Mbates anb Vroutbingsin illarliament.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Boum Ow LORDS. Monday, May 21. Firing at the Queen—Navigation Bill, de- bated In Committee: Lord Stanley's amendment on the 1st clause rejected—Adjourned at 121,. 45m. (Tuesday morning.) Tuesday, May 52. Episcopalians In Scotland : Peti- tion presented by Lord Brougham, and debated—Adjourned at 9h. 55m. Thursday, May 24. Accommodation of the Rouse : Report of Committee, recommending experi- ments—Navigation BM, passed through Committee—Adjourned at 10 h. 54 m. Fri- day, May 25. Interchange of visits between Parts and London—ProtectiOn Of Women Bill, debated and read a second time—Adjourned at 6h. 45 m., for the Whitsuntide holydays, till Monday the 4th of June.

[Time occupied In the four sittings, 20 h. 19 m.

since the beginning of the Session, 133 h. 54 M.]

HOUSE OP COMMONS. Monday, May 21. Firing at the Queen—Irish Encumbered Estates Bill, passed through Committee—Landlord and Tenant BM, considered as amended in Committee—Charitable Trusts Bill, read a second time—Adjourned at ills. Tuesday, May 22. The Derby Day—Duration of Parliaments : Mr. Ten- nyson D'Eyncourt's motion, debated, and carried against Ministers, by 46 to 4I—Ad- journed at 8 h. 15m., until Thursday. Thursday, May 24. Vote by Ballot: Mr. Henry Berkeley's motion for leave to bring in a bill, debated and negatived—Colonial Government: Mr. Roebuck's motion for leave to bring in a bill, debated and negatived —Exclusion of Strangers: Colonel Thompson's motion to reconsider it—Irish Encum- bered Estates BM, read a third time and passed—Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt's Bill to shorten the duration of Parliaments brought In, and read a first time—Adjourned at 12 h. 45 m. Friday, May 25. Question respecting the Financial Statement—Irish Dis- tress—Supply on Navy Estimates—Army Estimates—Adjourned at 9h. 30m., for the Whitsuntide holydays to Thursday the 31st May.

[Time occupied In the four sittings, 25 h. 30m.

since the beginning of the Session, 539h. 39 m.3

OUTRAGE ON THE QUEEN.

In both Houses of Parliament, on Monday, some brief notice was taken of "the unfortunate occurrence which had taken place within tha last forty-eight hours."

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed, that there are offences so odious and disgusting, and yet so paltry, that it is impossible to speak of them with the seriousness their malignity deserves and the contempt which their purpose excites in every mind. All that their Lordships need be informed of was, that the inquiry which bad been made concerning the offence corn— mined against her Majesiy's person on Saturday evening had not disclosed any circumstances which justified a commitment for high treason. Had such circumstances been disclosed, it would have been the instantaneous and unanimous wish of their Lordships to go to her Majesty's throne with the expression of their-abhorrence of the nature of such a design. In the present case, "life has not been endangered"; and the commitment has been for a simple misdemeanour, under the aqt of 1842, which appears sin- gularly adapted to meet the atrocious offence and its contemptible motive. He had to state that he should not propose any address by their Lordships on the subject; but that the offender should be left to reap the punishment which he merits unnoticed, and without that importance which he may perhaps have sought to obtain. Lord STANLEY entirely concurred in this course. If there were any subject on which it was fitting to congratulate her Majesty, it would be—rather than for her escape from any danger— that "when it was supposed that an individual had made an attack upon her Majesty's person, the result was to call forth from every individual pre- sent an expression of indignation and vengeance, to which the unhappy culprit very narrowly escaped being sacrificed." Lord BROUGHAM also approved this course; which seemed to be in harmony with the universal sentiment among the Peers. In the House of Commons, Lord JOHN RUSSELL made a similar an- nouncement; which met with the same reception. Lord John added his admiring tribute to her Majesty's "usual intrepidity and self-possession." THE NAVIGATION BILL.

