lyndhurst with a vigour nowise impaired by years; and contemptuously criticized the bad feeling of Lord Campbell's unworthy taunts against such a man in his honoured old age. He commented on Lord Grey's difficulty —to reconcile the authority of the Crown with local self-government: the two things are indeed entirely self-contradictory ; each excludes the au- thority of the other. He never expected to see the day when, to his judg- ment, in a conservative sense, a second elective chamber would be a check on the democratic principle; and yet he must say, that if the principle he carried out that the Prime Minister of the colony is to advise the Governor on every occasion, even to the filling nominations of the Council, a second chamber might carry more weight and be a more effective check on an absolute democracy than a Legislative Council filled up by nominees of the Minister, though chosen for life. He compared the measure of appointing twelve new members to a proportionate measure here—it would be equivalent to the creation of a hundred and fifty new members of their Lordships House! Adverting to the amnesty, and the allusion to Lord Chatham's policy, he granted that the offences forgiven should be forgotten: but did Lord Chatham go so far as to bring in a measure to compensate those who were "out in '45" for the losses caused by the King's troops in suppressing the rebellion? He glanced over the history of the Commission issued by Lord Metcalfe to make preliminary inquiry into the claims of loyal persons who had suffered: that commission was changed in its object immediately after Lord Metcalfe left Canada; the term "loyal subjects" was not farther used, and the Commission was directed to exclude only those persons from compensation who had not been actually convicted in a court of law. Subsequently, in the Assembly, the Minister was asked, " Do you mean to compensate A, B, C, whom you and I know to be rebels? " and he fearlessly answered that he did. Yet a Minister of the Crown in England now has the courage to say this is not the intent!

The Earl of St. GERMANS opposed the resolutions: the only difference between the former act and the present is that this contains an express &M- ansion of certain persons. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed that the debate had been Cana- dian rather than Imperial. He defended " responsible government "; de- nied that this measure was intended for compensation of rebels—if it had, they would have been mentioned as the class to be compensated ; and he denied that the principle of the bill is to admit rebels. He defended the principle of additions to the Council; though he agreed that "snob " addi- tions as had been made would not be tolerated in this country: but im- mense additions had been made before by the Opposition party, and it was impossible after those additions, carried on through a long series of years, to gain anything like harmony between the two legislative bodies without additions from the party in power. He warned the Peers on their own course— lie had known the House called on to differ from the other House of Parlia- ment on weighty matters; to censure Colonial Assemblies conducting the business of colonies in an improper manner; and to censure the conduct of Governors of colonies, when coming in collision with the Assemblies in connexion with which they had exercised their government: but never until the present moment had he seen that House called on to express offhand an opinion, and to record at once its variance with the House of Commons in England, together with a Colonial As- sembly and a Colonial Governor.

Lord Brionousst replied briefly, and the House divided, with the fol- lowing result- Content—Present 54 Proxies 42-96 Not-Content—Present 46 Proxies 53-99 Ministerial majority against the resolutions VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.

The Earl of Lutootat, on bringing forward his motion for an address to the Queen, praying for suitable measures to ascertain whether the charter by which Vancouver's Island is given to the Hudson's Bay Company is valid in respect to the powers it purports to convey, restated the whole case. After the speech of Mr. Gladstone, last session, and after certain Ministerial declarations—almost hopes held out—he had anticipated that this fatal measure would have been revoked: he still hoped the Colonial Office might repent, and that new information might induce the Govern- ment to revoke what it has done, and adopt a satisfactory course with re- spect to this magnificent possession.

Disclaiming hostility to the Hudson's Bay Company, he started with the broad axiom, that so far as the great experience of this country has gone, colonization by absentee proprietary companies has been a failure, and that those colonies alone have been prosperous which have been governed on a different system. Virginia, Massachussets, and Carolina—all colonies established by companies con- sisting of noblemen and merchants of London of high character and influence, and great wealth—presented a series of failures. Pennsylvania illustrated the same view by its continued disaster and misfortune when its founder was an absentee; New England was another failure; and Mr. Hawes had con- trasted in South Australia the difference of a government of a colony by the Colonial Office and by a proprietary company or a commission. But of all instances, that of the Hudson's Bay Company is the worst. Its very principles are those of absenteeism, monopoly, despotism, and secrecy. He passed over the questions of the validity of the Company's existing charter and the rights of trading which it claims, as Mr. Gladstone had that evening obtained priority for notice of a motion on those very subjects to come on in July. Passing also over the non-fulfilment by the Company of its duty respecting the discovery of the

