clamour was loud it was reasonable, or that it was
shared in by the more sensible portion of the community,
and such he believed was the case with the Australian
outcry against transportation. The house must
remember that if transportation ceased the convicts would
be thrown in large bodies on society at home, and
ultimately become as formidable a class to the welfare
of the community as the forçats in France.—The Earl
of ABERDEEN said, that the motion of Earl Grey was
of a very unusual character, involving, as it did, an
interference seldom attempted with the prerogative of
the Crown and the discretion of the executive. The
practical question was, whether transportation to Van
Diemen's Land was to cease or not. Now, it should be
remembered that the government, with respect to that
colony, were struggling with a difficulty created by Earl
Grey himself, who, in one of his despatches, as it was
understood by the governor and the colonists, had
certainly held out an expectation that no more convicts
would be sent to their island. Earl Grey had also
declared that the government of this country had no
right to send convicts to any colonists against the
consent of its inhabitants, and yet, when the government
acceding to the wishes of the legislation of Van
Diemen's land, determined that transportation to that
colony should cease, they were met by this motion.
With respect to transportation in general, he thought
that in a very great number of cases other kinds of
reformatory punishments might be successfully
introduced, and the propositions of the government on the
subject would shortly be laid before the house; but, in
the meantime, he protested against the notion that
transportation was to be altogether abolished, because the
government had found it necessary to discontinue it in
the case of Van Diemen's land.—The Earl of CHICHESTER
opposed the motion, and proposed an amendment,
declaring it to be the opinion of the house that transportation
should only be applied to the graver offences, that
it should be limited to certain colonies, and that a more
complete system of secondary and reformatory punishment
should be introduced at home.—The Earl of DERBY said
that the amendment proposed by the Earl of Chichester
was quite beside the original motion, for there was no
reason why any one who agreed to the one should not also
agree to the other. It was with regret that he observed
that the government were about to take a course which
would involve them in embarrassment, and which had
the appearance of concession to popular clamour raised
in Van Diemen's land; for this reason, if for no other,
he should vote with Lord Grey if he pressed his motion
to a division.—The Duke of NEWCASTLE defended the
course pursued by the government in a speech of
considerable length; and after speeches from the LORD
CHANCELLOR and Lord CAMPBELL, their lordships
divided, when Earl Grey's motion was negatived by
54, against 37.

On Thursday, May 12, the Earl of MALMESBURY
presented a petition praying for a Revision of the Poor
Laws, and complaining of the Unequal Dislribution of
the Poor Rates. He also complained that land, which
was alrpady subjected to an exclusive burden of
£5,000,000 a year, would shortly be charged with an
additional £2,000,000, and wished to know whether the
government would bring forward any measure on the
subject of the poor–rates during the present session.—
The Earl of ABERDEEN replied, that it was not the
intention of the government to propose any such
measure. The amount expected to be derived from the
tax on successions had been greatly exaggerated by
Lord Malmesbury.

On Friday, May 13, the Marquess of CLANRICARDE
presented a petition from the Galway Union, praying
that No Income–tax be Imposed on Ireland; and asked
whether any exception or modification in the case of
clergymen were intended, whereby those persons would
be treated in a different manner to other persons.—The
Earl of ABERDEEN hoped the noble marquess would
not think him guilty of discourtesy if he declined a
premature discussion on this subject.—Lord CAMPBELL
had no objection to the income–tax being extended to
Ireland; but hoped that only the net incomes would be
assessed—as, in that case, he would, so far as his Irish
property went, be exempt.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved the second reading
of the Common Lodging House Bill, which he said was
intended to extend the provisions of the bill that had
passed in the last session.—After some discussion the
bill was read a second time.

The Earl of ALBERMARLE presented a petition from
Manchester, on the subject of the Government of India.
It prayed that the future government of India in this
country should consist of a minister and a council
appointed by the Crown, and directly responsible to the
Imperial Parliament. The Earl, after adverting to the
great importance of the Indian Empire, observed that
in many instances the most disastrous consequences had
resulted, owing to the delays which had almost inevitably
arisen from the mode in which the affairs of India had
hitherto been conducted. The East India Company
could not act without the sanction of the Home Government,
and on the other hand the government was
unwilling to take any decisive step, however necessary,
without consulting the Board of Directors. The form
of government to which he referred had been established
70 years ago, and, although the social, moral, and
political condition of the Indian Empire had during
that time undergone a total change, the form of government
remained unchanged. That was a state of things
which should not be permitted to continue any longer.
The Earl, in support of his argument, read extracts
from various documents, for the purpose of showing
that the taxation of land in India had been carried to
the extreme point of endurance, and that no effort had
been made to develop the resources of the country. It
was notorious that the people of India had suffered
severely under the system hitherto pursued, and without
any corresponding advantage to Great Britain. It
was that dog–in–the–manger system which must be put
an end to. He was not an advocate for precipitate
legislation, but if the East India Company could not reform
the grievances complained of, it was the duty of the
Imperial Parliament to take the matter into its own
hands.—The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH admitted that
the mode in which India should be governed in future
was a subject of vast importance. Although he did not
agree with the petitioners that the native population
was in a state of misery, he admitted that their condition,
morally and socially, might be greatly improved.
Before the close of the present session, the Earl of
Aberdeen would bring forward a scheme for the future
government of India, which he trusted would be such
as to remedy all the evils complained of.—Lord
WHARNCLIFFE was satisfied that the appointment of a distinct
government department for India would do more
towards developing the resources and generally
improving the condition of our Indian empire, than could
by any possibility be achieved by the ordinary course of
legislation.—The petition was then laid on the table.

The House adjourned for the Whitsun holidays to
Monday, the 23d inst.

On Monday, May 23, Lord BROUGHAM presented
a petition adverting to the Ruin which had Ensued in
Consequence of West indian Emancipation and
proceeded to ask whether any steps had been taken by our
consuls abroad to check the evils of the slave trade as
practised by other nations, and especially by the
Spaniards on a recent occasion in Cuba.—The Earl of
CLARENDON replied, that it could not be denied that
the slave–trade was carried on to a fearful extent in
Cuba, and that a case of great atrocity had recently
occurred in that island. He was, however, happy to
say that the British Consul–General had rescued 300 of
the unfortunate beings landed on the occasion, and
that an earnest appeal on the subject had been
addressed to the Government of the United States.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, on Tuesday, April 26,
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON moved for a select committee to
inquire into the working of the National System of
Education in Ireland, with the view of ascertaining how
far the instructions of 1830 had been followed or departed
from; whether a combined education had been attained
under the national system; and whether, by any further
extension or modification of the rules, conscientious
objections to the system might be reasonably obviated.
He referred to the positions laid down by Lord John