wished to put a few questions on the subject of Ceylon to the Under Secretary of the Colonies, in consequence of the numerous representations that had been made to him, since the debate of Friday last, from the friends and connexions of the civil servants of that Colony; amongst whom the conduct of the Government had produced the greatest anxiety. He asked, first, at what period the six months were to commence, during which the civil servants were to make their election, either to retain their offices or their lands? Whether the term of two years for the disposal of the landed property was definitely settled? And, lastly, which was of the greatest importance, whether civil servants might be allowed to retain their lands, provided they gave up the active management. He hoped that he should receive a definitive answer upon these points; and that, after what had already passed, as little as possible would be left to the discretion of the Governor of that Colony.

said, that the civil servants of the Government, in Ceylon, would be afforded the fullest information without delay; and they should have had that sooner but the Governor was obliged to wait until he obtained some detailed information from England. The time of election had been extended from six months to a year, and the time allowed for the disposal of property was fixed at two years. With regard to the third and most important question put by the hon. Member (as it was necessary to wait for some information from Ceylon) still he thought an arrangement might be made which would prove satisfactory to the civil servants. He was happy to add that the dissatisfaction which prevailed at the first issuing of the Minute had much diminished.

felt great satisfaction at hearing the answer of the hon. Gentleman, and he had only to add that he hoped as little as possible would be left to the discretion of the Governor of Ceylon.

said, he had reason to believe that the dissatisfaction which had been expressed in Ceylon had, in a great degree, subsided.

moved the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Slave Trade Brazils Bill.

wished to make one or two remarks before this stage of the Bill had passed; and in addition to these, he was desirous of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government with respect to the Bill. He had given the measure the fullest consideration, and he had looked to the opinions of those who were competent judges, and he was unable as yet to regard the measure in a favourable light, in any point of view in which he regarded it. It appeared to him very questionable whether, according to international law, they could make the provisions of the Bill binding on Brazilian subjects; and if it were, he did not think that it was calculated to assist the course of policy which we were desirous of carrying out with respect to the Slave Trade. It seemed to him to be a dangerous doctrine to set up proclamations instead of law. It appeared to him to be a dangerous doctrine to make the dictum of the Executive Government—of the temporary advisers of the Crown—equivalent to the effect of law; and he did not think that the subjects of another country ought by such a dictum to be dealt with and punished for a crime which the law and tribunals of their own country had not declared to be a crime. There was no law in the Brazils which declared the Slave Trade to be piracy, and the Government of this country knew that there was no such law. How then could we consistently pass an Act, the object of which was to punish Brazilian subjects to a degree to which they would not be punishable in their own country, and for an offence which the laws of their own country had not declared that they ought to be so punished. Another question arose which it was most desirable to have answered by the Government before they passed this Bill, namely, whether we had power to inflict punishment upon Brazilian subjects for an offence against our laws, they having no such law; and he confessed himself to be still at a loss to understand the explanation which the Attorney General had given on the last occasion when this subject was before the House. The policy of such a course as this appeared to him to be fatal to a good understanding with Brazil, and to be quite opposed to the object with which it was introduced, of inducing in the public opinion of Brazil an opposition to the Slave Trade, and a desire for its abolition, as it was rather calculated to excite hostility in Brazil to our exertions, and become dangerous to the interests of British subjects and to British trade in the Brazils. It appeared to him also that it was calculated to prevent the co-operation of Brazilian subjects in our exertions, which co-operation, it would seem from Papers that had been laid on the Table of the House, might have otherwise been expected, as measures were in progress in Brazil to put an end effectually to the Slave Trade. That was an additional reason why they should have abstained from a measure of such bad policy as this, and he therefore felt it his duty to enter his protest against the measure. He begged now to make the inquiries of which he gave notice. He wished to know whether the Brazilian Minister in this country had addressed to Her Majesty's Government any remonstrance or communication relative to this Bill? If such a communication had been received by the Government, he thought that the House was en- titled to see the communication or remonstrance, and that it should be laid before Parliament. He thought that as they were called upon to share in the responsibility of the Executive, the Executive Government should place the House in the same position in which they stood themselves—and should have a full opportunity of judging both of the law and the policy of this measure. He would ask the right hon. Baronet, then, if a remonstrance had been received, and, if it had, whether he could lay it on the Table of the House? If it was received, why should they not delay this measure till they had printed this remonstrance or communication? The Report was brought up on Monday last, and the matter was postponed till this day, and he was not chargeable with that delay. He did think that they should not be acting properly, and that they should not be doing what was required, if they acted without the fullest information. He would conclude by requesting Her Majesty's Government to inform them whether they had received that information.

