inquire into the delay and expense of the Court of Chancery, and the causes thereof. Mr. Williams also hinted at the propriety of separating the political and judicial functions of the Chancellor. The motion was withdrawn after an animated discussion, on an understanding that in substance ministers had already themselves determined on this course. Mr. Peel declared that the Lord Chancellor himself had advised that a commission from the Crown under the great seal should issue for the purpose of inquiring into very many important matters connected with the Court of Chancery, of examining into the state of its jurisdiction, and into many other points contemplated by the motion. It was, however, distinctly announced that no separation between the judicial and political functions of this high officer should take place, Mr. Canning declaring that his opposition to such separation was "with a view of preserving to the monarchy one of its most ancient and invaluable prerogatives, of keeping open the passage from the Court to the Woolsack, and of leaving to the lawyer the opportunity of giving to the Crown his best services, and to the Crown the opportunity of finding for them an adequate and suitable reward." While upon this subject, we may as well notice, though a little out of the regular order, a subsequent debate which sprung incidentally from this discussion. Some expressions, attributed erroneously to Mr. Abercromby by one of the daily reports, so excited the indignation of his Lordship, that he took notice of them in no very measured language from the bench, Mr. Abercromby being a practising barrister of the court. The latter gentleman having ascertained the fact that such allusion had been made, proceeded to the House of Commons and complained of it as a breach of privilege. The Hon. Member explained what he did say, proved the misrepresention, and after a temperate but firm statement, concluded by moving that the shorthand writer who could prove the words to have been used by the Chancellor should be called to the bar of the House, to whom he left the direction of the subsequent proceedings. This motion gave rise to

a very warm and lengthened discussion, during which it was admitted universally that Mr. Abercromby had been misrepresented, and that his Lordship had alluded to the Hon. Member merely under the mistake to which he was led by the misrepre sentation. The motion was ultimately negatived by a majority of 49, the numbers for it being 102-and those against it, 151.

(In reference to this debate, we cannot avoid remarking the surprising fidelity with which the gentlemen connected with the daily press report the debates in parliament. The facilities afforded them are very few indeed, and the impediments are manifold. The standing order by which the publication of these debates is prohibited, while such publication is daily recognized by every individual member, ought surely to be considered obsolete. The member would deserve well of the community who stood boldly up at once and moved that every possible convenience should be afforded to the press. They order these things better in America. The reporters have a convenient seat, and every accommodation given them in the hall of the Congress. Mr. Canning or Sir James Macintosh, who were themselves ornaments of the press, ought not yield to others the honour of this necessary and called-for innovation.)

On a proposed vote of a large sum of money for the erection of public buildings, the repairs of the palace, &c. a desultory conversation took place, during which many severe remarks were made on the bad architectural taste of the new erections contiguous to Westminster Abbey. Sir J. Macintosh said they had been called Grecian, for no other reason he supposed than because they certainly were not English-if Grecian at all, they must undoubtedly be Boeotian. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was quite ashamed of them; but that in fact he had not seen them till they had gone too far to be remedied. In short, every one so abused them, that the only wonder seems to be how all permitted them to proceed in silence until the error was too expensive for correction. The debate ended, however, in a vote of the sum required, the Chancellor of the Exchequer declaring that matters of

taste should be henceforward taken out of the hands of the Board of Works and vested in the Treasury. Among the suggestions which took place during this discussion, there was one which we confess rather surprised us, namely the erection of a new palace. Mr. H. G. Bennet manfully observed that, even if he stood alone, he would oppose it. At present there are St. James's Palace, Buckingham House, Hampton Court Palace, Kew Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Palace, Brighton Palace, Carlton House Palace, and the Cottage in Windsor Park! Surely, if a new one is to be built, it would not be unreasonable to expect that some two or three of these useless ones should be sold, and out of the purchase money of the ground and materials the new erection might rise. We should not desire to see the Sovereign unsuitably provided, but we certainly think that the six palaces which belonged to George III. and the two additional ones which belong to George IV. ought to suffice at least so long as the finance minister declares he cannot afford to relieve the people from the window tax. By the bye, this new palace idea induces us to ask the Dublin patriots how far they have got in the building with which they menaced his Majesty. We fear it has not got past the first story.

