Debates mat Vrottebings itt Varliament.

ACADEISICAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, motion having been made for going into Committee on the Colleges (Ireland) Bill, Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN reiterated several objections to the measure; taking for his text the memo- rial against it by the Roman Catholic Prelates; and insisting that Dublin University ought to be thrown open to the Roman Catholics, or at least new endowments ought to be provided, which should be open to them.

Sir JAXES Gaahael declined to repeat arguments in defence of the mea- sure, and urged the House to go into Committee. Although he did not expect many alterations to be made, he would not say that none should be made in Committee- - The honourable gentleman had referred to the memorial which had been pre- sented to the Lord-Lieutenant by the Irish Prelates against the bill. Great alterations, however, had been introduced into its provisions since that memorial as adopted; and although he felt disposed to pay every respect to the venerable individuals by whom that document was signed, he must nevertheless admit that be did not think it the duty of Parliament to resign their discretion in a matter to proper to their functions as that of the secular education of the Irish people.

Mr. O'Comecee would not attempt to debar the House from going into -Committee— The right honourable Baronet was perfectly just in assuming that the House should not be dictated to by any persons however respectable or venerable: but then, it was worth while for the Government to consider how far the measure they were putting before the House was likely to be successful What signified the expenditure of money if they did not succeed in their object? But they could not succeed if they did not attend to the advice of those persons. The right honourable Baronet said the bill had been much altered since the Roman Catholic Prelates had declared their opinion upon it: he believed he was in possession of evidence to show that those alterations were not considered satisfactory by those Prelates. A letter, dated the 26th of June, from Dr. M'Hale, Roman Catholic • JitreAbislaip of Tuam, stated that their opinion of the measure, notwithstanding • those -alterations, remained unaltered. They considered it to be a bad scheme of education, aid th,e bill a penal and revolting measure. [Sir James GRAHAM- " Petutl?"1 Yijir they considered it penal, because they were deprived of cl the-41y AA" owed to the principles of their religion. If the word was considered too atrong,..ie wat evident that it was not stronger than the feeling to which this eneasuee had Wien rise. Having reiterated the objection that the bill omitted religion altogether and merely permitted it to be taught, Mr. O'Connell said, it should be recollected that in Ireland the Protestants formed the wealthiest cuss of society ; and when they gave them permission to build halls, probably three, four, or five Protestant establishments for one Catholic, would they permit the wealth of the one to &mph over the poverty of the other? Let them establish a hall for each particular religion, in which their religion would be taught separately; and that would do away with mach of the jealousy which the present plan must engender. Lord Joins RUSSELL thought that the objection stated by Mr. O'Con- nell was of great importance; and that unless Government made the bill more acceptable to the Roman Catholic Bishops, by making further altera- tions, it could not be beneficial under existing circumstances.

The House went into Committee.

On the let clause, relating to the grant of 100,0001. for building the three Colleges and " necessary buildings," Lord Joins RUSSELL proposed an amendment, to include among the buildings to be paid for the halls for the accommodation of the students. A long and desultory discussion en- sued; Ministers, their immediate supporters, with some Liberals, opposing the amendment, as inconsistent with the principle of the bill; while the Whigs, with Sir ROBERT INGLIS and some Irish Members, supported the amendment.

Among the stanchest opponents of the change was Mr. CHARLES BULLER; who said that all the alterations in the measure had deteriorated it. Its defect was, that Government had not completed it by founding a new uni- versity in Ireland. But he argued from personal experience in both Eng- land and Scotland, that the Scotch system of private residences for the pupils is more favourable to morals and religion than the system of halls at the English Universities—

He wished honourable gentlemen would recollect what had happened to them- selves at Oxford and Cambridge, and would speak the truth on this subject. Why, at the Universities the chapel was a perfect roll-call, and the worst of roll- calls: a nobleman, for instance, was required only to attend it on Sundays. He recollected a case in which a gentleman, who was found reading a novel in chapel, was ordered to attend it morning and evening every day for the rest of the term, instead of being told, as a really religious teacher would have told him, not to come till he was in a better frame of mind. This was what was called the edu- cation of a Christian at Cambridge! As to the morals of the Universities, he hardly dared to trust himself to speak: the students had quite their proportion of youthful excesses compared with any of the Universities of Europe. Sir ROBERT Notes (Member for Oxford University) said, there would be other opportunities of answering in detail Mr. Buller's charges against the English Universities; in which there had been very great improve- ments since that gentleman was at college.

