Debated ruin Protecting:0 in parliament.

OPERATION OF THE POOR LAW.

The discussion of this subject occupied the Peers for several hours on Tuesday. Earl STANHOPE moved for a return stating the number of petitions presented last session for the repeal or alteration of the Poor-law • specifying the nurnLer of signatures attached to each peti- tion, and t'lle occupations, as far as it could be ascertained, of the par- ties signing. Lord Stanhope /prefaced his motion with a long sne- containing allegations couched in very strong language, age villp principle of the Poor-law, and its mode of operation. Its effedr., the labouring population be described as dangerous to the public ti an- quillity and the security of property. As evidence of its extensive unpopularity, he reminded the House, that whereas only 3.1 petitions with 9:4 signatures had been presented in favour of the Poor-law, no fewer than -267,000 persons bad signed petitions against the entire measure, or its important clauses; while some of the individual signatures represented large bodies Mr. William Knox, for instance, chairman of the great meetilig in the West Riding of Yorkshire, signed a petition in behalf of an assembly of 300,000 persons. Men of all political opinions, Conservatives, Whigs, and Radicals, united in reprobation of the Poor-law ; and but for the intimidation, which he could affirm had been extensively practised, the number of the avowed opponents of the law would be much larger. lie should like to have the opinion of the public ascertained by ballot. Lord Stan- hope dwelt upon the extraordinary powers granted to the Commis- sioners—the three despots of Somerset House—and maintained that these powers had been exerted in an arbitrary and reckless manner. The dietary in tine workhouses was scanty ; the medical attendance in- sufficient ; the discipline so harsh that the term prisons would be better applied to them than that of asylums for the poor. Such horror of the workhouses did time labourers feel, that one of them had told Lord Stanhope himself; that lie preferred death to removal to an " asylum for the poor." As well, indeed, might the hulks be called asylums for the poor. The fact was, that men preferred starvation on wages of half-a-crown a week, or smuggling, or pilfering, to residence in workhouses : end hence the fearful increase of crime in those parts of the country where the Poor-law was in force. The condition to which matters were fast approaching, was that of disorganization; and Lord Stanhope emphatically warned the Peers of the danger to which men of property were thereby exposed.

In the debate which followed, Earl Stanhope was partially sup- ported by Lord IVYNFORD ; who expressed his disapprobation of some parts of the Poor-law, especially the bastardy clauses. These, be said, encouraged infanticide, to such a degree, that in some pari-hes in East Sussex, ache was informed, one in ten of the illegitimate children born during a period of sixty days bad been murdered. He did not, when called upon, mention the names of the parishes. Lord Wynford, however, though favourable to the amendment of the Poor-law, was altogether averse to the repeal.

The Peers who spoke in defence of the Poor-law, were Lords BROUGHAM, STRADBROKE, WHARNCLIEFE, COLCHEsTER, 'MELBOURNE, the Duke of RICHMOND, and the Bishop of CHICHF:STER ; but by far the most complete and elaborate reply to Earl Stanhope, was made by Lord Brougham ; of whose speech, occupying six columns of the Chronicle, only an outline can be given. Lord BitouonaNt complained, that Lord Stanhope was in the habit of taking the House by surprise with statements of particular instances of maleadministration of the Poor-law, to which, on time moment, no reply could be given by those who had never heard of them before ; while, on the present occasion, when a formal notice was given, and a regular discussion was to take place, he confined himself to general vituperation of the law and its administrators, taking care to advance nothing tangible or specific. By reference to numerous local acts, Lord Brougham showed that the powers given to the Poor-law Commissioners were not unprecedented, but on the contrary unusually limited, considering the nature of their duties ; that the regulations of workhouses were much more severe under Gilbert's Act, and several parochial Poor-laws, than under the new system ; that it was a gross misrepresentation to affirm that all out-door relief was prohibited ; the fact being, that to the sick and in- firm such relief was liberally afforded, and only denied to the indolent able-bodied; that the medical attendance was sufficient, and that no well-founded complaints on this bead came from the poor, though medical men, who could no longer draw money for doing nothing, did not like the new state of things. Lord Brougham referred to the at- tempt made to excite hostility among the people to the introduction of the law, and to the numberless charges, which could not bear examina- tion, brought by disappointed parties and defeated jobbers against the Commissioners. He quoted some of the most violent passages from the speeches of Oastler and Stephens in the North of England ; and remarked, that suck inflammatory harangues would be harmless in dis- tricts where the law was in operation, for in then, its success was almost universally acknowledged. He contrasted the vices of the old with' the benefits of the new system ; and earnestly declared, thut the object of the framers of the new law was to improve the condition of the poor, not to relieve the rich,—tbough, as a necessary consequence of good management, the rates had been diminished. He called upon the opponents of the law to abstain from vague abuse,"and bring forward, if they could, a motion for its repeal, supported by credible and proved charges of its mischievous effects.