thanked the hon. Member for having given him an intimation of his intention to ask this question. He was quite confident that the hon. Member would not take advantage of the late period of the Session to defeat this measure. It was true that he postponed the Bill on a former occasion, in order to have an opportunity of maturely weighing a suggestion of an hon. Member, by whom no suggestion could be made which would not be worthy of attention. He had postponed the Bill till that day in order to have an opportunity of further deliberation, and having the opinion of the highest authority upon the subject; and he hoped that the delay caused in that manner would not prejudice the measure at this period of the Session. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had given the most mature consideration to the Bill; and that, having, in addition to that, taken the opinion of the highest authority on the subject, his opinion remained unaltered with respect to it. According to the opinion of that authority to which he had referred, under the First Article of the Convention of 1826, the Sovereign of this country might consider the carrying on of the Slave Trade, on the part of Brazilian subjects, an act of piracy. The First Article of that Convention was to the effect, that after the expiration of three years, to be reckoned from the exchange of the rati- fications of the Convention between the two nations, it should not be lawful for any subject of the Emperor of the Brazils to be concerned in carrying on the African Slave Trade, under any pretext, or in any manner whatsoever; and that carrying on the Slave Trade after that period, on the part of subjects of His Brazilian Majesty should be deemed piracy, and treated as such. There was not in that Convention any obligation on Brazil to pass a municipal law to make the offence of carrying on the Slave Trade piracy. Carrying on the Slave Trade could not be piracy by international law, as they would see, if they recollected that this country had carried on the Slave Trade at no very remote period. The simple act of carrying on the Slave Trade was not, therefore, piracy by international law; but the carrying on of the Slave Trade had been made by various other countries piracy under municipal law, when that trade was carried on by the subjects of the country so passing the law; and the United States was the first of those countries to which the honour of passing that law belonged. The United States passed a law in 1824, by which the Slave Trade was declared piracy, and the subjects of the United States rendered liable to the punishment of piracy under the municipal law of that country. Thus, the countries which had so made the Slave Trade piracy, under their municipal law, had the power to punish their own subjects for carrying on that trade; and at that time a new description of piracy was created between the United States and Great Britain. Under the Convention with the Brazils in 1826, this country had a right to take cognizance of the carrying on of the Slave Trade by Brazilian subjects subsequent to the year 1830; for under that Convention Brazil declared it to be piracy on the part of the subjects of the Brazilian Government. By the Convention of 1817 with the Brazils, a mutual Right of Search was agreed to; and whilst that was in force, it suspended the Article in the Convention of 1826; but by the abrogation of the Convention of 1817 in 1845, the Article in the Convention of 1826 was brought into full force, and remains now in full force, between this country and the Brazils, the Brazilian subjects who carry on the Slave Trade being, by that Article, declared guilty of piracy. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Brazils had passed no law to make it piracy, and inferred, therefore, that so long as the Brazils passed no law to make the carrying on of the Slave Trade by Brazilian subjects piracy, Great Britain had no right to interfere with them. [Mr. M. Gibson: I said, no right to pass an Act of this kind.] Of what kind? The Government of the Brazils had avowed the fact which this country maintained, that carrying on the Slave Trade was piracy, and had entered into a solemn engagement that all its subjects who were found carrying on the Slave Trade should be held guilty of piracy. If that was not the mode of effecting the recognition of the Slave Trade as piracy, what other mode would they adopt? He relied on the common sense of the House in supporting him in the statement, that unless this country took cognizance, in some way or another, of the carrying on of the Slave Trade by the subjects of the Brazils, the stipulation would be of no use. Piracy was not a crime merely against municipal law; and the hon. Member, of course, knew that, by international law, piracy was punishable by all nations; and when a country, in a Convention, declares an act to be piracy, it gives not to all countries, but to that particular country with which it formed the Convention, in which such declaration was contained, a power to deal with the act so described as an act of piracy. If this country were prepared to take no measure in relation to the Convention, it was quite clear that the Slave Trade might be carried on to an unlimited extent under the Brazilian flag; and, according to the hon. Gentleman's opinion, this country would have no power to interfere. It was impossible to say to what extent the abominable crime of slave trading might be carried on, if Parliament separated without establishing a power to prevent it. He would now refer to the view which the Government of the Brazils took of the power of this country to recognize slave trading on the part of the Brazils. In the year 1829, the Brazilian Minister applied to this country to do away with the Courts of Mixed Commission which were constituted under the Convention of 1817. He made this request on grounds of considerable importance to this question. On the 4th of October, 1830, the Chevalier De Mattos, then the Brazilian Minister in this country, addressed the following letter to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs:—

