Erebatts an iproteebings in Varliameni.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Hann or LORDS. Monday, July 9. Prison Discipline Additional Resolutions by Lord Brougham—Adjourned at Oh. 45 res. Tuesday, July 10. Buenos Ayres—Irish Poor-Relief Bill, read a first time—Marriages Abroad Bill, read a second time—Ad- journed at Oh. 42 in. Thursday, July 12. Consolidation of the Criminal Law [Of- /ewes against the Person] Bill, introduced by Lord Brougham—Adjourned at Oh. 40m. Friday, July 13. Royal Assent to several Bills—Irish Poor-Relief Bill, read a Seeond time—Adiourned at Oh. 5 m.

[Time occupied in the four sittings, 8 h. 12 m.' sines the beginning of the Session, 204h. 33 in.]

Hones OF CORMONO. Monday, July 9t extra noon sitting till 4h. 15 in.: even- ing sitting commenced at Oh. Marriages (Scotland) Bill, third reading postponed— Railways and Distressed Unions (Ireland): Sir Charles Wood's loan of 500,0001. debated and agreed to—Irish Poor-Relief Bill, read a third time and passed—Real and Personal Property Transfer Bill, read a third time and passed—New Zealand Land Conveyances Bill, read a first time—Adjourned at 1 b. 30 m. (Tuesday morning.) Tuesday, July 10. Juvenile Criminals : Mr. Monckton kiiines to bring in a bill—Irish Church Temporalities: Mr. Osborne's Motion, debated and negatived—Mines and Col- lieries Inspection Bill, withdrawn by Mr. Wyld—Railvrays and Distressed Unions (Ireland) : Resolutions reported, awl fan on each ordered to be brought In—Ad- journed at 1 h. 15 m. (Wednesday morning.) Wednesday, July II: noon sitting. Ad- vance of Money (Athlone to Galway Railway) Bill, and Relief of Distress (Ireland) (Kn. 2) Bin, read a first time—Duration of Parliaments Bill, lost on second reading—Smoke Prohibition Bill, considered in Committee—Highway Rates Bill, read a third time and passed—Adjourned at Oh. 58 m. Thursday, July 12; extra noon sitting till 31i. 5 m.: evening sitting commenced at Oh. Marriages (Scotland) Bill, and Registering Births, Ike. (Scotland) Bill, withdrawn by Ministers—Mercantile Marine : Mr. Labou- there's Measures for Improvement explained—Pilotage Bill, read a first time— Customs Revenue : Statement by Sir Charles Wood—Government of Van Die- Men's Land : Mr. Anstey's Motion respecting Sir William Denison, debated and nega- tived—Ordnance Estimates : Mr. flume's five Motions to report progress—Advance of Money (Athlone to Galway Railway) Bill, and Relief of Distress (Ireland) (No. 2) Bin, read a second time—Turnpike Trusts Union Bill, read a third time and passed—High- ways (District Surveyors) Bill, withdrawn—Adjourned at 1 h. (Friday morning.) Friday, July 13 ; extra noon sitting till 3 h. Sm.: evening sitting commenced at Oh. Estate Leasing (Ireland) Bill, passed—Judgments (Ireland) Bill, read a second time, and committed pro fbnna—Fiscal Relations with Ireland : Mr. John O'Connell's Mo- tion, debated and withdrawn—Committee of Supply: Votes for British Museum and Houses of Parliament—Bribery at Elections and several other bills forwarded—Ad- journed at 12 h. 32 in. till Monday noon.

[Time occupied in the eight sittings, 48 h. 40m. since the beginning of the Session, 81101. 32m.)

IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES.

In moving for a Committee of the whole House "to consider the present state of the Temporalities of the Church of Ireland," Mr. OSBORNE felt that he could not be charged with undue haste. He had imagined that when the present Ministers came into office, some one of those old and tried champions of civil and religious liberty—one of those who formerly, taking this question at the flood, floated on with it to popularity and to power—would have resumed the subject and endeavoured to effect some perma- nent settlement. But no: the former Opposition slogan of the present Ministe- rial party has for the last few years been laid aside, and that instrument on which so many harmonious notes had been struck to call the Whig retainers, together, bad now, like the fabulous harp of Tara' been hung up mute and unstrung. It was expected when Lord John Russell came to office, that as soon as he was firmly heed in the saddle, he would bring in a measure on the subject. The con- struction of his Cabinet confirmed this expectation ; for it is composed of men who have expressed their belief that the Irish Church is the root of all the discon- tent in Ireland, and who have supported that opinion by their votes. Mr. Osborne reviewed the discussions in Parliament from 1823 to 1845, in order to bring out dis- tinctly the very decided opinions upon the Irish Church temporalities question which the members of the present Administration have entertained till within the last three years. He recalled the support given to Mr. Hume's motion in 1823, by three members of the present Cabinet—the Premier, the President of the Board of Control, and Earl Fortescue; alluded to the tone of the debate on Lord Althorn's bill in 1833, when Dr. Lushington rose and said he had never witnessed a de- bate in which the decency of Parliamentary language and the courtesy of private life had been so oat...Red. He recalled Mr. Ward's conjuring up of the old shade of Appropriation, in 1834, wirkh, heake on the Cabinet of that day like Banque at the feast of Macbeth. He dwelt on Lora Job.. Itaasalra motion of the 80th March 1835, and his remarkable speech upon it, wherein, reterrmg to the influence of the Established Church of Ireland on the moral condition of I.:14,s the people, he declared that the House, listening to the well-founded .griev- Ireland, could not at once refuse to do her justice and insist on uvssnI the Union. He passed to the motion of Mr. Smith O'Brien in

! however they might blame Mr. O'Brien for rashness, they would ad-

mit he was an honest Member of Parliament. ("Hear, heart") On that mo- tion Mr. Charles Wood declared, that among the great evils of Ireland was the Irish Church, and expressed his opinion that it was the duty of Government to originate a remedy for those evils, and to provide for the settlement of that fines_ tion. Sir William Somerville, who made a most animated speech.—(Laughter)— he did not use the term invidiously, but meant that the right honourable Baronet Was excited—(Great forighter)--declared that he had heard with astonishment, and did not believe, that Government intended not to reopen the question of the Irish Church; and he appealed to " the Conservative and Christian gentlemen of England, whether, if they were in the situation of the Irish people, they would submit to that establishment; as he little knew the spirit of the English nation if they would not resist" Mr. Osborne now in his turn appealed to Sir William, as a " Conservative and a Christian gentleman." On the same occasion, Lord Howick, the present Earl Grey, said that peace in Ireland could only be obtained by reforming the Irish Church. Seven of the present Ministers voted for that motion. In the debate on Lord John Russell's motion of 1844—a motion forced by fear that Mr. Smith O'Brien would take the question out of his hands—Lord John declared that the system he would adopt would be " to put the Established Church, as re- gards Roman Catholics and Protestants, upon a footing of the most perfect equality "; and Sir George Grey, after giving his opinion that nothing could be worse or more hazardous than to refuse to entertain the question because it was beset with difficulties, declared that " the Union must be maintained, but a com- plete union never can be effected so long as the established and endowed Church of the minority exclusively exists." The whole of the present Cabinet, and of " the present race of Lords of the Treasury and people of that class," voted for the noble Lord's motion. The last time the question had been discussed was in 1845, and since that time Lord John Russell had observed a most remarkable silence, Mr. Osborne replied to the objections as to time and present inconvenience, in the words used on a similar occasion in 1833, by the present Master of the Mint, then Mr. Shell. (Laughter.) "Not the time! When is it to arrive ? Before the Reformed Parliament, it was not the time until the Reformed Parliament; here is the Reformed Parliament, and the time has not yet come. When will it? When the Whigs are in Opposition ? If we are to wait until their official conve- nience tallies with the rights of Ireland we shall have to wait long indeed."