A considerable portion of the Duke of RICHMOND'S speech was oc- cupied with a defence of himself against a statement published in the Times in a letter from a Mr. Rodgers of Devonshire Place. Mr. Rodgers bad quoted a passage from the evidence of a woman named Legge, given before the Ilouse of Commons Committee of last session, wherein the Duke of Richmond was charged with having told her in reply to a re- quest to leave the West Ilampnet workhouse, that the "living should rot go without the dead,"—alluding to some of her children who had died within the workhouse. The Duke denied, upon his honour, that he bad used such an expression ; and referred to other parts of the evi- dence to show that the woman was unworthy of credit. Of the general improvement in the condition of the labouring (gasses, the Duke, an active Magistrate and a Guardian of the poor in East Sussex, spoke in the highest terms. No hill had received the Royal assent which had done so much good to the morals of the country.

Lord Myrrounste stated, that :the return moved for could not be made without great trouble and inconvenience; and Lord Stanhope's motion was negatived.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

An immense number of petitions for the speedy abolition of slavery were presented in the House of Peers on Monday, by Lord BROUGHAM and others.

idpord Baouctinst introduced his bill for the entire abolition of the Apprenticeship system on the 1st of August next. He said, that if the Colonial Legislatures took measures which rendered the bill un- necessary, be would not proceed with it : time would be allowed to sseertain their proceedings before he pressed the bill.

The bill was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE, who presented a petition for the abolition of

the Apprenticeship system, said be felt bound to support its prayer. The Marquis of Smola, in presenting a similar petition, said that cir- cumstances, and the number of petitions in favour of the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship, induced him to agree fully with Lord Wharn- aft/. Lord BROUGHAM expressed great pleasure at these conversions. On Thursday, Lord LYNDHURST advised Lord Glenelg not to proceed with his bill till Lord Brougham's had been read a second time. He hoped at any rate that by adopting the bill the House would not be precItured from assenting to Lord Brougham's. Lord GLENELG replied, diet his measure was quite independent of Lord Brougham's, and he would certainly proceed with it at once. Lord BROUGHAM was glad to hear what fell from Lord Lyndhurst: it indicated disapprobation of Lord Glenelg's inefficient measure. He wished to correct a mistake which had been made relative to his own bill : he did not by any means intend to wait for intelligence from the colonies before proceeding with it ; though in the natural course of things, intelligence would be received from the West Indies before the measure had reached its last stage.

The Peers went into Committee on the Emancipation Act Amend- ment Bill. The first clause having been proposed,

The Marquis of SLIGO moved an amendment for the purpose of in- troducing the nine-hour system, under which the Negroes would cease to work at twelve o'clock on Friday for their masters, and have the remainder of that day and the whole of Saturday to themselves. He took the opportunity of stating, that recent advices from the West Indies had satisfied him of the impossibility of continuing the appren- ticeship, and that on the 1st of August next all the Negroes on his Own estate would be entirely free.

Lord Sligo's amendment was agreed to; and the remaining clauses of the bill passed with slight amendment. The Committee then rose.

MANUFACTURE OF FOREIGN CORN.

Colonel SEALE moved the Commons on Tuesday, to go into a Com- mittee of the whole House to consider a resolution, preparatory to the introduction of a bill to permit the grinding of foreign corn in bond, under certain regulations— The first would be a provision to empower the Commissioners of Customs to approve of the erection of certain buildings of a peculiar construction, for the bondage of foreign corn manufactured into flour. The second would be a pro- vision to enable the Commissioners to deliver foreign corn banded in this country to persons hiring or occupying such premises as be had already de- scribed, on the condition, that within a certain time—say two months—the corn so manufactured into flour should be exported from this country, or else should be delivered back into bonded warsehouses under the Queen's locks for exportation. The third would be a 'provision requiring further securities than those now required by law. The other provisions would contain penalties on persons who might be guilty of irregularities, or who might deviate from the law as it stood at present.