North-west Passage, and the charge of its shutting up the fields of colonization in the territory West of the Rocky Mountains, he turned particularly to the graver charges brought before the House last year, of maladministration respecting the interests of colonists and natives in the districts under its especial government. These facts he proved from the papers on the table and the evidence of the Com- pany's own officers and of Lord Elgin. The Company neglects the religious in- struction of the population, and encourages the sale of spirituous liquors among the natives. Through the exertions of Mr. Wilberforce the North-west Company was induced so to check the sale of spirits among the aborigines that the consumption fell from 50,000 gallons a year to 10,000 gallons. But un- der the Hudson's Bay Company the consumption increased from 3,000 gal- lons in 1887 to 9,000 gallons in 1847—it trebled in ten years. The Com- pany's officers speak of its religious establishments: the Bishop of Montreal says that there is not one clergyman on the further side of the Rocky Mountains; there was formerly one at Fort Vancouver; and they now have one at Red River. The statements of the exemplary Wesleyan body—a body not easily deterred from missionary enterprise by hardship—show that in 1843 they had but six, from 1844 to 1846 only five, in 1847 only four, in 1848 three mis- sionaries, and this year only one missionary, in the whole territory cf the Company.

The officers of the Company inflict capital punishment without authority and contrary to law. A letter by the Reverend Mr. Beaver, among the papers, gives several instances of atrocious proceedings of this character, and that gentleman i

adds his belief that a trapper never puts the life of an Indian in competition with a beaver's skin. Lieutenant Chappill, who went to Hudson's Bay in H. M. S. Rosamond, narrates the execution of an Indian for example's sake, without any previous trouble taken to ascertain whether he was guilty or not of some outrages previously suffered by the Company's servants. Sir George Simpson in fact avows that the rule of retaliation is the only law the natives feel or fear. Now, by the provisions of 1 and 2 George IV. cap. 66, sec. 12, power is given to the Company's magistrates to adjudicate on all civil cases under 2001.; but all higher civil cases, and all criminal cases whatsoever, must be transferred from this terri- tory to the courts in Canada. This provision is notoriously set at nought, and not one case has ever been transferred to the Canadian courts. Serious com- plaints are made by the colonists of the Red River colony; which was not formed by the Hudson's Bay Company, but which was ceded to it by Lord Selkirk's executors. The Company allows these unhappy colonists to trade only once a year, and only through its own agents; and it prevents the influx or reflux of any

by any channel except its own ships—a single annual ship. Mr. James impson, who complained to the Government in England, got a curt note from the agent of the Company, that they would ship no more goods of his whatever. Is such a system of monopoly to be so upheld, and is appeal to the Executive to be so punished?

Lord Lincoln read passages from the report of the Earl of Elgin, to show that the general charges made against the Company are nowhere rebutted, but in many instances clearly established; and he quoted from the letters and reports of the Company's officers, to show that generally they contradict or refute each other where they deny the charges, while in a great many cases they give those charges proof. Such was the case with Colonel Crofton, Major Griffiths, and Major CaldweU. For instance, Colonel Crofton is able to pronounce distinctly that the charge of selling or giving spirits to the Indians is false, and that the Company prohibitstheir manufacture or import; whereas Major Griffiths takes credit to the Company that it bad allowed " some of these very grumblers to im- port spirits to the colony from America—a system which had a most pernicious effect " during his command of the station. Major Griffiths contradicts the as- sertion made by W. Parker, an American missionary, that the population of the tribes has diminished under the Company's rule: his statistics are completely ex- ploded by the fact, that the more numerous populations he enumerates are due to the discovery of at least one half more tribes during the time referred to, of whose existence the Company before knew nothing. As to the " secrecy" of the Com, pang's proceedings, it would be scarcely credited, but the Company allows no per- son to depart out of its territory with a journal—Mr. Dunn was compelled to burn his4ournal at Fort Vancog,ver before he could leave the country. Ibis evidence aflbrded grounds for meeting the proposition to cede Vancouver's Island to the Hudson's Bay Company with a direct refusal. Moreover, the Com- pany is unfit for the function of colonization. Its capital is nominally 400,0001. but ites really only 93,0001.—two calls of 40,0001. paid up, and of 13,0001. raised on loans. It cannot be meant to turn any of this fund from the lucrative fur- trade to the unluerative operation of colonizing the island. The only motive they can have in claiming more land, in addition to a territory larger than Europe must be that of keeping other people out. Under the "free constitution' of the colony, the Governor is to be appointed by her Majesty's Government,, but selected by the Company: the Company has selected its chief factor, Mr. Douglas, and has recommended fourteen traders connected with it to be colonial magistrates. Is not this a mere respectable sham?