In the Lords' Committee on the Navigation Bill, on Monday, Lord STANLEY moved an amendment to the first clause; and in explaining its intended operation, he indicated the general course he would take at this stage of the bill. The principle of his amendment was similar to that of Lord Wharncliffe: he said that the establishment of reciprocity should be preliminary to the possession of any of the relaxations of the Navigation- laws by any foreign country. He would not make it obligatory upon the Government to confer the advantages of reciprocity on every foreign country; but, under certain restrictions, he would enable her Majesty, by order in Council, to authorize the importation of certain goods into the United Kingdom in the ships of any foreign country willing to concede to the ships of this country reciprocal privileges and advantages. The difference, therefore' between himself and her Majesty's Government, was not as to the principle, but as to the modus operandi. Her Majesty's Government would first repeal, then reenact, and then retaliate upon foreign countries. As to the modifications and restrictions contained in the present bill, though there was a great difference of opinion between himself and her Majesty's Government, yet it was a difference not of principle but of degree; because, whilst her Majesty's Government, on the one hand, was anxious to amend the laws for the encourage- ment of British shipping and navigation, his friends, and he along with them, were on the other band willing especially after the decision of a former evening, to enter into the discussion oethar bill, to admit their principle of improving British commerce and navigation, and to consider how far modifications might be intro- duced into the existing laws, and how far their must stringent prohibitions might be relaxed. The objectof his motion this night was not to dispute the affirmation of the principle affirmed by their Lordships the other night; the minority would bow (though very nearly being a majority) to the opinion, constitutionally expressed according to the privileges of their Lordships' House, of that which constituted a majority of the House: they would enter upon the discussion of these laws, and admit that it was fitting they should receive -amendment, and that the Home should ascertain what were the precise grievances to which a practical remedy might -be applied by an alteration of the law ; admitting, too, that it was their bounden duty to est commerce free from all unnecessary restrictions; limiting that duty only by theitigher consideration of what was due to higher and more im- portant.interests,aamely, tbe--abipning and navigation of this country. He stated the practical 'changes he proposed --to introduce as compared with those proposed by the -Government. First, with regard to European goods: at present, no enumerated goods the produce of Europe—the enu- merated goods being the more important articles of commerce—can be itn_ ported into this country in any ships but those of this country and those of the country which produces " or " exports the goods.

A Swedish vessel may bring Russian goods from Sweden, but not from RiFsia. He proposed to make it competent to her Majesty in Council,-if she should think fit, to enter into reciprocal engagements with any countries of Europe as to the importation of European goods, provided that she obtained from those countries equal privileges and an actual and sufficient equivalent for British shipping. He proposed to make those orders in Council revocable from time to time; for it might be that the actual effect of what was called reciprocity might be found to be to drive us out of a European trade by reason of the advantages possessed by some country, with which it might be unadvisable to enter into or continue such an engagement, whereas with other countries, where the reciprocity was not no- minal but real, there might be no such objection. Secondly, with regard to Asiatic, African, and American produce: goods the produce of these quarters of the globe can come to this country in any ships except those of this country, and those of the country which produces, " and" exports the goods. Now as the great bulk of the countries in Asia, Africa, and America, have little or no shipping of their own, the prac- tkal effect of the law is that this "long voyage" trade is in our own bands almost as exclusively as the trade of our Colonies. He ought to mention, that "no ship," not even a British one, can import the produce of these quarters of the globe from any European port; the object being to insure to us the great warehousing system now established in our own ports. He thought it important to adhere in the main to the-law securing the "long voyage" trade, which the Government proposes to surrender wholly to such rivals as the United States: but the other restrictions—against im- ports by British ships of Asiatic, African' and American goods, from Euro- pean ports—might have been pushed too far. The case of cochineal was certainly a hardship and a grievance. We having little traffic with the Canary Islands, it was impossible to keep up the import of that article direct; yet if the article were brought to Spain, it was not competent to us to receive it even in British vessels, though it lay at our doer. He should propose to apply to Asia, Africa, and America, the principle hitherto applied to Europe of "the enumerated articles"; making an enumeration of those bulky and large articles upon which the restriction should still be maintained, but with regard to other articles making the same relaxation that now prevailed with the European trade, allowing them to be imported in British ships, or ships of the countries in which they were found, and giving her Majesty power to allow them to be brought in vessels of third countries with which she should obtain equal re- ciprocity.

In addition, he proposed as an object of paramount importance, to con- fine a British register to a ship British-built. These amendments Lord Stanley supported by brief arguments of a general and familiar nature; chiefly directed to sho* the danger of rashly tampering with so enormous an interest, and eSpecially the danger bf ad- mitting, to rivalry in.our "indirect" trhde, so formidable a competitor as the Mated. States which already engross sonic two-thirds of the "direct" carrying trade between her own ports-and the ports of tbiaeountry. He protested against offensive retaliation, and advocated the more amicable and courteous mode of offering boons at the price of corresponding advan- tages; but he also protested that we have no business to be magnanimous and generous: "if we are to carry on our commercial business," we ought to carry it on upon the "commercial principle" of "giving nothing for nothing." He proposed, therefore, now, to insert words which, without committing their Lordships to details' would bring the question to issue. He proposed to insert words in the first clause which would make it begin by declaring, "that in case it should be made to appear to her Majesty that any foreign country was willing to concede the ships of this country the like privileges and advantages as were enjoyed by or intended to be conferred on the ships of such foreign country, or advantages equivalent thereto, it should be lawful for her Majesty from time to time, by order in Council, to be published and revocable as hereinafter mentioned, to authorize and declare as follows." So Oat the House would not be bound to his specific modification, but would only affirm or negative the modus operandi—whether andi—whether it should be by granting a boon n the first instance and by retaliation in case of need, or by power to enter into reciprocity treaties. That was the question to which alone in the first instance he addressed himself, and which alone in the first instance he put for the determination of the House. Earl GREY contrasted Lord Stanley's statement of the nature of his amendments, made on Friday last, with their actual tenour as now propounded. On Friday, Lord Stanley stated that the alterations be proposed would be alterations of principle—his view and that of the Government were wide apart, and he could not conceal that he proposed moving amendments which went to the very principle of the bill: he now informed their Lordships that the question was not one of principle, but of degree—it was only the modus operandi which their Lordships would have to consider. It appeared, however, that his first view of his own amend- ments was the correct one. Lord Grey commented on the machinery of Lord Stanley's proposal. He proposed to insert words in the clause with- out omitting words at present in the clause which would be utterly incon- sistent with them.