Mr. Osborne hoped the Government did not intend to move " the previons question" as an amendment on his motion. He thought the best definition that could be given of the present session was, that it had been a session of previous questions; for on searching the debates he found that in no former session had " the previous question " been so frequently moved. People out of doors were somewhat puzzled to imagine what the previous question meant. It was nothing more than a Parliamentary sleight-of-hand, used to cut the acquaintance of an old friend who had been useful in opposition but who might be inconvenient to a party in power.

Mr. Osborne proceeded to glance at the history of English government in Ire- land, and the non-progress of Irish Protestantism; touched on the gross lives of the Reformers, Elizabeth's good Puseyism in England and bitter Presbyterianism in Ireland; Strafford's cruelties "for the sake of the revenue "; Cromwell's simple policy, "extermination," his agreeable alternative of "Hell or Connaught"; the persecution which alone the Irish gained by the Ditch importation of King Wil- liam; the penal enactments, characterized by Bishop Mant as not only for the security of the Protestants but also the "benefit ot the Catholics themselves"; the Algerine bill of 1723, to degrade the Catholics to the level of the slavish guard- ians of a Mahometan harem; and the Union, procured by barter of Irish bishoprics. After all these means, pursued during three hundred years, the Protestant Church stands nearly as it stood at first; though he granted that the clergy have im- proved. You may exclaim, "But the Roman Catholics are loyal and contented; why then make an alteration ?" Now is this uniformly the case? There are several indications that it is not so, but that reliance can be placed only on the Protestants. For instance, according to the statement of the Bishop of Water- ford in another place, on the 4th of May last, it appeared that last year, out of a population of 80,000 Roman Catholics in a district only 1a persons became special constables, while out of a population of 5,000 Protestants 280 persons became spe- cial constables. Mr. Osborne called the attention of the tax-payers to this ex- pensive state of things. He dissented from the doctrine that the evils which Ire- land labours under will be cured by giving her "identity of institutions": that is an English notion, and a fallacy. Scotland is peaceable and happy because "identity of institutions" was not forced on her at the Union: that country has been inexpensively governed by nationality and affection. She accordingly requires but 2,000 troops at this time, compared with the 50,000 who "occupy Ireland.

Mr. Osborne went into detailed criticism of the wealth and unequal endowment of the Irish Church offices; bringing forward the facts which have often before been marshalled on the subject. He then explained the practical object with which he would go into Committee. He did not want to abolish the Irish Church. All useful reforms must be founded on mutual compromise. Neither did he wish to interfere with the existing rights or vested interests of the present incumbents. But he asked the House to go into Committee for the purpose of seeing if they could devise a plan by which the congregational system could be carried out in Ireland, instead of the territorial. He had no wild or visionary scheme to pro- pose: he would have one Archbishop with 4,0001. a year, and reduce the ten Bish- ops to five, with 2,0001. a year each. Sir George Grey could not impugn the moderation of that proposal. Lord John Russell told the House, in 1844—"I concur in the plan propounded by Dr. Whately, the Archbishop of Dublin, for making the Irish Church a church of congregations, not parishes "; adding, tilt though he thought the Protestant Church ought to be fully provided for, he did not believe that anything like the amount now allotted to it was necessary. Mr. Osborne also proposed to lay on the table the following resolution—" That it is the

opinion of this Committee, that any surplus which may remain after fully provid- ing for the spiritual instruction of the members of the Established Church in Ire-

land, (night to be applied locally to the general education of all classes of the people." The motion was supported at considerable length by Mr. Moonz; who thought it necessary to enter into a preliminary justification.

On taking his seat in that House, he had bound himself by a solemn oath to do nothing to subvert the Church of these realms as by law established ; and he had

been frequently reminded diming this session, that in the opinion of many that oath imposed upon Roman Catholic Members a different obligation from that lin- ed upon Protestant representatives in the consideration of Church subjecnr ow a legal oath could in no circumstances amount to more than a simple

cognition of that which in the mind of the imposer was an existing truth—en existing obligation. In a court of law, for example, the oath of a witness, that he would tell the truth and nothing but the truth, amounted to nothing more

than a solemn recognition of the existing law of God that we ought not to bear false witness against our neighbour. In no circumstances whatever does the law

recognize a promise to do that which is in itself wrong. The law could !lot

impose upon him any further restraints than are held to be of moral obligation by every conscientious and right-thinking individual. No doubt, there might"" Roman Catholics who, on account of their oath, entertained objections to In-

terfere with the Protestant Established Church; but he who looked upon the, Established Church as a matter of civil policy, saw nothing in the oath he too*.

to place him in a different position from other Members. He admitted that the Church of Ireland, the abuses of which he assailed, was a part of the Church of this realm as by law established; and it was in that charaoter he assailed it. Mr. Moore enlarged with additional details upon the practical injustice of the organization of the English Church- in Ireland; giving a striking instance. Be

himself paid tithes in eight parishes: in the whole of those eight parishes there was not one church, one glebe, or one resident clergyman; he did not believe that i

he had one Protestant tenant n any of those eight parishes; he was not aware that there was a Protestant at all in any of them: and he did not believe that divine service according to the Church ritual had ever been celebrated in any one of those eight parishes since the Reformation. ("Hear, hear, hear!") He sup- ported the motion because it was calculated to remove domestic grievance and aiminish political discontent.

Sir GEORGE GREY at once relieved Mr. Osborne from his apprehension that Government would move "the previous question ": for the exactly contrary reasons to those which have induced Mr. Moore to give his sup- Pert—namely, because he thought it would excite domestic discontent and revive political disquietude, of which there is now less than at any former moment in Ireland—he felt justified in voting at once against the motion.

Sir George complained of Mr. Osborne's want of memory in quotation; through which he had not exactly represented Sir George's opinions as explained in 1845, and through which he had totally forgotten to make any allusion to the debate on the subject at the close of 1848. Sir George retained the opinions expressed in 1845—" namely, opinions against the policy, the justice, and the expediency of maintaining in Ireland, or in any other country, an established church endowed by the state, that church being the church of the minority." (" Hear, hear! ") ".Looking back, however, to the speech I delivered in 1844,—of which the hon- ourable and gallant Member has given partial quotations, leaving out the pith of my opinions,—I no doubt expressed myself with respect to the facility of any measure to redress the grievance and remedy the evils complained of in terms stronger than I would now adopt. When then the right honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) introduced his bill to increase the endowment of Maynootb, I quali- fied the opinions I expressed in 1844, and said, that whilst I hailed the measure as the first step towards removing what had been felt to be a stigma and insult, I did not press it on the Government to advance the least degree further than they

could go with a prospect of success. Since that time, the subject has occupied much of the attention of her Majesty's Government. They have anx- iously desired to find a remedy for the evils of which they recognized the exist- ence: but when the honourable gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) bays the prejudices of the people of this country are an obstacle to the satisfactory settlement of the question, and that honourable Members come to this House prepared to vote against their consciences in deference to the prejudices of their constituents, I mast remind him that there are other grounds of difficulty besides those he has mentioned. I must remind him that one great bar to the settlement of that question is the avowed, and repeated, and determined resolution (as far as we can judge) of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and of the great body of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity, not to consent to any scheme by which their church should be endowed. We are not in the same position as we were when the Roman Catholics were petitioning Parliament for admission to the civil privi- leges from which they were unjustly debarred; for we have a strong, honest, but I believe a mistaken feeling, among the people of this country and of Scotland, against the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church; while we have the great body of the hierarchy and clergy of that Church protesting against such a mea- sure. When I feel this to be the case, I ask myself, is it worth while, whatever opinions we may entertain, to propose a measure which would give rise to great animosity, contention and debate—excite much opposition, and which, instead of being accepted as a awl, would be rejected by those for whom we asked it? I am not prepared now, therefore, any more than I was last year, to go into a Committee of the whole House with the honourable and gallant Member, to crip- ple the resources of the Established Church in Ireland, and with the view of taking that mutilation only as an instalment looking, as I understood him, to the ultimate extinction and abolition of that Church altogether."