Mr. Hobhouse, after presenting petitions from Westminster and Lambeth against the assessed taxes, proceeded to contend that the reduction of taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had utterly disappointed the just expectations of the nation. While the assessed taxes were still imposed upon the people he considered the grant for building more churches a very profligate grant. The Hon. Member proceeded particularly to argue against the window tax, which was the more grievous in consequence of its inquisitorial character. Its amount was 1,205,000l. for the repeal of the whole of which he besought the assistance of the country gentlemen. He concluded by moving the following resolution" That it appears to this House that the reduction of the taxes proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not such as to satisfy the just expectations of the people;

that the window tax is unjust in its operation, and most oppressive upon the poor of this kingdom; and that it appears to this House that the said tax ought to be wholly repealed from the 5th of April next."

This proposition gave rise to considerable debate, during which the most important speech was that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He opposed the motion, and went into an able vindication of his own conduct. Within the last three years, he said, three millions of taxes had been repealed, and it was clear that every thing could not be done at once. An inclination to relieve the most pressing wants of the poor had been shown, in the salt and leather taxes for example; and, by adhering to the principles now adopted, he would venture to say that, at no distant period, further reductions might be effected. The most important part of the statement, however, was an admission that the duties on law proceedings ought to cease. Those duties had been productive of infinite evil; and though they might have the effect of diminishing litigation, yet, if they tended to the denial of justice, the mischief was ten thousand times worse. It appeared that these duties did not exceed 200,000l. and they could be repealed without any loss to the revenue, because their quantum would be made up by the increased revenue of the crown lands (amounting to 100,000l.) and by a saving to a similar amount in the revenue collection. Much conversation arose during the discussion as to the policy or impolicy of the sinking fund-a subject which has occasioned a variety of opinions amongst the ablest financiers and economists not soon or easily to be reconciled. The motion was pressed to a division, when there appeared for it 88

against it, 155-leaving a majority of 67. The communication that the law duties were to be repealed was received with evident satisfaction by the House, and we have little doubt the feeling will be general throughout the country. The amount, it appears, was comparatively small, and the operation was most injurious to the most sacred of all interests, those of justice. Mr. Robinson certainly deserves the credit of very earnest endeavours in the diminution

of the national burthens-all, as he says, cannot be done at once, and it would be unfair to expect it.

A motion was made by Mr. Abercromby, for leave to bring in a bill for the more effectual representation of the City of Edinburgh, in the Commons House of Parliament. The honourable member referred to the petition from that City, which stated that its population amounted to 100,000 inhabitants, and that the persons who were entitled to vote for the election of members of parliament were nominally 33, but practically 19! It was a self-elected body, called a town council, in which this right was vested-a body equally obnoxious to Whig and Tory. The entire representation in Scotland was even worse than that of England. This motion was opposed by Mr. Stuart Wortley, on the ground that this was no grievance, as the same system of representation had always prevailed in Edinburgh! and, by Lord Binning, on the ground that if reform was conceded in one instance, it would only give rise to other at tempts of the same kind! Mr. Wortley declared that the House of Commons, constituted as it at present was, had carried the country through good and through evil; and Lord John Russell answered, that the country had carried itself through in spite of the corrupt manner in which that house was chosen. The motion was finally negatived by a majority of 99 to 75.

Mr. Richard Martin, proceeding upon the principle of a bill which he had already carried, moved "that a select committee be appointed to inquire how far the amusement of bearbaiting and other cruel sports had a mischievous effect upon the morals of the people." This motion was met by its opponents rather with ridicule than argument. The spirit of such legislation was declared to be "trumpery and hyper-pathetical." It was complained against that the mover did not go far enough-that he should also have protected foxes from being hunted, cocks from being matched, and oysters from being eaten alive! It was objected to also, on somewhat better grounds, that it was an attempt to legislate exclusively against the relaxations of the poor, while there were similar and equally ob

jectionable amusements daily practised by the rich with perfect impunity. The motion was subsequently withdrawn by Mr. Martin, who declared he did so because he should be ashamed to see a list of the majority published on such an occasion. We cannot dismiss this topic without declaring that whatever difference of opinion there may exist as to the extent to which measures of this description should be carried, there can be no doubt that Mr. Martin deserves the thanks of every humane mind, not only for his benevolent bill for the protection of cattle from wanton severity, but also for the firm and intrepid manner in which he has superintended its operation.