Sir ROBERT PELL insisted that the improved feeling of the people on religious and moral subjects, and the solicitude of parents and guardians, would afford a better guarantee than any university constitution. He also made objections to Oxford—

He believed it to be quite consistent with true friendship for that institution for him to state, that at the University of Oxford the expense of education was so great as materially to lessen the benefit that might be derived from it. He wished that some system could be adopted which would extend the advantages of academical education at the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to classes which were now excluded on account of the expense. He could not help a

that, in his opinion, the laxity of discipline which prevailed in some of the. cal- leges constituted in his mind a great objection to the system of education at the Universities.

Eventually, the Committee divided, and the amendment was negatived, by 117 to 42; majority, 75.

On the 10th clause, Mr. WYSE moved an amendment, providing that on any future vacancy in the professorships of the intended Colleges, it should be filled up according to the recommendation of a Board of Examiners, who should investigate the qualifications of each candidate; a proposition which he made to supply in some degree the place of a university. Mr. Salim 0•Betterr and Mr. O'Coluenee wished Mr. Wyse to withdraw the amendment and propose it as a separate clause; since it barred their oppo- sition to the whole of the original clause, which reposed too great power in the Government. Sir ROBERT PEEL repeated the admission that the plan would not be complete without an university; but he intimated that the building of the colleges and the other needful arrangements would allow plenty of time for considering that ulterior portion of the measure. After a discussion, in which the speakers were of somewhat similar classes with those in the previous one, the amendment was negatived, by 141 to 47; majority, 94.

Sir Henna- WncsTox BARRON moved the following amendment to the same clause-

" That previous to the first appointment of any Rector, President, Head of Col- lege, or Professor, under this act, the Board of Education in Ireland shall have power to present three names to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who must select one of the said persons to fill such office." Opposed by Sir James Gaateasr, the amendment was negatived without a division.

The Committee then divided on the clause; which was affirmed, by 129 to 24; majority, 105.

Clauses to the lath having been affirmed, the House resumed.

SCOTCH Foos-Lew.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment (Scotland) Bill having been moved, Mr. JAKEii OSWALD moved as an amendment, that the bill be committed that day three months. The people of Scotland were most anxious.thet no such bill should pass this session; the measure being quite inadequate to its objects—

The evil in Scotland, with regard to the management of the poor, was very great; he might go so far as to say that it was disgraceful to the country. It was said that this remark would apply only to some parts of Scotland: but if he were to begin with Berwick, take any midland county, and then go to the county of which they had heard so much—Sutherlandshire—he would venture to say, that the whole process of the management of the poor, with very few exceptions, would be found to lie in giving them only just what they could exist upon; he did not mean people able to work, but people seventy years old, some of them blind, totally helpless. The allowance to them would be found to be 2l. or Si. a year; in some instances, actually only 2s. 6d. a-year. This evil had existed for many years and the present bill was proposed for curing it; at least, the bill went on the &ling that something new ought to be done to meet the case. Yet the power was not to be put into the hands of parties other than those who held it now.