The motion was supported by Mr. EDMUND BURKE ROCHE, as a step towards removing the great grievance on which the Repeal movement rests; also by Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL, Mr. REYNOLDS, and Mr. JOHN O'ComsELL.

Mr. Horan was highly gratified with much of Mr. Oaborne'e speech, hnt could not approve of the compromise which he proposed. Mr. PAGE WOOD gave a general support to the motion, but threw out a sketch of another plan. He would say to the Established Church—" Since the emancipation of the Ro- man Catholics, the Pale is broken down. You never were the Church of the Nation; you were only the Church of the Pale. You and your ministers shall be provided for. You may have your Bishops, and you shall be in as favourable a position as the Church of Rome—you shall choose them yourselves; but the State will no longer recognize you as the State Church. You shall have a portion of the endowments you now possess; but a portion of them shall be applied to meet the general spiritual wants of the whole nation." He would certainly not give 4,0001. a year to the Bishops; he thought 1,500/. a year each would be ample, but be was willing to go lower than that. Sir George Grey's opposition to the motion was backed by Mr. G. A. HamitTorr and Mr. Karma, upon High Church grounds. Mr. OSBORNE replied with a few hits at Sir George Grey and the Whigs— The Home Secretary ought to be one of the last to talk of inconsistency, when he voted for the ballot as Member for Devonport and against it as Member for Northumberland. He was evidently a man of infirm mind upon such points. He said now, that he would endow the Roman Catholic Church if he could— knowing that he could not. The present was in one respect rather a melancholy occasion; another Whig principle had expired. The House had witnessed the MAI; perentage, and education of the famous Appropriation-clause; they were now caned upon to attend its obsequies. The Home Secretary had sung its dirge. But the Ministry could not go on in this way, now leaning on a crutch from Tamworth, now reclining on a cushion from Montrose—stumbling and stagger- ing between two opinions—supported sometimes from this side, and sometimes from that. At this rate, they must eventually die of political atrophy ; and the Irish Church question, the grave of so many Administrations, might prove theirs also. (Laughter and cheers.) The House divided: for the motion, 103; against it, 170; Ministerial and Tory majority, 67.

IRISH POOR-RELIEF.

On the question that the Poor-Relief (Ireland) Bill be reacl a third time, Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL moved the addition of clauses giving the "Ordi- ry

power to approve or disapprove of the Union Chaplains appointed by tlie Poor-law Commissioners. He aimed at giving a power over the Ro- man Catholic and Protestant ministers to their respective Bishops. Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE opposed the clause, as tending to raise new diffi- culties in the working of the law; and he was joined by other Members in doubting whether " ordinary " would mean a Roman Catholic Bishop. Mr. Joins O'Corrarrax insisted on a division; and was defeated, by 74 to 3.

hlr. NAPIER moved the addition of a clause enacting that the immediate Payer of any tithe rent-charge shall be entitled to deduct only one-half of the Poundage of any rate made after the bill should become law. Sir Girormat GREY admitted that the question involved was difficult; and he suggested the making of the law like the English, by rendering the tithe ren-charge itself a rateable hereditament, upon which the owner would PaY rates as an occupier. But Mr. Narnan objected, on the ground that the tithe rent-charge in Ireland is not payable in the same way as in Eng- land. The clause was negatived, by 125 to 50.

The bill was read a third time. On the question that it do pass, Mr. STAFFORD aimed a parting blow at the measure, by the following recapitu- lation of its substantial results.

" It not the capitalist purchase land unawares; let him consider how under this bill his property would be taxed. By the first clause there was a maximum rate of 5s., and he might possibly purchase under the delusive belief that that maximum would not be exceeded. Imagine him then to be called upon for an 8r. rate. Why is this?' he asks: I thought I was not to pay more than 5s. ?' 'Yes,' is the answer; ' bat in Committee Parliament found it necessary to include the debts of the union, which require a rate of 2s. 6d. additional; and then there iS a sixpence for a rate-in-aid, and that makes the 8s.' But bsyond this he will be called upon for a 2s. 4d. rate for promoting emigration. 'But,' says theturchaser, 'I don't want to send out emigrants." No,' is the reply; ' but one-half of the electoral division have refused to pay their rates, and the Board of Guardians have therefore determined to send them out as emigrants, and you must pay a rate of 2s. 4d."Ilins 108. 4d. for rates was arrived at. Of course the purchaser now thinks that he has arrived at the end of his liabilities; but not so. Another collector arrives and demands a rate of 2s. more in the pound. What is this?' asks the purchaser. Why,' says the collector, 'the maximum rate has been reached, and the Poor-law Commissioners have a right to collect '23. in the pound, and they have accordingly imposed that rate upon you.' Thus, instead of 58. being the maximum rate' 12s. 4d. would be the actual amount of the charge upon the land purchased by the English capitalist The maximum was a mere delusion, and was used in the bill as an engine for a union-rate, and to enable the Com- missioners to levy a tax of 10 per cent upon the whole rateable property of Ire-

The bill was passed.

RAILWAY FROM ATHLONE TO GALWAY.

In asking the Committee of the whole House to give the Treasury power to grant loans not exceeding 500,000/. for the construction of a railway between Athlone and Galway, Sir CHARLES Woon declared that the Government still did not feel justified in making advances to any great amount for the purpose of carrying on railway undertakings in Ire- land; but they thought that a special case was made out in favour of a great trunk line through the West of Ireland. Such a line would run through a district which is emphatically spoken of as the distressed district of Ireland, and would confer immense good upon the starving and unem- ployed population of that district. A line has already been constructed by an independent company from Dublin to Mullingar. To complete the line on to Athlone will take 300,000/. more; and thence to Galway 500,0001. additional. Gentlemen of the West of Ireland came forward and offered an arrangement by which, if the House would accede to this vote, they would be secured the construction of a good line throughout to Gal- way in the course of two years. The Government proposed to advance 500,000/. at 3i interest, to be repaid by instalments commencing ten years after the advance; and they proposed to take the whole line from Dublin to Galway as a security. It is proposed that they shall ap- point an auditor with powers to examine all accounts' and to control the amount of declared shareholders' profit. "If there should be any deficiency in the amount received by the Company and the sum to be paid to the Go- vernment, then the proportion in which each shareholder should contribute to that deficiency was to be fixed by the auditor." Sir Charles read cal- culations and statements by persons of high reputation as railway engi- neers and contractors, to show that the estimates on which the proposal for the loan bad been made are abundantly high and safe; and to show the good which has been clone to the Irish peasantry of every district through which railways have been constructed—the task-work and high wages at once stimulating their energy, and by the better living developing their physical powers and skill. The motion was opposed by Mr. GOULBURN, on noninterference of Go- vernment principles, and on the ground that the advance of money below the market rate in Ireland would be an unjust preference of this company; and by Mr. ROEBUCK, as a taxing of the poor English artisan for the bene- fit of Irish landlords, and upon general noninterference principles. It was supported by Mr. HOME; who, after scrupulous examination, concluded that it might be sanctioned on the soundest principle—particularly just now, when materials and land are so low, and Ireland may be so much benefited by employing her population and aiding her capital; by Mr. ORMSBY GORE; by Mr. NEWDEGATE, SS a " portion " of the great scheme of his late lamented friend Lord George Bentinck; by Sir HENRY WIN- STON Bannow, Mr. O'FLamenrv; by Sir THOMAS Aoralin, who elicited from Sir CHARLES WOOD that the advances of 1847 have every farthing been paid, and thereupon recommended a renewal of the generous policy so punctually responded to; by Mr. PETO, Mr. FREWEN, Sir Luaus O'BRIEN, and Mr. HENRY HFRNFRT. Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH called the attention of the House at much length to the necessity of completing branch lines throughout Ireland; and objected to this vote only as too small.