The Marquis of CHANDOS opposed the motion, as nothing less than a second edition of that lately made for the repeal of the Corn-laws.

Mr. WARBURTON stigmatized the resistance to the motion, as pure selfishness on the part of the landowners.

Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL would oppose the motion, because, under the proposed system, foreign corn might be fraudulently brought into the market without payment of duty.

Mr. POULETT THOMSON said, that tobacco and coffee were safe under the Queen's lock ; and the temptation to get tin m out of the Government warehouses was much greater, because the duty was so much higher than it would be to get corn out. Nothing was more common than to allow processes of manufacture to go on under the Qtieen's lock : for instance, metals were manufactured, and no fraud took place. He thought that sufficient securities might be taken to prevent the introduction of foreign corn on which no duty had been paid ; and would therefore support a motion undeniably advantageous to the parties who applied for it, though not, he believed, to the extent they imagined. Sir J. R. REID, Mr. LIDDELL, Lord SANDON, Mr. MANI plit Lies, Mr. A. CHAPMAN, Colonel Wows, Alderman THOMPSON ail— Mr. VILLIERS supported the motion. Colonel SIBTHORPE sad' PLImPrax opposed it. Mr. G. Pat.stra said, that if the bill every ship would leave this count:), with foreign flour and his* instead of English. Colonel RUSHBROOKE said, he would oppose tit bill, for he feared the "rogues in grain :" more was meant byse, measure than met the ear.

The House divided—

For going into Committee

Against it 127 92

The House went into Committee. The resolution was agreed and having been " reported," a bill, founded upon it, was ordered tOls' brought in.

INTERNATIONAL CdPYRIGHT.

.Mr. POULETT THOMSON moved for leave to bring in a bill to es. blish a system of international copyright. Mr. Thomson de6ca ed on the duty of affording protection to authors and their works, soneitsi the injustice and the loss they suffered for want of it— It was matter of notoriety that their works were pirated at once; that sooner were their productions sent to the press in this country, than the um: efforts were exerted to purloin proof-sheets for the purpose of sending then", America, France, Belgium, or Germany. Pirated editions were puhlishrds once in those countries, and transmitted forthwith to England ; by which means the authors were deprived of the fair fruits of their lahniir-Zof legitimate pecuniary rewards for which they were reasonably entitled tele,* It was equally well known, that the same system of piracy existed with rept/ to the works of authors in foreign countries; and that a work was no soar published in France than proof-sheets were despatched to Belgium, Am, pirated edition was immediately brought out, with which the Englikh foreign markets were at once inundated; and thus the foreign author as equally deprived of his fair and legitimate expectations of remuneration. 11, would take an instance of a work of fiction, lie found upon inquiry, tlii d the work of Travels in America, by Mrs. Trollope, no less than 15,000 copis had been printed in Paris, without the slightest benefit to the author, eitherin their sale or in that of the copyright. He might cite instances of the use description in the works of Mr. Bulwer ; but he would turn to work' ti greater importance—those of science, in reference to which this bill was par. ticularly necessary. There was Dr. Arnott's Elements of Ploysical &ince, a work of the greatest labour and pains, and for which everybody would situ the author was entitled to all the advantages the sale of copyright could brim him ; and yet he had been informed that there was not a village of two thus. sand inhabitants in the United States in which several copies of a pirate& edition were not to be found, for which the author never received one farthing, simply because there was no way of protecting the copyright. He might die instance Dr. Webster's Dictionary, which was published in the United State, and immediately pirated in England, for which editions the author received Is remuneration whatever, although a vast number of it were sold; and Dr. Richardson's Dictionary, published in England and pirated in the Coital States,—both works of great labour, merit, and expense, a single number coat. lag, he believed, three or four guineas. Thus, in one ease, the America work was sold BO cheap here that it was superseded by the English edition, and in the other the English work was sold so cheap in the United States thuit was entirely superseded by the American edition. The • evil was, that no sooner were works in the press, t through the means of bribery, sometimes to a consid copies of them from persons engaged in the printing department, for the pose of having them pirated in another country. Ooe of the last of Sir trel• ter Scott's works had actually been purloined in sheets here, and published the United States before it was published in London. It was pirated and oat to France in the same way, and published there also before the London editioo appeared. These were facts which showed that it was absolutely necessary, in justice to our own authors and to those of foreign countries, that some cheeks should be put to the present system. The coiSperation of the governments of foreign countries was plainly necessary to the success of any scheme for establishing a system of in. ternational copyright The only mode by which it could be done must baby adopting the principle of reciprocity. It would not do to pass one general law for putting all foreign countries on a footing of reciprocity, as the law of copyright varied so much in different countries. For instance, in France the copyright was secured tollie author for a certain number of years—he believed ten, in Prussia for that years, and in the United States for a much less period. What be should pro pose in the present bill was, that a power should be given to the Crown, much the same as under the reciprocity system, of making a treaty or convention with any foreign country for the protection of the copyright of authors of that count?!; and he should fix the maximum time to be given under the bill to the braes of the period of copyright in this country, or that the Crown shou'd hem powered to grant to any foreign authors protection for the sale of their iv rh for the same number of years that the foreign nation was willing to give fr protection of the works of our own authors. It was clear th it the Crown, Aug upon this principle, must have the power of prohibiting the importation, tote this country from foreign countries of pirated copies of wombs. Supposingi treaty was made with France for the protection of copyright for twenty yea; it would be necessary that the Crown should have the power of prohibiting the importation of pirated editions of the works of French authors. It would he no cessary to prevent altogether the importation of such editions of foreign %loth. The machinery by which this could be arranged would be of a very simple in. ture ; and these works, after the treaty wus completed, would he entered rep. larly at Stationers' Hall. The surreptitious introduction of the pirated works of French authors would he prohibited. These were the pi ineiples of the hia which lie had taken the liberty to propose; and after all the c000delor which he could give to the subject, he thought that the plan he proposed for tbe. protection of the works of our authors was the best that could be uilopied. course, if the bill passed, it would he his duty to obtain conventions with diet; countries to protect the copyright of English works ; and he was loolined think, that as soon as the machinery was ready there would be no dithorlo ID effecting the object in view ; and he should extremely rejoice if the irionoire..ut ceeded in affording protection to the works of our author s in toreign countruct Mr. DISRAELI doubted whether foreign governments would be brorgb, to acquiesce in the proposed scheme. English works were eireu far more extensively in France than French works in Erigland ; us4 the French booksellers would not consent to a measure u Mehl inn! interfere with a valuable portion of their trade. Sir BOW:Jai concurred with Mr. Disraeli. Lord JOHN RUSSFLL knew that t teD: ject had already attracted much attention in France anti the Liii States ; and he believed that the proposed bill would lead to i:■?1 lions very advantageous to literature and literary men,