Mr. Oswald also quarrelled with the Board of Supervision, consisting of the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, three Shesiffs, and three Crown Commissioners, one of whom was to be paid: it would most likely resolve itself into the paid Commissioner and his paid Secretary. The only effect of the bill would be to interpose an additional bar in the way of the pauper's appeal to the law. Mr. ELLICE (Coventry) was equally unprepared to assent to the measure- It left many points with respect to the law as undecided as ever; and it afforded no assurance to the poor that efficient measures would be taken to administer it ins charitable manner. The proper coarse to have taken, as leading to a final settlement of a system of poor-law in Scotland, would be, first, to improve the Parochial Boards in Scotland, disturbed as they have been by the disputes in the Church: the great majority of the people have now no connexion with the Esta- blished Church, and the Kirk Session is the only body at present empowered by law to protect the poor. The next step should have been, to give the poor ready access to the law enacted in their favour. The only difficulty the poor have now in obtainingjustice in Scotland is that of having recourse to the Court of Session in order to obtain what is due to them. Instead of that, it is attempted by this bill to constitute a new machinery for the management of the whole poor of Scot- land; though their condition is extremely different indifferent localities. In great towns, the poor should be managed on some particular system, under the Municipal authorities now existing there. In the Lowland parishes, another system should be pursued; and the Highland parishes again, of which they had heard so much, required a particular management of their own. This bill, however, proposed to manage the whole of these complicated affairs under one system. He knew from the experience of Coventry, that in England local acts work admirably; and why should not local acts be granted for the administration of the Poor-law in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leith, Perth, Dundee, and other large towns, under the super- vision of corporate authority in each town ? Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said, that when he had quoted [from the Times] statements with respect to the condition of the poor in Sutherland- shire, he had been contradicted by Mr. Loch: he now quoted passages in corroboration, from the evidence given before the Scotch Poor-law Com- mission. This evidence, given by parish-ministers and others, represented the poor as being in the most wretched condition: the sums allowed for their re lief mostly range from 2s. to 10s. a year, and the average was about 38.6d. or 5e.; their cottages are miserable hovels, without chimnies, but with a hole in the roof or side instead. Mr. Mackenzie of Tongue said that there was more money going about, but that the people had not the same sub- stantial comforts as formerly. Mr. Loch dwelt on the great prosperity of the fishing-village of Helmsdale; but a letter had since been published by Mr. David Davidson, who, referring to the allegation that in 1844 Helms- dale had exported 37,594 barrels of herrings, and that 50,000 barrels had been cured in the county, said- " He had been for twenty-three years an extensive dealer in fish. In 1844, the total produce of the fishing was under 25,000 barrels, by 250 boats; but of these, only 120 boats belonged to Sutherland, and the gross produce of their catch was tinder 7,000 barrels. The rest were caught by fishermen from other parts; and the whole produce of Sutherland fishing did not exceed 10,000 barrels.

Proofs that the county does not prosper are the absence of agriculture or of manufactures, and the fact that the population does not increase; having been 23,117 in 1801, and 24,783 in 1841. With respect to the bill, its most objectionable feature is that it takes away the appeal to the Court of Session—

As a proof of the expediency of that appeal being retained, he would refer to the case of Ann Macdonald of Kirlomy, a deformed or crippled dwarf. Her al- lowance from the Kirk-Session was 2s. a year; in January last she applied to the Kirk-Session for farther relief: Answer—the Kirk- Session could not be trou- bled with such applications, and a threat to send her to the Edinburgh workhouse. She at last applied to the Court of Session for an order to compel the Kirk- Session to judge her case; and represented that no law-agent could be got to act for her, from the fear of offending the heritors. The Court of Session ordered her case to be considered within eight days; and the result was, that the Kirk-Session then agreed to allow her ls. 6d. a week. That case was a proof of the necessity of retaining the appeal to the Court of Session.

Mr. Loot insisted that the condition of the people in Sntherlandshire has greatly improved during the last twenty-six years; and he read long ex- tracts from a statistical account by Mr. Kennedy, and from a private letter written some years ago which he had found among papers in his possession. These extracts represented the people as comfortable, having neat cottages, being employed, raising enough-corn for the subsistence of their families, and possessing money in the savings-banks; and they described the kind acts of the late "Dutchess-Countess" and the present Duke: the poorer tenants always had their land at low rent, or even had the rents remitted; in 1837, the Dutchess-Countess distributed meal to the value of 60L: by the present Duke, 30 per cent of the rents has been remitted, new roads have been built at an enormous cost, and other improvements effected. Mr. Loch added some further statements on his own knowledge— All the parochial schools, over which there used to be masters of inferior abili- ties, had been repaired, and men of ability appointed to them. The Duke of Sutherland also agreed to build twelve schools, called General Assembly schools, at an expense of 2001.a year each, and to give 2001. a year as a contribution to the General Assembly Fund. The Duke of Sutherland had also undertaken to communicate the benefits of education to those portions of the people who felt conscientious objections to allow their children to attend the schools belonging to the Establishment. Taking everything into consideration, a foundation was laid for a vast improvement in the moral and religious education of the people. In 1817, when it was necessary to look into the condition of the people in conse- quence of their state of starvation arising from bad seasons, 3,0001. was sent down to purchase cattle for them, and 9,0001. for meal. He had gone down himself and desired the ministers to send in their lists of the poor; and, to his great surprise, it was found that there were located in distant parts a number of people who had settled in the places without leave. They amounted to 408 fami- lies, or 2,000 persons; and though they had no title to remain where they were no hesitation was shown in supplying them with food, just in the same manner as if they had been in the habit of paying rent, on the sole condition that on the first opportunity they would take cottages on the sea-shore and become industrious people. It was the constant object of the Dake of Sutherland to keep the rent of his poorer tenants at a nominal amount, in order that they might be encouraged to improve their land, and have the means of bettering their condition. This had been attended by the result expected. Mr. SHELL, followed up by other Irish Members, strongly condemned a part of the bill which affected Ireland—