Eventually, the vote was agreed to.

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES: REDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE.

The House having gone into Committee of Supply on Thursday, Mr. Huse called on Lord John Russell to postpone the Ordnance Estimates until the report of the Select Committee on the aubjeot, only presented that morning; should have been duly considered by Members—say till Monday.

Lord Jouw RUSSELL objected, that such delay would be virtually post- poning the Estimates till August, when there would necessarily be a thin House. The best way would be to proceed now with the Estimates, leav- ing the report of the Committee to be carefully considered during the re- cess, and to be discussed in detail next session. That, said Mr. HERMES, would be to vote the Estimates without the important information furnished by the Committee. The discussion continuing, Sir limn Gam's)! stated what had passed in Committee. On Friday last, he proposed an intimation to the House that the report would not be ready so soon as had been expected; but sub- sequently more rapid progress was made, and the report had been presented that day: however, it is of great length; the evidence touches upon a variety of heads; and it would be better to take up tha estimates to the eosidcr the report in detail. Ha 5th of April last, without sopping to,,, was sure that a im,Aaar aoald be effected only by the Executive Govern- Mr Huss insisted that a reduction might be made before 1850; and he moved that the Chairman should report progress. Lord Jon.x RUSSELL replied, that Ministers could not at once make up their minds to adopt the reductions advised by the Committee, involving an amount of 100,0001. Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH observed, that some items at least might be suspended —as fortification works in certain colonies. Sir JAMES GRA- HAM backed Lord John Russell. The report alone, he said, would not be trustworthy; the evidence is the thing, and it embraces 10,000 ques- tions. The dispute proceeding, Mr. SrooNER observed, that the Estimates have been put off during the whole of the session, and now Government call upon the House to vote the moneyi required, and on a future day to hear the reasons why it ought not to have been voted! Mr. Hume's mo- tion was negatived, by 80 to 43.

Mr. Huhn; observing that the majority would have been the other way if the members of Government had not voted, renewed his motion.—Nega- tived by 90 to 21.

Mr. Hums immediately renew3d the motion; and after some debate, it was negatived, by 113 to 20.

Renewed again, it was negatived by 118 to 18.

pa- Regretting that the business of the country should be interrupted by the

obstinacy of the Government, and overruling the deprecation of Members, In which Mr. BROTHERTON joined, Mr. HUME repeated his motion. After another short debate, Ministers yielded. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the British Museum and other Estimates should be taken next evening; „the Ordnance Estimates on Monday. The House resumed, and the Chairman reported progress.

Earlier on the same evening, in reply to Mr. THORNELY, Sir Cummins Wools stated, that, in pursuance of reports from the Commissioners of inquiry on the Customs department, changes are taking place in the Cus- toms, which will give increased facilities to merchants, and effect a saving in expenditure of 70,0001. a year. The inquiry is still going on.

MEncearrisit MARINE.

In Committee of the whole House, on Thursday, Mr. Lassoursinan made a lengthened statement as to the measures contemplated by Govern- ment for the improvement of the mercantile marine, which he advanced as complementary to the Navigation Bill. The first subject was that of light-dues paid by ships. In this country the lighting is not under the management of a general board, as in other countries, but is vested in ancient corporations with separate jurisdictions, under a very imperfect general control by the Privy Council. Last session he had embodied his views in a bill; but as the bill had not received the assent of Parliament, and there was no prospect of carrying one this session, he did not propose to in- troduce one now. Nevertheless, he thought that some immediate relief might be given; and on communication with the Trinity House of London, which has control of the English lights, he found a ready concurrence. The revenue for English lights is 318,0001, of which sum coasters pay 145,0001., and the over- see traders 173,0001. The Trinity House proposes to reduce the amount by no less than 100,0001. a year. The coasting vessels pay an undue share of burden, especially considering the value of the cargo. The amount payable by coasting vessels will be reduced to the extent of 70,0001—nearly 50 per cent of the present charges. Certain lights are passed twice by over-sea traders going in and out of port: the remission of the double charge will be equivalent to 16 per cent on the whole for that class of vessels, and will amount to about 27,0001. a year. The proposed arrangement can be effected by the Trinity Board, with the consent of the Privy Council. The next subject was pilotage. The system is under three jarisdictions,—the Trinity House, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, and the local authorities of certain great towns and seaports. it is liable to various inequalities: coasting vessels are exempt from pilotage—a vessel trading between Liverpool ancIDablin needs not take a pilot ; but should thet same vessel proceed. to Brest, it must take a pilot at each post He proposed to introduce OM permissively authorizing the Trinity House to exempt such vessels from pilotage, if the competeney of the masters and mates to discharge pilot duties were satisfactorily shown. Another matter of great importance is the state of command and discipline in the mercantile marine. Mr. Labouchere very briefly glanced at evidence given by English consuls, shipowners, and other experienced persons; which shows that, excepting in the East Indian service, the masters are not only drawn from a class inferior to those classes which supply masters in foreign marines, but that they are deteriorating in manners, and probably in qualifications. This has the most disastrous effect on the state of discipline in merchant-ships; and it has been prored that as many as 14,000 sailors deserted from the English mercantile marine in one year, mostly to the American trade. The practice of agreements between seamen and their employers is in a very bad state. In America, agree- ments are usually arranged through the instrumentality of notaries-public; in this country, through the instrumentality of crimps; and the endeavour to im- prove the agency by a system of licences has had a very imperfect success. It would also be necessary to make a beginning in the way of sanatory reform.

There is no department of Government answerable for the condition of our mer- cantile marine: he proposed to create in the Board of Trade' not a board but a "Department of Mercantile Marine," to which would be attached two persons who had been captains in the merchant service. Under the direction of this depart- ment would be placed the examination of masters and mates; which would no longer be voluntary, but compulsory, though it would not be enforced on persons already holding those posts. " Shipping-officers " would be appointed in lien of the licensed agents: such officers to explain and attest all agreements made with sailors. Every vessel would be furnished with a log-book, to be kept according to a form set by a Government officer. Increased power for maintaining discipline would be given to captains holding first-class certificates and commanding vessels above a certain tonnage: they would have the power of temporary imprisonment. Disputes between captains and sailors under the amount of forty shillings would be summarily settled by the shipping-officer. Sanatory regulations would be en- forced by the department. The Registry Office would be transferred to the de- partment; and the system of tickets discontinued. Fees and fines would be formed into a fund, probably 40,0001. a year: from this fund would be paid the aalaries of shipping-officers, say 10,0001, and good-service pensions to meritorious captains and mates. Captains holding first-class certificates would be permitted to wear some badge of distinction, gratifying to themselves, and conferring au- thority in foreign ports.