_ord MAW

pect much advantage from the bill, for the reasons stated by

did notnDotiserxneli and Sir Robert Inglis. Alany English works were re- printed in2.eetzerland, but it happened rarely that a Swiss work was n eepublishe England. Mr. WARBURTON wished the interest of the public to be considered : lie do. ubted the wisdom of stopping the cir- culation of foreign works in this country at low prices. He appre- hended that great difficulty wottld be occasioned by the measures ce ssasy to prevent the smuggling of books. Mr. GOULBURN said, necessary emeasure would be difficult of execution— One of the points ts which struckhim the most forcibly, was the question in the event of England binding itself by means of a convention with wFirticeler'that country was to be bound nut to receive books from Belgium, the to- DIva ';hts of which belonged to England, but which had been improperly - "rid elsewhere; and also whether England was to bind itself to receive no eiTenatech 'Woks unless from Frame itself. That was one of the greatest diffi- hich suggested itself to his mind ; for those who for the benefit of their em elntie tes w,de pirated the works of others, would take care to mark the work which they pu bli;hed with the name of the country from which :t originally proceeded ; i-at the whole work would heir the strongest resemblance to the original, :d the greatest difficulty would be found in distinguishing the spurious from time genuine editions. With respect to the United States, he felt that a question would arise as to how far the Government of that country would feel itself em- powered to introduce any law by which a custom which had existed so long would be restrained or removed. In tins country, the acts of Parliament were necessarily binding on all parties; bat bow fur Congress could pass a law which should bind all the States, was a matter which must be considered. Mr. WAKLEY maintained, that literary men did not object to the publication of cheap editions of their works in foreign countries ; con- sidering the additional fame a recompense for every loss. He should like to have Dr. Arnott before a Committee, and ascertain his opinion On this subject. Mr. \Vitae hoped that nothing would be done to fetter the circulation of translations, which stood on a different footing from original works. Mr. HUME agreed with Mr. Warburton, and wished the principle of free trade to be applied to books its to other articles.