moved an additional clause.

said, he looked upon this Bill as of an important character, and as a measure dealing with a very difficult and delicate subject. If it should hereafter appear, that we had not a sound and legal basis for our proceedings, difficulties should arise from this measure, and they be referred for adjustment, as other difficulties had been, to a foreign Sovereign, if that foreign Sovereign should decide that we were in the wrong, he was sure that such a result would be contemplated by every one in that House with feelings of the deepest regret. He doubted very much, if we were not proceeding, in regard to this measure, somewhat too fast. When the right hon. Baronet stated, that persons of the highest legal authority concurred with him in the view which he had taken of the Treaty of 1826, he very much doubted whether the right hon. Baronet had good ground on which to stand; and if he had not known that the views which he entertained were the views of men better qualified than he was to judge upon the subject, he would not have ventured to say a single word upon the present occasion; but, fortified as he was with the opinions of others, whose opinions he thought entitled to deference and respect, he would venture to suggest whether we might not now be proceeding rather precipitately. The right hon. Gentlemen called their attention to the First Article in the Treaty. There were two points in that Article. The first was, that the two countries should consider the Slave Trade as unlawful; and the second, that Brazilians engaged in that trade should be deemed and treated as pirates. He should have supposed that the natural construction of this Article was, that those found so employed should be deemed and treated by their own Government as pirates, subject to the penalties laid down by their own municipal laws. The executive authorities of the two countries entered into this Treaty. If, by such a Treaty, the subjects of Great Britain, engaged in piracy, should be handed over to the Brazilian Government, to be dealt with according to Brazilian laws—[Sir R. Peel: This Treaty was a marked and peculiar one. It was a unilateral Treaty. It did not make British subjects punishable for piracy. The First Article provided that Brazilian subjects engaged in the Slave Trade should be deemed guilty of piracy.] He was well aware that such was the nature of the Treaty. But suppose we had undertaken to hand over our own subjects concerned in the Slave Trade to the authorities of the Brazils, to be dealt with according to their laws. Now, by the laws of most countries, he believed that piracy was made punishable with death. By a recent Act of the British Legislature, they had, in certain cases, remitted capital punishment as the penalty for piracy. Were they prepared to contend that the British Crown, the executive authority of this country, could hand over a British subject to the Brazilian authorities, to be subjected to penalties in the Brazils, which the laws of his own country would not permit the Government to enforce against a British subject? But if they permitted the Brazils to treat British subjects concerned in the Slave Trade as pirates, and if the municipal laws of that country should be allowed to pronounce against them as such the penalty of death, the Government would then be doing nothing more nor less than handing over British subjects to undergo, in another country, such penalties as the Legislature of their own country had declared that they were not liable to. The Government, by this Bill, asserted a right to treat, to a certain extent, in like manner the subjects of the Brazils in this country—a right which they could not possess in regard to Brazilian subjects, unless they could confer the same upon the Brazils in regard to British subjects. If the constitution of this country conferred upon them the power of thus handing over British subjects to be dealt with according to Brazilian laws, although those laws should conflict with the laws of their own country, it was a subject which deserved their deepest consideration. Such a power appeared to him in every way repugnant to a constitutional government. Lord Aberdeen stated that he was prepared to enforce the law against the persons of Brazilian subjects engaged in the Slave Trade, treating them as pirates. The right hon. Baronet did not ask such a power, and seemed to doubt very much whether he had any ground for making such an appeal to Parliament, and whether such a power would be conformable to the provisions of the Treaty. He regarded the present measure as in every respect a pernicious one, and as a measure by which, instead of securing, we should defeat our own objects. We should have called upon the Brazilian Government to pass a law dealing with the Slave Trade as piracy. If they had refused to pass such a law, Great Britain might have treated their refusal as a casus belli. He felt assured that this Bill would effect no good whatever, and that the attempt to check in this way the Slave Trade, would only aggravate the evils which we were so anxious to eradicate.

