which might be agreed upon between | Friend, when he entered the House, would them. But there was a class of cases in have been his best ally in assisting him to which the landlords either would not or carry the measure which he contemplated," could not enter into arrangements which for giving compensation to tenants in Engwere necessary for the benefit of the land-a measure which he hoped in the tenant; and in these cases it afforded the course of a few days to be able to lay power of securing the tenant's interest. before their Lordships. Now, his noble And as it was important for the peace and Friend threw him completely over by attranquillity of the country that the condi- tempting to show, as he had done that tion of the people should be raised, and night, that it was, for many reasons, imthat the productive power of the soil possible to extend such a Bill to England. should be increased, it was to cases of this He earnestly hoped the Government sort, and of this sort alone, that the Bill would give to England no such measure now introduced was intended to apply. as they now proposed for Ireland. In He hoped that in considering it further reference to England he might here say, noble Lords would not dwell solely upon in passing, that there was no such secuthe objectionable, or what might appear rity to tenants as his noble Friend supto them to be the objectionable parts of posed there was, from the difficulty of the Bill. Let them rather consider what finding a successor to a tenant evicted. were the real and admitted evils for which He was satisfied that the only mode of it was designed as an antidote; and be- properly dealing with the question of comfore they condemned this, let them assure pensation in England, was by laying down themselves whether any less objectionable a well-established and well-regulated mode could be devised for successfully tenant right;' and he would think it his counteracting them. It was a Bill clear duty to lay upon their Lordships' Table, in its principle, and simple and easy in its in a few days, a Bill for the purpose of application; nor was he ashamed to con- defining, as far as they could do, the fess that he rejoiced in it as a measure for tenant's right, and to give the landlord the benefit of the tenant, who, in number- his remedy-the landlord and tenant both less instances, was to be found in the having the same remedy-namely, the most miserable state, and requiring as- power to go before arbitrators, instead of sistance and relief. He would think the having to incur the expense and delay of task of applying the relief required but going to courts of law. He objected to very imperfectly performed, if there were the system of paying the Commissioners not other measures yet to come, which by fees. would speedily be submitted to Parlia ment. Lord Portman wished to express his unqualified and sincere disappointment at the measure of the Government; a measure which, as he contemplated, would by landlords generally, be received with great fear; because he saw in its details a great quantity of matter which he was quite sure it would be dangerous for the landlords to admit. It involved, indeed, a series of difficulties very different from any that could arise in England, where the task of ascertaining and securing the right of the tenant was far easier; for certainly the cases of property being held by generations of tenants off generations of landlords, differed entirely from the descrip tion of property with which his noble Friend now proposed to deal. He was disappointed that his noble Friend should have introduced a Bill containing what he consid red such objectionable provisions; because he had thought that his noble Lord Stanley: The Commissioner in Dublin is to be paid by salary-the Assistant Commissioners to be paid out of the Treasury, according to the time during which they are employed. Lord Portman would, in a few days, trespass upon their Lordships' attention, by bringing forward a very different measure for England. He thought that he should vote in opposition to the Bill, with those Irish landlords who appeared, on first blush, to be opposed to it. The Marquess of Westmeath thought that the case as regarded the landlord and tenant question in Ireland, would be found to be very different in Ireland from what it appeared on the face of the Report of the Commissioners, when a balance was struck between the real facts and the exaggerated evidence given before the Commissioners. It was the interest of landlords to give leases, because in that case they had a direct and immediate remedy against tenants by ejectment; whereas, in the case of tenants at will, they were usually subjected to fifteen months loss of rent. Debate on the Bill in its present stage might be rather premature; but he had thought it his duty to state generally what he knew to be the case. Bill read 1a. BASTARD CHILDREN BILL.] The Earl of Radnor moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and said, that so gross and indecent were the results of the law as it at present stood, that he had met no magistrate who did not wish it to be altered, although all might not approve of the particular alterations which he proposed. He should not go into all the different laws on this subject that had been enacted from the time of Elizabeth down to the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act; but experience had shown that those laws led to great abuses, and gave rise both to crimes and extortion. In pursuance of the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the old Poor Law, in the original Poor Law Amendment Act, no clauses