education of the people, and reorganisation of
government. The petition bore between three and four
thousand signatures.—The Earl of ABERDEEN said that
the subject had been fully considered by the government,
and after much deliberation they had come to the
conclusion that it was their duty to propose a measure
for the future government of India during the present
session. Farther he was not prepared to say at present.
The measure, which would embrace modifications of
the government with respect both to this country and
to India, would be founded on the existing system.
Those grievances which require legislation here would
be redressed when the committee now in action shall
have made its report; but it appeared to him, that
most of those which had been recapitulated would be
more properly left for the action of the local government.
At present the committee of both Houses had
only finally concluded that branch of the inquiry which
was connected with the administration of the
government; and upon that her Majesty's ministers
were fully prepared to legislate.

On Monday, February 28, the Earl of DERBY
presented a number of petitions respecting the Canadian
Clergy Reserves. They were from various bodies in
connection with the church of Scotland in Canada,
praying their lordships to preserve inviolate the
arrangements entered into in 1840 with respect to the
Canadian clergy reserves. He admitted the justice of
giving the colonial legislatures the right, as far as
possible, to manage their internal affairs; but they
were now seeking, in regard to these reserves, to deal
with what never was their own property, and the
exception of which from their jurisdiction was one of
the conditions upon which the Canadian constitution
was granted.—The Duke of ARGYLL denied that a
settlement, which three-fourths of the people of Canada
considered to be unjust, could be considered final. The
only sound principle was to leave the colonial legislatures
to manage their own internal affairs.—The Bishop
of OXFORD said that having conceded to the people of
Canada the right to manage their own internal affairs,
we were bound to surrender these reserves to the
disposal of their legislature. —The Bishops of LONDON
and EXETER briefly supported the prayer of the
petition.

On Tuesday, March 1, a conversation took place on
the subject of the Punishment of Transportation. In
reply to a question from the Bishop of MANCHESTER,
the Duke of NEWCASTLE stated that there is no intention
of making any change in regard to the convicts at
Bermuda and Gibraltar. The convicts at Bermuda will
shortly be placed on the same footing as those now
imprisoned on the improved system at Portland.—Lord
CAMPBELL, said he was going on circuit, and he wished
to know whether, when he passed a sentence of
transportation, it would be a mere mockery?—The Duke of
NEWCASTLE said, it was an inconvenient question to
put. Great alterations in secondary punishments and
prison accommodation must be made before any final
arrangement; but transportation must shortly be
brought to a close.—Lord CAMPBELL then entered into
a pleading in favour of continuing transportation, and
other peers joined in the discussion.

On Thursday, March 3, the second reading of the
Registration of Assurances Bill was moved by the Lord
CHANCELLOR, who entered into a full explanation of
the measure. Its object (he said) was, to effect a
registration of titles, and of encumbrances; treating the
register as proof of all the facts stated therein, and
refusing to recognise, as against the purchaser, claims
not registered. By this means, marriage-settlements,
mortgages, appointments, &c., could not be advanced as
claims against the purchaser unless they were stated on
the face of the register; where he would see the
liabilities of what he was purchasing. The bill had
been introduced in the House of Commons before, and
had been opposed chiefly by the solicitors. In 1851 it
was carried unanimously in the House of Lords but was
dropt by the change of government. Amongst the
facilities which he anticipated were these,—that persons
could give trustees the same power over land that they
can give with regard to stock; that it would increase
the transferable value of land; and that it would greatly
diminish expense, which is mainly caused at present by
searches to ascertain the validity of title.—Lord ST.
LEONARDS opposed the bill at great length. He
remarked that it had been introduced into Parliament
nine times within twenty-three years. The project had
failed, as practical experiments of the same kind had
failed in Yorkshire, in Middlesex, in Ireland, in Scotland,
and in some foreign countries, because it was
found that the process would not work. Lord St.
Leonards objected to lodging the deeds in public
buildings, where they would be unsafe: an Englishman
likes to have his own sheepskin in his own box. There
was no suppression of important deeds—that offence
being very rare; but there were dangers of mistakes on
the part of registrars, or of purloining by porters, or of
forging by clerks. As to the present expense, it was
very trifling; and he mentioned a case in which
£1,068,421 19s. had been invested in the purchase of
fifteen estates containing 26,286 acres; the total cost
being for the sale of one of the estates for £80,000,
£3420 8s. 7d. On the transfer of small estates the
register would entail additional expense. Amongst
other objections, Lord St. Leonards noted that there
was no provision to extend the measure to Wales; and
he dwelt much upon that omission.—Lord CAMPBELL
defended the bill; showing the baselessness of many
objections urged by Lord St. Leonards. For example,
as to the omission of Wales—by the declaratory act of
George II. cap. 42, all general bills relating to England
are held to include Wales. But Lord St. Leonards
laboured under a horror of legislation on this subject,
which blinded his judgment. It appeared in his tucking
his pamphlet "Shall we register or not?" into his book
on the "Law of Vendors and Purchasers;" so that all
who wish to have the benefit of the "Law of Vendors
and Purchasers" are compelled to have the benefit of
the old pamphlet on Registration, of which his present
speech was chiefly a repetition! This horror made him
forget that all the while similar bills were in the House
of Commons, they were never opposed by Sir Edward
Sugden, and that this very bill was passed by their
Lordships nemine contradicente. The extreme case cited by
Lord St. Leonards did not fairly represent the expense,
especially for small purchasers.—After a few words from
Lord BEAUMONT and Lord BROUGHAM, in favour of the
bill, it was read a second time.

On Friday, March 4, Lord LYNDHURST inquired
whether any communications had passed between her
Majesty's government and the government of Austria, or
any other foreign state, relative to the Proceedings of
Refugees in this Country. He stated that considerable
excitement prevailed abroad from a notion that recent
insurrectionary movements on the continent had
originated with the foreign refugees in this country, and that
our laws were ineffectual, as they at present stood, to
prevent conspiracies being carried on by those who find
shelter with us. He begged to contradict that idea, and
gave it as his opinion that our law required no alteration
to reach such offenders if evidence could be brought
against them.— The Earl of ABERDEEN said that
communications had passed on the subject, but no demands
had been made by any foreign power. He agreed that
no alteration of the law was required to punish persons
who might attempt to do anything in this country
calculated to disturb the tranquillity of foreign states; and
with a desire to maintain amicable relations with other
powers, her Majesty's government had come to the
decision not to leave it to foreign ministers to institute a
prosecution in such cases, but to take it upon themselves.
—Lord BROUGHAM quite agreed that the law of England
was sufficient for all such purposes.—Lord TRURO
disbelieved in any conspiracies in this country, from the
fact, that although the utmost vigilance was used in
endeavouring to detect them, no proof whatever could
be discovered.—The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred in
all that had been said, and stated that no new law was
required, inasmuch as by that now in existence persons
endeavouring to excite hostility among foreign powers
against this country, either by meeting together, collecting
monies, or issuing proclamations, could be prosecuted,
and punished if convicted.

On Monday, March 7, a motion by Lord CLANCARTY,
for a series of returns on the subject of National