HOUSE OF LORDS, May 21. Lord Melbourne moved the order of the day for the second reading of the POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL; and stated that it was an application of the act of 1834 to the circumstances of Ireland, with such alterations as the peculiar condition of that country required, and such amendments as the experience gained by the working of the system of England had proved to be prudent and expedient. -Earl Fitzwilliam objected to the law; in parts of Ireland, the endeavour to administer it would only add to the diffi.. culties of the people. He considered the government rash indeed when they applied the English poor-law system to Ireland. The fact was, that the improvement in the poor laws of England was a step to having no poor law. His noble friend by this Bill would legalize the right of the labouring man to parochial relief—a principle which, in his opinion, would interfere with the growing prosperity of Ireland. The Duke of Wellington supported the Bill. He did not expect the measure to work wonders suddenly, but he did expect it would improve the social relations in Ireland. The state of property would be improved. He expected it would induce gentlemen having property in Ireland to look after the persons living on their estates and under their protection, and there would be a better state of things.-The Marquis of Lon. donderry strongly opposed the Bill, and moved that it be read a second time that day six months.-Lord Lyndhurst also denounced the measure as a delusion, the effect of which would be to heavily tax the small farmer, and at the same time subject him to all the annoyance of vagrancy. But he did not expect any enlarged measure of relief could come from the present government, which was in reality a government that lived as it were from hand to mouth-a government that had neither time nor inclination to pay attention to so great a question as this. Unless the Bill were materially altered in committee, he should vote against the third reading.-Lord Brougham, in a speech of great length, objected to the Bill. It was absurd to suppose that the introduction of poor laws into Ireland would remedy the evils of that country: Let them govern Ireland discreetly-let

them govern it as it had been governed under Wellesley; as it had been governed under Lord Anglesea. Let them ettle the tithe question. Let them settl the ecclesiastical question altogether-conduct the affairs of Ireland with unremitting kindness with a steady, manly, equal course of policy-in absolute good faith - without chicane, favouritism, or shuffling-govern Ireland thus, and they would see her wants diminish, her comforts increase, tranquillity establishedand the crafty priest might intrigue, and the ruthless agitator disturb in vain.-The House ultimately divided, when there appeared for the second reading, 149; against it, 20.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 21.

The resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means was reported—“ That, towards making good the supply granted to her Majesty, the sum of 13,000,0007. be raised by Exchequer Bills, for the service of the year 1838." Agreed to, and a Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Baring.

May 22. After the presentation of numerous petitions for the abolition of NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP, Sir E. Wilmot brought forward his motion on the same subject. He contended that the planters had not fulfilled their part of the apprenticeship contract. Women had been brutally flogged, the allowance of food had been reduced, parents had been illegally separated from their children, and prædials and non-prædials had been unjustly confounded. The honourable member then moved, "That it is the opinion of this House that negro apprenticeship in the British colonies should immediately cease and determine."-Mr. Villiers seconded the motion. Mr. Blackett thought the recent Government Bill would secure all the benefits contemplated by the original act.-Sir H. Verney would vote with Government, believing that course best calculated to ensure real benefit to the slave. -Mr. Hume should support the Government in opposition to the motion, as he considered Acts of parliament ought to be binding. He admitted that in many instances the contract on the part of the planters had not been observed in spirit; but this could not be said of the planters universally.—Mr. E, L. Bulwer wished

to keep faith indeed with the planters, but contended that faith was due likewise to the other parties concerned-to the negroes, and to the English people. The house then divided, for the motion, 26; against it, 93: majority 3. Lord John Russell afterwards stated that the resolution could only be carried into effect by a Bill laid before the House, a measure which it would be for the honourable baronet to introduce if he thought proper. If such a Bill was brought in, the Government would consider it their duty togive it their most strenuous and determined opposition.

May 23. Mr. Plumptre moved the order of the day for the House going into Committee on the LORD'S-DAY Bill. His only object was to suppress trading on the Sunday, and in order to carry that into effect he would be glad to receive any sugges tion that was offered him. He was asked if his Bill went to affect travelling? It was not his intention to affect it in any way; and if it was thought a proviso could make that intention more clear, he would not object to it.-Mr. O'Connell did not see what necessity there was for the Bill. There was no country in which the Lord's-day was so decently observed as in this country.-Sir E. Sugden should vote against the Bill unless it was confined strictly to barter and trade. He recommended that the Bill should now be committed pro forma, to afford time for the introduction of the requisite amendments. The Attorney General suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn, and a new one brought in without the objectionable clauses. A penal measure ought strictly to define what was to be penal, and not be sweeping and general in its provisions. It was better to leave the observance of the Sabbath to the good feeling of the community.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very considerable doubts whether the Bill could be so limited as to become practicable. He believed the progress of opinion at the present moment was strongly in favour of all the practical objects which the honourable member sought to effect, and if the Bill could be put into a shape consistent with the opinions he had expressed he should be ready to support it either in the Committee or elsewhere; but he so much despaired of ever attaining the object, that he for one would not undertake the responsibility of introducing such a measure.-Sir Robert Peel entirely concurred with what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he agreed with the right honourable gentleman that the public discussion of this question had been attended with evil; that was owing to the temper in which

the discussions bad been carried on. He objected to legislation upon questions of this kind, because he wished to avoid giving rise to vexatious litigation between neighbours and interference with peculiar religious opinions. He thought that it was desirable to put a stop to fairs and markets upon the Sunday, and also to the opening of shops on the part of a few in particular trades, when public convenience did not require it. After some further discussion, the Committee was adjourned.