Mr. PoutErr Titoalsori admitted that many difficulties lay in his my, but he wished to make a beginning. Leave given to bring in the bill.

ADMINISTRATION OF TI1E LAW IN INDIA.

In a thin House of not more than 60 or 70 Members, Mr. WARD, OR Thursday, called attention to petitions from Calcutta and Madras, complaining of alterations made in 1836 by the Indian Legislative Council in the comes of law. In proof of the great interest excited by this subject in India, Mr. Ward stated, that the signatures of two hundred principal merchants, some of them Hindoo, of every Parsee merchant of standing or infleence, and of 1,400 British residents in thirty-two districts of Bengal, were attached to the petitions from Calcutta. The case of the co:nplainant was this. Previously to the passingof the Act of 1836 by the Indian Legislative Conseil, British. born subjects had a right of appeal from the Court of Sullies Dewany Adawiut to the Supreme Court at Calcutta. The Court of Sudder Donny Adawlut is composecUmostly of natives, learned in Persian and Mehometan law, but ignorant of English law and language, and notorious for their venality. 'Ile Supreme Court at Calcutta was established hi 1770, with extensive powers : before it even the acts of

might be questioned. It is composed solely of

,e are sevend itifsrior courts in IimEli;t, from all of an aeee ,1 lies to the Sudder Dewany Adawlut. The only -appeal fr., .■ the Supreme Court at Calcutta is to the Privy Council, in e as where the amount in dispute exceeds 4,000 rupees, Time :se of the Indian Legislative Council, called No. 11 of 1836, takes away the right of appeal from the Sudder De. einy Adawlut to the Supreme Court of Calcutta ; and thereby, the petitioners averred, subjected them to the grievance of being tried by a law writrcn in an unknown language, and by Judges prejudiced and venal. The power of the Legislative Council, tinder the last India Bill, to pass the law in question, Mr. Ward held to be doubtful; but, be that as it may, time law was regarded as an ularming attack on their privileges by the British residents in !Julia, und they prayed the

interference of the British Parliament in their behalf. To Mr. Macaulay Mn. Ward attributed the authorship of the law; and he ex- pressed his regret that Mr. Macaulay bad not attended more strictly to his instruations, which directed him to use extreme caution in alter. ing any of the established institutions of India. Alt. Ward concluded his statement by moving for

"A Sslect Comnmittee, to inquire into the allegations contained in the peti- tions from Madras and Calcutta, and to leport to the House in what manner and to what extent the act of the Indian Legislative Council. entitled No. 11 of i3i3, affeetr the constitutional rights of British-born inhabitants of India, the prerogative of the Crown, and the interests of the United Empire."

The motion having been put and seconded,

Sir JOHN flomiouse replied. He denied that in point of fact the petitioners had any grievance. He had received a letter from India eating that the Black Act, as it was called, had never been heard of— it was forgotten and dead—till revived by Mr. Turton in a letter from London. The residents of Calcutta and Madras were n3t at all affected by it, for it applied only to the interior. So little had the right of Weal. the loss of which was noW represented as so great a grievance, been valued, that during the whole period it had existed, from 1813 to IS:36, it had only been exercised twice. In the discussion on the India Bill, the neccs,ity of passing some such law as that complained of was admitted on all sinks ; and Sir John Hobliouse quoted passages from the speeches of Mr. Wynn, Mr. Cutler Ferguson, Mr. Charles Buller, find Mr. Warburton, in support of this assertion. It was also I e universal opinion, that Englishamen should be put as far as possible

oa the same footine as Hindus's. In Trinidtel, Bethke, and the

Mauritius they weren But in I subject to the same laws and courts us the natives. it la, such was not the ease as long as they could threatett the Poor native with time jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and an appeal thence to the English Privy Council. The expense of proceedings in the Supreme Court was terrific—three times what it was in West- ispiater Hull. To talk of the necessity of protecting Eoglishmen in ladle from the natives, was absurd—the difficulty was to find a native tirehno would look an Englishman in the face. It was also a misrepre-

