city at the expense of brutifying our people.—After a
few words from Lord REDESDALE, the Earl of DERBY
expressed his sympathy with the spirit of the motion,
but considered that it was couched in terms too stringent.
—The EARL OF ABERDEEN lauded the benevolence of
the Earl of Shaftesbury, but suggested that as their
lordships were not in a condition to pass so comprehensive
a standing order, the noble earl should withdraw his
motion.—After a few words from the Earls of Harrowby,
Carlisle, and Wicklow, the Earl of Shaftesbury consented
to withdraw his motion, and stated that he would
move for a committee.

Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the
diocese of Sydney in New South Wales, complaining of
the Unsatisfactory Position of the Church in the
Colonies; deprecating the expression of doubts as to the
supremacy of the Queen; and claiming a share for the
laity in church-government.—Some conversation ensued;
in which the Archbishop of CANTERBURY announced
his intention of shortly submitting to the House a
motion on the state of the Colonial Church.

The House adjourned to Monday the 4th of April.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, on Thursday, Feb. 24,
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON called the attention of the house
to the Condition of the Australian Colonies. He moved
for copies of despatches written by himself when he was
Colonial Secretary, to the government of New South
Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Van Diemen's Land;
and he called the attention of the house to the
condition of the Australian Colonies, and to the policy
which he would advise for the Imperial Government.
In the speech which prefaced this motion, he traced the
rise of the Australian colonies in wealth, population, and
importance, especially after the ceasing of transportation,
and subsequently after the gold discoveries. Notwithstanding
the sudden change following the discovery of
the gold-fields, the conduct of the inhabitants has been
most creditable. He also traced the claims advanced by
the colonists of New South Wales for local legislation
and control of their own movements. Lord Grey had
admitted that it might be desirable to transfer to a
colony the control of its own waste lands, but he thought
the time had not yet come: in this Sir John Pakington
differed with him, especially since the present state of
the colony, and the rapid increase of its population and
wealth, render an allotment of the land-fund for
emigration no longer necessary. On these grounds, he
supported the claim of the colonists to an improved
constitution, and especially to a second chamber; a
proposition unsuccessfully advanced by Mr. Walpole,
and subsequently by Sir William Molesworth, who had
been defeated by Lord John Russell's government.
Sir William had taken great interest in colonial matters;
it surprised Sir John to see him intrusted with the care
of parks and gardens: he regretted also to find that Sir
William was not present on this occasion. He now
understood that a despatch, not differing from that
which the late government sent out, was on its way
to authorise the amended constitution. The present
government had also announced, through the Duke of
Newcastle, the intention to adhere to the decision of
their predecessors in favour of the cessation of
transportation to all the Australian colonies: on the merits
of which measure Sir John enlarged. He still, however,
recommended the sending of convicts to Western
Australia; and even commended to the government a
passage from a speech delivered by Lord John Russell
in 1850, declaring that Englishmen wherever they go
should enjoy English freedom and have English
institutions.— Mr. FREDERICK PEEL in great part echoed Sir
John Pakington's speech: the only fault he could find
with it was, that it was not needed as a vindication of
Sir John's own policy, which nobody had impugned.
Because they had reverted to the policy of the
government before Sir John's with respect to the Clergy
Reserves in Canada, ministers did not intend to disturb
the changes that had recently taken place in Australia;
and Mr. Peel went on to explain that many things have
been conceded to the management of the colonists. The
control of the customs has been transferred to them,
government is quite prepared to accept the civil list
voted by the colonial legislature, in lieu of that voted
by parliament; the legislative council of New South
Wales in fact proposing £88,000 instead of the £73,000
appropriated by parliament. Sums had been reserved
for carrying on the public business, in case supplies
should be refused— £20,000, for example, in the colony
of Victoria—a mere trifle as compared with the estimated
revenue for next year, £1,750,000. Although upholding
the principle of the Land-Sales Act, Mr. Peel was not
unprepared to carry out the intentions of the last
government in respect to land-sales; economical reasons
giving way to political reasons. The explanation on the
subject of transportation did not differ from the Duke
of Newcastle's statement on the same subject.—Mr.
ADDERLEY recognised in both speeches just delivered
the principles of colonial government which had been
urged upon them by gentlemen combined for that
purpose; and he generally approved of what had taken
place. Only two or three things remained to give the
Australian constitution a perfectly British form,—such
as the abandonment of the royal veto on local legislation,
and the system of reference to the Colonial Office
in this country. It would be impossible to continue
transportation to Western Australia; and government
must forthwith deal with the whole question of secondary
punishments, especially the treatment of juvenile
offenders.—Lord JOHN RUSSELL corrected some errors
in Sir John Pakington's speech; and replied to Mr.
Adderley's last suggestion, that government only desire
time to consider the important subject of secondary
punishments. "No unnecessary delay will occur; and
as soon as we decide on the substitute that is most
efficient for the purpose, we shall lose no time in laying
a measure before parliament."—After a few words from
Mr. HUME, expressive of satisfaction, the motion was
agreed to.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved for a committee of the
whole house, to take into consideration the Civil
Disabilities of the Jews. He set out by expressing his
hope that Sir Robert Inglis would not object to going
into committee at once; but Sir Robert replied that he
had the strongest objection, as that would be permitting
the first step. Lord John observing that the course
which was allowed to be taken more than twenty years
ago by Mr. Robert Grant was now objected to, went on
to state the nature of the proposition he had to make,
before the house went into committee. It would have
been agreeable to him to propose a simple oath to be
taken alike by all; but that would have raised questions
as to the intentions of the Roman Catholics. So that
he only proposed so far to complete the edifice of
religious liberty as to admit the Jews to the same rights
and privileges as Dissenters and Roman Catholics. In
making this proposal, he laboured under a disadvantage;
for the Jews are not numerous, they hold no threatening
meetings, they wield no electoral influence. He had
nothing to rest upon but the truth, the justice, and
charity of his proposals: and was it to be imagined
that those who had resisted such arguments so many
times would yield now? But those who felt the
force of justice would impartially concede these claims
when no extrinsic means were used to press upon
them. It would not redound to the character of
the house, if, when all reason and argument are in
their favour, a prejudice should be indulged in.
Lord John proceeded to argue, that legislative disabilities
had never been grounded on a difference of religious
faith. He showed that the words "on the true faith of
a Christian" had been introduced in the reign of
James I. immediately after the Gunpowder Plot, for
the purpose of excluding Roman Catholics not true to
the crown. Baron Alderson, on the trial of Mr. Salomons,
held the same view, and inferred that the oath could not
properly be called a test of Christianity. Lord John
argued that the Catholics were excluded because of the
dangers to political freedom apprehended from their
political doctrines—doctrines supposed to be connected
with their faith. From the beginning of this disqualification,
in 1605, down to its abolition, in 1829, the argument
had always been, that persons belonging to a
certain religion, whether dissenting from the Church of
England as Protestants or dissenting from the Church
of England as Roman Catholics, have connected with
that faith certain political doctrines, which make them