When the mutiny bill was committed, Mr. Hume made his annual attempt to abolish the degrading punishment of flogging in the army. The honourable member remarked with peculiar force that he could not conceive how a punishment should be persevered in towards this gallant body of men, which Lord Bathurst, the colonial minister, had declared was unfit even for the slaves in the West Indies. The practice was, however, defended by Lord Palmerston, on the old plea, that corporal punishment was indispensable to military discipline. The house seemed to be of the same opinion, as the clause was negatived by a majority of 50 to 24.

Mr. Goulburn obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the so much discussed Irish tithe bill of last session. This gave rise to some discussion, during which it was remarked, by Mr. Hume, that the proposed alteration would be nugatory. Nothing, in his mind, would do in Ireland, on the subject of tithes, but the breaking up of the whole church establishment altogether. At this moment, the established church population of that country was in the proportion of 1 to 14, and therefore 13 had to pay for the church establishment of 1-a state of things the most unjust and monstrous. A petition was presented, which had some reference to this subject, from certain Catholic Irish bishops and priests, praying that they might be allowed the distribution of some part of the money granted for the education of the lower orders of the peo

ple in that country. This was, however, opposed by the Irish secretary, on the ground that the funds were not at present at all misapplied or mismanaged, and that to accede to such petition would be only to nurse antipathies at present too vigorous. It was quite right that there should be some restraint in the application of funds granted by a Protestant government for the education of the poor. The only restraint at present existing was the introduction of the Bible into the schools, without note or comment, and this was now strenuously resisted by these reverend petitioners. We observe that Mr. Plunket, the Irish Attorney General, has given notice of a bill regulating the rights of sepulture in that country. It is high time that some such measure should be introduced. Scenes have lately occurred in Ireland over the grave, which were a disgrace not merely to Christianity, but to the very name and nature of man. It is horrible to reflect that the awful rite of human interment was made the signal for factious ferocity, and even the place where the "weary are at rest converted into the scene of worse than savage hostility.

In the House of Lords, the business of the session has been unusually uninteresting. There has been, indeed, no discussion of any consequence, if we except one on the proposed recognition of the South American States, which was little more than an echo of one on the same subject in the House of Commons. The debate was introduced by a very powerful and eloquent speech from the Marquis of Lansdown. His Lordship took a general review of the state of Spain and her revolted Colonies, and, after showing the utter impossibility of her ever recovering her empire over them, contended that, as Great Britain must in the end recognise their independence, she ought to do so at once, and thereby do them a service when they wanted it, and save her the misfortunes of a useless contest. Whatever might be the present anticipations of other countries on this subject, his Lordship thought that our wisest and fairest course with respect to their governments would be to declare to them our final determination. The noble Marquis concluded a speech of great

length and ability, by moving an address, thanking his Majesty for having communicated to the house the pa pers relating to South America, and expressing a hope that his Majesty would recognise the independence of those countries without delay, and order such diplomatic arrangements to be made as were calculated to ensure the amity, facilitate the correspondence, and encourage the commerce which existed between this nation and South America. Ministers opposed the motion as uncalled for, and claimed from parliament full confidence in their wisdom and moderation, founded as such claim was, upon their past conduct. They contended that the South American States have already derived great advantages from our de facto recognition of their independence by the relaxation of our navigation laws in their favour, and argued that though a minister had not been actually deputed to their government, still that a satisfaction tantamount to that had been given in our unqualified and undisguised avowal that we never would consent to the interference of any third power. The Marquis of Lansdown having, in the course of his address, inquired whether ministers were apprised of the intentions of the Holy Allies as to the convention of any congress amongst themselves upon this subject; Lord Liverpool answered that he did not know whether these powers entertained such an intention, and he believed they did not themselves know whether they would take the question into their consideration or not:"-No very courteous compliment certainly to the decision of the Holy Alliance on so momentous a question to the interests of their beloved brother in holiness, Ferdinand. Lord Liverpool also protested against any interference of foreign states with respect to the form of government of the new states, declaring that " he should be contented with the forms which the people of those countries liked themselves." The noble Marquis, however, pressed his motion to a division, declaring that in his opinion the creation of these rising states afforded the best prospect, and the most extensive resources for arresting one of the most formidable conspiracies, which, since the tyranny of Buona