They provided by this bill that no Irishman should gain a settlement by re- sidence in Scotland. It is true that in Ireland a Scotchman did not gain a settle- ment by residence, because no one could acquire a settlement in that manner; in Ireland no settlement could be gained by residence. Therefore, Scotchmeu, Englishmen, and natives of the Isle of Man, were in Ireland perfectly on a level. There were there no odious distinctions. Charity made no distinctions of

ut But if an Irishman had resided in Scotland twenty years--if he had worked that time in a factory at Glasgow—when he had lost his health and was worn cut—when too old to work and "to beg ashamed," what was the expedient they adopted? They sent him back to his own country, because he was not born in Scotland—because to Scotchmen alone was relief to be given. They would re- member, that when money was raised at a former time for the relief of distress in Scotland, a rule was made that no Irishman should enjoy it; a rule that was re- ceived here with a fee stronger than surprise. He believed there was no very large body of emigrants from England to Scotland: the bill, therefore, was directed

against his country. Now, was it not just that industry should give a patent of naturalization? He would ask the Lord-Advocate whether he was prepared to make a change in this part of the bill ?

Mr. BELLEW protested against the same provision—

The Irish poor, unable in consequence of the absence from Ireland of the higher classes to get employment at home, came to Scotland for it.. It was reckoned that there were 200,000 of them in Paisley, Greenock, Dundee, and Glasgow. Upon them this bill would operate as a hardship; and he did hope that some intimation would be given that the clauses referred to would be omitted.

Mr. EDWARD ELLICE (St. Andrew's) attacked the bill iu detail; espe- cially the part obstructing appeals—

The poor of Scotland had had their right to relief established by the decision on the appeal to the Court of Session in the case of the parish of Ceres. There had, consequently, been an accumulation of cases from all parts of Scotland against the heritors; and he doubted whether they would have seen the present bill but for the dread of heritors being compelled to pay. By this measure, the direct right to relief was taken away, and a Board of Supervision interposed between it and the poor.

Mr. BICKHAM EsCOTT commented on the fact that Scotch and Irish Members had successively assailed the bill, and scarcely any one had said a word in its favour. Before the House proceeded with a measure that met such opposition, there ought to be full and searching inquiry into the effi- cacy of the measures proposed by the Commission; and meanwhile, a short bill might be passed to give more effectual operation to the existing law. He sneered at Mr. Loch's enumeration of charities made by the Duke and Dutchess of Sutherland, as being not an answer to Mr. Sharman Crawford, but an evasion of the real question. This drew forth Mr. DAVID Dramas, with an indignant rebuke to Mr. Escott for introducing the "names of ladies" into the debate, and a warm vindication of Mr. Loch's " meritorious defence." He allowed, indeed, that the existing relief in Scotland is inadequate—

He did not pretend to say that any creature could live on 2s. or 3a. a-week . but it must be remembered that the whole system of the Scotch Poor-law was built on the supposition of one man relieving another; and he said it was the credit and honour, and the highest glory of the poor, that they did relieve one another. It was due to the poor of that country to state this, that they sustained one another under the worst circumstances, and, to their immortal honour, in their lowest state would share their last morsel with others.