Mr. Labonchere moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws re- lating to pilotage, and a bill for improving the condition of masters, mates, and seamen, in the merchant service; not for carrying this session, but to be considered in the recess.

Several Members delivered critical remarks upon the scheme, mostly in a friendly spirit, but suggesting improvements. Mr. GLADSTONE called upon Ministers to isetato this question of the Merchant Seamen's Fund; a fund approaching insolvency, but aottee_as peculiar and oppressive bur- den on the working sailor. He called on Mr. boue1r.. 4 asopt a more strenuous measure for raising the character of masters and seamen: as he had abolished a onopoly in shipowning and shipbuilding, let him also abo- lish monopoly in seamanship.

Eventually, leave was given to bring in the bills. REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL Ace.

The second reading of the Duration of Parliaments Bill, moved by Mr. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT, was opposed by'Sir GEORGE GREY; who briefly renewed the arguments used by Lord John Russell on a former discussion of the subject. If it be proposed to reduce' 11th duration of Parliament to five years, that is only a reduction of a single year below the limit now practically observed: if it be Proposed to reduce the ...duration to three years, great practical inconvenience will arise from the presence of so many' Members new to the House, unused-k public hotness, and unacquainted with the bills under discussion in this previous Parliament. If the bill were not withdrawn, he must move that it be read a second time that clay

six months. ' '- Mr. MILKER Ginsoar observed, that the reply to Sir George Grey's speech had already been given in the division by which a majority decided that the bill should be introduced.

That division was not quite accidental. Like the division on the ballot last session, it arose from a reluctance by many Members to record a deliberate vote against the extension of the suffrage and similar popular measures. When Mem- bers were not solicited by the leaders of the great parties, they would sooner go away; therefore there is a deep meaning .in these occasional majorities in favour of reforming measures. A bill for shortening the duration of Parliaments is more required now than ever, from the immense increase of Government power to pro- vide patronage for its supporters. What induces gentlemen to spend large sums in a borough, but that they know they have only to "vote right," and they may "pull and pull away" at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make the money spent in their election a good investment? The House would never check bribery and corruption at elections, or entirely get rid of pledging Members, and obtain an independent House of Commons' so long as the present fixity of tenure should last. Let him hear nothing of the fallacious argument from averages; for though it may be true that they often had short Parliaments, it is also true that they sometimes had long ones. Nor let the lateness of the session be advanced in objection ; for there need be no Committee, no discussion of clauses: a simple repeal of the Septennial Act, which was originally introduced and carried be- cause the reigning family happened to be unpopular, is all that is necessary, and Parliaments will thenceforward become triennial. Mr. Gibson earnestly en- treated gentlemen opposite not to make inconsiderate promises. In the natural course of events, the Conservative party will sooner or later get into power again; they cannot shut their eyes to facts around them: they must perceive that the present question will then present itself in a formidable shape, and they had bet- ter avoid pledges, lest giving such should lead to a weakness and division similar to that produced by the settlement of the Corn-laws.

Mr. BERNAL confessed himself one of that anomalous and hybrid class described by Mr. Gibson, and he should therefore go out without voting on the motion.

He saw no reason against the ballot, which he had already voted for; but was favourable to every measure calculated to purify what some gentlemen had thought proper to call an Augean stable. Having long known Mr. Gibson both publicly and socially, he wondered that, with his ability and upright intentions, he should talk of Members having a "pull at the Treasury," and speak about their not being "angels of purity." He must know, from his extensive acquaint- ance with Members, that they were not accustomed to have a "pull at the Trea- sury." Mr. Bernal did not hesitate to tell him that such a mode of dealing with the subject is a humbug and a delusion. Members are, no doubt, bored to make applications, and are often driven to the doors of the Treasury; but that is not a tide that sets in for their personal advantage. He would not confine his measures a purification to the walls of that House. Let the temptations be repressed which Members present to constituents, as well as those presented in return. -As to the doctrine ot pledges, he repudiated that as much as he repudiated spaking in that House to the constituents. The electors should not be hoodwinked: they should be taught to look at the matter seriously, and made to know and feel tbat if a Member of that House performs his duties in Parliament purely and effi-

SCOTCH MARRIAGE LAW.

Mr. RUTHEREURD moved that the Marriage (Scotland) Bill be read third time on Monday next. Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE moved as an amendment, that it be read a third time that day three months. Mr. RIITHERFURD went at considerable length over the same ground which has been traversed by the supporters of the bill in the BOHM of Lords; and supplied an analysis of the mass of petitions which has been presented against it from Scotland.

It appears that 377 petitions have been presented, 225 of them from the Esta- blished Church. "The General Assembly first petitioned, and then the Com- mission of the General Assembly petitioned; then in certain cases the Synods petitioned, and neat the Presbyteries: then the Kirk-Sessions, and lastly the in- dividual Clerks of the Sessions ; and thus these petitions were multiplied." The 47 petitions presented by the Free Kirk were principally directed against a clause in the Registering Births &c. (Scotland) Bill, providing that none but the Session. Clerks should be Registrars. Of 1,000 parishes, only 130 had petitioned; of 739 Free Kirk congregations, only 11; of the 492 congregations of the United Presby- terian Synod, only 12; and of the 333 other congregations of the Reformed Church in Scotland, not one. The petitions presented were signed by but 1,500 persons.

The bill was supported by Mr. ELLIOT and Mr. Fox Marisn; opposed by Sir GEORGE CLERK, Mr. 3/Vishnu., and Mr. HUME. Mr. M`Naitt answered Mr. Rutherfurd at great length; and attempted to reestablish the case relied on by the opponents of the bill, that it is repugnant to the general mind of the Scottish people. Nearly all the counties have peti- tioned against the bill, most of the leading towns, the delegates from the burghs in their yearly meeting—unanimously, many of the parochial boards, the General Assembly, the Commission of the Assembly for two years, &c. All parties are willing to amend some portion of the Scottish law—for instance, to provide agaisss he evil of Gretna Green marriages: but this law is nothing more than a portion of the Registering Births, &c. Bill; and both must be opposed together.

The House divided on the question that the words "Monday next" do stand part of the question; and affirmed that proposition, by 73 to 68; Ministerial majority, 5. Mr. GLADSTONE hoped, after this division, that the bill would not be pressed further this session. After some conversa- tion, Lord Jonw RUSSELL intimated that he would not at present divide on the original question; but wont]. on Thursday state what course Go- vernment would take. The debate was adjourned to that day.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, on Thursday, that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with the bills in the present session. At the same time, he must observe that the debate had only confirmed him in the opinion that the Marriage-law of Scotland was very defective, and that it was desirable that a good system of registration should be esta- blished there.