The grant was made in the teeth of remonstrances from all quarters ; and against a division of that House in which the Government escaped defeat by a narrow ma- jority.

In its details the charter has been improvident. The coals and minerals which were to have been reserved to the Crown have been granted to the Company; and the Company reserves ir royalty of 2s. 6d. per too on coal, when the best mines in Staffordshire pay but Is: 6d. For land, the Company charges 21. 10s. per acre ; while a few miles of land may be purchased on the English continent for 58. 3d. per acre, and on the American -continent for a dollar and a half an acre. Only one ship is announced to start in July, and one more in September: are these to take out the "numerous emigrants" tempted by the prospect of the Company's good rule?

Lord Lincoln did not intend to pro ,me a mere vote of censure, but what he

hoped would be a practical motion. Lord Grey had expressed doubts whether the Company had a right "to receive and hold in its corporate capacity any lands within the dominion of the British Crown Westward oft he Rocky Mountains," and he called for information; whereupon Sir John Pelly directed a case to be drawn tip for the opinion of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. The regular and official course therefore has not been taken in this instance. There are doubts of the legality of the charter not, as to the power of the Crown to con- fer, but as to the power of the Company to receive; and such doubts existing, it was the duty of the Colonial Office itself to prepare the case. "I will ask any learned gentleman in this House whether it is not a well-known axiom, give me the party who prepares the case, and I will tell you the answer that will be given. Believing this grant to be impolitic and unjust, I am justified in availing myself of any loophole that may yet be left, to endeavour, as far as possible con- sistently with honour, to save the country from the bargain—the unfortunate bar- gain—which has been made by the Government." He concluded by moving-

" That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, setting forth that this House

has taken into Its consideration the papers which her Majesty has graciously commanded to be presented to it with regard to the grant of Vancouver's Island by royal charter to the Hudson's gay Company ; and Is of opinion that it is ill-adapted for superintending the establishment of any colony Unaided upon principle' of political or commercial freedom. " That It also appears, from the papers before mentioned, that the means adopted by the Secretary of State to ascertain that the acceptance by the Company of sub a grant would be consistent with their charter of Incorporation' were insufficient.

" That this House accordingly prays her Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct that such measures as shall appear to her Majesty moat suitable may be adopted to ascertain whether, by the charter in question, a grant in all respects valid has been made of the powers which it purports to convey."

Mr. Howe seconded the motion; though he did not consider that it was couched in sufficiently strong terms.

He thought the conduct of the Colonial Office required direct condemnation; for their acts had been most irregular. He did not make any complaint against the Hudson's Bay Company; for he believed they had only done what they eon_ ceived would be for their own advantage: but he thought the proceedings of the Colonial Office had been contrary to those maxims by which persons whether in public or private life ought to be guided. The arrangement proposed by the Go- vernment would place Vancouver's Island under the control of a body of men whose principles were those of monopoly and restriction, and whose direct advan- tage consisted in pursuing such a course. It had been admitted by naval officers that there was no place better fitted to promote our trade and commerce in that quarter of the world than Vancouver's Island. That island contained coal in abundance, which could be obtained at very small cost; and it afforded the means for a station which might enable this country to command an immense trade. He considered that the Ministers of the Crown ought not in these days to have the power which had been exercised by Earl Grey, of granting any portion of what might be termed the British territory to any person without the sanction of Par- liament

As Mr. FLawas seemed about to speak, an unnamed Member " took notice" that there were not forty Members present: it was found that there were but thirty-seven; so the Speaker left the chair, at about half- past eight. At the next sitting, on Wednesday, Lord LINCOLN announced, that as the House had been counted out through the instrumentality and active exertions of parties connected with the Government, he should renew his motion as an amendment on the first order for going into Committee of Supply. Mr. TUFNELL inquired—" Do you apply your remarks to me? " Lord Lut. COLN answered—" Not as concerned in the count out'..' but the honourable gen- tleman did all he could to prevent a House being made.' " Mr. TUFFNETT begged to say, he sent all the notices to Members of the Government which it is usual to send. As to the count-out, he retired, from indisposition, about a quar- ter of an hour before it. The latter fact Mr. HUME confirmed.

