to the law; for by the 6th & 7th George IV. two
magistrates might order the infliction of corporal
punishment for damaging shrubs, and the protection
parliament accorded to wood, surely it would not withhold
from women.—Mr. FITZROY objected to the
amendment, that it was inconsistent with the spirit of
the age; that it would only tend still more deeply to
brutalise offenders; that it would render the measure
inoperative in a large degree. Admit this principle of
corporal punishment, and the next step would be a lex
talionis.—Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Aglionby, and Lord
Lovaine, supported, while Mr. Packe and Captain
Scobell opposed the amendment.—Lord PALMERSTON
argued that public opinion might be in favour of the
punishment now; but public opinion fluctuated, and it
was impossible to say how soon a reaction might take
place. The main object of punishment was by example
to deter others from committing the offence. The
object of the bill was to encourage the victim to
complain, and provide for prompt and sufficiently
severe punishment. But if the degradation of corporal
punishment were added, few women would complain;
and the object of the bill would be defeated. Besides
we had abandoned the system of inflicting punishments
for vengeance' sake.—Mr. Walpole, using similar
arguments, Sir John Shelley, and Mr. Hume,
objected to the amendment as a retrograde step.—It was
supported by Sir John Pakington, and pressed to a
division.—There were for the amendment, 50; against
it 108; majority 58.–—Mr. FITZROY, after a slight
opposition, added a proviso to the clause, preventing an
appeal to quarter-sessions against any conviction under
the act.

On Thursday, April 7, on the motion of Lord
J. RUSSELL, seconded by Mr. DISRAELI, an address was
ordered to be presented to her Majesty, congratulating
her Majesty on the Birth of a Prince.

Mr. V. SMITH, chairman of the Cambridge Election
Committee, moved an address for a commission to inquire
into Corrupt Practices at Elections in that Borough, where,
according to the evidence taken before the committee,
there had existed extensive and systematic corruption. He
confessed that, in his opinion, the commission, useful as it
would be, would not reach the whole of the evil.—The
motion was agreed to.

Mr. DRUMMOND called attention to the subject
of Piracy in Borneo. He asked Lord John Russell
whether the government had received the accounts
of the breaking out of the Dyaks in acts of piracy,
on the 3d day of February, in Sakarran, under
the command of the pirate, Rentab, who unfortunately
escaped in the action with Capt. Farquhar; the forcible
coming out of a balla (or assemblage for warlike
purposes), in war vessels (bangongs); and the attacking
the forts at the mouths of the rivers Sakarran and
Rejang, by which Mr. Lee and many persons with him
lost their lives; again rendering insecure to mercantile
interests the whole coast of Borneo.—Lord J. RUSSELL
said that the government had received information from
Sir J. Brooke before he left this country, stating that
accounts had reached him that piracy had recommenced
in Borneo, and that a collision had taken place, although
he (Lord J. Russell) did not remember all the particulars
stated by the hon. gentleman. On hearing that,
Lord Clarendon had written to the First Lord of the
Admiralty, requesting that he would direct the attention
of the admiral on the station to the state of affairs,
and the necessary directions had consequently been
given.

Mr. MOORE moved a resolution to the effect that
it was the duty of government forthwith to take
into consideration the Irish Consolidated Annuities, in
order to effect a more equitable settlement of the claims
for which they were granted, by remitting the amount
charged on account of the labour rate acts. He argued
that the money which had been raised for the benefit of
Ireland under the labour rate acts had been applied so
disadvantageously and recklessly that injury rather
than good had been done to the agricultural interest.—
Mr. FRENCH seconded the motion.—The CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER denied that a case had been made
out. At the time of the passing of the acts in question,
parliament had manifested the utmost desire to give the
Irish landed interest as much control as possible over
the outlay, and so far from any complaint to the
contrary having at that time been made by the
representatives of Ireland, fears were actually urged that so
many restrictions on the outlay were being imposed
that there would not he sufficient presentments. He
could not, therefore, consider it just that the Irish
landowners should escape from their share of responsibility.
But he must decline further discussion until the
production of the budget, when the views of government
on the subject would be explained, and he
concluded by signifying his opposition to the
motion.—Mr. H. HERBERT, though approving of
the principle of the legislation in question,
condemned the mode in which it had been carried out.—
Lord John RUSSELL said that the object at the period of
passing of the labour rate act had been the saving of
lives; and although errors might have been committed
by the government and others, that object was in a
great measure achieved. He allowed that the extent of
the calamity and other causes had prevailed to render
the labour rate act a failure as regarded much that had
been expected from it. But he considered that the
motion was not one which, under the circumstances,
ought to be entertained by the house.—Colonel DUNNE
censured the absence of Irish members on so important
a discussion, and regretted the accession to office of a
government who could not see the justice of the case
which had been made out.-—Mr. BALL denied that the
Irish representatives had been responsible for the
legislation complained of, as it had taken place during their
absence from England. He even intimated that Ireland
might be entitled to compensation for the disadvantageous
mode in which she had been relieved—Captain
LAFFAN supported Mr Moore's motion—Mr. V. SCULLY
declared that in consequence of the labour rate
legislation Ireland had been a loser to the amount of
£16,000,000 in potatoes, and £40,000,000 in other
produce, and he made indignant complaint that, under
such circumstances, repayment should be demanded.—
Mr. WHALLEY bore personal testimony to the uselessness
of much of the outlay in question, which had been
contributed for the purpose of saving life, and said that the
contributors would gladly urge upon the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to crown the generosity of England by
acceding to the request now made.—Mr. BUTT asserted
that the claim was one of justice, which he could not
consent should be settled as one of grievance. The
success of the legislation might more fairly be tested by
the number of lives that were sacrificed than by that of
lives that were saved. He reiterated the statement that
the Irish gentry and ratepayers were refused a voice in
the disposition of the labour and expenditure.—Sir C.
WOOD vindicated the conduct of Sir Charles Trevelyan,
which had been assailed by several of the Irish speakers,
and said that the promoters of the motion were unfairly
judging the government that had introduced the labour
rate act, in condemning their legislation from
subsequently acquired information. He defended the course
which had been adopted, though admitting that the act
in question had been a failure, and he reminded the
house that the object of the legislation had been to save
life; and the improvements were merely a means to
that end. Ireland had received more assistance than
any other portion of the empire ever had. After some
further observations in reply to preceding speakers, he
urged that the subject ought not to be pressed until the
financial statement had been made.—Mr. NAPIER
complained of the way in which the government had met a
claim which was certainly entitled to consideration, and
urged that the liability under the labour rate act ought
to be eliminated from the other Irish liabilities which
were not disputed.—Mr. Moore's motion was negatived
by 143 against 95.

On Friday, April 8, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER brought forward his resolutions on the
subject of the National Debt. He began by saying that
he did not recommend those propositions, as affecting
any large or sweeping changes, but as just and prudent
in themselves, and as laying the foundation of more
extended future improvements. The operations effected
upon the debt in former years by Lord Bexley, Lord
Ripon, and Mr. Goulburn, were widely different from, and