It had been said, why were not manufactures introduced? But it was very easy to say that, though in a district which was all heather—a mere wilder- ness, in which the only cultivation was near the shore—to do so must be the work of time: to make a Birmingham out of such a scene all at once vras totally hopeless, whatever might be done after a time. In respect to the manner of living, allowance must be made for the different habits of the country— It must be remembered what was the food of the people of that country. The fact was, that the small farmer in that country did not live like the English far- mer; he lived like his labourers; there was scarcely any difference in their fond: they ate together. Porridge was almost the only thing known for breakfast throughout Scotland. A question was made in the Report of the Commissioners, whether they had the use of tea? Tea was not known in that part of the coun- try. He knew that in the middle class, in which he was brought, up, he had no- thing but porridge for breakfast. He would turn to others from Scotland who were born in better circumstances than himself, and who had been clothed for any- thing he knew in purple and fine linen, and would ask them to state their expe- rience; but for himself, he said that till he was brought from that country into this, he never saw anything but porridge. (Laughter.) He said, therefore, that this kind of argument against the condition of the people, drawn from their lack of that which their habits did not afford, was inadmissible.

He also condemned the settlement-clause-

He had said that he came from that country into this: he came into this coun- try, and gained a settlement in this country; he, a Scotchman born, had a settle- ment in England. Was it just, was it generous, that the Englishman and the Irishman should be met on going to that ancient hospitable country with such' a clause as that which prohibited either of them from gaining a settlement there ? He thought it was an inhospitable and an ill-omened clause; and he was of opi- nion that if it were not altered it would bring the Government into trouble not only with the Irish but the Scotch friends of the measure. Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied to Mr. Emotes appeal, with a very brief enumeration of the improvements that the bill would effect— Provisions had been made for local inspection; for a responsible supervision by a Board sitting in the capital; for perfect publicity ; for an appeal to the Sheriff of the county (which was given for the first time) on the part of the poor man to whom relief was refused; for empowering the Sheriff to order relief, and, if the quantum were too small, for a power of appeal, without expenae, to the central Board, which had complete power, without limitation, to deal with the quantum of relief ; on the other hand, if the quantum was too great, the parish might appeal to the Court of Session. Provisions had also been made for sub- scription to lunatic asylums; for the education of pauper children; for medical attendance; and for building poor-houses in large cities. He admitted the great importance of the question of settlement of the Irish paupers; and as to the settlement-clause, it should be reconsidered.

The amendment was negatived, by 76 to 33; majority, 43; and the House went into Committee.

On the 1st clause, Mr. EDWARD ELLICE moved an amendment, to mate it provide medical as well as other relief. But the amendment was nega- tived, by 62 to 25.

On clause 13th, regulating the Parochial Boards in burghal parishes, Mr. Fox MA.T1LE moved, as an amendment, that the words " and the Kirk- Session of each parish shall nominate not exceeding four members of such Kirk Session to be members of the Parochial Board" be omitted; Mr. P. M STEWART observing, that since the secession of the Free Church, in some parishes there is no Kirk-Session. Negatived, by 64 to 30; majority, 84.

Having come to the 34th clause, the House resumed.

SPEAKERS IN THE DEBATE. For the Bill—the Lord Advocate, Mr. Francis Scott, Sir James Graham. Against it—Mr. James Oswald, Mr. Ellice (Coven- try), Sir John M`Taggart, Mr. Fox Mauls, Mr. Edward Ellice (St. Andrew's), Mr. Patrick Maxwell Stewart. Against the settlement-clause—Mr. Shell, Mr. Redington, Colonel Bawdon, Mr. Montesquieu Bellew. In defence of the Duke of Sutherland—Mr. Loch, Mr. David Dundee.

FIELD GARDENS.

The House went into Committee on Mr. Cowper's Field Gardena Bill on Wednesday. Sir JAMES GRAHAm objected to the 19th clause, as substituting the high- way-rate for the poor-rate. Mr. C.owrzit agreed to expunge the clause. Mr. M.u.NER GIBBON altogether objected to the bill—" a species of ro- mance "; laughing at the cruelty with which Ministers allowed it to linger on, to be extinguished at the end of the session. Mr. CowPER maid th'at the " cruelty " was altogether on his Own side of the House. Mr. RoE- Boca took sweeping objections to the scheme; contending that it is 412

• advantage peculiar to England that the labouring population are supported wholly by wages; whereas the measure would tend to make allotments of land eke out wages as a means of subsistence, and to approximate the state of this country to that of Ireland. He asserted, that in the case of Mrs.