Wiwi to affirm, as the petitioners did, that questions relating to

Shim inheritance and the marriage of British inhabitants, were decided by venal and ignorant judges; for on all matters exclusively affecting the English, the Supreme Court was still open, and they might ruin them- selves there as heretofore. But when Englishmen went abroad, they must not expect to carry Westminster Hall with them ; they must submit to the established laws of the country in which they settled. He maintained that the India Act gave the Legislative Council power to pass the law in question ; which did not proceed from the Law Commission, or from Mr. Macaulay, in any other way than as an _ Assistant Councillor to the Governor-General. Instead of the mod°s for a Committee of Inquiry, Sir John Hobliouse said he should move " That the minutes of the Council, on which was founded the Legis- lative Act, No. 11, of 1836, should be printed." There was, he eon- tended, no use in aompointing a Committee; as, except Mr. Turton, who had told all he knew in a pamphlet, the other witnesses who could give information—Lord William Bentinck, Mr. Hogg, Sir Charles Grey, and Mr. Cutler Fergusson—were Members of the House.

Sir CHARLES GliEY complained with some bitterness of Sir Joint Hobhouse's remarks on the Supreme Court of Calcutta, over which he had presided. There had been but few appeals to the Supreme Court; but the reason wits, that the right of appeal belonged only to the de- fendant. If Sir John Hobbouse had known a little more about India,_ ifhe had acquired experience which be never could obtain except by living in India,—he would never have represented the merchants of Calcutta and Madras as parties having no interest in the compositioa of the courts of justice in the interior. Did be suppose that the mer- chants of Calcutta bad DO concerns in the provinces of Bengal—that they never travelled or traded there ? Sir Charles doubted the autho- rity of the Legislative Council to pass the law of 1836. That was a point which he could not settle as easily as Sir John Hobbouse. But though admitting that the subject required consideration, he was ad- verse to inquiries and teports by Committees, which fettered the Exe- cutive, and seldom produced practical advantage. lie fervently wished for a better tribunal to control the inferior courts in the East Indies. the West Indies, and the North American Colonies ; but, for time rea- sons he had stated, he could not vote for Mr. Ward's Committee.

Mr. HOGG. Sir JAMES CARNAC, Mr. \Vests, Mr. VERNON Sums, and Mr. ELLIOTT addressed time House. The general feeling was that Englishmen in India must submit to the disadvantages attached to living under the same laws as the natives. Mr. WARD briefly replied; and withdrew his motion. It does not appear from the printed Votes of the House that Sir John llobhouse's amendment was put.

SHERIFF-COURTS IN SCOTLAND.

Mr. WALLACE moved, on Thursday, for a Select Committee, " To inquire into the nature and extent of the duties performed by the thirty Stipendiary Sheriffs inn Setitland, who are paid out of the Exchequer ; also, ions the nature and extent of the duties pedestaled by fifty-two Stipendiary Substi- tutes of the aforesaid Sam itTs, who are also paid out of the Exchequer ; and to report how fir it will he advisabla to continue the system of perfoltniug by deputy the duties of Sheriffs in Scotland.'' The object of the motion was to improve the administration of jus- tice in Scotland, and to save a sum of weney for the public. Thv Sheriffs of Scotland did all their work by deputy-- There were thirty of thin-c gentlemen, and they Lad no less than fif,y.ty,C deputies ; thus s,rdI g the country with eiglity a us o Judges. lie was riot op- piiseni to the -alai lie would cure little kr them ; it o as the system he ob- jected to, as being a inest viehrits and tinprineipled one—it was a co-Nardi:, one —it was cowardly in the e\treine, and therfote it was un.szeotmish. What he demanded was, that the 3 itilries should sit in their OWII 011111-110114e9; that they should not aet hy deputy, but act as all other judges did by sitting in an opera court, hearing witues-es, and having counsel ',Jaw them to Logue poiotsof law, and so deeidiug the chases brought before them in a fair and open mummer. It was sumeeed by many that these county Judges were not well and amply remunerated for their labour. He held a report in his hand frout which it ap- pealed, that the Won:riff of the county of Abel deco had 590/., while his deputy had a salary of t491. ; thus saddling the county with an expeuse se 9691. The Sheriff of Argyle had a salary of 54s1. ; he had four deputies; and the county, for these five gentlemen, was saddled with an expense exceeding 1,500/. Is each county ill Setulaind there was more paid from the public Exchequer than in the richest and largest county in England. In Ayr, the Judge, who decided nothing, had 660/. a year, and the substitute 869/. ; and the whole county had 1,029/. a year. In 13,1wiek, the Judge had 4191. ; the whole county 1,0651. a year. lu Dunharton, the county had 1,059/. a year. Looking through the whole of the counties in Scotland, 13,4291. was received by those who did no duty; while, on the other hand, those who did the duty, and had been most unjustly aspersed by some 31eilibers of that House for want of knowledge and integrity, whereas all the knowledge was oa their side, they received an equally large num. Mr. Wallace knew this subjeet was net a nery agtecahle one to the House. lie pledged himself, that if the House granted an inquiry, it should be a short one, lie pledged himself to bilOW, that the ShafT, wete not only uselesin, but the causes of a very vicious system, which ought to be entirely done away with, lie had no doubt, also, that it would save the country from I 4,000/. to 15,004. a year ; and that there would also 1.t.• a better administration of justice, oue more agreeable to the rople, and more consonant to common sense.

