should receive the next higher punishment. If they
looked (he said) to the reports upon the subject, they
would find that the system of employing criminals upon
public works has not only proved highly beneficial to the
criminals themselves, but has also contributed to the
lasting advantage of the country. The cost of
transportation is little short of £200,000 a-year, including the
expenses incurred in the colonies; the cost of the
prisoners at home is also very great: but the works at
Portland pay themselves at the present moment, besides
producing a noble harbour; and he was satisfied that if
similar works were prosecuted in other parts of the
kingdom, great public good would accrue to the country,
and great progress would be made in the improvement
and reformation of criminals. In the year 1840, the
profitable labour at the works at Portland produced
upwards of £17,000; in 1850, it produced £14,000; in
1851, £20,541; during the past year the earnings of the
convicts have exceeded the cost of the establishment;
and there is no reason to doubt that, wherever the same
facilities exist for the employment of offenders, the same
results will follow.—Sir John PAKINGTON complained
of the course taken by the government in bringing
forward this measure at a time when it could not be
discussed. There should have been a full discussion. He
hoped ministers had not been too precipitate in abolishing
transportation: he had intended to continue it until
1854. The bill bore evident marks of haste; but on the
whole he agreed with its provisions, and should offer no
opposition.—Mr. ADDERLEY approved of the plan;
condemned transportation as a punishment; and
expressed his preference for the present proposition over
that of Sir John Pakington.—Several other members
approved of the plan; and the bill passed through the
committee.

Before going into committee on the Metropolitan
Sewers Bill, Lord PALMERSTON moved an instruction to
the committee that they have power to make provision
therein as to moneys borrowed under the acts. This
motion was carried, on division, by 71 to 32, and
subsequently Lord Palmerston declared that no plan of
sewerage would be satisfactory which did not relieve
the river Thames from its present condition of a sewer,
instead of an ornament, to the metropolis. The bill
then passed through committee.

On the third reading of the Hackney Carriage Duties
Bill, Mr. F. SCULLY moved a clause, inflicting a
pecuniary penalty and the suspension of license upon any
proprietor of a vehicle who should withdraw his carriage
from hire for two consecutive days without just cause, of
which the magistrates were to judge.—Mr. LOWE
thought that the public ought to be protected against
such conduct as that of the cab-owners, and that
threatened by the omnibus-owners, and on Mr. Fitzroy's
part he assented to the clause, which was agreed to and
added to the bill.—A clause was also added, to the
effect that an additional sixpence shall be paid for every
mile beyond the four mile circle from Temple Bar.—
The bill was read a third time and passed.

On Wednesday, August 10, the Customs Bill, which
either repeals or consolidates from one thousand to
fifteen hundred acts of parliament, passed through
committee, after complimentary speeches from commercial
members, thanking Mr. Wilson, on whom chiefly the
responsibility of preparing the bill had fallen.

On Thursday, August 11, the house met at eleven
o'clock at night, the members having gone to witness
the naval review at Spithead. When the Speaker took
the chair, about forty members were assembled.

The Consolidated Fund (£10,634,087. 2s. 4d.) Bill
passed through committee.

The Crown Suits Bill, which stood for a third reading,
was withdrawn.

The following bills were read a third time and passed;
—Friendly Societies' Bill, Metropolitan Sewers Acts
Continuance Bill, Copyhold Commission Continuance
Bill, and Lunatics Care and Treatment Bill.

On Friday, August 12, a number of measures were
forwarded a stage.

On the motion for the third reading of the Transportation
Bill in the House of Commons, several members
started objections, but no change was made in the bill.
—Mr. WORTLEY expressed a hope that greater uniformity
and certainty would be effected in carrying out
sentences under the new system than under the old.—
Mr. KEATING suggested that the clauses enabling the
Secretary of State to grant tickets-of-leave should be
expunged: they introduced a novel system, and before
their enactment, they ought to be well considered and
discussed. This view was taken by Mr. Spooner, Mr.
Newdegate, and Mr. J. G. Phillimore.—Mr.
WALPOLE declined to press his suggested amendments, as
government ought to be responsible.—Mr. Ewart and
Hume looked upon the measure as an experiment that
should be fairly tried.—Mr. Thomas Chambers and
Mr. Barrow approved of the bill. Sir John Pakington
thought the transportation still retained ought to
be regarded as an intermediate sentence.—The bill was
read a third time and passed.

On the motion of Mr. WALPOLE, the Corrupt
Practices at Elections Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed that day fortnight, in spite of
the opposition of Colonel Sibthorp, who denounced
the bill as a trumpery and low, dirty measure.

On Monday, August 15, the amendments made by
the Lords in the Government of India Bill were
considered and agreed to. Upon that by which the forty-
fourth clause, relating to the salt tax, was struck out of
the bill. Sir J. FITZGERALD, observing that the salt
sold to the natives of India was not only dear, but
adulterated by the agents of the government, expressed
a hope that something would be done to remedy this
evil.—Mr. GREGSON complained of the injustice and
cruelty of enhancing the price of salt, which was a
necessary of life, to men receiving very trifling wages,
and recommended a great reduction of the duty.—Sir
C. WOOD said, he had never justified the maintenance
of a high duty upon this article, and he was ready to
concur in a reduction of the duty, which the Indian
government were prepared to make as soon as the state
of the revenue warranted the sacrifice. He had only
contended that it was contrary to all sound principles
for that house to take upon itself to interfere with the
financial arrangements of India; and the vote to which
that house had come upon this question was not for a
reduction of the duty upon salt, but that the present
mode of levying it was objectionable, and that an excise
duty was preferable.—Sir De Lacy EVANS hoped that
Sir Charles would not content himself with expressing
a readiness to concur with the Indian government in
putting the salt duty upon a proper fooling, but would
strongly recommend that government to do so.—After a
few words from Mr. Hadfield, protesting against the
omission of the clause, the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CRAUFURD moved an address for the production of
certain papers referred to in the minutes of evidence
taken by the commissioners appointed to inquire into
the existence of Corrupt Practices in the City of
Canterbury, but not printed with their report. He argued
that this was a case in which the house ought to interpose
and require the production of these papers, which
contained nothing relating to private affairs, or any
privileged communications.—Mr. LOWE opposed the
motion. Parliament, he observed, had armed the
commissioners with very extraordinary powers, the exercise
of which was left to their discretion, and, as they had
not thought it fit to bring these papers before the public
eye, it would not be wise in that house to take this
discretion out of their hands, and compel the publication of
papers which could be of no public service.—Mr. W.
Williams supported the motion, which was opposed by
Mr. I. Butt.—Lord J. RUSSELL said, the house would
not be justified in supposing that the commissioners had
withheld information which it was proper for the house
to know; it would not be wise, therefore, to require
the production of these papers, and, if otherwise, the
right course was not to address the Crown, which could
exert constitutionally no control over the commissioners,
but to send for and examine the parties themselves. He
regretted that the commissioners had not kept more
closely to the general rules of evidence.—Mr. Craufurd
ultimately withdrew his motion.

Mr. KINNAIRD called the attention of the house to
the Amended Criminal Code of Malta, which, he said,
had given just offence to the Protestant inhabitants
of that island, and the crown advisers of Malta had