move. In that case, he would not say a word. The motion was for a committee of inquiry into the state of Newfoundland. He hoped ministers would agree to it, and he would be very ready to spare the time of the house by refraining from any observations.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he could not accept the hon. member's courtesy on those conditions; but the fact was, the hon. member's motion did not stand first on the day in question. The first was that of the noble lord, the member for Lanark, who might, he trusted, be induced to give way.

Mr. Kennedy, in the absence of his noble friend, thought he might say his noble friend would not be willing to give it up, as this was the third session in which he had attempted to bring it forward.

Mr. Goulburn then said, he would fix Tuesday next for the motion, in hope that some honourable member might be induced to give way.

The occasional freeholders' bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on the 12th instant.

On the report being brought up of the Irish county treasurers' bill, Sir G. Hill opposed the clause respecting the appointment of collectors.

Sir J. Newport and Mr. S. Rice defended the clause.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned.

House of Lords, May 5. Mr. Stuart Wortley, Lord Althorp, and other members of the House of Commons, brought up several private bills, which were read a first time.

A person from the office of the chief secretary of Ireland presented an account of all monies issued by the lord lieutenant to public commissioners in Ireland for public works, between the 1st January 1822 and 1st January 1823.

Petitions were presented against the insolvent debtors' act- the weights and measures bill-for a mitigation of slavery upon the subject of agricultural distress.

On the motion of Earl Grey, the name of Lord Rosslyn was added to the committee of appeals.

Earl Grey gave notice of his intention, on Wednesday next, to move for certain additional papers relative to the late negotiations.Adjourned.

House of Commons, May 5. Petitions were presented for a prohibition against the importation of foreign tallow-against the slavetrade-against the duties on East India sugar-from the Roman Catholics of Tuam, being compelled to embellish the cathedral church

for the repeal of the leather tax and coal duties for altering the mode of election at Edinburgh,

contained 100,000 inhabitants, that only thirty-three had the right of voting, and this thirty-three were reduced really to fourteen, for nineteen held public offices). After some conversation upon the state of representation in Edinburgh and Scotland generally, and upon the

Mr. Lambton, Mr. S. Whitbread, and other members of the House of Commons, brought up several private bills, which were read the first time.

A person from the Treasury presented superannuation returns.

Earl Grey postponed his motion until Monday for additional papers relating to the Spanish question.

Lord Cawdor spoke a few words upon the present mode of administering justice in Wales.Adjourned.

House of Commons, May 6.Mr. Poyntz moved that the Portsea fishery (private) bill should be read a third time.

Mr. Bernal moved, that the bill be read a third time this day six months.

Sir I. Coffin thought the bill went too far.

The Attorney-General opposed the bill.

Mr. W. Smith was also against it. After a few words from Mr. Hurst, and Sir W. de Crespigny, in favour of the bill, and against it from Mr. Sykes and Mr. Huskisson (the latter of whom suggested the propriety of withdrawing the private bill, and introducing a public bill to correct the evil complained of), the house divided-For the bill 39-against it 97.

Petitions were presented against

abuses existing in the corporation of Limerick.

Mr. S. Rice moved the second reading of a private bill for the better regulation of the corporation of Limerick, which was supported by Mr. Wodehouse, and opposed by Mr. O'Grady. The bill was read a second time, and referred to a committee.

The house then prosecuted the enquiry relating to the Sheriff of Dublin, Sir R. Heron in the chair. After which the house resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to

morrow.

Mr. Scarlett obtained leave to bring in a bill to extend the jurisdiction of the county court of Lancaster.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned.

House of Lords, May 7.—Sir J. Newport, accompanied by other members of the House of Commons, brought up the Irish county trea surers, and apprentices bills, which were read the first time.

On the motion of the Marquis of Lansdown, the Irish charitable loan society's bill was read the second time.

The Marquis of Lansdown presented a petition from Salisbury, praying the gradual abolition of slavery.-Adjourned.

House of Commons, May 7. Petitions were presented against the obligation to stamp Scotch linensfrom Kincardine, praying for repeal of enactments respecting their trade

against the coal duty-for the equalization of the sugar dutiesfor an open trade in beer-against the importation of foreign tallowforty-one against slavery-against the grand jury presentment bill.

General

General Gascoyne postponed his motion relating to Irish half pay till the 23rd.

Lord Lowther postponed his mo

tion.

Mr. F. Burton postponed his motion on the slave-trade till Thursday the 15th of May, on which day he would proceed with it, and on no account consent to postpone it beyond.

Lord Nugent postponed his motion respecting British Catholics, till Tuesday, May 28, and made a similar declaration against further postponement.

Mr. Brougham presented a peti

tion from a writer of eminent ta

lt was

lents, respecting the game laws, which contained statements, as he thought, deserving the gravest consideration of the house. signed by Wm. Cobbett, and it prayed that as there was a motion for bringing in a bill for the alteration of the game laws, the house would be graciously pleased to pause before passing an act which, as the petitioner had been informed, was likely to go to legalize the sale of game by lords of manors, and other privileged persons to be designated in the act. It prayed that the house would weigh well and consider the state of the laws, and the severe hardships which were inflicted on the community at present by their operation, which were greater than ever was known in any other country, or at any other period in this country; and that the house might the better judge, the petitioner offered to their consideration the following most alarming facts. The calendar for the ensuing quarter sessions in the county of Berks, contained the names of seventyseven persons now in Bridewell.