According to all Parliamentary usage, when an amendment is proposed, the form of it is to omit the words objected to, for the purpose of inserting other words. This course, however, the noble Lord would not take, although the in- sertion of the noble Lord's amendment would not make grammar with the rest of the clause as it stood ; and therefore, if the amendment were carried the existing words in the clause must be omitted. Why had the noble Lord departed from the usual Parliamentary practice? The reason was simple: it was because the noble Lord thought that, as there was likely to be a close division, some three or four Peers might hesitate, after the bill had been agreed to on the second reading, before striking out at one blow the whole principle of the measure ; and he there- fore thought it more advantageous to take the division on a question of insertion rather than one of omission.

On the general question of form, too, Lord Stanley's course was not the reason- able and proper or the usual course. Even to secure his own object—the substi- tution of one mode of proceeding for another—the course justified by the practice of all modern legislation as most convenient, was that proposed by Ministers—the coarse of repealing all existing enactments, sweeping away whatever existed, and then on a clear field rcEnacting the new law by a single enactment. Lord Stan- ley, however, proposed to leave the existing law in force, and to add to its present complication certain other complicated arrangements. Here too his governing meson was obvious: if he had proceeded by repealing and then reenacting, he would have been compelled to desert those vague generalities on which he had so much relied, and to come to close quarters in justification of each particular restriction that he wished to maintain—would have had to reconcile such anomalies as the delusion of corn except it come by British or privileged ships, at the same mo- ment with the admission of the same corn in the shape of flour in any ship; and the similar exclusion _of wool, and contradictory admission of the same wool as amanufactured goods.?

Lord Grey felt obliged, by this evasive system of treating the question, to go over the general subject; and he accordingly reviewed its general bear- ings, in reply to stieh general arguments as had been advanced; especially combating the alleged clanger of American competition, and exposing the inconsistency of the Colonial exception which Lord Stanley had hinted he should propose at a future stage—the exception in favour of Canada.

Lord STANLEY—" We are not come to that yet."

Earl GREY, disregarding the interruption went into this part of the subject at some length, with the object of showing, that if the American competition were to be dreaded and not encouraged anywhere, it would surely be he this case; but that nevertheless the alteration which Lord Stanley proposed would only be a benefit to American ships, with little

benefit in. proportion to the Canadian shipper. .

Lord WHARNCLIFFE briefly explained his objections to Lord Stanley's amendments.

He maintained that those amendments, so far from being merely amendments, comprising a difference with respect to the mode of procedure, contained pro- visions so utterly mid entirely at variance with the whole spirit and principle of the bill, that it was impossible for any one who voted for the second reading to support those alterations. Instead of simplifying the operation of the bill, they would have the effect of doubling its complexity. He had voted for the second reading of the bill, alba in no subsequent stage of the measure should he support any proposition to interfere materially with the principle of the measure. When the proper time came, he should explain the motive of his own amendment; whim he hoped, if adopted by their Lordships, would place that clause of the bill to which it referred on a better footing than it now stood.

The Earl of ELearneortouGet felt that there were very serious consti- tutional objections to doing that by order in Council which could be done by act of Parliament: it was a novel system of modern times, not ta be fol- lowed. Of the courses open to the House, he could hardly see how any Peer could hesitate to adopt Lord Stanley's exaendment, as best carrying the House to the object which all parties had in view.

The bill was also opposed by the Earl of IlannownY, Lord Con- CHESTER, and Lord BROUGHAM: II WAS supported by Earl GRANVILLE, the Marquis of- CLANEICARDE, Earl FITZWILLIAM, and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE: the farginnents of all the speakers being of that general cha- racter for and against protection which need no repetition in our columns.

The Committee -rejected Lord Stanley's amendment, by 1.16 to 103; majority for Ministers, 13. The House then resumed. Lord STANLEY said, after the decision the Committee had just come to, he would not offer any further opposition to the repeal of the 8th and 9th Victoria, c. 88, which he wished merely to see amended. He would, however, have some observations to offer on other provisions of the bill.

On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the Committee was ordered to sit again on Thursday.

On Thursday, the Earl of ELLENDOROL,GH moved an amendment, to substitute the year 1851 for 1850. The speech in which he supported this etartendment"-Mikerised.some geneeal arguments- against the- nraannee but in`suPport of the partiCular amendment he suggested, that more time would be required to 'make arrangements for carrying the measure into effect,—to make new treaty arrangements with foreign nations; to devise drawbacks in favour of the British shipowner, who pays greater taxes than the Foreign shipowner; to alter the system of appointing masters in British vessels, &e. The 'amendment was opposed by Earl GREY, Lord \Yeutter- CLIFFE, and Earl Gueervieae ; and on a division it WU negatived, by 57 to 44.