were introduced with respect to the affiliation and maintenance of illegitimate children; but clauses were introduced in the Committee, which, however, left the principle of the law as it was before. Illegitimate children were to be maintained partly by the father and partly by the mother, in order to indemnify the parish; but the machinery was altered, and such cases were to go at once to the quarter sessions, and not to be brought before the petty sessions at all. He thought the law would have been better without these clauses; but they did not do much harm, owing to the infrequency with which they were acted upon, in consequence of the expense they occasioned. By the Act of 1839, the affiliation of these illegitimate children was taken away from the quarter sessions, and restored to the petty sessions; but with some regulation as to corroborative evidence. That Bill left the principle of indemnification of the parish as it had been since the law of Elizabeth, which had remained untouched by the Bill of 1834; but, by the Bill of last year an entire revolution was made in the principle of the law, and it was no longer the parish which was to be indemnified, but the mother of an illegitimate child. That principle was vindicated by some, on the plea of the hardship of visiting the whole punishment for an immorality upon one of the offenders; but it should be recollected that that was the state in which nature left it. By the dispensation of Providence, all the pain and hardship of childbearing were sustained by the woman; but the Legislature, thinking itself wiser than Providence, held out a remuneration to her for the commission of crime, and placed the mother of an illegitimate child in a better position than a widow with a legitimate child. Protection was said to be the bane of agriculture; but he was sure such protection as this was the bane of female virtue, and was a snare and a trap, because it removed one of the strongest checks against the indulgences of vicious passions, and at the same time furnished man an additional argument wherewith to overcome the scruples of the female, by representing to her that she would be exempt from the expense of the maintenance of her child. If it had been intended merely to preserve from too severe punishment inexperienced girls who allowed themselves to be entrapped by the arts of a seducer, then the money to be paid by the father should be limited to the first child; but as the law stood, it was the most barefaced and the most impudent women who got the advantage of the Act. There was another reason why the law should be altered. The principle of English law was, that no person should be called upon to give evidence in his own case. And so it was up to the law of last year, because till that time the mother was not benefited by the affiliation of the child, but the parish. Now, however, she had a direct interest in the matter; and the provisions of the Act in that respect held out inducements to perjury, and opportunities for extortion. Any one of their Lordships might be sworn to as the father of an illegitimate child; and although there might be no foundation for the imputation, yet it might have very unpleasant and unjust consequences upon a man of timid nerves. The noble Earl enumerated instances in which the law had been made an instrument of gross injustice and oppression, and expressed a hope that noble Lords opposite would feel the necessity of its alteration. Lord Wharncliffe said, he must oppose the second reading. It was too soon yet to judge of the operation of the Act of last year; and he thought that, considering the very short time that had elapsed since that Act came into operation, the House would not act advisedly in proceeding so soon to effect an alteration in that law. Undoubtedly, until that Act, the object of the law was to indemnify the parish against the maintenance of an illegitimate child; but practically it was a payment to the woman, and women were known in some instances to derive very handsome incomes from the length to which they carried the practice of affiliation. Such abuses arose out of the old law that it was necessary to make some alteration; and, instead of an order being made as a matter of course, upon an oath before two justices, the Poor Law Amendment Act required corroborative evidence, and also provided that the woman should be liable to be examined in open court, thus applying as strong checks as could easily be devised against the child being falsely affiliated. There always existed a strong feeling of opposition to the system under which all the burden was thrown upon the woman, for that was looked upon as an unjust and unwise arrangement; but, unfortunately, it was often extremely difficult, first, to bring a matter of that kind home to the father; and, secondly, when it was brought home to him, it was often very difficult to recover the money. An order might be made against his goods; but in ninetynine times out of a hundred he had no goods that could be seized; next, it might be made against his wages; but, generally speaking, masters, especially in the manufacturing districts, were very unwilling to have wages stopped. Actions for seduction might be brought, and often were brought, in the middle classes of life; but where the parties were very poor, as frequently happened to be the case with parties proceeding under the bastardy laws, no actions could be brought; and the Bill of last year was intended to give a remedy to those who were most likely to be exposed to the evil, and who had not the means of sustaining their case in a Court of Law. The noble Earl stated that