unmistakable manner, manifested against receiving any more
convicts, we must sooner or later discontinue sending
them to these dependencies. The question arose, what
number could be sent to the only colony, Western
Australia, which was still willing to receive them? That
point ascertained, their only course was to determine
which of those offenders whom they had been in the habit
of transporting, should continue to be sent out. Treating
transportation as the next to capital punishment, all
they could do was to take off from the bottom, as it
were, of the criminal class as large a number as the
colony was willing or able to receive. It was impossible
to ascertain that number with absolute accuracy, but it
might be assumed at from 800 to 1000 annually. Then
came the question—from which set of convicts the
punishment of transportation should be removed? His
lordship then went into details in reference to the pro-
posed measure. He thought that we should only leave
as subjects for transportation those who were now
liable for fourteen years and upwards, including cases of
receiving stolen goods, outrages, assaults on the person,
attempts to do grievous bodily harm, house-breaking,
burglary, cattle-stealing, and matters of that sort. The
only remaining question was, what should be submitted
as a punishment for the remainder? He thought that
those who would have been transported for seven years
should henceforth be kept in penal servitude for a
term of four years; those transported for ten years
undergo a penal servitude of six years; those for
fifteen, one of eight; and those above fifteen, one of
ten years.—Earl GREY declared that experience had
proved that transportation, as formerly carried out, had
proved one of the most effectual preventives of crime,
and complained that the Lord Chancellor had not
sufficiently developed the system of secondary punishments
which it was proposed to substitute for transportation.
—Lord BROUGHAM regretted that transportation was
about in any degree to be abolished. He thought
infant training–schools and a good police the best
preventives of crime."—The Duke of NEWCASTLE expressed
his entire acquiescence in the regrets expressed by Lord
Grey and liord Brougham at the cessation of transportation.
The excuse, however, for that cessation was to
be found in its absolute necessity, and, with a view to
meet the altered circumstances of the times, the present
measure had been introduced as a first step towards the
improvement of our penal system.—Lord CAMPBELL
supported the second reading, but said, when he agreed
to this bill, it must be understood to be without prejudice
to the government efforts still to continue
transportation. At the present time they would only have
Western Australia, but he thought new places might be
found. He was told by those conversant with the subject
that there were other spots on the great continent
of Australia to which they might advantageously send
convicts, and it might be done to the Falkland Islands.
He hoped the government would use their best efforts
to continue transportation in that way.—The Marquis
of CLANRICARDIE hoped that there would be some
clearer statement as to what was to be done with the
convicts to whom promises had been made, because he
understood that from 800 to 1200 would be let loose
upon society in this country.—The bill was then read
a second time.

On Tuesday, July 12, Lord LYNDHURST asked if the
Earl of Clarendon had received a copy of Count Nesselrode's
Note, (to which attention had been called by his
lordship on the 27th of June) in the Russian language,
and if so, whether he would produce it. He understood
that Lord John Russell had not interpreted a
particular passage in that document as intimating that
Russia would not withdraw from the Danubian principalities
until her demands were satisfied, and the combined
fleets had withdrawn from the Turkish waters. He
himself did put that interpretation upon the passage,
and he asked Lord Clarendon his opinion. The Earl of
CLARENDON said:—"I believe that there are some
differences between the Russian document issued for
home consumption for the use of the Russian people,
and the translation which has been sent abroad, more
particularly I believe with respect to the word 'perfidious'
as applied to the violation of the sultan's word.
I believe that there is a Russian original of this document
at the Foreign–office, and I certainly see no objection
to laying it on your lordships' table. With respect
to the third question of my noble and learned friend, I
believe that when Lord J. Russell answered the question
put to him in the House of Commons yesterday, he had
not had an opportunity of reading the note. I do not
entirely take the same view as my noble and learned
friend appears to do of what is stated in that note, but
I certainly can have no hesitation in saying that we do
not consider that the presence of the British and
French fleets in Besika Bay is at all similar, or that it
can in any way be compared, to the occupation of the
Danubian principalities, and certainly no condition with
respect to the departure of the one or the evacuation of
the other will be made."—A conversation then took
place with regard to the particular wording of the
passage in question. It was brought to a close by Lord
CLARENDON, who said that certain expressions quoted
by Lord Lyndhurst were founded upon, incorrect
statements.

On Thursday, July 14, Lord St. LEONARDS announced
that it was not his intention to press the Criminal Law
Amendment Bill during the present session.

The Church Building Acts Amendment Bill was
withdrawn by Lord HARROWBY.

The report of the Juvenile Mendicancy (No. 2) Bill
was brought up and received.

On Friday, July 15, Lord BROUGHAM complained of
the delay which had taken place in the other house of
parliament with regard to the Law of Evidence
Amendment Bill. The bill had been permitted to remain
sleeping in the House of Commons ever since the 5th of
June.—The LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord CAMPBELL
concurred in expressions of regret that the bill had not
received earlier attention at the hands of the lower house.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, in moving for certain
returns connected with the Government of India, took
occasion to urge the importance of increasing the Indian
army rather by her Majesty's than the Company's troops.
—The noble earl urged many arguments in support of
his view upon the grounds of efficiency and economy.—
Earl GRANVILLE, in reply, said that the government
had acted in this matter, not only upon the advice of
the Marquis of Dalhousie, but upon that of Lord
Hardinge.

On Monday, July 18, the Earl of MALMESBURY asked
whether the government had returned any answer to the
Circular Notes of the Russian Government, and if not,
whether they intended to answer them in an equally
public manner to that adopted by the French
government? He expressed his apprehension that if that
course was not taken by the government, their silence
would be construed into an admission that they were
either unable or afraid to act otherwise.—The Earl of
CLARENDON, after an allusion to the different modes of
diffusing information of the kind adopted by different
countries, stated that the papers relating to the subject
would shortly be laid on the table. With regard to any
presumed inability to take any other than their present
course, it was not for him to speak; but he could assure
their lordships that no fear existed in the mind of any
member of the government. The first note alluded
principally to proceedings which originated with the
French embassy. It had not been answered in form,
though many parts of it had been replied to in substance.
The second note had been answered immediately, and a
copy of the answer had been sent to Constantinople. Its
purport was, like that of all the proceedings on the
subject, in entire conformity with the note of the French
government.—The Earl of MALMSBURY observed that
the circular notes in question were open to all Europe,
and were meant to be read by everybody who could
read—therefore they could not be considered as private
correspondence; and he could not help thinking that
the reply of this government should be equally public.—
Lord BEAUMONT asked when Lord Clarerdon expected
to be able to lay the papers on the table? He contrasted
the open proceedings of the Russian government
with the secresy observed by that of England.—The
Earl of CLARENDON replied that in a very few days—
whether the negotiations were successful or not—the
papers respecting them would be laid before the house.
On Tuesday, July 19, the Bankruptcy Law (Scotland)