Earl WeenuGelevu proposed another amendment, to omit the part re- pealing a portion of the Ship Registration Act; his object being to refuse British registration to foreign-built ships, and to continue a protection to British shipbuilders. This amendment was supported by the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND, Earl CADOGAN, Lord COLCHESTER, Earl TALBOT, the Earl of Hannowier, and Lord STANLEY; opposed by the Earl of MINT°, the Earl of ELLESMERE, Earl GRANVILLE, and Lord Gaut On a division, it was negatived, by 49 to 37. Lord STANLEY now declared an alteration of his course- " Perceiving that her Majesty's Government and their allies have the extre- mes assistance of a not very numerous portion of your Lordships' House,—a por- tion of which, though I wish to speak with all respect, I must say that the mo- tives of their conduct are perfectly incomprehensible, seeing that they compensate for the manner in which they speak of her Majesty's Government out of doers by the steadiness of their support within the House,--pereeiving that the Govern- ment and their allies are determined to carry into operation all they intend by this bill, and seeing their determination to resist, and that, by the assistance to which I adverted, they are enabled to resist successfully all modifications that may be suggested, I shall not waste my own nor your Lordships' time by exciting discussions which can lead to no practical good." He proceeded to make a few runarks on the amendments which he would have moved; at the same time stating that this was probably the last occasion on which he should trouble the House daring the progress of' the measure.

The first clause was ordered to stand part of the bill; and the Cernmite tee proceeded to the other clauses.

On coming to the tenth, Lord Wetameer..rene announced tbsithe should not move the amendment of which he had given notice,--ammely, " the emission of the reciprocity clauses, giving powers of retaliation, for the pur- nese of substituting other provisions in lieu thereof." The state and aspect Of the House warned him that he had no prospect of carrying his amend- Meet, and that it was not worth while to press it. The remaining clauses of the bill were agreed to.

COLONIAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. ROEBUCK, in moving for leave to bring in a bill "for the better go- tenement of certain of our Colonial Possessions," referred to his book, the Caanfes of England, as explaining the opinions he held on the subject, and the principles he wished to embody in an act of Parliament.

He very rapidly traced the history of English Colonies, to illustrate the hap- manner in which our Colonial empire has grown up. He desired the em- Pie to be not the possession of barren wastes "on which the sun never sets," but series of happy communities, willing and loving subjects of this realm. He criticized the conduct of those who, on every occurrence of misery, in Ireland as elsewhere, cried out "Let us colonize—let us have emigration,' and think it enough to ship off hundreds of their countrymen into distant wilds, reckless of their ultimate fate. Emigration by itself is misery. It is no business of a go- vernment to transport men from their own country: bat it is the business ot a government to make a state peaceful and secure ; and if they could by wise re- gulations lay the foundation for any system under which people should volun- tarily emigrate, they would act wisely, providently, honestly, humanely. He wanted a system which provided for the extension of new settlements, with proper law and protection. The circumstances of the Colonies differ so much that no rule can be applied to all of them : the West India Co- lonies, with a slave population converted into free Blacks, cannot be lumped with Canada under a uniform rule. His bill should have re- fereuee to the North American Colonies, South Africa, Australia, and he would, also include New Zealand. There should be one system of law for settling colo- nies, another system for them when they were settled, and lastly a third system for colonies in confederation or union. It is not tribute but trade that we may now expect from our colonies; therefore all our legislation and laws ought to be framed so as to facilitate, encourage, aid, and direct their settlement. He con- trasted the rapid formation of territorial States under the law of the American Union, and the continuance of desert wilds in the British territory; the rise of the magnificent State of Ohio with its 1,500,000 of people, and the slow increase of the British population which scarcely exceeds the natural increase of mankind. The wretched system under which our Colonies have hitherto been.managed must be put an end to. He proposed to give the Colonies self-government associated with metropolitan union by having Governors appointed by the Crown. [The plan was explained in the Spectator last week, in a notice of Mr. Roebuck's book.] Need he point out to the House how different was the manner in which a colony was formed at present from that which he now proposed? See how New Zealand had been dealt with by the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Offiee. The noble Lord proposed a bill for the government of New Zealand; which was pissed by Parliament, although probably not twenty Members of that House ever read it. The bill was sent out to the. colony; the Governor sent it back, saying that he did not like it; and then this very Colonial Secretary, who would not permit the least intervention in his mode of governing the Colonies, all of a sudden found out that he had been in the wrong, and brought in another bill to cancel the con- stitution which he had cooked for the colony ! This was a specimen of what was commonly called statesmanship. Commenting further on the New Zealand ease, Mi. Roebuck observed, that all these untoward circumstances were the result of our being without any settled rule for the government of our Colonies. He re- collected that when he and the noble Secretary for the Colonies sat on the Oppo- sition benches, no one approved more loudly than the noble Lord the attacks which he was accustomed to direct against the system of Colonial misgovernment; but no sooner was the noble Lord installed in the Colonial Office than his zeal for the reformation of Colonial abuses evaporated. Mr. Roebuck cited the case of Canada. Many years ago, sitting in the place which he now occupied, he told the House what would be-the result of doing away with the constitution of Lower Canada. There was a desire to swamp he Lower Ca- nadians. It was thought by that means that they would have an obedient Par- liament; but he told them that the vast majority of the French Canadians would be united with the Democratic party in Upper Canada, and that in place of an obedient Parliament they would find themselves overwhelmed with a power they could not control. The result had been just as he had predicted. And why 7— Because they always legislated for existing times. They were always driven to legislation and government by immediate and pressing difficulties; they never laid down a rule by which all those difficulties might be easily got rid of. What did the Americans say ? " The moment they are annexed, the two Colonies will be separated into different States. The French will be under their own Legisla- ture, the Upper Canadians will be under their own Legislature; and the Lower Canadians mast go on in the same way they did before." He felt confident that they would go on from day to day putting off the mischief, until at length the ....evil would occur that the Canadians evouhi. demand to be -an independent people, and they would throw themselves on the United States for support. That support would be given. If we resisted it, it would be by war— war in which victory would be impossible. Canada must be, if she once rebelled, independent; and when she did rebel, she must become one of the United States He was anxious to prevent that result. He wished, if it were possible, to come to the consideration of the question calmly and gravely—to see the danger. He fancied he saw the way to escape it: the only hope was by that predetermivable rule of which he had spoken, and making Canada, as she ought to be, a band of Federal States, by which she might create a feeling in the Colonies that they were the seeds of a great and independent peo- ple, giving to England honour and safety from the alliance, and not burdened with a mischievous Colonial Office. They had to deal with a difficulty not of today, but of all coming time; and if they did not now interfere, America would possess that great highway the St. Lawrence, and would extend her dominions to the Pole. They could not prevent that calamity by any.half measures—by any petty Colonial Office red tape proceeding; it must be done by a far-sighted policy, courage, and ability. He might be told he was preparing the way for the inde- pendence of Canada. He was. The time must come ; but he was preparing the way for her becoming independent amicably. At present no man could tell the North and West boundaries of either Upper or Lower Canada. He would have those bound- aries accurately defined and a Governor-General of the Federal Union : he would have each Province sending in members to the Legislative Assembly; be would have then the people of the several Provinces represented AS they were in the House of Representatives of the United States. 'That should be considered the United Legislature of the several provinces. He would also propose by his bill to provide .for Settlements becoming Provinces whenever there was a sufficient amount of population, and that those Provinces should afterwards form a Federal Union. Be believed that by that system we shcaeld have great colonies springing up, proud of the people whence they sprung, and being, as they ought. to be, our glory and stay, instead of being, as they had always been, our humiliation, shame, and difficulty.