The orders for proceeding with these bills were then read and dis- charged deafly, he is entitled to the respect, the gratitude, and the affection of his con- stituents. Mr. Hume thought Mr. Bernal might not be far wrong in saying that shortening of Parliaments would not effect the complete purification of the House—that they ought to first reform the constituency: but if so, he wished the several parties proposing different remedies could be got to un- derstand that they must lose no time in effecting any improvement possible. His study and experience in Parliament for thirty-five years convinced him

that half measures never answer; that the only true course is to adhere to prin- ciples, even while accepting such improvements as can be got. He had been ac- cused by some of asking too much, and by others of asking too little, in his scheme of Parliamentary reform; but he turned from such accusations to ask her Majesty's Ministers, who long since pat themselves forward as the advocates of reform, upon what ground, since they had declared themselves against reform, can they continue to ask him or other Liberal Members for the usual support? He thought, upon the whole, that it would be better to withdraw their support, because then there would be an united opposition: in their present position the friends of reform are supporting the enemies of reform. It was his deliberate opinion, that until he and those who thought with him seceded from the benches Which they now occupy, they would snake no progress whatever. Recalling the incident of a Minister converted on the floor of the House to oppose the resolu- tions taken in Cabinet with reference to giving Members to Birmingham, the re- fusal of all concession still persisted in by the House, and the ultimate wholesale reform amidst difficulty and danger, he advised those who thought with him to cross the gangway, and leave Ministers to the tender mercies of the Protectionists. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND commented on the earnest and emphatic man- ner in which Government is urged to bring forward measures of reform, and threatened with loss of support—in effect, told to resign—if they do not do so.

The earnestness with which some Members sought to drive Ministers from power, seemed to be in the inverse ratio to their own capacity to govern—to their enjoyment of that rarest gift of Heaven the talent to rule. Before the Reform Act, he had voted for annual Parliaments, and last year for triennial Parliaments ; but he should now take an opposite course ; for, in the state of the representation brought about by the Reform Act, the public business could not be transacted with triennial Parliaments. Referring to the political state of France, Mr. Drum- mond said he did not believe it would be possible to preserve in this country a House of Lords and an hereditary Sovereign if they gave what some Members de- sired with all their souls, the whole power of government to that House alone.

Mr. BRIGHT explained to the offended Mr. Bernal, that his colleague Mr. Gibson had not alluded to direct bribery—that is now unknown—but to the undoubted "influence" of a Treasury bench having 60,000,0001. a year of the public money to dispose of, not to say anything of their great patronage and their disposal of dignities and honours. The present subject is but a part of a much larger one: neither this measure nor the ballot will satisfy the popular demand for Parliamentary reform. The present system aimed at making that House a mere appanage to the influences predominant in another place; whereas it should be a fair and full representation of the virtue, industry, and property of the country: unless it became this, a feel- ing would grow up in all parts of the country, and make its way into that House, which would be used in a manner injurious to their most valuable and long.exist- ing institutions. He agreed with Mr. Hama as to the course Government have taken. They are not bound to bring forward measures which they have not a good prospect of carrying, but they ought not to meet measures like the present on the flippant and careless manner he was sorry to say they too often manifest. Lord Dermmx &miler urged Ministers to get back the confidence of the people, by proof of their determination to remedy grievances. Colonel Seawzr considered that the contrast of the present Government in oppo- sition and in office was painful and lamentable in the extreme. Mr. Kers- HELM vouched the spread of a strong feeling theough the country for fur- ther reforms; and stated with what surprise and regret he had found, on entering the House, that he could hardly rely on the Government for the admission of any one principle they formerly professed. Mr. HENRY BERKELEY called for the opinions of the Opposition, as yet withheld from the House. Mr. Cam-Beer. animadverted on the infelicitous and ungene- rous opportunity taken for these attacks on the Administration, when circumstances of a private and peculiar nature were preventing the head of the Government from attending in his place. Mr. Campbell was hostile to this and the other extreme reforms advocated by Mr. Hume and his friends.

Mr. D'Evercouar replied; and the House divided: for the amendment, 132; against it, 57. So the bill is lost.

THE CHOLERA IN LONDON.

On Thursday, Mr. BERNAL drew attention to the disgraceful sanatory state of London. He complained of the smells from St. Margaret's Church- yard, which penetrate the Committee-rooms of the House; the smells from the sewers, which, after all the talk, are worse than ever; and the mor- tality from cholera in the neighbourhood of Ludgate Hill. He was ashamed to think that civilized people, in the year 1849, should submit to be in Each a condition, surrounded with pestilence and disease. Sir GEORGE GREY said, he had received no specific representation with regard to nuisances in that neighbourhood, but he would—inquire. Every power conferred upon the Board of Health or the Police was put in exer- cise. Probably the prevalence of disease arose from the state of the weather and the drought!

Mr. Gousuutue asked whether steps had been taken to remove St. Margaret's Churchyard; the House having granted a sum of money for the purpose ?

Sir GEORGE GREY said, he would—inquire. As representative of the Board of Health in that House, Lord ASHLEY stated, that the Board is utterly powerless in these matters. Within the metropolis, it can give directions, and cause certain clearings—when the cholera has broken out. The state of London is not worse than before; but the cholera is now spreading rapidly, and unless something were done it would be impossible to foretell the consequence. Lord EBBINGTON explained, that various nuisances had been removed by the Commissioners of Sewers but not in places likely to come within the cognizance of the House; • the Commissioners beginning first to cleanse the most miserable part of the metropolis. Vast accumulations in the drains had been flushed away; but the Commissioners could not keep off the exhalations from St. Margaret's Churchyard. Mr. HENLEY asked, whether it was not at the instance of Lord John Russell that London had been exempted from the Health of TOYitIS Bill, which contains power to deal with the nuisance of pestilential churchyards? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that Lord Carlisle had thought it necessary tsoebave a separate bill for the metropolis- and until the Commissioners of wers, appointed lase year,- bad sameneeda farther, Lord Carlisle did not think it advisable to bring in a bill.

Here the subject dropped.

SMOKE PROHIBITION.

On the motion that the House go into Committee on the Smoke Pro- hibition Bill, Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the bill be committed on that day three months. He did not think the state of science justified legislation, on the belief that manufacturers in the hardware districts can, at all events without serious loss and injury to trade, be compelled to constfme the smoke. Alderman COPELAND, Mr. BRIGHT, and several Members from the manufacturing districts, supported this view. Mr. Cumer, whose brother's works at Pimlico had been alluded to by the supporters of the bill, said that his brother and himself had the subject much at heart; his brother had spent much in his endeavours, but had not been able to con- sume the smoke in all the processes on his works. Sir GEORGE STRICK- LAND urged the withdrawal of the bill, to allow time for farther investiga- tion and consideration. Mr. BASHES, Mr. FORSTER, Sir CHARLES BUR- RELL, Mr. LABOUCHERE, Mr. GEORGE SANDARS, and several other Mem- bers, supported the motion for going into Committee. It was carried by 83 to 64. On clause 1, Mr. BRIGHT asked for a definition of "opaque smoke., Whereupon arose a desultory discussion, in which operative chemistry,. physical science, and verbal criticism were blended, by Members from all, sides of the House. Mr. MACKINNON at first replied, that "opaque smoke" meant "smoke one cannot see through "• and afterwards, with more respectful elaboration, said it was " that which was neither trans- parent nor pellucid—what they could not see through—that was opaque through which they could not see the light." Mr. Breserno objected, that the opacity might depend on the state of the atmosphere; and Mr. Britain. suggested that it might depend on the colour of the background. Other. Members reminded the House, that it might be opaque and pellucid by fits and starts—opaque when the informer looked, and pellucid when the ma. nufacturer or the magistrate inspected. Mr. ROEBUCK raised the objec- tion that it is the pellucid smoke—the carbonic acid—which is deleterious; while the opaque smoke—the unconsumed carbonaceous matter—is little worse than inconvenient. Thereupon Mr. BooVERIE called for a defini- tion of " noxious effluvium "; Mr. HUMPHREY WILLYA.MS suggested the amendment of " deleterious exhalation." Mr. LABOUCHERE thought these criticisms were unpractical—that difficulties were raised which were not really warranted. The common sense and plain understanding of the Magistrates would determine what was opaque smoke as it deter- mined similar questions every day. But Mr. DUNCAN Observed, that