The conversation going on, Sir Jonai JERVIS (Attorney-General) said, that the count-out was felt as a misfortune by Mr. Hawes, who was prepared with a highly satisfactory answer. When the noble Lord complained of a count-oat after addressing the House four hours and a half, it was for the noble Lord to consider whether he might not expect such a result. Subsequently, Mr. GLADSTONE stated, that Lord Lincoln did not impute to the members of the Government, usually so called, a disposition to get rid of the motion—of course they must be aware such a question could not be so disposed of; and the moment was certainly most inopportune for themselves. He sug- gested that Government should give an early day to finish the debate. Mr. LABOUCHERE declined this responsibility in Lord John Russell's absence. He regretted the untimely end of the debate last night; but protested it was not the special Government duty to provide against the contingency of a count-out. Mr. GLARSTONE--" No one said so." Mr. LABOUCIIERE— The noble Lord should have used his own influence with his friends to make a House."

Lord tumour charged the noble Lord holding office under Gevernment, to whom was intrusted the special duty of mustering the Government forces, [Lord Marcus Hill,] with having actively exerted himself for some time to reduce the number below that necessary for constituting a House; he charged the " whipper- in " with having whipped out the House, but acquitted the members of the Ca- binet and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies of participation in the proceeding. Lord Marcus Hill entering at this point, Lord Lincoln repeated the charge to his face; and was ready to give the names of three Members who observed his exer- tions.

_ Lord MARCUS ilttLessared the noble Lord that he did not yesterday take any - - - open- - - measures—(Roars of laughter)—to cause the House to be counted. A friend did certainly tell him that it was his intention to count out, and he cer- tainly. made no effort to dissuade his friend from so doing—(Much laughter and cheering)—but he denied that he canvassed Members within the walls of the House to retire from it.

Lord Lnecotie—"I ask the noble Lord, whether, after strangers had been ordered to withdraw, he did not meet a Member coming into the House, and dis- tinctly say, ' Do not go in; the House is going to be counted? ''' Lord MARCUS elites—" I may have said so—(Great laughter)—but I do not think that implies any attempt on my part to canvass Members. Lord LINCOLN—"Did not the noble Lord hold the green door behind the Speaker's chair to prevent Members coming into the House? " (Laughter.) Lord MARCUS Hitt.—" I was just coming out of the Speaker's room with a friend with whom I had been conversing, when the thing occurred." (Renewed merriment.) Mr. ROLIONBY suggested some regulation to restrict the counting-out licence. Mr. VERNON Shinn entered his most determined protest against this course.

It was said that the event of last night would lead the public to suppose that the

House felt little interest hi Colonial questions: well, the infeience would bejes- tified by the fact; for it was true that the House did feel very little interest in

Colonial matters; if the public differed from the House in that respect, it could cause its influence to be telt. He cautioned Lord Lincoln, that the surest way of prolonging the laugh against himself was to build up a grave charge on a count-out; he had better pocket the ridicule. It was a useful thing for the noble

Lord [Marcus Hill] in the performance of his duty to count out the House al questions not sufficiently attractive to induce Members to come or to stay.

It was probable that the gallant party who sat on the same side of the House with the noble Lord, believing that the motion was to be another of those mock fights with which they had recently been beguiled from

the same quarter, and prudently resolving not to expend their strength iv any but a real stand-up fight, kept away from the field. That being the case, the noble Lord's own friends were not numerous enough to keep a House; and thus the dis- aster, so much deplored, ensued. Mr. HAWES renewed the assurance that he was not aware of the intention to count out the House. Mr. HUME expressed an opinion that no business should be proceeded with in the House unless 200 Members were present ; and hoped that the time was not distant when Members who did not choose to attend to their duties would be com- pelled to vacate their seats.