The motion was supported by Mr. Heats: and by Mr. WARBURTON', ho expressed strope disapprobation of the system of deputy judges.

It was opposed my' Mr. J. A. AIunitee, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, Mr. Holten' STEUART, Mr. INGHAM, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on the ground diet the present system gave satisfaction in Scotland ; that it, was economic ml; and that all the necessary information was already before time House.

Mr. Wele.eci; replied, that the system was detested all over Scot-

land, and On Willi! but lawyers could found to stand up in its

defence. Mr. Mummy and Sir Jelin Campbell night think it popular, for they leaved in the circle benefited by it ; but he was ready to go into ally contary.town in Scotlaild and ascertain the true state of opinion un the subject.

The House divided— For the motion ID Against it 53

Majority 34 MISCELLANEOUS.

COMMAND OF THE IRISH Pottex. In the House of Lords, OZ. Monday, thelEarl of 11.liaseow asked Lord Melbourne, if it was true that Colonel Shaw Kennedy had resigned the appointment of chief officer of the Irish Police? Lord MELBOURNE said that Colonel Ken- nedy had resigned. In reply to another question from Lord WICKLOW, Lord MELBOURNE declined to produce the correspondence between the Irish Government and Colonel Kennedy relative to the negotiation, as such correspondence was necessarily of a confidential nature.

NEW WRITS. In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. E. J. STANLEY moved for a new writ for the borough of Devizes, in the room of Captain Deans Dundas, who had accepted the office of Clerk of the Ordnance. On Tuesday, a new writ was ordered for Sudbury, in the room of Sir Edward Barnes, deceased.

LORD DURHAM'S Mrsstote. The Marquis of CHANDOS asked Lord John Russell, whether a return of the Canada appointments made by Lord Durham would be laid on the table ; and whether a return of the expenses of Lord Gosford's mission had been made out ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that as soon as Lord Durham's esta- blishment was completed, the return mentioned by Lord Chandos should be produced. He had conversed with Lord Durham on the subject ; and the noble Lord had stated certain grounds for applying to the Colonial Office to report on that subject. The return of the expenses of Lord Gosford's mission was in the hands of the Chancel.. lor of the Exchequer.

CONDUCT OF CARLOW MAGISTRATE:S. On Wednesday, Mr. Vt. citts presented a petition from " James Fox and others," inhabitants of Carlow county, praying the interference of the House in their be-

half against the illegal and oppressive proceedings of certain Carlow Magistrates. The petitioners stated that they are to be tried for per-

jury at the next emitting sessions, on the prosecution of Captain Vignolles; haying given evidence in a recent investigetion into the Captain's conduct, which ended in the said Captain's removal from the county in which he had been a Stipendiary Magistrate; that Captain Vignolles, and Mr. Watson, a Magistrate, are to be tried fur an assault at the same et. ,ions; and that several Carlow Magistrate, including the said Watson, have met and struck off 3.55 out of 663 ;I Imes on the jurylists, taking care to leave on the list a large majority of Orangemen and Tories. This proceeding is in violatimi of the law, which decrees that notices shall be set ved on the high conetables before any names are removed from the list. Air. Vizors geve notice that he should cull the attention of the house to this petitiun on Wednes- day next. EI.LeTION PLTITIONS.

On Monday, the Reading Election Committee reported that Mr. Fyshe Palmer was duly elected.

On the some day, Mr. Vigors and Mr. Yates were reported to Le duly elected for Carlow County.

A similar report, confirming the election of Mr. Finch, was also made by the Walsall Committee.