Mr. Ilawus complimented Mr. Roebuck on the characteristic ability and straightforwardness with which he had explained to the House his views of Colonial policy; but found in the publication of his Colonies of England an exoese for resisting the bill even atfthat early stage, since its perusal was mit necessary to a thorough comprehension of Mr. Roebuck's purpose.

He denied that the state of our Colonial possessione is one of degradation and inferiority; Onethe contrary, he insisted that the extent-and prosperity of our de- pendencies throughout America, Africa, and Australasirchompletely disprove the statement. Much of what+ Mr. Roebuck proposed was in harmony with what already exists. He did-not propose, for instance, to alter- Mee Colonial adminis- tration of the empire; but he propesteleto introduce anew role and a new principle. He proposed to introduce a bill evhichshoug, enable any persons, on application to the Secretary of State, who WAS ,impenekaale, called upon immediately to act on that application, to form a settleneent in any ert which they should select.

Mr. Romitime explained, that a discretion ivaii39,be left to the Secretary of State to determine whether or not a colony should heriforined; but when he had determined that a colony should be formed, and the boundarimovere defined, then the rest of the circumstances alluded to might come into action. silo

Mr. HAWBS continued. But if the settlers were left to select the.spot, and the Secretary of State was left to decide whether there should be a settlement or not,

the same difficulty and the same obstruction to colonization which now existed might arise. Then the land was to be surveyed; but before that could be done,

he believed that in many eases the combination of the settlers would be at an end. And how were the expenses of the survey and of the immediate government of the settlement to be met? In North America the plan would involve insuperable difficulties. In Prince Edward Island, there are but a few thousand acres midis- posed of; in Nova Scotia, none; in New Brunswick and Canada, the disposal of Colonial laud is intrusted to the local Legislature, and it cannot be recalled with- out a breach of faith. In New Zealand, faith must be kept with the Aborigines, whose consent is necessary to the appropriation of land. In Natal, the colonists would be brought into collision with fierce Aboriginal races. Under the promssed plan, it would take some two years to form a settlement, say to the East or West of South Australia; whereas under the present system the settlement of Otago has been formed at once, and is fast becoming a most successful colony. Where- ever the representative system had been introduced in our Colonies, there is as much self-government as is consistent with being subordinate to any superior power. In the case of New Zealand, it was undoubtedly the intention of Government to carry into effect a system of local self-government. With regard to South Australia, it was his intention before the holydays to give notice of a bill for that colony. The plan which it was proposed to carry out was ready to be laid on the table of the House. The intention was to unite all these different colonies; leaving them separate for the purposes of their own local government, and uniting them by merles of a General Assembly or Confederate Legislature, in order that they might deal with what might be considered interior measures as regarded the colo- nies themselves.