• Gilbert's allotments people were lured to take them; and every one of them, he believed, ended by going into the poor-house. A labourer who

• had got 51. spent it on his allotment, and found himself unable to pay his rent; then would come the eviction-clause, and he would be a pauper. He had had at least twenty such cases sent to him. He moved that the -"Chairman do now report progress. This originated a new discussion on the whole bill. Sir JAMES GRAHAM concurred in several of Mr. Roebuck's ' positions. Mr. BRIGHT warned the author of the bill that he would in- crease pauperism. Mr. MANGLES denied that the English people are sup- ported entirely by wages, and advocated the system of allotments: he never knew an instance of a labourer who raised himself above his condi- tion except by means of allotments. Mr. DARBY altogether denied the assertion respecting Mrs. Gilbert's allotments. Ultimately, the amendment was negatived, by 42 to 19.

The sequel consisted of a series of concessions on Mr. Cowper's part. Direct attempts, indeed, to upset particular clauses were defeated; but points were successively conceded. Mr. Cowvaa agreed to substitute "six" for "three" as the number of parishioners to take the initiative in proceedings under the bill; "officiating minister" for "any church- warden," &c.

In the midst of these mutilations, Mr. MILNER Gnisow called upon the Premier to declare his opinion of the measure as a whole. Sir ROBERT PEEL complied- • He was not prepared to apply to the rural population those strict principles of political economy which the honourable Member for Manchester seemed so dis- posed to favour. A philosopher might tell him that the bolding a small quantity of land would not conduce to the happiness or comfort of the labourer, bat that it was inconsistent with sound principles, and ultimately tended to an undue in- crease of the population. But, on the other hand, if he found that the possession of that small quantity of land did tend to ameliorate the condition of the poor man, and to give him an interest in the soil, he should be disposed to look at the immediate benefit it produced, rather than the remote tendency. And he thought this was the principle on which most landed proprietors were inclined to act: if he found the poor man was enabled by it to supply his family with potatoes, he should not be disposed to ask what the effect of the system might be a hundred years hence. The honourable gentleman [Mr. Cowper] wished to give greater facilities for what at present merely depended on voluntary exertions. He gave • the honourable gentleman entire credit for the purity of his motives; and he should be sorry to find, after the bill should have passed through Committee, that

• -considerations connected with the public interest prevented it from passing into a law.

With considerable amendments, the whole of the clauses were agreed to; and the House resumed.

LUNACY-LAW.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Lord ASHLEY proposed that the dropt order of Tuesday be read, on the resolution authorizing a grant for lunatic asylums and pauper lunatics. The proposal was resisted by Tnostas Dreeconnu, as an irregularity; and he declared his intention of opposing the measure in every stage. He read a petition from Mr. . John Thomas Perceval; who said, that eleven years ago he had personally suffered much from ill-treatment in lunatic asylums, and had heard state- ments from others: he declared that the Metropolitan Commissioners con- stitute a secret Board, inquiring into cases of alleged insanity behind the backs of the parties: he objected to the bill as continuing that system; but, if it were passed, made several suggestions, to secure a proper investi- gation of cases and the release of persons really sane. A desultory discus- sion followed; but the balance of opinion was in favour of the motion, and eventually it was carried, by 117 to 15.

Subsequently, the House went into Committee on the bill; most of the clauses were passed; and the House resumed.