TRANSPORTATION FOR TREASON.

Shortly before the motion to read a second time the Transportation for Treason (Ireland) Bill, Mr. NarrErt rose to present a petition from Mr. Smith O'Brien, Mr. Meagher, Mr. M'Manus, and Mr. ()Donohue; but Lord Jonte RUSSELL interposed, and, remarking that the names of the petition- ers were those of persons attainted of high treason, he raised a doubt whether any petition from them could be received. The SPEAKER:II' alined to the affirmative; and Mr. NAnErt proceeded to read the petition. On the call of Mr. DISRAELI, and after some opposition from Irish Mem- bers, the Arrow:my-GENERAL came forward and stated that he had suggested to the Premier the legal doubts as to the ability of the prisoners to present a petition to the House. The petition received from Mr. O'Brien a few days ago bad been presented without notice; but in this case Mr. Napier had given notice. To receive this petition would be establishing a dangerous precedent. Mr. NAPIER said, the presentation of the petition was rendered necessary by the precipitation with which the measure had been pressed forward. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the House might safely receive the petition, under the peculiar circumstances of the case. The House was about to become a party to legislative proceedings affecting the prisoners: it appeared impossible to maintain that persons in the situation of the petitioners, whether convicted or not, were not entitled to approach the House and pray that the bill might not pass into law. Mr. BRIGHT and others snpported this view; and Lord Jour( RUSSELL did not further oppose the presentation of the petition; which was then read by the Clerk. Its gist was, that the petitioners objected to the commutation of their sentence to transportation for life, and contested the power of the Crown to effect that commutation; and it protested in the strongest manner against the passage of any ex-post-facto law in application to their case. The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

Sir GEORGE GREY then moved the second reading of the bill. Con- sidering the nature and magnitude of the offence, it appeared to the Lord- Lieutenant, in concurrence with the Government, that it should be marked by severe punishment; yet it was desired to avoid undue severity. Sir George recapitulated the circumstances of the interview between the Lord- Lieutenant and a deputation who prayed a mitigation of the sentence; he read Lord Clarendon's answer; he stated the mode in which the determina- tion of the Crown had been communicated to the prisoners, their protest, and the Lord-Lieutenant's abstinence from " doing any act by which the sentence could be carried into effect." He then stated the reason of the bill. The prerogative of mercy in Ireland has been regulated by statutes; those statutes use the word " felony," but do not expressly mention trea- son; it is contended by some that treason is not included in the word " fe- lony," and that the statute fails to give the power claimed. The Govern- ment is advised that the word " felony " has always included and does now include treason, and that there is no doubt on the matter; but for the greater caution they introduce this measure to " declare" the law.

Mr. NAPLES quoted from Lord Coke's Institutes a passage showing that " every treason is comprehended under felony, but not e contra." The late act also assumes the distinction. The Crown concedes that the punish- ment of death cannot be carried out: let it reprieve the parties, and im- prison them for life. Mr. Napier moved that the prisoners be heard against the bill by counsel at the bar. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL seconded the motion; and adverted to the law passed in the cases of the Irish State prosecutions in 1844. He and others were expressly excluded from the benefit of that law, on the ground that it could not be made ex post facto; but in this case the law is to be made ex post facto, in order to include the cases of the petitioners.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL entered into a legal argument to prove that which he had believed ever since he entered the profession—that all trea- sons are felonies, though all felonies are not treasons. He replied to the objection that the law is ex post facto: how can it be so, when Mr. Smith O'Brien may even now be executed, and when the bill is introduced in favorem rift merely to solve a doubt? Mr. PAGE WOOD enforced this view; and further urged, that whether there be doubts on this law or not, and whether the bill proposed an ex-post-facto law or not, are no reasons for hear- ing counsel; as the House was able without assistance both to legislate on the doubt and on the question of policy. Mr. Sergeant Tanwouun enter- tained not the slightest doubt, but approved the bill as a wise preventive of the smallest question as to the existence of any legal obstacle. Sir JAMES GRAHAM felt convinced by Sir John Jervis's perspicacious legal view. He thought Government had wisely advised a commutation of the capital sen- tence; but at the same time, thought the sentence ought to be commuted to the severest secondary punishment, so justly due for the crime which had been committed.