that Bill introduced a new principle; but he (Lord Wharncliffe) could not agree in that statement of the noble Earl; for so far from this being a new principle, it was one which had for centuries been in operation in another shape from the highest to the lowest class. When a man in any class of life seduced a woman, he was subject under the law of this country to an action on the part of the woman's parents for the loss of her services; and the Bill of last year only put the lowest class of people in the same position to obtain redress which others occupied. He could see no injustice in the law, and he would repeat that it certainly did not introduce a new principle. The noble Earl mentioned a case in which a woman of abandoned character was the mother of six illegitimate children, and asked if it were fair to oblige the magistrates to decide. against a particular father on her testimony. It might not be just to oblige them to decide; and, therefore, the law left the order altogether at the option of the magistrates, who could require corroborative testimony in favour of the woman's evidence before they decided against the putative father. The noble Earl also objected to the reception of a woman's evidence under circumstances which gave her so strong an interest in the case-in fact, admitted her as evidence in her own case; but he ought to recollect that the same course was adopted in actions at law with respect to the woman's evidence. The Act which was now in force had been in operation for a very short time, and he thought it would be unwise and unjust to repeal it after so short a trial of its effects. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment, that the Bill of the noble Lord be read a second time that day six months. The Earl of Carnarvon concurred in the opinion of his noble Friend who had just sat down, that there had not been a sufficient trial of the Act of last year, and it would be premature to repeal it without further experience. Such rapid changes in legislation were not at all to be recommended, and would not be calculated to advance the credit of the Legislature with the country. He agreed perfectly with the statement that there had existed for a long time a strong objection to the principle of throwing all the burden of supporting the offspring on the womanthe weaker vessel, and sparing the stronger, and often the more guilty party; whilst the former system, in addition to that evil, had also the serious moral evil attached to it of tending to create in the minds of the men who formed those connexions the idea that the Legislature connived at their faults. It appeared to be opposed to the designs of Providence to discharge the putative father from the responsibility of contributing his share to the support of his illegitimate child; and the change which threw the burden on the woman solely, and which had been again altered, was in consequence of the extreme unpopularity of that measure. It should be always an element of consideration with their Lordships, whether a law which would require to be very often put in operation was likely to be popular, or to excite a strong feeling of oppositionand the latter was undoubtedly the case with respect to throwing all the burden of supporting the child on the woman alone. The noble Earl alluded in forcible terms to the evils of increasing the temptation to false swearing; but the objection was incidental to all testimony of a similar nature, and it would not be wise to establish a system of error and injustice solely to avoid that possibility of false swearing on the part of the woman. He repeated that he thought the alteration proposed by the noble Earl in the law of last year was premature, as they had not as yet had sufficient experience of the operation of that Act. The Earl of Radnor thought that the Bill which he had introduced would do a great deal of good if passed into a law. The existing Act held out a premium to women to perjure themselves for their own pecuniary advantage; and his experience at the Sessions convinced him that it ought to be altered, not only in that, but in those other respects to which he had alluded, when moving the second reading of his Bill, which he had no doubt would be lost, as it was opposed by the Govern ment. On Question that the word "now" stand part of the Motion; Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day six months. House adjourned. (Dudley to Wolverhampton); Scottish Midland Junction Railway; Waterford and Limerick Railway. 3. and passed:-Kidwelly Inclosure; Trent Valley Railway Claughton-cum-Grange (St. Andrew's) Church; Claughton-cum-Grange (St. John the Baptist's) Church; West of London and Westminster Cemetery; Belfast and Ballymena Railway; Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Keymer Branch). PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Ashley, and Mr. F. Maule, from several places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.-By Mr. Sotheron, from Rector and Parishioners of Ham, Wilts, and Mr. Wakley, from Gower Street Chapel, against the Grant to Maynooth College.By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Isle of Wight, against Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.-By Mr. Lockhart, from several places, against Universities (Scotland) Bills-By Mr. Sotheron, and Mr. M. Gore, from an immense number of places, for Relief from Agricultural Taxation.-By Sir W. Codrington, from several places, for Defraying County and Police Rate out of Consolidated Fund.—By Lord Ashley and Mr. M'Geachy, from several places, in favour of Ten Hours System in Factories.