Of these twenty-two were for poaching; and of these twenty-two there had been nine committed by clergymen acting as magistrates in that county. The petition stated farther, that in general poaching was punished with greater severity than offences punishable with death. In one session, an utterer of false silver coin had been punished with twelve months' imprisonment, a housebreaker with twenty-four months' imprisonment, and a poacher with twenty-four months' imprisonment and hard labour. The petition went on to state, that of twenty-two persons convicted in the county of Hants, sixteen were for poaching and offences against the game laws, and the only persons who suffered death from among this number were two young men who had resisted game-keepers. The petitioner therefore prayed the house to consider well before they passed the bill into a law, which was to give a property in wild animals to the lords of manors and others, which could only be done by oppressions great in suffering and humiliation to the people at large, and by compelling the country to submit to grievances for the protection of this new property, which, in regard to the power of those who made the laws, and the abjectness of those who were called on to obey then, would be without any parallel in any country west of Constantinople. These were the remarks and statements of a man of sufficient powers of observation and understanding to make them worthy of attention.

Lord Palmerston said that the two young men in question were executed, not for poaching, but for murder.

One of them had killed a gamekeeper, who was in the lawful

ful exercise of his duty--the other had levelled his piece at another game-keeper, who received the contents in his body, but from proper treatment recovered. He was able to speak with certainty upon the characters of the young men, as they were servants of his, and he must say a more cruel and deliberate outrage had never been committed.

Mr. Brougham said that he need not, as he did not, deny the statement of the noble lord; and yet it would rather go to support the reasoning of Mr. Cobbett. It was not even necessary for him to palliate the offences of the two young men; for the question was, how came they to kill the gamekeepers? and then the answer might be, in consequence of the state of the law. That was the very argument he had used before the court on the trial of twenty-one persons the other day, charged with murder on the high seas; and it prevailed, too, with the jury; for the men were killed in consequence of that most abominable law which enabled revenue cruisers to fire shotted guns upon the ships of any nation within two leagues of the British coast.

Mr. J. Benett admitted that the two young men had suffered death very properly in Hampshire. Still he thought that the state of the law demanded reformation. Most of the offences of the country might be considered as results from the severity of the game laws. Offenders were gradually trained from poaching to shoplifting, and then to housebreaking, and occasionally murder.

Sir T. Baring corroborated the statements in Mr. Cobbett's petition. Half the offenders in Hampshire were committed for poaching.

-The petition was ordered to be printed.

Mr. Abercromby postponed his motion relative to Mr. Borthwick, until the 3rd of June next.

Mr. G. Bennet moved for the returns of all land granted, and the annual expense of the colonies of New South Wales, during the last seven years; this was, he intimated, preparatory to his moving for leave to bring in a bill for the better administration of justice in those colonies.-Ordered.

The order of the day was then read for proceeding with the in quiry into the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin.

The house resolved itself into a committee, Sir R. Heron being in

the chair.

Fresh witnesses were examined, after which the House resunied, and Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.-Adjourned.

House of Commons, May 8.Mr. Holme Sumner gave notice, on the part of his hon. friend the member for Galway, of a motion next week to bring in a bill against the practice of bull-baiting.

Petitions were presented against the coal duties-four for a compensation of tithes, offering twenty-five years purchase-for a law for the recovery of small debts-eleven against slavery-from Richard Carlile for mitigation of punishment→→→ for equalizing duties on sugar-for extending the bread act to Liverpool.

Mr. Abercromby moved, in the absence of an honourable friend, for a committee to inspect the journals of the House of Lords, and to enquire into the best means of facilitating the administration of justice as it was connected with the hearing of appeals, writs of error, and

other

other judicial proceedings in that house.

The committee was thereupon appointed.

The House went on with its enquiry relative to the Sheriff of Dublin.

After the house had resumed, and the chairman reported progress, the other orders of the day were disposed of.-Adjourned.

House of Lords, May 9.-Petitions were presented against the general gaols' bill-against slavery -against the Roman Catholic claims-for a repeal of the silk acts of London and Westminster.

Mr. Brogden, accompanied by several other members of the House of Commons, brought up some private bills, and the warehousing bill, with the amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Liverpool moved the third reading of the Irish militia reduction bill.

The Earl of Gosford opposed the third reading, on the ground that it was an act of injustice, and a breach of faith, to the subaltern officers.

The Earl of Liverpool defended the bill, and maintained that the former acts of parliament left it completely open to Parliament to make the reductions or not; and in point of fact, if the militia were to be called into active service, a very large proportion of those officers would be found inefficient, and must be reduced: the only question therefore was, whether that inefficient force should be continued, and a needless expense incurred.

The Earl of Caledon opposed the

bill.

After some further discussion, The Marquis of Lansdown proposed that the third reading of the

bill should be postponed to this day week, which was agreed to.-Adjourned.

House of Commons, May 9Petitions were presented against slavery from seven places-for the equalization of the sugar dutiesfrom the Catholics of Ireland, for emancipation.

Mr. T. Wilson presented a petition from the silk-weavers of London, Westminster, and Middlesex, praying for the repeal of certain statutes called the Spitalfields Acts. The acts in question were those of the 13th, 32d, and 51st of George III., and the restrictions which they imposed upon the conduct of the silk-trade were of the most absurd description. In the first place the wages of the manufacturer were fixed at the discretion of the magistrate. In the next place, the interference extended to the quality of the articles manufactured; silks were to be made only of a given width; and even the number of threads to an inch was fixed by act of parliament. The effect of these absurd and mischievous regulations was, that the whole fancy trade, the imitation of French articles, was carried away from Spitalfields to Manchester and other silk towns in the north. The hon. gentleman sat down by reminding the house of the growing importance of the silk-trade to the country.

Within the last fifty years, the importation cf raw material had risen from 100,000l. to upwards of 2,000,000l. a-year: and if the present restrictions were removed, a still larger increase might be confidently anticipated.

Mr.Ricardo thought it must-surprise both the house and the country to see such statutes existing in the year 1823. The provisions of

the