Mr. CrusnoLat ANSTEY combated the legal argument of Sir John Jervis. He contended, that now-a-days felony does not include treason, any more than now-a-days trespass includes misdemeanour or misdemeanour felony; as was held before the classification of the modern books came into vogue. The bill itself is the best answer to the statement that the aw is so posi- tive and certain. The portion of the commutation which inflicts transpor- tation was void; but the pardon remained valid and in full force without any condition—if the pardon has already gone forth, and is now only stopped in transitu by Lord Clarendon. It is a mistake to suppose that this case is unique: in the time of Henry the Eighth, a gentleman capitally sen- tenced refused to endure a secondary punishment, and was executed. There is no doubt that the rejection of the bill would cause a mitigation of the sentence. The Queen could send the prisoners into banishment, as her grandfather had sent Arthur O'Connor and Hamilton Rowan. He would offer every possible opposition to the bill; and he moved the adjournment of the House.

Mr. KEOGH considered the bill a measure to inflict a greater punishment on the prisoners than can at present be inflicted. He suggested that the Crown could respite the sentence during pleasure, and so inflict imprison- ment for life rather than transportation. Mr. EDMUND BURKE ROCHE opposed the bill, as a proposal to inflict a punishment which, considering the men and the manner in which they had been educated, he conceived would be more aggravated and horrible to them than the punishment of death. Mr. LAWLESS looked at the continual persecution of these men: he thought the Queen was prevented from exercising, as she no doubt would if left to herself, her prerogative of mercy to its fullest extent. Mr. PAGAN saw no mercy in the bill. Mr. MoNsELL felt that the bill would really effect the passing of a heavier sentence than would otherwise be in- flicted. Mr. REYNOLDS gave the Government credit for not carrying the sentence of death out, but saw no act of mercy to be thankful for in this bill.

Mr. GODSON subscribed to Sir John Jervis's dictum, that at common law felony includes treason; but at common law the Crown has no power of transportation. By the common law imprisonment may be inflicted as a condition of pardon; if there be a doubt as to the statute, this com- mon-law power remains; the result is, that the bill goes to inflict a heavier Punishment than can at present be imposed. Mr. ROEBUCK supported the bill in a speech which upheld Sir John

Jervis's view of the law, but in a manner that provoked the interruption of the Irish Members, and led to several interferences by Mr. Speaker.

He sneered at the view that transportation would be felt as a heavier punish- ment than death. Would the gentlemen say distinctly they preferred to be hanged? (Interruption.) They meant something or nothing, and probably their belief was that the kindly feeling of this country was so strong that they might escape by a quibble. He would tell the noble Lord what he would do in his potition: he would hang them tomorrow, sooner than they should escape such means—(Murmurs)—though be objected to death-punishment. (Laughter.) Mr. Grattan had made light of Smith O'Brien's insurrection, saying that it had prevented a serious one which he would have joined. Here Mr. Gammas rose to order, and asked Mr. Roebuck to " bell the truth." Mr. ROEBUCK persisted. The SPEAKER interposed with advice. The sparring was renewed, and at last Mr. Roebuck was allowed to proceed and finish. Mr. MAXWELL Fox " explained" some controverted points, and threw in a charge against Mr. Roebuck of advocating the cause of Canadian rebels; which produced the retort that if Mr. Fox said that, he asserted a falsehood. The SPEAKER called for retractation. Mr. ROEBUCK promptly complied, and apologized to the House for having said what was unparliamentary; but he expressly refused to apologize to Mr. Fox. Lord JOHN RUSSELL interposed with remarks calculated to recall Mem- bers to a sense of what was due to the dignity of the House; and, as a decision, called for immediate division on Mr. Anstey's motion for adjourn- ment. That motion was negatived, by 178 to 31.

Mr. ANSTEY again moved that the debate be adjourned; Mr. KEOGH and Mr. ROCHE trying to dissuade him from taking a division; and Mr. NAPIER saying he should not further oppose the progress of the bill. The adjournment was again negatived, by 195 to 9.

Mr. REYNOLDS then addressed the House with banter of Mr. Roebuck's pugnacious dogmatism. It reminded one of the Irishman who walked through the fair with his coat on the draggle, requesting any man to do him the favour of treading on it. He thought Lord John Russell was a bad judge of music when he compared Mr. Roebuck's voice to a French horn; it seemed to him more like the sound of a railway steam-whistle.