thought that this Bill introduced anew principle in dealing with all vessels equipped for the Slave Trade, and which were to be adjudicated upon by our Vice-Admiralty courts.

moved an addition to the 13th Clause, that costs should be allowed to informers, as between attorneys and clients, in all actions that were suspended under the operation of this Bill.

observed that the Bill seemed to proceed on the assumption that there was a redundancy of convict population, and that it was necessary to find profitable employment for them. How was it that a Colony with so much redundant labour, and having such abundance of good land, should be in a state of distress? How could they account for this anomaly? And what was the remedy here proposed? The repeal of an Act of Parliament, the policy of which nobody had ever questioned. It was the most unnecessary piece of legislation he had ever seen. It stood self-condemned, and if he could get a seconder, he would divide against the Bill. He moved that the House will on this day month resolve itself into the said Committee.

would second the hon. Member.

supported the measure, which, he said, was brought forward to assist a most deserving class of persons in a distant Colony. The opposition had arisen from the monopolising jealousy of the New Zealand Company.

said, the present measure had nothing whatever to do with New Zealand. He should vote against the Bill, and condemned the policy of the Government towards our Australian Colonies, as calculated to retard the prosperity of those Colonies, and stop emigration.

supported the Bill, and urged upon the Government the necessity of providing more effectual religious instruction for the emigrants. The Government had granted 30,000l. for religious instruction in New South Wales; but that was not sufficient, while in Port Phillip and other distant settlements no means existed for the relief of religious destitution. He thought some portion of the funds derived from land sales should be devoted to the purposes of public worship and religious instruction in those distant Colonies.

defended the Bill, the effect of which would be to provide profitable employment for the redundant labour of the Colony. Six thousand convicts had been employed at the charge of this country, in works of irrigation and other public works, by which the value of the lands in the Colony had been increased; and it was no more than common justice, therefore, that in the benefit derived from the sale of the waste lands, the means of reimbursing ourselves for that outlay should be allowed. Another advantage which would result from the measure was, that it would give to the stockholders of New South Wales a tenure on better terms than that they now enjoyed. With regard to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Mr. Pakington), he could assure him that the Government was as anxious as he could possibly be to provide for the spiritual destitution of the inhabitants of these Colonies; but they felt that if to effect that object they proceeded in opposition to the feelings of the colonists, they would do more harm than good.

would support the Amendment were it pressed to a division. The Government would not allow the settlers to bring their produce to the best market. As to the speech of the hon. Member for Droitwich, he thought it was very much out of place. It was food and clothing that the settlers wanted rather than spiritual instruction.