Supposing Mr. Roebuck's scheme to exist, it would be in the power of indi- viduals to extend and multiply settlements; but he was disposed to think that England has colones and possessions enough, and that it would be wise to people, and improve, and concentrate capital in those we possessed, rather than unneces- sarily to multiply them, and especially to do so on the principles laid down by his honourable friend. No provision was made for the expense of settlements in this plan. and therefore it would be necessary to apply to Imperial resources.

Mr. ANSTEY exposed the hollowness of some of Mr. Ilswees objections. The rights of the New Zealanders, for example, furnished no reason for not granting a liberal system of government to the Colonies generally. The motion was supported by Mr. WYLD and Mr. AGLIONBY: it was opposed by Mr. MACGR.EGOR, because he would leave the Colonies to them- selves; and by Mr. NEWDEGATE, because the whole scheme fore- shadowed the final separation of the Colonies from the Mother-country. Lord JOIIN RUSSELL repeated and added objections to the measure. He contended that it would interfere with the rights already possessed by the forty different Colonies of England under different statutes and charters; that it "mpg substitute a fixed Parliamentary rule for the discretion-of the Minister, who may sometimes write an erroneous despatch, but can at least correct his error, on the receipt of Mformation from the colony, and so re- move discontent. The scheme would create great indignation in Canada, for invading rights ceded to the local Legislature: physical difficulties prevent the legislative union' for any good practical purpose, between Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. The subject was not one to temper with.

- lithe Colonial Office, if Lord Grey, if the present members of the Cabinet, were

unfit to have anything to do with Colonial questions, then let them place the Co- lonial government in other hands, orhave an act of Parliament by which the ma- jority of that 'House should be allowed to undertake the government of the Cob- ones: a matter of considerable difficulty for them to undertake, in his opinion. But if they did not do that—if they thought it better that Government should in- troduce such measures as they thought proper from time to time, and that each particular measure should be subjected to an inquiry in that House, and, if proved to be effective sanctioned by a vote of the House—then he begged them not to allow the introduction of this bill; for if they did, it would be supposed in a dis- tant colony that they were about to adopt the scheme of the honourable and learn- ed gentleman, and their minds would be disturbed by hearing that so great a Change was going to take place. Mr. GLADSTONE supportedthe introduction of the bill. • • The honourable and learned gentleman had applied his mind, with the ads vantages of great ability and great knowledge and experience, to the consideration of a inoet difficult and moat important- public question,—a public question with respect to which there was a general, and, he thought, a just feeling in the coun- try, that our present policy was susceptible of great improvement. He was far from saying that the fault lay either with the Colonial Minister or with the Co- lenial Department. He looked upon the fault as lying much deeper; and he did think that public opinion was verging more and more towards the conviction that there was mach which required amendmentin our Colonial policy. That being the ease, he reit greatly indebted to the honourable and learned gentleman for having

..,given his thoughts on the subject in a recent publication; and he felt inclined to en-

large the debt by encouraging hire to pat his thoughts into the detailed and deve- lo'ped form which they would assume its a bill. If he had thought the notions of the liononrable and learned gentleman chimerical or unsound, he would undoubtedly hive opposed them in the first stage of their progress; but he confessed that, ge- nesally speaking, so far as he understood them, he thought the doctrines which lied been stated by the honourable and learned gentleman were sound and true doctrines; and that his views of our Colonial relations were such as if adopted in practice would substantially conduce at once to the glory of England and the prosperity of the Colonies. Of course, no measure would pass in the present session ; but. it would be important to have it sent out to the different Colonies concerned, in order that they might have an opportunity of offering such suggestions as might materially assist them when they came to the practical consideration of it in the following session. . Mr. ADDERLEY supported the motion. Mr. VERNON SMITH gave it a qualified opposition.

. In his reply, Mr. ROEBUCK declared that he bad no intention to disturb existing rights, but only to place them in a lucid order.

• He must solemnly protest against one assertion which had been made that

nighl—that England had enough and more than enough of colonies. Now, in his opinion, England could not make over this globe too many happy connexions; and if from her bosom there might come many thousands where there were but a few hundreds before, he who caused it., and who was instrumental in the enlarge. best of our liberal race, of our institutions, our language our literature, and our laws, and in multiplying them over the face of the earth, would have done well Dot only to his country but to his kind. On a division, the motion was negatived, by 116 to 73. TRIENNIAL PARLIAMENTS.