May 28. Sir G. Grey, after a long and able address, submitted to the House resolutions on the important subject of Slavery, the purport of which was, that the resolution carried by Sir E. Wilmot, on the 22d May, for the immediate abolition of the NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP, ought not to be carried into operation; but that all means ought to be adopted for securing to the negroes the privileges to which the Slavery Abolition Acts had entitled them, and that all possible attention should be directed to their condition on the arrival of their period of entire freedom. The Hon. gent. remarked, that the question had not, on the present occasion, been fairly put to the country— the question being, not between slavery and apprenticeship-for the latter had been substantially reduced more than one half since the period when slavery had been abolished-but simply one of time; and he submitted that it was scarcely worth while to agitate the question of a temporary abridgement of the period of apprenticeship, when Parliament might so much better direct its energies and zeal towards the negro race, so long oppressed, with a view to the amelioration of their permanent condition, and the establishment of a social system in the colonies, and thus not only to exhibit a memorable contrast between what would follow and the past dark history of the colonies, but also to refute the apprehensions of those who looked with fear and hostility to the great change effected in the year 1833.-Sir E. Wilmot trusted that the House would not stultify itself by rescinding the resolution passed on the 22d of May. He concluded by proposing amendment,-"That it is the opinion of this House, that the resolution passed on the 22d of May should be carried into effect by means of a legislative enactment, due provision being made to secure the peace of the colonies, and to promote the full enjoyment of equal rights among all classes." Should the amendment be agreed to, he should follow it up by introducing a Bill upon the subject.Mr. Villiers seconded the amendment. After several other members had ad

as an

day six months. On a division the numbers were, 37 for the bill, and 105 for the amendment.

In the committee on the EXPENSES OF ELECTIONS Bill, Colonel Sibthorp achieved a second triumph. Before any progress had been made in considering the clauses, the gallant colonel divided the house on the question that the chairman do leave the chair, when he was in a majority of 71 to 43. The MARRIED WOMEN'S Bill was defeated, by a majority of 56 to 21, on the motion of Sir E. Sugden, that it be read a second time that day three months.

The HIGH SHERIFFS Bill experienced a similar fate at the hands of the Attorney General, whose motion to postpone its commitment for three months was carried without a division.

June 8. Lord J. Russell moved the order of the day for going into committee on the BENEFICES' PLURALITIES BILL. -Mr. Hawes moved, as an amendment, that the bill should be re-committed, for the purpose of striking out all those clauses that were objectionable. Since

the question had been before the house, a most important petition had been presented, signed by sixty-three clergymen; and they stated that they were against the noble lord's bill, because there were no less than 3000 livings within the limits prescribed by this bill. Mr. Clay seconded the amendment.-Lord J. Russell understood the proposal of the hon. member to be, that the bill should be re-committed, with the view of abolishing pluralities altogether. This question had been discussed already, and more particularly by the hon. member for Kilkenny. The hon. gentleman said, let there be no pluralities. Suppose a living of 301. or even 401. a-year, and nobody should be found to fill it, the necessary consequence would be, that it would be incumbent on the bishop to ask some neighbouring clergyman to do the duty, who might have other duties to perform. However desirable it was to abolish pluralities, unless the hon. member proposed such a modification of the clergy's incomes as would enable every clergyman to live upon his income, his amendment would hardly benefit the church. the motion, 145; for the amendment, 34. Upon clause 4 being read, Sir H. Verney proposed to substitute the words " And be it enacted, that no spiritual person holding any benefice involving the cure of souls shall accept, or take to hold therewith, any other benefice involving the cure of souls, unless such benefices are situated contiguous to one another, and the parish churches are within three miles of each other, and the united po

For

pulation of such two benefices do not exceed 3000 souls, and the united incomes of such two benefices amount to less than 7501. per annum.”—Mr. Hume seconded the amendment. Mr. Goulburn said, he should be the first to throw out these provisions of the bill, if he considered their effect would be to benefit the clergy alone; but in supporting the measure he thought he was making the best provision which circumstances permitted for the instruction of the people. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the present bill would merely tend to get rid of a small number of pluralities; it was true that they could not get rid of pluralities altogether without greater inconvenience, and even injury to the interests of religion than retaining them could ever produce. He thought that in the present state of church livings, it was much better to have a curate permanently resident than an incumbent frequently changing. Lord J. Russell fully agreed with those who thought that benefices should never be held in plurality; but as there were a number of small liv. ings incapable of maintaining a resident clergymen, he thought, when such benefices were situate within ten miles of each other, bestowing them in plurality was absolutely necessary, unless means could be found for increasing their value. The house divided, and the numbers were-for the motion, 53; against it, 57. The clauses are therefore retained on the bill.