ENLISTMENT IN THE ARMY.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Captain LAYARD moved- " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be made, how far the reduction of the period of service in theArmy, from the present unlimited term to ten years, would tend to procure a better class of recruits, diminish desertion, and thus add to the efficiency of the service." In support of this resolution, he briefly described the evils of the present sys- tem. One great proof of its badness is the number of desertions constantly taking place among our troops in various parts of the world: in Canada, during three years ending 1843, there were 735 desertions; in Great Britain, during the same period, the number amounted to 5,208, of which 3,286 were cases in which the deserters were retaken or came back; in Ireland, during the same period, the number amounted to 1,159; making a total of 7,537 desertions in three years. But that is not the worst part of the case: by a return which he held in his band, it appeared that from 1839 to the year 1844, 3,355 soldiers had received corporal punishment, and the number of imprisonments during the same period was 28,190, being nearly one-third of our whole army. Some of the latter were even cases of repeated imprisonment, as there were many soldiers who spent the greater portion of their time in a gaol. He believed that all this arose from the fact that the British soldier was always enlisted for life. This fact often induced the soldier to resort to the most extraordinary means to procure his e. Captain Layard proceeded to read from a book several cases of malingering or feigning disease to evade service]: among the rest, was one of a soldier who had counterfeited idiocy successfully for several months, to procure his discharge. Soldiers have also mutilated themselves with hatchets, and deprived themselves of sight, for the same purpose. Another dreadful proof of the discontent prevailing among the private soldiers, is the number of military. suicides: in the Cavalry they amount to one in a thousand of our strength; and they are more frequent in the English than in any other service. He believed that all this arose from the want of hope in the soldier of ever being able to leave the Army. Such a feeling is most distressing in any situation: indeed, he believed that if the right honourable ' Member who was to answer him thought he was doomed to remain always Secretary-at-War, he would be a most unhappy individual. The regulations esta- blished by Sir Henry Hardinge are open to the objection, that the men have not the money which is necessary to purchase their dischaige: at the time of his enlistment a man has not 201. in all probability, and how he is to accumulate during the period of his service MI., 201., or even 101., it is difficult to conceive. Captain Layard cited statements by Mr. Fox, Mr. Wilberforce, Lord William Bentinck, and several officers, approving of limited periods of enlistment, on po- litical or military grounds; and he recommended that system as tending to saving . in the cost of punishments. . Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT opposed the motion; with a few reasons stated in very general terms. The example of foreign countries had been cited; but abroad, enlistment is compulsory, while here it is voluntary; and the soldiers $hemselves have shown no preference for the limited periods—

From the period of Mr. Windham's Act down to the year 1829, opportunity was offered to men to enlist for a limited period. The amount of bounty-money for enlistment for a limited period was fixed at a sum lower than that for life; but so indifferent were the men to this arrangement, that they almost invariably ac- cepted the terms of enlistment for life. This was the arrangement down to 1829, when it was found that in the past year only seventy-three men had enlisted for a limited period; and on account of the manifest preference thereby evidenced for life-enlistment the distinction was abandoned. At present, a soldier has an op- portunity of gaining his discharge at the expiration of fifteen years by good con- duct during that period. This privilege, however, is seldom used by the men; who prefer serving the full period of twenty-one years, when they become entitled to a pension for life. Formerly, the practice of encouraging discharges was very generally adopted by the Government, with the view of saving the pensions: but it was found to work prejudicially for the men, and so it was abandoned.

Mr. Herbert admitted the number of desertions; but they always occur in the early period of a man's service, mostly within the first year. In Canada, the desertions occur during the harvest-time, when wages are high; but the men usually return to the service; and since 1828, the ratio of the desertions as compared with the strength of the forces has fallen from 6 per cent to 2i- per cent. As to suicides, the number is very much larger in France and other countries of Europe. He did not mean to assert that the system now in practice in the management of the British soldier is perfect, but he would say that it did not seem very easy to improve it further; and he mentioned several recent improvements, in respect to food, hours, clothing, reliefs, libraries, and recreations; contending that much had already been done, and that the enlargement of these improvements had better be left to the Executive Government.

The motion was supported by Mr. HUME and Mr. Wriwate ; opposed by Sir HowAan DOUGLAS as needless, since a soldier can already prooure his discharge for 51.; and finally negatived without a division.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Mr. Drvxvr drew attention to the petition of Mr. Jasper Parrott, formerly a Member of that House, respecting an action that had been commenced against him for evidence given by Mr. Parrott before the Medical Relief Committee, impugning the conduct of Mr. Phillips, a medical officer of the Totnes Union. Mr. Divett cited a case in the reign of William the Third, in which a prose- cution for libel had been begun for evidence given in a similar way; and for which the party prosecuting was declared guilty of a breach of the privilege of the House, and, though he discontinued the prosecution, was ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until the end of the current session. Following this precedent, Mr. Divett moved that Mr. Phillips, with his country and London attornies, should be summoned to attend at the bar of the House.

