been agreed to by her Majesty's Government and by the Neapolitan Plenipotentiary at Paris, who had been sent with full powers to negociate on behalf of his government. He had not yet heard from Naples, but he had no doubt that the agreement would be ratified. The nature of the arrangement was, that as soon as it should be known at Naples that the English Ambassador at Paris and the Neapolitan Plenipotentiary had entered into arrangements, the sulphur monopoly should cease at the shortest possible period. Compensation would be made upon principles satisfactory to her Majesty's Government. The commission would consist of two Neapolitan commissioners, two British commissioners, and one French commissioner, the French commissioner to act as arbitrator in cases of difference, and the selection of the French commissioner having been made with the concurrence of the British and Neapolitan Governments. The noble Viscount, in answer to another question, proceeded to state that the sulphur question was not a single instance in which the Neapolitan government, in the opinion of the British Government, had evaded or violated the treaty of 1816. Representations and communications had been made on the subject to the Neapolitan government, and as soon as the sulphur question was disposed of, the British Minister at Naples would be instructed to renew the negotiations for a new treaty. RAILWAYS.] Lord Seymour moved the third reading of the Railways Bill. Lord G. Somerset seeing the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade in his place, begged to recall to the right hon. Gentleman's recollection the conversation that took place on a former evening relative to the class of persons who were to be appointed inspectors under this bill. He had heard that a gentleman much connected with railways was exceedingly anxious to become an inspector under this bill. Now he certainly should not have given his assent to this bill unless he had understood that a rule was to be laid down that no person connected with railways was to be appointed. He hoped that this rule would apply to persons recently connected with railways as he certainly would never have consented to the passing of the bill if he had not a satisfactory assurance of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman upon this point. Mr. Labouchere begged, in answer, to assure the noble Lord, that not one Gentleman only was anxious to take office under this bill, but a great number of Gentlemen were extremely anxious to be employed. He must decline to give any specific pledge upon a subject of this kind. With regard to any applications that had been made to him, he had carefully and studiously avoided committing himself in the way of promises. He must wait until he saw in what shape the bill would pass before he considered and before he consulted others, the Chancellor of the Exchequer especially, with whom it would be his duty to consult with regard to the increase of allowance it would be necessary to have voted. Until the bill should have passed, he could not consult as to the most economical and efficient manner of carrying the bill into effect, and he must therefore decline pledging himself as to the precise mode of carrying out that measure. Whether he should appoint one inspector-general, or whether it was more desirable (an opinion to which he rather inclined) to appoint engineers to inspect by the job, so as not to give to any one person the sole inspection, he was not at present prepared to state. He had, however, no difficulty in saying that he should think it most objectionable to employ any person in any matter, under this bill, if he was at the time actually connected with any railway whatever. So far he did not hesitate to state his opinion; but whether the past connexion of any individual with a railway was to qualify or to disqualify, and whether recent connexion was to be considered, or what limit was to be affixed to that connexion, was a point upon which he thought it was not desirable that he should pledge himself. All he would say was, that he would take care that nobody actually connected with a railway should be employed under this bill, but with regard to any other point he should follow the course which upon consideration should appear most desirable. Mr. Easthope thought the measure which affected a very large and important body of persons was very little understood. In no one stage of it had there been a fair discussion of its principle. There had been a hasty consideration of its clauses, and he thought it would be lish act of 1774, when these matters were not very closely looked into; and before they extended them to Ireland, they ought to obtain the opinions of their utility from the operatives as well as from the masters. Some of the clauses were so important, and so loosely drawn, that they could not very easy to convince the House that the haste of that consideration was very manifest in the present state of the bill. He implored the House not to pass a bill of such importance as this-affecting, as it did, great interests, which he contended would be liable under this bill to be greatly deranged, without at least one careful dis-be properly amended at this period of the cussion of the principle of the measure. Third reading, after a division on a point concerning the course of proceeding, postponed. VENEZUELA SLAVE TRADE.