On Tut•.•!.iy. Sir ROBERT P1113, reported from the E .ha rn Com- mittee, diet Mr. George Rushout and 1491d Marcus 11111 were t.nly elected for Evesham ; uleo, " That Peter llortliwie.k, Esquire, was giii:ty of kiliery at tl.c said election."

[There seems to have been no wish on the part of the petitioners to have Mr. Borthwiek declared guilty of bribery, and thereby to exclude

him from sitting in the present Parliament. Alter 1,, rd Alarms, Hill was in a nisei)) ity of one vote, the agent of Al r. Borthwick aban- doned the scrutiny and the seat ; and Mr. A ustiii, tom Mirth)) ick's behalf, applied for leave to intoduce evidenve, whivh he as-ured the Committee would prove distinctly that the present et a snutT box to a voter, on which alone the charge of bribery was founded, was not in fact a bribe. Mr. Borthwick's legal advisers hid considered the point of no importance, or they would have completely rebutted the charge. Mr. Cockburn, for Lord Marcus llill, -.aid he had nothing personally to offer ugainet Mr. Borthwick, and would make no opposi- tion whatever to Mr. A uetin's application. Mr. Pm-einem, one of the Committee, said that the Ile:wick Committee lied 3 bided to a similar application. Sir Homer Pete., speaking for huneelf, not for the Committee, neverthelees " felt bound to say. that if any injustice had been done, it was not the fault of the Committee." Mr. Austin fully admitted that the mistake was with Mr. Borthwiek's counsel ; who many were not aware that the Committee were deliberating on the question of bribery, and were surprised by the decision of the Com- mittee when it was made. lu reply to a question from Mr. Childers, Mr. Austin said, that only on the previous day, the Shaftesbury Com- mittee reheard a ease they had decided. The Evesham Committee, however, after consulting, decided not to hear further evidence.]

The Youghall Committee reported that Mr. Frederick Howard was duly elected.

A Committee was appointed to try the petition against the return for Kerry County.

Liberals-6; Tories-5;

Mr. Wrightson, Mr. Pluniptre,

Mr. Pinuey, Sir John Mordauut,

Mr. Hayter, Abe Cripps, Mr. Phillpotts, Mr. Chapman, Lord Meigun1, Mr. Mackenzie. Mr. Pc Ire.

The petitioner is Mr. Frederick Mullins, a Liberal, against Mr. Blennerhassett, the Tory sitting Member. On Thursday, the Committee reported that Mr. Blennerhasset was duly elected.

„ The Newry Committee was chosen on Tuesday.

Liberals-3;

Sir George Staunton, Mr. J. II. Vivian,

Mr. C. It. AL Talbot.

Doektit/-1; Sir (-lades Lemon.

Tories-7 ;

Mr. Alderman Copeland, Sir John Buller, Air. Adam!, Lord Barrington, Lord Teignmouth, Mr. Joseph Bailey,

On Thursday, the Committee reported that Mr. Ellis the'',

Member, had been duly elected. ativi

The Tumworth Committee was chosen on Thursday.

Liberal--1; 7bries—l0;

General Sharpe. Lord Powerscourt, Mr. Broadwood, Sir Charles Vere, Mr. Irving,

Mr. Foley, Alderman Thompson, General Lygon, Lord Barrington, Mr. St. Paul, Mr. Houston.

The petition is against the return of the Tory Captain A'Cautt,

BILLS READ A FIRST TIME IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

March 20 International Copyright. Mr. Poin.zzz Tiionsox. 21 G rat Nieto' Cemetery.

Margate Improvement.

Ui blot mid F. 'trim Railway.

High Sheriffs (to regulate the office of High Sheriff In Nina tel Wales )

22 Ilaileybury College (to enable the Board of Control to make:lila for the College). Sir 301IN }1011110USS.

BILLS READ A SECOND TIME.

Nareft 19.. Mutiny Bite Lord Ilowictc. Annual indemnity. 21 Lord's Day. Mr. PLUMPFRE. Election Exiwnses. Mr. llomz.

SECOND READINGS DEFERRED.

19 Scotch Prisons. To 4111 April. 22 Bribery at Elections. To 2Silt March.

THIRD READING DEFERRED.

21 Cornet.%) Fields Improvement. To 2Stli March. Lord %um awl Mr. l'avssz.

BII.L WITHDRAWN.

21 Common Fields Enclosure. Lord WORSLEY suit Mr. Pares