Mr. TENNYSON DTYNCOURT introduced his motion for leave to bring

in a bill for shortening the duration of Parliaments, with an historical review of the question, from the time when the people of this country, by practice and habit, enjoyed sessional Parliaments, through the modification of 1694, passed to prevent the disadvantages which flowed from the Long Parliament, to the passing of the Septennial Act in 1715, by a coup (feud —an act of revolution. Nothing could be more outrageous than that a Parliament elected for three years should vote its own continuance for seven years. He sketched the progress of dissatisfaction with the present law, which at last merged in the more general demands that led to the passing of the Reform Bill, and explained that his measure was only left ourof the legislation of that time on the ground that Ministers held it to be totally distinct from the other matters, not opposed to or inharmonioas with them, nor unrequired by the times.

Lord DUDLEY STUART seconded the motion.

He did not know what course Government would take with respect to it: in- deed, Lord John Russell had altered his opinions so much on this question, that he Might be fairly said to have "boxed the compass" upon it. First he was in favour of triennial Parliaments; when the Reform Bill was introduced he ex- pressed himself in such a way as to -hold out an invitation to any independent Member to &propose such a measure; then in 1833 the noble Lord opposed the motion of his right honourable friend in the most violent terms; in 1834 he gave a silent vote against the proposition; in 1837 he said he thought the country did not require it; and last year, when it was made by the honourable Member for Montrose, he declared that, sooner than have triennial, he would have annual Par- liaments.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—" But I said I was against both." LORD DUDLEY STUART—Yes, but the noble Lord's declaration, though no doubt it was made in debate, and though the noble Lord would vote for the longer period, had had a great effect on the country. Lord Joule RUSSELL attached but little importance to the usual ex- pression that there is much to be found fault of and much to be amended in this country- " I remember an Englishman of coneiderable talent, who had passed much of his life abroad, used to observe, that if a mar, on coming to this country were to shut his eyes and open his ears, he would conceive it to be one of the most miser- able nations in existence; but that if he were to take the other course, to open his eyes and shut his ears, he would think it one of the happiest in the world. Such is the disposition of this country; and I for one believe it to be one from which a great deal of improvement flows, and which has caused great amendments to take place."

Lord John stated the usual arguments against any shortening of the duration of our present Parliamentary term; adding the weight of his de- cided opinion founded on the experience gained since the passing of the Re- form Bill.

"If you had triennial Parliaments, even if your proposition were literally car- ried into effect, which would not likely be the case, I think you would find—and those who have had recent experience will say whether or not I am right in ob. serving—that you would find during the first session of such a House of Com- mons a great deal of time wasted from the want of experience among a number of Members from the prolongation of debates unnecessarily by Members anxious to take part in the deliberations of Parliament, but who had hitherto not had seats. In the third session, there would, on the other hand, be an indisposition to decide anything which might have an effect on the approaching elections. The time would be lost in the first year by the want of experience, and in the last year by looking too earnestly to the new elections. Livoidd ask whether within the last few years reasons have appeared which should lead us to Suppose that it is of more importance than in the times of our ancestors that Parliaments should be triennial. If you compare the number of measures before them with the extent of that immense empire whose affairs we deliberate upon, speaking one day of affairs in India, another day of affairs in Canada, another day of affairs at home, and discussing whether our commercial po'icy is sound in all respects, a great part of our tune considering affitirs in Ireland, and debating various questions of administration and legislation, you will see that-you can hardly attach too much importance to the consideration that this ought to bea house of practical business, ready to undertake the business before them-as men used to transaction of busi- ness, and able to decide on the great and important questions on which the wel- fare of the country depends, without fear of their constituents." He of course admitted thatthis experlfince might be dearly gained if the constituencies did not sufficiently influence the-opinions of the Meiners: but his experience since the Reform_ )3111 was, that there ii-genitallitten- tion to the opinions constitumits and the public; so that the public have as much influence as they ought to have on the opinions and votes of the

• . House.

"If you carried it much farther, you would find Members, instead of voting for' measures which they thought for the public good, deferring in too many in- stances to some temporary' and transitory passion prevailing among the body of the electors. Many instances I have seen in which Members haye voted against what appeared to be the opinion of their constituents, and yet when, a year or is afterwards, they had to test the opinions of these' constituents, many of those who thought them most wrong have come to the conclusion that they had worthily and properly discharged their duties, and have again intrusted them with the same functions, in the fullest confidence that they would discharge those fanc- thins for the public benefit. The bill with respect to the College of Maynooth, proposed about three years ago, is an instance to be referred to in illustration. Greater clamour has seldom been raised against a measure than against that bill. Innumerable letters were received by Members of this House, myself among the rest, threatening that, if they persisted, they would never again obtain support from those who wrote the letters. But the bill went on. The Members of this House did their duty. I believe they did right in voting for that bill; and they voted for it notwithstanding the public clamour. They might anticipate that, due time being given for reflection, public opinion would in the end come to the conclusion that the measure was a right and wise measure, and that the Members of this House had done their duty in supporting it." He certainly was at one time in favour of five years; - but he now saw no sufficient reason for making a change which would only diminish by one year the practical duration of Parlia- ments.

On a division, the motion was carried, by 46 to 41; majority against Mi- nisters, 5. The unexpected result was hailed with loud cheers.

VOTE BY BALLOT. .