parte, had ever been formed against the liberties of man. On a division, there appeared for the motion, 34against it, 95-leaving a majority of 61. This has been almost the only subject which has led to any discussion hitherto in this session in the úpper house.

Mr. Canning, in a very elaborate and luminous speech, took a review of the situation of our West India Colonies, and entered into an important statement of the measures by which ministers proposed to ameliorate the condition of the slave population. The plan is to be adopted ultimately in Trinidad, St. Lucie, Demerara, and Berbice, but the experiment is to be made first in Trinidad. It would be, of course, quite impossible for us in the limits of a mere abstract such as this to develope the views of each speaker as delivered by himself, and still less to follow the minute and copious detail presented on such an occasion as this by the minister. We can give no more than a mere outline of the plan which we have endeavoured to epitomize as faithfully as possible. The Colonies above named, having no legislative assemblies of their own, are subject to the absolute authority of the King, and an order in Council has been framed, by which the whipping of females is abolished; the whip, as a symbol of authority, or as an instrument of summary coercion in the field, is prohibited, and punishment by means of it must be inflicted only in the presence of a free witness, to an extent not exceeding 24 lashes, and 24 hours after the commission of the alleged offence for which it is inflicted; means are to be afforded for the religious instruction of the slaves; Sunday labour is abolished, and Sunday markets very much diminished; the marriages of slaves are to be encouraged; husbands and wives, parents and children, are not to be separated by sale; the property of the slave is to be protected by law, and banks are to be established to receive his pecuniary deposits; slaves who may be certified by the clergy as being cognizant of the nature of an oath are to be received as witnesses in courts of justice; the slave is to be allowed to purchase his liberty, and that of his wife and child. Such are the

improvements which are in the first instance to be attempted, and nobody can deny that very benevolent improvements they are. It is to be observed, however, that these regulations do not apply to Jamaica, and such of the islands as have local legislatures, ministers relying on time. and reason for their introduction there also. The population of these excluded islands is much the most numerous, and the abolitionists complain loudly that the pledge of last session has not been redeemed, and that the colonial legislatures might. easily be compelled, if contumacious, to obey the recommendation of the crown. It is wiser, perhaps, to rely upon time and reason"-nuch good has already been done, and it might be overbalanced by the mischief which would arise from extreme or intemperate measures.

Lord John Russell followed up an unsuccessful motion of Lord Nugent's, on the Spanish question, with another which had no better fate. The debate, however, was remarkable for an exposé, by Sir R. Wilson, of the way in which he had received the worthless honours of the Allied Sovereigns, and the paltry meanness which had prompted their deprivation. The reply of Mr. Canning was marked by the generosity and good feeling which we wish were the constant accompaniments of genius, and drew down the repeated cheers of the house. We never read a speech which did him more credit, or which, we think, will, upon reflection, give himself more pleasure. We have ourselves spoken with such freedom upon some parts of Sir Robert Wilson's conduct in the Peninsula, that we feel we run no chance of partizanship in denouncing as base, unworthy, and ungrateful, the spoliation of honours which were bravely won upon the field of battle, and were therefore his inalienably-such gifts will become not honourable, but despicable, if they are to be thus reclaimed in every little fit of spleen or disappointment. We had almost forgotten to notice the admirable humour with which Mr. Canning described Lord Nugent's departure for the Spanish campaign. It literally convulsed the house with laughterthe effect was natural, indeed almost irresistible; but still it will not, nor