the evil was frequently only temporary; and how were the Magis- trates to decide when the informer and the manufacturer contradicted

each other? Sir Jolla JERVIS interposed his authoritative opinion that the bill was very inartificially drawn, and that a definition of "opaque smoke" would be considerably difficult in practice. He recommended that

the bill be altered to an enactment that when the smoke amounts to a legal, nuisance it shall be subject to the penalties of the bill. Thus the neigh-.

bourhood would be made the witness. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, he had given great attention to the matter, and on every occasion of reflection upon it had come to the conclusion that there is no remedy but the com- mon law remedy against nuisances. To make this particular nuisance a statntable offence, would cause a most material interference with many branches of:manufacture.

The dismission continued its complicated and unprogressive character till nearly half-past five; when, on the suggestion of Sir GEORGE GREY:, that it would be impossible to make any progress with the bill, Mr. MAC- KINNON agreed that progress should be reported, and promised to consider whether he should abandon the bill altogether or bring forward amend- ments.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

Mr. MONCKTON MILNES brought the condition of Juvenile Offenders under the notice of the House of Commons.

The subject with which he proposed to deal was not complicated or difficult: the crime is the single one of petty larceny, and the criminals are almost all youthful. He wished to impress on the Home Secretary the necessity of esta- blishing some such asylum as the Philanthropic Institution, in which the good work of reforming youthful criminals might be carried on. Parkhurst often un- fits the children sent out of it for the honest employments and duties of life. There is no establishment of a truly reformatory character. The process pur- sued in this country with juvenile offenders is not a curative process. It would be a great improvement if juvenile offenders were immediately after conviction subjected to corporal punishment; for the second offence they should be sentenced to two or three years imprisonment, and sent to a reforming establishment; and for the third offence they should be sent to a similar establishment for five or six years, where they would be subjected to constant and severe labour—not without moral superintendence, but still to constant and severe labour. He re- gretted to observe that the bill which had been introduced at the instance of Miss Murray—a lady whom he might place on a par with Mrs. Fry—bad never been carried into practical operation. There was every reason to apprehend that the evils springing out of juvenile delinquency would, if neglected, reach to a very formidable extent; and he hoped that the Government would take these subjects into consideration in connexion with plans of colonization, thus giving reformed criminals a chance of beginning life anew. He moved for leave to bring hi a bill to amend the law relating to juvenile offenders.

Sir GEORGE GREY was quite ready to admit, that when juvenile offend- ers are detained in custody it ought to be principally with a view to their reformation; and that in punishment as now administered there is more of the deterring than reforming element: but a nice hand is required to adjust the elements, so as to protect society and reform the criminal. As to the act that had been introduced at the suggestion of Miss Murray—a lady in the eulogium pronounced on whom he fully concurred—it certainly, though passed in the year 1840, had remained a dead letter; for it was so constructed that it could not be got to work. He should be disposed to accede to the motion of his honourable friend, if there was any reason to suppose that he really had prepared any bill on the subject; for in such cases everything depends upon practical legislation. Mr. BANKES wished success to Mr. Milnes's general object.'" Sir JOIIN PAKINGTON regretted he bad not moved far e SeTect Committee. Mr. HENLEY hoped the bill wmaa.bo-erotight in and printed. rdr. rutuzrak moved the House to laughter by saying that he would lay his bill on the table "before the end of the session."

Indeed, he would have introduced the bill at once, had he not expected to re- ceive from the Home Secretary an intimation that a measure on the subject would be presented to Parliament by the Government either during the present session or early in the ensuing session.

The motion was agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF VAN DIEMMiteS LAND.

On the order for going into Committee of Supply, on Thursday, Mr. AMSTET renewed his motion for an address to the Crown on the official misconduct in Van Diemen's Land, with a brief recapitulation of the facts. The Chief Justice, in the exercise of his judicial functions, had pronounced a certain tax illegal. The Governor, Sir William Denison, endeavouring to force the tax on the colony, asked the Chief Justice to accept leave of absence for eighteen months. The Chief Justice declined; and then the Governor, acting on a suggestion from Downing Street, passed an act of Council declaring the legality of the measure impugned by the Chief Justice.

Mr. HAWES explained, that Sir William Denison had accepted the go- vernment of the colony at a time of great difficulty, and when it was far from easy to carry on affairs: no doubt, he committed an error in judg- ment by proposing the absence of the Chief Justice; and Lord Grey had already expressed his disapprobation of that step; but it did not in any way derogate from his character as an able and upright Governor.

Mr. Hume called for the letter expressing disapprobation of the Gover- nor's conduct. Mr. GranexoNE, however, deprecated the production of the paper, as tending to add injuriously to the effect of the reproof; in an affair already settled.

Mr. EvEtyie Durensote expressed regret at the step which his relative had taken; and begged that the letter might receive the fullest publicity.

On a division, Mr. Anstey's motion was negatived, by 72 to 24. -

BUENOS AYRES AND MONTE VIDEO.

In reply to Lord COLCHESTER, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE avowed a Confident expectation that the negotiations between her Majesty's Govern- ment and the Governor of Buenos Ayres are now in such a state as will lead to a speedy and satisfactory settlement between the two countries.

The Government of this country had been engaged with the Government of France in negotiating such a treaty ; and the two Governments were becoming joint parties to an arrangement which would insure tranquillity to that part of the world, and would be beneficial to its trade and commerce. He did hope that by the concurrence of the two Governments of England and France that object would be accomplished: at the same time, if difficulties should occur on the part of the French Government, he would not say that it would not be our duty to adhere to the arrangement which we had made separately with the Governments on the River Plate.

SIR ROBERT PEEL ON THE STATE OE THE COUNTRY.

!flour last Postscript, we were unable to supply more than such a sketch of Sir Robert Peel's speech on Mr. Disraeli's motion as might possess the reader of its general arguments and characteristic treatment. We now re- deem our promise of returning to the speech, and extract such portions of it as our readers ought not to find wanting in their Parliamentary file.