-By Mr. Bright, from Bolney, for Alteration of Law relating to Highways. By Mr. Acland, from several places, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.-By Mr. Hastie, from Paisley, in favour of Physic and Surgery Bill.-By Lord Ashley, and Mr. Wakley, from Medical Officers of London, and Shadwell, for Amendment of Poor Law.By Mr. Mitchell, from Bridport, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.-By Mr. Wakley, from several places, for Inquiry (Royal College of Surgeons).By the Earl of March, from a great number of places, for Alteration of Law relating to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Scotland). SLAVE TRADE.] Viscount Palmerston said, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the evidence taken before the Mixed Commission was partly that of French officers, and disclosed the means used by the slavers to escape our cruisers, and that public inconvenience would result from laying it upon the Table of the House; but surely the slave traders were too well acquainted with their own practices to receive any information from these Papers. This evidence was the foundation upon which the two Governments had agreed to abandon the Right of Search; and he put it to the right hon. Baronet whether it were not essential, to enable the House to judge whether the Right of Search had been properly abandoned or not, that they should be in possession of the evidence of officers relating to the use made of the Right of Search, and whether it was or was not necessary for the suppression of the Slave Trade? If the right hon. Baronet would not lay the whole of the evidence on the Table, would he object to producing a part? If there were any delicacy regarding the testimony of the French officers, perhaps he would furnish that of the English officers. He would also take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Baronet if there was any objection to lay on the Table the continuation of the correspondence produced in 1843, relating to the exertions of the British Go vernment to put an end to the disturbances between the two great parties in Syria, the Druses and the Maronites, and also the papers relating to the claims of the Emir Beschir? Sir R. Peel had no objection to lay on the Table a continuation of the Papers relative to the state of Syria; but as a considerable time had elapsed since the last correspondence was produced, some little delay would take place in the publication of some portions of that correspondence. He, however, could lay on the Table at an early period, that portion of it, which related to the Emir Beschir, and the noble Lord would probably have an opportunity of seeing it in the course of a few days. With respect to the other question put by the noble Lord, he thought considerable inconvenience might result to the public from the publication of the evidence referred to; and, therefore, he could not consent to its production. BANKING (SCOTLAND) BILL.] On the Motion of Sir R. Peel, the House went into Committee on the Scotch Banking Bill. On Clause 8 being proposed, Mr. F. Maule proposed an Amendment to the effect, that the bankers be allowed to amend their Returns of circulation. drawing on the Bank of England. He did not believe that the Scottish banks ever drained the Bank of England, and should be glad to be enlightened, if the fact were otherwise. Sir R. Peel said, that when trade was good and speculation rife, there was generally a tendency to issue an increased quantity of paper where facilities existed. For a certain limited time the value of the paper would be kept up; but when a period of depression came, it would be incumbent to convert notes into gold; that could only be done by a sale of securities and obtaining gold, of which the only receptacle was the Bank of England. These remarks applied to the banks of Scotland, and were also equally applicable to the provincial banks of England. The value of the whole currency would be diminished; and it would soon be discovered that paper was issued to excess, and with such a simultaneous demand for gold from Scotland and England upon the Bank of England, great inconvenience would result, and commercial transactions generally would be greatly restricted and impeded. It was, therefore, sound policy to place some restrictions on the issue of notes. Mr. Williams thought, that in justice to the measure that had been passed last year, the Government were bound not to afford any greater facilities for the issue of paper money in Scotland or in Ireland. He re The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the Motion, on the ground that it was identical in substance with one nega-membered when the Bill of 1814 was retived on Friday. enacted in 1826, after it had been partly repealed in 1822; so far as regarded the circulation of one pound notes-he remembered the threat of the Scotch bankers on that occasion. They said, that they had an immense amount of property in the funds, and they would dispose of that property and get the amount in gold, and put the Bank of England in difficulty. That threat prevented the Government from suppressing the issue of one pound notes in Scotland. It was said that there were no failures in the Scotch banks. He remembered several failures. A short time ago, in consequence of the failure of a bank near Paisley, there existed the most intolerable distress, when the Paisley manufacturers were obliged to apply for charity. Mr. Hawes denied that the Scotch circulation was sustained during the time of the greatest drains by drawing on the Bank of England. Clause agreed to. Clause 13-which enacted, that if the monthly average of bank notes of any |