In moving for leave to bring in a bill to give the electors of Great Britain and Ireland the protection of the ballot, Mr. HENRY BERKELEY said that he did it as a consequence of the resolution passed last session; and, reminding the House of the efforts that he had then made to sectue due attention to the subject, be abstained from repeating the arguments wach he used in support of his resolution. He maintained, however, that although some gross specimens of corruption, such as Grampoond, Old Saram, and Sudbury, have been got rid of; there is still a pretty sprinkling of corrupt boroughs, which enables some to boast that they have three implicit constituencies which will return three implicit Members. The late election for Hampshire was contested by two Protectionists, a landlord of tenants, and a tenant of landlords: the landlord obtained possession of the seat; but the- other complained that he had been defeated unfairly, and said that he must have won his election if there had been the ballot. The ballot would uproot that system of terrorism which is so foul a blot on the otherwise fair escutcheon of this otherwise great and free country. •

The motion was seconded by Mr. Joint Witmeats; who gave instances of attempts which had been made to coerce his vote by injuring his interest as a tradesman, and of similar attempts to coerce friends of his at " the West-end " who serve the upper classes.

Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY supported the motion with instances of car- eon by Lord Fitzhardinge; [a statement afterwards called in question by Captain BERHELEY;] and he caused some amusement by reading names of present Ministers from a list of Members who voted for the ballot on the 21st of June 1842, when their party were in Opposition— In that list he found the names of Colonel Anson, Mr. Bellew, Captain Berke- ley, a relative of his own, Mr. Byng, Admiral Dandas, Sir George Grey, Lord Marcus Hill, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Fox Maule Mr. Parker Mr. Redington, Mr. Shell, Sir William Somerville, Mr. Tufnell, Mi. Ward, Mr:Buller, and Mr. Gib. Bon Craig. (Laughter for some minutes.) The only other speakers were Mr. W. J. Fox and Sir HARRY VERNEY; Mr. BERRY BERKELEY closing the debate with a remark on the scanty respect the Ministers showed by their silence on so important a subject.

On a division; the motion was negatived, by 136 to 85.

ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.

In the Committee on the Encumbered Estates Bill, the clauses were somewhat contested, by Colonel DUNNE, Mr. GROGAN, MY. TURNER, and Mr. S. MARTIN; but the criticisms were of no general interest, and the op- position was scattered and feeble. To some suggestions by Mr. MONSELL, for extending the powers given in particular clauses, consideration was pro- mised by the Government; and the clauses of the bill were agreed to.

ENGLISH EPISCOPALIANS IN SCOTLAND.

Almost the whole of Tuesday's sitting of the Peers was consumed in a discussion raised by Lord BROUGHAM in presenting a petition from mem- bers of the United Church of England and Ireland settled in or tempo- rarily resident in Scotland. The gist of the petition was a prayer for re- lief from the consequences of the sectarian position of the petitioners in Scotland; and for the "sanction" of the Lords to some plan for securing to Episcopalians not recognizing the so-called Episcopal Church of Scot- land, the benefits of the discipline and commtmion of the Church of Eng- land, without formal extension of the machinery of the English Church in breach of the Act of Union, which legalizes only Presbyterianism in Scot- land. The discussion was shared by the Bishops and the Peers who take special interest in religions subjects; and though sometimes enlivened by personal warmth, was only of theological interest.

REPORTING IN PARLIAMENT.

The first report of the Lords' Committee on Accommodation of the House, presented-by Lord BEAUMONT on Friday, recommends the erection of a temporary gallery to test a plan suggested by Mr. Barry for improved hearing in the gallery. The Committee also recommends that a portion of the space at the foot of the Throne be railed off.

In the Housed Commons, Colonel THOMPSON moved, "That the House will take into its consideration the rule or practice whereby strangers have been excluded on the motion of any single Member, with a view to alter the same, so that a motion for the exclusion of strangers shall be made and seconded, and question thereupon be put, as is the practice with other motions." Made, however, at the late hour of midnight, the motion was met with some objection on the score of time, and withdrawn.

THE- DERBY DAY. _ On Tuesday, the Marquis rif-Ge.arinr, after a momentary opposition by Mr: Murtha Graiktroh h'poiat oPorder-, sneceeded in movhig 4*. the House on iPrising do adjourn over "the Derby day" till Thursday. The oceasiodis one on which all classes, rich and poor, might mingle for once in the year, to promote a common object, that of recreation and the encouragement of a great national sport. The immemorial practice has been to give this holyday; and if the House did not adjourn, though Members who opposethe motion might manage to get the holyday, yet the officers of the House would be compelled to attend. Sir GEORGE GREY, on the part of the Government, was not prepared to agree to the motion, unless the House gave-an expression of a general wish to adopt it. Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. Shintatax CRAWFORD opposed the motion. Mr. REYNOLDS, though always indisposed to vote against recreation, expressed surprise that the House as prepared to grant a day for horse-racing, when a little earlier in tbeq.vening a single question of his [about the mortality in a 'workhouse] hearing upon the lives of his fellow countrymen was received with extraordinary impatience. The motion was carried, by,138 to 119.