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the Report on the Venezuela Slave Trade Bill be received. Session, when bills came upon the House like lightning, and it was absolutely impossible, with the utmost industry, to go through and correct all the minute details. He hoped, therefore, that the bill would be withdrawn for the Session, and brought forward at an early period of the next Session. He would, therefore, move, that the bill be committed that day three months. Captain Pechell thought that this was a good opportunity for complaining that Mr. Labouchere said, nothing would the tonnage by the new measurement was have induced him to propose the bill, if taken as the standard for the measurement he had not been assured that it met with of the vessels taken and broken up; for the consent not only of the master manuthe captors to obtain the bounties the act facturers of the north of Ireland, but also of 1838 required the production of a cer- of the operatives, who had all made retificate of the registry under the new mea-presentations to him, that unless some surement, but as many vessels were cap-measure were passed, the manufacturers tured, and broken up before the new ton- would be much injured. The objections nage came into operation, it was impossi-of his hon. Friend would be better cousible for the captors to obtain the certificates dered in committee, but in the main the of the measurement by the new tonnage, bill only extended to Ireland the law of and much money still remained due to the England, which was indeed an old law, captors. By the new method of tonnage, but actually in beneficial operation. Of too, the compensation to all captors was course, if his hon. Friend persevered greatly diminished. He trusted that an in his objection, he could not press the bill, opportunity would be taken in this bill of but considering the urgency and importproviding for the payment of the bounties ance of some remedy, he hoped that his due to the captors, and unpaid in conse-hon. Friend would withdraw his amendquence of the difficulty to which he had alluded. ment. Mr. Wakley said, he had never before met with laws so stringent in their operation as those in the 10th section of this act. He admitted the necessity of pro The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed that this bill would give bounties for vessels taken without slaves and broken up; as to the question of the measure-tecting the property of the manufacturers ment, all the Treasury wanted was some evidence of the amount of the tonnage; they did not require the English but the foreign tonnage; in fact, some proof of what the size of the vessels captured was. Report received. LINEN MANUFACTURES (IRELAND).] Mr. Labouchere moved that the House resolve itself into committee on the Linen Manufactures (Ireland) Bill. Mr. Warburton thought that this bill should be proceeded with this Session. Some of the clauses were undoubtedly good, but others were exceedingly strin in Ireland; but what was wanted was a just law, one not more stringent than the necessity of the case required. This bill, however gave the officer a power of search without a warrant, and the householder resisting such an aggression was subject to a penalty of 51. He hoped if they went into committee the right hon. Gentleman would strike out the 11th clause, and restrict the operation of the bill till the 1st of May next, in order that they might fully legislate on the question next Session. Amendment withdrawn, and the House went through committee. moved, that the House go into committee | to bring in, was to enable the court which on the Church Discipline Bill. Mr. Warburton, considering the lateness of the period at which this measure had been introduced, and the many important interests which it affected, felt bound to move, that the committee on this bill be postponed till that day three months. The House divided on the original question:-Ayes 27; Noes 15: Majority 12. List of the AYES. Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Gladstone, W. E. Hodges, T. L. Horsman, E. Kemble, H. Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Lushington, rt. hn. S. Morpeth, Viscount Morris, D. Norreys, Sir D. J. committed the recusant to discharge him with the consent of the parties at whose complaint and prosecution he was originally committed. Mr. H. Vernon was understood to state, that notwithstanding the stricture pronounced upon the opinion which he had ventured to offer when this subject was last under consideration, he was still disposed, after more mature deliberation, to adhere to it. He repeated his belief, that in the case of Thorogood, if the churchParnell, rt, hn, Sir H. wardens being contented by any means, or disposed to relinquish their claim upon that person, came by their proctor before the Ecclesiastical Court, and proposed to withdraw the citation, the judge would have felt it his duty to sign a certificate that would have occasioned the immediate release of the prisoner. Pigot, D. R. TELLERS. Nicholl, J. The Attorney-General observed, that that also had been his own opinion, but a contrary opinion having been expressed by a learned judge for whom he had a most sincere respect he meant the learned judge who presided in the Cousistorial Court of the Bishop of Londonhe felt bound at once to yield to it; and as there appeared to be a general feeling in the House that the imprisonment of Thorogood should cease, the present bill was proposed to effect that object. Whatever his own opinion might have been, he thought that the House was bound to act upon that which had been expressed Baines, E. List of the NOES. Evans, Sir De L. Finch, F. Hoskins, K. Humphrey, J. Lushington, C. Pechell, Capt. Pryme, G. Salwey, Colonel TELLERS. Warburton, H. Bill went through the committee, and by the judge of the court in which cases the report was received. of this description were dealt with. Leave given. Bill (No. 1) brought in, and read a first time. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (ENGLAND.)] Viscount Morpeth, in the absence of Lord Dr. Nichol obtained leave to bring in a John Russell, moved for leave to bring in bill to alter and amend the law regarding a bill to amend the act for the better re-process upon contempts in the Courts gulation of Ecclesiastical Courts in England. The noble Lord observed, that although this would appear to open a very important and very extensive subject, the real object of the bill which he sought to introduce was, in fact, confined to one specific point. He did not propose at that moment to enter into the merits of the case of John Thorogood, or of the sentence under which he was suffering. But as it seemed to be felt very generally on both sides of the House when the subject was last under discussion, that the imprisonment of Thorogood had already two. lasted for a very considerable time, the Ecclesiastical in England and Ireland, and to facilitate the discharge of persons who now are or hereafter may be in custody for contempts of any such courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman explained that the object of this bill was similar to that just introduced by the noble Lord. He objected to the mode in which the noble Lord's bill sought to obtain its object, and therefore, with the consent of the noble Lord, had prepared the measure he now proposed. It would be for the House to determine between the Bill (No. 2) brought in and read a first HOUSE OF LORDS, his own part, he could not help thinking, that there must have been some misunderstanding in the other House of ParBills. Read a first time:-Notice of Elec-liament, for he could not conceive, that it Friday, July 31, 1840. MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Lord Lyndhurst, from Medical Practitioners, in favour of Medical Inquiry.-By Lord Brougham, from Huddersfield, for the Better Treatment of Political Prisoners. was the intention of the parties to put the bill off. The Lord Chancellor thinking as he did, that every part of the bill was essential to the public interest, regretted it had not passed the other House. As regarded the fate of the present bill, he confessed he was not so sanguine as his noble and learned Friend, seeing the determined opposition that was given to the other bill. Bill read a first time. COURT HOUSES, (IRELAND).] Viscount Duncannon having moved that the House go into committee on the Court Houses (Ireland) Bill, The Earl of Charleville objected to proceeding with that measure at so late a period of the Session, when there was not time to investigate it. He was, therefore, disposed to move an amendment, that the committee be deferred to this day three months. Viscount Duncannon stated, that the bill was founded on the memorials and statements of several of the Irish counties. COURTS OF EQUITY.] Lord Brougham begged to call their Lordships' attention, especially that of his noble and learned Friend on ths woolsack, and his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst), to a bill which he was about to introduce to their notice. It was not usual to state the objects of a measure on the first reading, but there were reasons which induced him, on the present occasion, to break through that rule. A very important measure had been withdrawn from the other House, which he deeply lamented. That bill amongst other things, empowered the heads of the Court of Chancery to make such alterations and improvements in the proceedings of the court, with regard to taking evidence and other matters, as would have been of the greatest benefit to the suitors. On this point there was no difference of opinion whatever; but the bill had, he was sorry to say, excited considerable opposition. The bill which he now brought forward, however, referred exclusively to this single BILLS OF EXCHANGE.] The Marquess point. On this a unanimous opinion had of Lansdowne moved that the House rebeen expressed, both in a select commit- solve itself into committee on the Bills of tee up stairs and by their Lordships. Ile, Exchange Act Continuance Bill. The obtherefore, trusted, that the House of Com-ject of this bill was to continue the Act mons would receive the bill, and pass it now in force, for the period of a year, (as without any opposition. On Monday he we understood) beyond the time at which should move the second reading of the it. would otherwise have expired. The measure, and the suspension of the stand-present Act had produced most beneficial ing orders, in order that it might be sent down to the House of Commons without any delay. Their Lordships divided: Contents 33; Not-contents 24: Majority 9. Lord Lyndhurst perfectly concurred in what his noble and learned Friend had said, and he approved of the present bill; but he was not very sanguine as to the course which it might