approach them. What was to be done? Captain
Hamilton went on board his prize, and holding his
revolver to the slave captain's head, made him steer
straight to the other schooners, and captured both, and
found that they contained slave decks, manacles, and all
the usual fittings of vessels intended for the slave trade,
besides several letters implicating persons in the town
and vessels in the harbour. When the Vestal returned
to Havanna towing in her three prizes, an old American
said, "It makes my heart flow over to see the old
country coming out so proud." Now, if such things
were done in the harbour under the windows of the
captain. general's palace, and the guns of the Moro, what
might not their lordships expect to take place in the
more unfrequented parts of the island. He did not
mean to blame her Majesty's government; he knew
what had been the indefatigable exertions of Lord
Palmerston, and he had no doubt that his noble friend
was well seconded by the late administration. Neither
did he fear that the cause was neglected in the
hands of Lord Clarendon, whose intimate acquaintance
with Spanish character and officers would give him
an advantage not enjoyed by either of his predecessors.
He thought that Spain ought to be taught that if she did
not mend her ways, if she alone of all the nations of the
earth was to persist in this infernal traffic, she need not
expect, should Cuba ever be in danger, that England
would hold any other than a neutral position in the
conflict. He was not sure that Spain was more to blame
than the United States, which had passed the abominable
fugitive slave law, but there was this difterence in the
cases, that we had a right by treaty to demand the
abolition of the traffic from Spain, whereas in the case of
the United States we had no such power.—The Earl of
CLARENDON feared that he must admit that the treaties
to which allusion had been made had been constantly
and feloniously violated. What Lord Carlisle had said
respecting the captains-general of Cuba he believed to
be perfectly matter of fact, but he was glad to hear him
except two of them, who had been honourably
distinguished from their predecessors and their successors. He
(Lord Clarendon) had not much additional information
to give, but what he had was not altogether of an
unsatisfactory nature. He would first allude to the practice
of taking captured slaves into Havanna. Her Majesty's
cruisers had no option on the subject, because it was
provided by treaty that there should be two mixed
courts—one of them in the colonial possessions of Spain,
the other on the coast of Africa; and a naval officer on
effecting a capture was bound by his instructions to take
his prize either to Havanna or Sierra Leone, according
as his judgment might direct him. It was impossible,
therefore, for the captains of British vessels to do otherwise.
Of the vessels to which Lord Carlisle had alluded—
those taken by Captain Hamilton—two of them had been
condemned by the court at Havanna. Lord Clarendon
then read several despatches which he had recently
received from Lord Howden, in which it was stated that
the Spanish government was at last about to attend to
the expostulations of England and the dictates of their
country's honour. Additional powers would be given
to the captain-general for searches, and every assistance
in the recapture of slaves. He could only repeat the
assurance he had given a few nights since, that government
considered that to their own exertions, and their
own cruisers, they must mainly look for anything in the
way of effectual change. He had again been in
communication with the Admiralty, by whom instructions
had been sent out to the fleet, and the house might
expect that nothing would be wanting to put an end to
this abominable traffic.

The Earl of ABERDEEN moved for an address to the
crown, praying for an inquire into Corrupt Practices
during Elections for Maldon, and after a short but sharp
discussion the motion was agreed to.

On Tuesday, May 31, Lord ST.LEONARDS complained
of the course which had been adopted by the Lord
Chancellor in Accepting the New Two-and-Half per Cent.
Stock on account of the Suitors in Chancery. He
considered that, through the acceptance of which he
complained, a loss would accrue both upon the interest and
capital. As to the scheme of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, he considered it a complete failure.—The
LORD CHANCELLOR at some length defended the course
he had adopted, denying that the suitors would sustain
any loss, as Lord St. Leonards had alleged.

Lord LYNDHURST moved the second reading of the
Alteration of Oaths Bill, which was intended to strike
out such parts of the present oaths as were inapplicable,
inoperative, idle, or absurd. He described the nature
of the three oaths—of allegiance, supremacy, and
adjuration; and, with regard to the two last, showed
that the one had reference only to the Catholics, whose
disabilities had been removed, and that the other had a
political object, which expired with the last descendant
of the Pretender. He showed the peculiar manner in
which the Jews were affected by the present form of
oath, and quoted authorities to show that it was not
framed origmally for their expulsion. He did not ask
them to omit the words "on the true faith of a
Christian," because he respected the decision of the
house, but he asked them to omit the oath of supremacy,
and to incorporate the other two oaths as a measure of
right and justice.—The Earl of DERBY would not
oppose the bill, but, while he admitted that portions of
the form of oath were obsolete, and might be omitted
with advantage, he disagreed with the proposed alteration
upon Protestant grounds. He asked for an
assurance from the government that the bill should not
be perverted from the object proposed, and "smuggled"
through that and the other house without proper discussion,
in the absence of which assurance he should urge
the postponement of the bill.—The Earl of ABERDEEN,
while considering the demands of Lord Derby very
unusual, said that he did not intend to interfere with
the bill in that house, further than giving it his cordial
support: but he would not pledge himself or the government
to any course with regard to amendments which
might be made in the other house.—The Earl of
CLANCARTY, without giving formal opposition to the
bill, charged Lord Lyndhurst with inconsistency in his
course with regard to it, and pointed out what he
believed to be its objectionable qualities.—Lord REDESDALE,
considering Lord Aberdeen's unsatisfaotory statement,
did not consider it safe to allow the bill to pass
beyond its present stage.—Lord CAMPBELL urged legal
arguments on behalf of the bill.—Lord BROUGHAM, in
supporting the bill, justified the government in refusing
the pledge demanded by Lord Derby.—The bill was
then read a second time, and the committee fixed for
Thursday.

On Thursday, June 2nd, the LORD CHANCELLOR
stated that, owing to the unfavourable state of the
money-market, no further assent would be given to the
Acceptance of the New Two-and-a-Half per Cent. Stock
on behalf of Suitors in Chancery.

On the order of the day being read for going into
committee on the Alteration of Oaths Bill, the Earl of
ELLENBOROUGH said that, though he was anxious to be
relieved from the mummeries of some parts of the old
oath, still he regarded the wording of the new oaths
with great suspicion. Besides, it was not desirable that
another opportunity for a debate on Jewish disabilities
should arise during the present session. He therefore
moved, as an amendment, that the bill be committed
that day three months.—After some observations from
Lord WICKLOW in favour of the bill, Lord DERBY also
expressed his suspicion of the bill in its present shape,
but was willing, if a similar measure was introduced at
an earlier period next session, to give it his support.
—The Earl of ABERDEEN thought not sufficient had
been adduced for rejecting a measure admitted by all to
be necessary, merely because it was open to amendments,
which might be introduced in committee.—Their
lordships then divided, when the numbers were—for the
amendment, 85; against, 69; majority, 15. The bill
was therefore lost.

On Friday, June 3, Lord BROUGHAM complained
of the Heavy Fees in the County Courts. Unless (he
said) some steps were taken to remedy this evil the
objects of the legislature in establishing these courts
would be defeated.—After some conversation, in which
Lord ST. LEONARDS deprecated discussion until the
judges had reported, the subject was allowed to drop.

Lord BEAUMONT moved for a Copy of the Treaty of
Regulating the Succession to the Crown of Denmark,