Mr. ROEBUCK returned to the charge. He gave notice, that if the sen- tence of the law should not be carried into execution on these men, he should ask for a mitigation of the punishment of the persons who are now undergoing punishment in England for sedition—

There was no sympathy for his poor countrymen, Cuffey and the others. (Laughter.) Cuffey was not a gentleman, and so they laughed at his name. There was no Irish patriotism veiling itself in unintelligible ejaculations about him!

Subsequently another scene arose.

Mr. ROEBUCK alluded to Mr. Reynolds's phrase "a pull at the Exchequer." Mr. REYNOLDS denied having used the phrase in the way alleged. A squabble ensued. Mr. DILLON BROWNE exclaimed something. Mr. ROEBUCK—" the honourable Member for Mayo says It is false.' " Mr. BROWNE—" No; I said, it was not true." (Much laughter. " Order! ") Mr. ROEBUCK—" The honourable gentleman is not in that state in which I can notice what falls from him." (Renewed laughter.) Presently further altercation occurred on the utterance of an expression by Mr. LAWLESS. Mr. ROEBUCK—" An honourable Member near me [pointing to Mr. Lawless] exclaims, Give him rope enough!' I ask you, Sir, and I ask the House, if any phrase of mine has justified such an expression ? (" Yes," from some Irish Members, and " Order! ") I have marked the gentleman, (still pointing to Mr. Lawless,) although I don't know who he is, or what place he represents. But I say that is an offensive expression, and that it is improperly used to honourable Members of this House." Mr. LAWLESS--" You don't know the proverb." Mr. ROEBUCK—" The honourable gentleman is adding to the offence." ("No, no!" from Irish Members.) A Member appealed to the Speaker against Mr. Roebuck. The SPEAKER declared Mr. Roebuck was not yet out of order. He must say, it did not add to the dignity of the House that Members should be subject to these constant interruptions. Captain BERKELEY informed the Speaker, as a near sitter, that the interruptions were so contrary to the rules that guide honourable gentlemen, that he was not surprised at Mr. Roebuck's violent resentment. The SPEAKER again admonished the disturbers. Lord Joux RUSSELL interposed as before, and induced the House to proceed to the division.

The House divided on the main question; and the second reading of the bill was carried, by 175 to 19.

NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

Mr. G. A. HAMILTON moved a resolution couched in these terms-

" That an address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be gra- ciously pleased to direct that such a modification of the system of national educe- tion in Ireland may be made as may remove the conscientious objections which& large proportion of the clergy and laity of the Established Church entertain to that system as at present carried into operation; or otherwise that means may be taken to enable those of the clergy and laity of the Established Church who en- tertain such conscientious objections to extend the blessings of Scriptural educe, tion in Ireland."

Mr. Hamilton developed this resolution in a speech comprising the usual arguments in support of the positions, that no system of education ought to be tolerated in this country which is not based upon religion; that a free right of access to the Scriptures, at all times and under all circumstances, is a fundamental principle of the Reformation, and one which it is pecu- liarly incumbent upon Protestants to uphold in Ireland; and that the Na- tional system tends to secularize education in Ireland. Mr. HEALD se- conded the motion. Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE opposed it, with an am- plification of the arguments, that the Protestants in whose name Mr. Ha- milton spoke are not " the Protestants of Ireland," but only a minority of the Protestants, belonging principally to the Established Church in Ire- land; that if a grant were given to one sect it must be given to every sect; that the. National system is open to all; that it comprises 4,109 schools and 500,000 children; and that it would be very rash to disturb a system which has already produced such good fruits, and may regenerate the social system in Ireland. The motion was supported by Lord BERNARD, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON, and Mr. Repute; partially supported by Mr. MooRE; opposed by Sir Limns. Baoome, Mr. REY- NOLDS, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL. Lord John contended that the National system does not exclude religion: the Scriptures are read in schools con- nected with the National Board, doctrinal instruction being avoided; and if doctrinal instruction were attempted, it would be necessary to provide it for the Roman Catholic children, and then Government would be ac- cused of teaching religious error. On a division, the motion was negatived, by 162 to 102.