The remaining clauses were then agreed to.-Dr. Nicholl moved for the introduction of a clause exempting from stamp duty all instruments connected with the admission to benefices under the annual value of 2007.-Lord J. Russell saw no reason for extending this indulgence to the persons mentioned. He did not deny that they might feel the stamp duty burdensome, but other classes might claim an equal share of exemption, and the thing might go on until there would be no revenue at all. The house then divided,-for the clause, 46; against it, 55.-Colonel Sibthorp proposed a clause for the purpose of giving to the widow of a spiritual person holding a benefice with a residence annexed the right of occupying the said residence with land not exceeding ten acres for three months next after the decease of the husband, the widow to pay all rates and taxes, and to make good all dilapidations that might occur in that period.- The AttorneyGeneral supported the principle of the clause proposed, which he would prepare in a proper form, and introduce it on the third reading of the bill.

June 11. The House went into com

mittee on the IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Bill, and the committee having arrived at the sixth clause, Sir Robert Peel, in a long speech, again brought forward his proposition, that in the case of the eleven principal towns in Ireland, containing a population of more than 15,000, to which corporations were to be conceded, and in all other instances where corporate privileges were conferred, there should be established an uniform franchise, whereby the voter should possess a house or tenement of the clear annual value of 107. to be determined by an actual rating. He was not proposing what was unjust or insulting to Ireland, but only what was necessary to insure the good local government of the towns, and the application of corporate privileges to their proper purpose-not subserviency to factious interests, but the promotion of the welfare of the boroughs on which they were conferred. He had not made his proposition with a view to give a preponderance to a party, or to establish a monopoly in favour of any sect.-Lord John Russell expressed his sincere regret that the last speaker appeared to be determined to persevere in a proposition to which it was impossible for him to assent. Such a proposition would, if adopted, in the present condition of the large towns, keep alive the feeling that an invidious distinction was attempted to be maintained between different classes of her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. The House divided, for the clause, 286: for Sir R. Peel's Amendment, 266: majority for Ministers, 20.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 12.

The Lord Chancellor moved the third reading of the IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT Bill, which had been considerably altered in the select committee. The bill originally abolished arrest for debt on mesne process, and on execution. In the committee there was no doubt as to the pro

FRANCE.

priety of abolishing arrest on mesne process; but great difficulty it was found would attend the abolition of imprisonment for debt on execution. The bill would give the creditor power, under a writ of elegit, to take the whole profits of the debtor's estate, &c. instead of one moiety, as it was at present: it rendered property in the funds, with various other descriptions of property not now so available, applicable to the discharge of the debt. This bill would, therefore, give the creditor the power of putting into operation the practice of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, by which the debtor's property could be secured.-Lord Brougham thought the bill a great improvement on the old law, and suggested its extension to Ireland-Lord Abinger gave his consent to this bill, although he had great doubts of its good effect, and fears that it would not answer. The bill was read

a third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 15. The Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted two resolutions, relating to the SUGAR DUTIES. He considered that the present amount of drawback was more than it ought to be. When the subject was under discussion on a former occasion, Lord Althorpe directed a series of experiments to be made by Dr. Ure. From those experiments, applicable to British sugar, there was one result, namely, that the entire drawback paid on refined sugar was greater than the duty on raw sugar. His proposition

was that the drawback on double refined sugar should be reduced from 43s. 2d. to 368. and on single refined sugar from 36s. 10d. to 30s. Agreed to.

June 16. Lord John Russell moved the third reading of the SODOR AND MAN BISHOPRIC Bill.-Dr. C. Lushington objected to the motion. After a division for the third reading, 69 against 5, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

The trial of Hubert, Steuble, and others, charged with a conspiracy against the King of the French, was terminated on Friday, May 25. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty against five, and acquitted the three others. Hubert was sentenced to transportation for life; Mademoiselle Grouvelle, Steuble, and Annat, his accomplices, to five years' imprisonment; and Giraud to three years. The verdict of the jury excited the most violent uproar among the prisoners, the bar, and the whole auditory. Hubert, drawing a knife, attempted to stab him

self, but was disarmed by the two municipal guards seated by his side. The President ordered the guards to remove Hubert, but the accused offered a most desperate resistance, and it was with the utmost difficulty they were at last able to execute the orders of the Court. Groans, hisses, and cries of "Murder!" were heard on all sides, and the President was obliged at last to call in the guards, and cause the hall to be cleared before he could pronounce judgment.

CANADA.

Lord Durham arrived at Quebec on the 27th of May. Four days after, a banditti