meet with elsewhere. He must say, he deeply regretted the failure of that bill in the other House, after the care which had been bestowed upon it by their Lordships. He was sure that the public, and the profession, and, above all, the suitors, would have derived the Bill went through committee. effects in the commercial world; but unless it were continued, bills of exchange which might be drawn in the spring of 1841, would not be renewable in the spring of 1842, as they would then lose the benefit of the exemption from the usury laws. Lord Wharncliffe objected to this bill being passed without due inquiry being made as to the grounds on which the usury laws were to be done away with. He believed, that he should be able to produce before a committee of inquiry, some most grievous cases of oppression parties under the protection of this law. All he asked was, that this bill should not be prolonged for a greater time than was necessary to meet the bills now out. under the former state of the law, they could have got any such accommodation at all. To a certain extent the principle of the usury laws had been abolished; for as soon as the Legislature had sanctioned the lending of money, it destroyed the principle of usury. Persons were not now compelled to pay more than 5 or 6 per cent. for loans. [Lord Wharncliffe: 50 or 60 per cent.] Was it possible to conceive that such was the case? Why, if 50 or 60 per cent. could be made in any branch, the effect would be to make all the capital of the country flow into that traffic. He would refer their Lordships to the evidence which had been taken on this subIn 1832 evidence was taken before Lord Ashburton said, he had listened with some anxiety to hear from the noble Marquess opposite what possible inconvenience could result from the postponement of this bill for another Session. The noble Marquess was greatly mistaken, if he supposed, that the great mass of the business of this country was carried on upon bills of twelve months, or six months, or even of longer date than three months. The information which he had received, and upon which the Government had proceeded in framing this mea-ject. sure, had come from bankers and great the Bank Charter Committee, upon the money-lenders, who all had a distinct in- expediency, usefulness, and probable beterest in making what were formerly con-nefits that might be derived from an alsidered usurious practices legal. The greatest mischief had resulted from lending money at a high rate of interest, and the conduct of the Bank of England in this respect had led to its own embarrassment, and driven it to within a hair's breadth of stopping payment, and to the discreditable necessity of borrowing money itself. This bill would not correct the evils with which the money market was infected; it would only enable rich money-lenders to profit by the necessities of their poorer neighbours. The real question which their Lordships had to consider at that moment was, whether the noble Marquess had proved that there was the slightest necessity for hurrying this bill through Parliament within a few days of its prorogation. He earnestly recommended their Lordships not to think of extending the measure to the period proposed without further inquiry. Lord Monteagle rejoiced to hear that his noble Friends were disposed to entertain, even next Session, an inquiry into the operation of the usury laws heretofore, and into the effects produced by the alterations which had been made in those laws. With respect to the remarks of the noble Lord upon the evidence of bankers and great money-lenders, he would ask, was not their evidence one of the elements upon which legislation in this matter should proceed? But it would be asked, will you not hear the other classes who have paid large sums of money for the accommodation they have received? No doubt they ought to be heard; and at the same time teration of the law. In 1838 further evidence was taken, and the governor of the Bank of England was asked, "What effects do you think were produced by the repeal of the usury laws in relation to bills of exchange during the late commercial crisis?" The answer was, "I think the effect was very good in general, as a general principle of law." He was asked, "Do you consider the extension of that law with regard to ninety-one days bills to bills of a longer date advantageous?" The reply was, "Certainly, because otherwise Indian bills would be excluded." Their Lordships would find that Mr. Jones Loyd had given to the public in a printed paper the result of his experience of the pressure on the money market during the years 1838 and 1839, in which he remarked, "It is difficult to say to what extremity the Bank would not have been reduced, if there had not been a partial repeal of the usury laws." He admitted, that this opinion was mere authority, but had he nothing beyond authority? Let their Lordships look to the three periods of commercial pressure in 1825, and again in 1837 and 1839. He contended, that on such occasions the danger to the commercial interests of the country must be materially lessened by allowing money, like everything else, to find its value in the market. Let their Lordships look at the number of banking houses which failed in 1825, and compare them with the failures in 1837 and 1839. He did not say, that these circumstances were conclusive on the subject, but they were |