protested against the Bill, which was in the teeth of their Governor's recommendations, and inefficient in itself. They were going to great and unwarrantable expenses for the sake of their convict population, at the time that they would not open to the produce of the Colony the only market accessible to it.

said, that the convicts had been employed at the expense of this country in cultivating lands in the Colony. These lands had afterwards been sold, one half of the proceeds being devoted to the promotion of emigration. As, however, the supply of labour had began to exceed the demand, it was now proposed to devote the produce of the sales to the expenses of the Colony, with a view of reducing the general taxation in this country.

said, that were the Government to resolve upon a measure admitting Australian corn into this country, he was sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth would withdraw his opposition to the present Bill. Considering the great change which had come over the opinions of country gentlemen, he did hope that they would make some demonstration of their readiness to acquiesce in so reasonable a measure.

rose to move the Address of which he had given notice, praying that Her Majesty would grant a sum not exceeding 20,000l. for the relief of the sufferers by the late fires at Quebec. In moving a Resolution to this effect, he was sure that he would only be doing that which would be strictly in unison with the feelings of the House. He need not attempt by any powers on his part to induce them to perform an act of kindness and of policy to which he was sure they would be most ready to assent. The calamity with which they had to deal was one of a most extensive nature. He was unable to give to the House those details which must be so interesting to all who were disposed to concur in the Resolution he was about to move, but the facts of which he was aware were these:—On two several occasions—on the 28th of May, and again on the 28th of June—fires broke out in different places in Quebec, the conflagration on the first occasion lasting from eleven o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock in the evening; on the other from twelve o'clock at night until eight o'clock the next morning. And although he did not know how many dwellings had been destroyed by the two calamities, yet with respect to the last of them he was informed that upwards of 1,200 houses had fallen a prey to the flames. And as the duration of the second fire was about the same as that of the first, he presumed that they could not expect that any smaller number of houses were upon the occasion of the first unfortunate occurrence destroyed. They were also aware that the fires took place in that part of Quebec inhabited by a poor and labouring population, and, therefore, the sufferers were those who were least able to provide for themselves the means of repairing the calamity which had fallen upon them, and which had entailed the loss of great part of their little property, leaving them in a state of the greatest destitution. He was happy to state that every possible exertion had been made upon both occasions by the troops stationed at Quebec, and by the officers commanding them, in order first to arrest the flames, and then to afford succour to the sufferers. There was but one feeling of zeal and interest displayed by the military, and he believed that it was mainly owing to their unremitting exertions that the calamity had not proved more extensive than it did. Every effort, too, he was bound to say, had been made by all persons in authority to afford relief to the sufferers, in providing for those who found themselves homeless, some temporary accommodation. The Governor of the Colony had come forward with the view of providing shelter for the unfortunate persons in question; and he felt, upon an occasion of this sort, independent of the calls of humanity, that it was most consistent with good policy to show that when our fellow subjects proceeded to distant Colonies they were not forgotten, but that if they were exposed to any sudden calamity, not only did we in this country as individuals sympathize with and strive to aid them, not only did the Crown feel the deepest interest in the alleviation of the calamity, but that Parliament was ready and willing to take the earliest opportunity of coming forward, and marking their sense of the suffering endured, by the means they were prepared to adopt for its relief. He begged to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the Resolution which he was about to submit, on which to found an Address to Her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to direct that a sum not exceeding 20,000l. should be apportioned for the relief of the sufferers at the recent fires in Quebec.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the settlement of the poor in England and Wales, begged permission to state shortly the objects which he had in view, more in the hope that the House would permit him to bring in his Bill, and thus enable him to have it printed and circulated throughout the country during the recess, than with any hope of being able to proceed further than the present stage at present. He did not propose, as was contemplated by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, to make any alteration in the present Law of Settlement. His object was to mitigate, if not to remove entirely, two very serious and very pressing evils which were found to exist under the present administration of the Poor Laws, in so far as the removal of paupers was concerned, and likewise in regard to the adjudication of disputed settlements. Under the present law a great deal of unnecessary hardship was inflicted by the immediate removal of persons from a parish to which they became chargeable by reason of sickness, accident, or other sudden and inevitable dispensations of Providence. It was very hard upon such persons to be compelled to see their little households broken up, and themselves and their families transported to a distant part of the country, in consequence of their becoming temporarily chargeable to the parish; and, moreover, he must point out that the evil was not all on one side, for a great and often an unnecessary expense was incurred by the parish in enforcing such removals. The Bill which he supposed to lay on the Table provided against both these evils, by enacting that no person circumstanced as he had described should be liable to be removed to his or her place of settlement until relief should have been continuously given to them for a certain specified number of days after the sickness or accident by which they had been rendered chargeable, should have ceased or have been remedied. The Bill of the right hon. Baronet did contain a proposition by which it was to be enacted that no widow who became chargeable by her husband's death should, be removed to her place of settlement until twelve months had elapsed since the death of her husband; he proposed to introduce that provision into his Bill, and to make such removal likewise contingent upon the consent of the widow being obtained. The next provision which he proposed to introduce into the Bill would remedy a most enormous and growing evil, which prevailed to a very serious extent under the present Poor Law. When the magistrates at quarter sessions had decided upon the evidence of parties before them, as to the place of settlement of persons chargeable to the parishes within their jurisdiction, those decisions came under the cognizance of the Court of Queen's Bench by appeal from the quarter sessions, and it was found that in consequence of technical objections, and without any reference to the merits of the case, or the real and substantial justice of the magistrates' award, these quarter sessions' decisions, in four cases out of five, were upset and reversed by the Court of Queen's Bench, thus entailing a useless, as well as a very heavy expense upon the ratepayers. What he proposed to do in order to put an end to a practice so ruinous was, to constitute a referee under this Bill, who should be a barrister of a certain standing, and who should be empowered to take evidence, to examine witnesses, and to decide upon the legality of the quarter sessions' decisions in cases of disputed settlement, due regard being had to the justice of each case, and technical points being overruled and set aside. He did not propose to alter in any degree the present Law of Settlement, or to make any change in the mode of proving the settlement; all he sought to effect was, to put a stop to the present system of allowing technical objections, instead of the real merits of each case, to govern the decision of the Judge to whom the appeal against the decision at quarter sessions was referred; and, having thus explained the objects which he had in view, he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to orders for removal of the poor to their places of settlement, and the trial of appeals against such orders.