Mr. WYNN said, that the House ought to ascertain all the facts before proceeding further; as the words alleged against Mr. Parrott might have been spoken out of the House—in Palace Yard, or anywhere else—and could in that case not be subject of protection. If the House did interfere, it might either at once summon the parties to attend, or suffer the action to proceed; and if the action turned out to be for words used in evidence before a Committee, the parties would have no more chance of success than if they had brought an action for testimony given in the Court of Queen's Bench before Lord Denman and a Jury.

Sir ROBERT PEEL was for summoning the parties at once. .

On the suggestion of Sir GEORGE GREY, Augustus Henry Moore, Mr. Parrott's solicitor, was called to the bar: he stated that an action for libel had been commenced against his client for words spoken in evidence given before a Committee of that House; and he handed in the declaration. Finally, summonses were ordered to issue for the parties to attend at the bar of the House on Monday next.

Tint ROYAL ASSENT was given, by Commission, on Monday, to the Maynooth College Bill, the Calico Print-works Bill, and about eighty others, public and private, but mostly Railway Bills.

NEW WRrra were ordered, on Monday, for Abingdon, in the room of Sir Frederick Thesiger, appointed Attorney-General; on Tuesday, for Exeter, in the room of Sir William Follett, deceased.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION. The Lords agreed, on Monday, to the reasons of the Commons for disagreeing with the Lords amendments in the Railway Clauses Con- solidation (Scotland) Bill: the Peers had inserted clauses seeming compensation to trustees of turnpike-roads; but the Commons, dissenting, originated a new bill, omitting the clauses. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord BROUGHAM moved the following two out of three resolutions recommended by a Select Committee; and they were agreed to- ,. 1. That any bill which is included In the second class, under the Standing Order of the 16th August 1838, and which shall be before this House in the present session, but shall not pass for want of time, shall be marked by the Chairman of Committees, and shall be proceeded with in the ensuing session, If such bill be brought from the Com- mons In every respect the same bill as that which shall have been so marked by the Chairman.

" 2. That any bill of the said second class which shall have been stopped in Its pro- gress through the House of Commons In the present session by reason of want of time, and which shall be brought up to this House in the ensuing session, marked by the Speaker of that House as having been so stopped, shall be In like manner received by this House."

ALLEGED OFFICIAL Miscorinucr. On Monday, on the motion of Mr. Hewes, the following gentlemen were nominated as the Select Committee on the South- eastern Railway Company's petition, [alleging corrupt conduct on the part of Mr.

Hignett, Solicitor to the Board of Ordnance; whose implicated Captain also Captain Boldero and Mr. Bonham]—Mr. Hawes, Mr.- Slietidan, Mr. Roebuck,

Lord Worsley, Mr. Hayter, Mr. Tancred, Mr. Thomas lluecOnbe, Lord Ashley, Mr. Pakington, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Vernon, Mr. Tenon Egerton, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Liddell, and Sir Charles Douglas.

Beiottua re SCOTLAND. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the third read-mg of the Banking (Scotland) Bill was carried, by 47 to 15; and the bill passed.

STATE OF IRELAND. In reply to Sir EDMUND HAVES, on Monday, Sir JAMES Grimiest said, that Government had made every preparation for sup- pressing the outrages in the counties of Leitrim and Cavan: there was no- thing in those outrages of a political or religious character; and he had no doubt that the existing law would be found sufficient.

CRIMINAL Lew REFORM. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord Dew- MAW moved the second reading of the Administration of Criminal Justice Bill; which he described in very brief and general terms, as intended to enlarge

the discretion of Judges in apportioning punishment to e degree of t.

Lord CAMPBELL took exception to it, as gtvng too great a discretion. Any per- son convicted before any tri unal of any assault would be liable to be imprisoned for three years, to hard labour, and to solitary confinement, at the discretion of the Court. However, the motion was carried. Pursue E.xiscrrnoxs. On Tuesday, Mr. MONCRTON MILNES rose to point out the evils of publicly conducting the execution of criminals in this country; and to propose, that in future they should take place within the prison-walls, which is now the rule in all the Northern States of the American Union. But before he had proceeded far with his speech, the House was " counted out "; only 82 Members being present.

BRAZIL. On Thursday, the Earl of ABERDEEN presented to the House of Lords a bill for carrying into effect the convention entered into between her Ma- jesty and the Government of Brazil with the view of abolishing the Slave-trade. The bill was then read a first time; and ordered to be read a second time on Mon- day next.