EQUALIZATION OF POOR-B.A.TES.

Lord NUGENT moved for a Committee to inquire into the practicability of better providing for the maintenance of the indigent poor of England and Wales by an equal and general apportionment of the burden of the same. He pointed out the evil of local administration, in the antagonism

which it produces between the Guardians and the poor; the imperfect re- presentation in Boards of Guardians, which represent only the ratepayers, wet the poor; and the inequality of assessment. Taking different areas of rating in this country, the amount levied varies from a farthing in the pound to fourteen shillings; or taking into account extra-parochial dis- tricts, from nil to a still higher rate. The general expenditure is increas- ing: on the 25th March 1848, it was in the aggregate 8,047,4851. The law of settlement prevents the circulation of labour, and tends to increase the inequality. The proposed plan would increase the efficacy of the law and diminish the expenditure.

Mr. Rums, the Chief Poor law Commissioner, opposed the motion, on two grounds,—because a Committee on the law of settlement had dis- missed this among other projects of reform; and because the motion went to subvert what has been for centuries the national policy of this country, that the maintenance of the poor shall be borne by the local districts. The motion received a qualified support from several Members; but some of the more friendly urged Lord Nugent to withdraw it, on the score that the conclusions were not borne out by the opinion of other Members. Some, like Mr. Pountrr SCROPE, opposed it altogether. Mr. Memorise/sr expressed his surprise that the noble mover, connected as he was with a family descended from the Plantagenets, should be found advocating So- cialist doctrines worthy of Ledru-Rollin and Proudhon. Mr. CARDWELL took the opportunity of drawing particular attention to that unequal distribution of paupers which is to be seen in Liverpool. He read passages from the reports of Captain Denham, who had been sent by Government to inquire into the overcrowding of Irish steamers, describing how the poor emigrants who take deck passages are obliged to herd like beasts with the cattle imported from Ireland. The accounts are very shocking,—people wallowing about like pigs; women taken with premature labour, and allowed, of grace, to be confined in the engine-room; dead bodies carried on shore of those who have died in the transit; and the like. Mr. LABOUCHERE stated that the subject was under consideration of Go- vernment; and, although Government would not impose any check for the ,ptupose of diminishing the number of immigrants from Ireland, a limita- tion would be imposed on the admission of passengers into steam-vessels, in order to prevent scenes revolting to the decencies of humanity.

Lord Nuonxr wished to withdraw his motion; but could not obtain the general concurrence of the House in doing so; and it was negatived, without 111'diviaion.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

The adjourned debate on Mr. Stuart Wortley's Marriages Bill was re- sumed. by Mr. NAPIER; who maintained that the promoters of the bill fail to show—first, that the prohibition is not enforced by the Levitical laws; /secondly, that the tenets and principles of Christianity do not warrant the alteration,; thirdly, that the general interests of society would be more ad- vanced by allowing than prohibiting these marriages: all these propo- Athlone should be proved, while all of them fail of proof. Mr. GLADSTONE opposed the bill, both on the general ground, and on that of a clear and :manifest religious injunction; supporting this view with an immense array Of authorities, and nice criticisms on particular passages. The LORD AD- VOCATE of Scotland supported the bill: he believed that the lower classes had thoughtfully examined the religions question, and become convinced that these marriages are not forbidden; and he maintained their propriety on social grounds. Mr. SroAar WORTLEY replied; and the second read- ing was carried, by 177 to 143.

MON017R8 FOR MEDICAL OFFICERS.

Sir DE LACY SPANS having moved a resolution declaring it inexpedient and uujust'to exclude medical officers of the Army and Navy from a share of honours, &c., Lord JOHN RUSSELL, admitted, that since the order of Knights 'Commanders and Knights Companions of the Bath was bestowed upon persona engeged in the civil departments of the Government, it was worthy of consideration whether those honours might not be extended to medical officers. It was necessary that he should consult with the Corn- mauder-in-chief and the Secretary-at-War before he could state positively what would be done upon this point. The question had recently been under consideration with reference to the services of Indian officers in the late Indian campaign; but no final determination had yet been arrived at. In this afate of the question, if General Evans persisted with his motion, Lord John must move " the previous question." Sir DE Lacy- EvANS took the friendly advice of other Members, and consented to withdraw his motion.