was sure that the House and the country would be greatly indebted to his hon. and learned Friend, who was a gentleman of great experience and legal knowledge, for devoting his time and abilities to a matter of such great importance, not only to the poor, who suffered extremely from removal, but also to the country generally, to whom these removals caused great expense. He should readily give his most anxious attention to the measure. The fact that it had emanated from his learned Friend, was a proof that it would embrace a great practical knowledge of the subject, and that it would conduce to an early and satisfactory arrangement of the question. The Law of Settlement as it at present stood was, he thought, most injurious and unsatisfactory; but he knew that the greatest possible difference of opinion existed as to the means which should be adopted for amending it. He himself could not, of course, propose any amendment which in his conscience and judgment he did not think would be effective. In his opinion, parochial settlements, small township and parish settlements, were the very root of the evil; at the same time, he knew that many persons believed, on the contrary, that it would be nothing less than sacrilege to interfere with those small settlements. However, he should be most happy to attend to the measure now introduced, which was limited to the subject of removal, though, in his opinion—and he thought it would be found so at last—the Law of Settlement was so intimately blended with the law of removal, that they could not come to a satisfactory arrangement of the one without including the other. He could not at present state what measure he might consider it his duty next Session to adopt; but, in the mean time, he certainly promised his hon. and learned Friend, that the measure before them should receive his careful perusal and best attention