Sir Robert seized Mr. Disraeli's admission of a favourable state of domestic and foreign affairs till 1846; shooing that no alteration of policy took place in 1846, and that the favourable status of that period was due to the liberalized commer- cial policy of 1842. "I find that in the year 1841, there was a deficit of about 2,500,0001. I find that in the preceding year, 1840, you had adopted the system of imposing additional duties upon imports ; you had imposed 5 per cent, in ad- dition to all the existing duties, upon the import of raw material, upon articles of food, and upon everything that constituted the import trade of the country. I find that that addition, so placed upon imports, had produced no corresponding augmentation of the revenue, but directly the reverse. I find that in the case of additions to the Assessed Taxes—of additions to direct taxation, the anticipations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been realized, while in the instance of ad- ditions to Customs-duties upon ;imports his anticipations had not been realized. The nominal 5 per cent of addition to taxation had produced no 5 per cent of ad- ditional revenue. But in 1842 you adopted a different principle. You imposed an income-tax, and you reduced taxation upon all the great articles of subsist- ence. (Cheers and counter-cheers.) You reduced taxation upon raw material, and upon food—upon the subsistence of the people. You found prohibitions upon ivory animal which constitutes food. You found prohibition upon meat, high protection upon corn, and heavy duties upon raw material. You adopted a dif- ferent system in 1842. You imposed an income-tax, by which 5,000,0001. was raised. You removed the prohibitions upon the import of animals and meat; you seduced the duties upon every article which enters into the subsistence of the people; you greatly reduced the protective duties upon corn; you reduced the duties upon 555 articles of Customs: and the result was what the honourable gentleman has represented to have been the state of this country in 1846. Now, observe,—agriculturists looking forward with hope Ireland in a state of com- parative prosperity, the greatest export trade that ever was known to take place,—all this was, I won't say the result of, but at least coincident with, that reformation of year commercial system. But, then, says the honourable gentle- man, in 1846 you adopted a totally new principle; and from the introduction of that new principle have resulted the evil consequences which we deplore in 1818.' Now, my answer upon that point is this,—in 1846 we adopted no new commercial principle, but we certainly carried further the commercial p_rinciple which had been adopted and acted upon. (Cheers and counter- cheers.) What new principle was introduced in 1846 that failed in 1848? Before the end of 1845 the duties upon cotton and wool had been repealed. In 1842 the reduc- tion of duties upon articles of import amounted to 1,092,0001., in 1843 to 411,000L, in 1844 to 458,0001., and in 1845 to 4,511,0001.; the total amount of this reduc- tion of taxation to the end of 1845 being 6,582,0001. The articles upon which that reduction mainly took place were either raw materials, articles of Mod, or ar- ticles of subsistence. What new principle of commercial legislation, then, was introduced in 1846? The amount of duties remitted in 1846 was 1,151,0001., and the amount remitted in the four preceding years 6,582,0001. The articles which in 1846 were selected for reduced taxation were these,— tallow, timber, (being an additional reduction thereon,) brandy, soap, linseed-cake, rape-Cake, and it great many articles the use of which is important to the agricultural interest. There was, indeed, provision made for the ultimate repeal of the Corn-law; but that is the single instance in respect to which you can Bay that any different prin- ciple of legislation was adopted in 1846 which had not previously been acted upon in 1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845. And now observe, with respect to the repeal of the Corn-law, that did not take place until the 1st of February 1849. (" Hear, hear!") And from necessity, in 1847, you repealed the duties; and the honourable Member for Dorsetshire seconded the motion for their repeal. But during nearly the whole of 1848 you had a duty of about ar. or 10s. on foreign corn; and con- sequently, if there have ensued any evil effects from the repeal of the Corn-law, you cannot date them from au earlier period than the 1st of February 1849; and the protection, as long as you thought Lt expedient to retain it, lasted up to the let of February 1849." He referred to the speech of Mr. Mentz describing the state of Birmingham to be each that the Birmingham manufacturers in brass, copper, cutlery, and but- tons, could not find a sale for their articles ; that their trade was greatly de- pressed, and that the quantity of German and other foreign cutlery and buttons imported interfered with the Birmingham market. "I was startled by his decla- ration, which elicited some cheers; and I said to an honourable friend of mine, ' Let us know the truth ; let us have an account of all the metallic articles brought into this country, and, in the same retuno, also a statement of the amount of manufactured articles precisely of the same kind sent out of the country; and then we shall know what is the foundation for the assertion that the Birmingham cutlers and button-makers cannot sell their own goods in their own market. Well, here is a return which was moved for, and includes brass, copper clue, &c., manufactures and buttons, and lacquered goods. It gives the amount of all these articles imported from abroad. In 1846, 1847, and 1848, the ag_

gregate average amount of all these imports into England from Germany and every

other country was worth 102,0001., or 34,0001. a year on the average of the last three years. Now if we had exported only 20,0001. worth, that might be a prod

that our manufacture was depressed and interfered with, and that it was impossi-

ble for us to contend with these foreign rivals in neutral markets. But in the same three years in which we imported this 102,0001. worth of metal goods, we

exported annually to the amount of 4,400,0001. worth of exactly the same articles ; the total aggregate amount of the imports in the three years being 102,000/. worth ; and the total aggregate amount of the exports for the three years being 13,372,0001. worth, being on the average 4,420,0001. worth a year; while only 34,0001. worth was imported a year. In 1848 yea exported in official value about 133,000,000L, the produce of your industry; and you imported manufactured goods to the amount in declared value of about 4,722,000L worth. Is that sufficient to account for the distress? Your imports, in 1848, of raw materials to be fabricated by your industry, amounted in

value to 48,400,0001 ; and the manufactured goods imported only amounted to 4,700,000/. But is that 4,700,0001. worth the amount which was taken for home consumption, and which could by any possibility interfere with your domestic in- dustry ? No. Deduct from that amount all that you reexported. You cannot deny that that is a just mode of proceeding. Of cotton goods from India and Europe you imported in value 512,0001. worth; but you reexported a very come derable portion of that quantity so imported. You exported again no less than 275,000L worth. Therefore deduct from the 512,0001. worth imported the 275,0001. worth reexported. Could there be a greater proof of the benefit of free trade than this, that it enables this country to become the entrepiet for the goods of other nations, inviting those goods to these stores, and, to the advantage of our warehousing system, causing them to be deposited here for reexportation? Thus our shipping was employed, and great advantage conferred on this country, without those goods interfering in any shape with your domestic industry. With respect to silk and other articles, you had unnatural imports, to be attributed to the depression of trade in other countries, and not to the natural operation of trade. But of the silks imported you exported 870,0001. worth; and when it is said that the domestic manufacture was interfered with by the import, then on the other hand allowance must be made for the amount reexported. But another and still further deduction you must make. You must deduct from the whole of the legitimate imports all that would have been imported by smuggling if you had chosen to retain high duties of 40 or 50 per cent. No doubt, in such case the apparent amount of imports would have been greatly reduced, and the manu- facturer in this country perhaps might have consoled himself with the thought that at any rate but one-fifth or one-sixth of the amount of the present imports had entered. No idea could be more delusive. The smuggler would have cor- rected the absurdity of your commercial system, and he would have pocketed the gain the country has derived from facilitating commercial intercourse.' (Cheers.) lie came to Mr. Disraeli's argument founded on the diminished value of our ex- ports. Mr. Disraeli had said that the average official value of all exports in 1845 and 1846 was 133,000,0001.; and that the average declared value in those two years was 59,500,0001.; that in 1848ehe official value, which signified quantity, did not fall very far short of the official value in 1845 and 1846, but that the declared value in 1848 fell by 6,500,0001., and amounted to only 53,000,0001.; and he drew this conclusion, that the working classes had received 6,500,0001. less in 1848 than they did before. "I totally deny the inference which the honourable Member drew from that circumstance. I deny, because there was a falling-off in the declared value of exports in 1848 as compared with the average declared value of those of 1845 and 1846 to the extent of 6,500,0001., that therefore the work- ing classes received 6,500,0001. less for their labour in 1848 than they obtained in 1845-6. It would be melancholy indeed if that were the case; • but my conso- lation is that nothing of the kind has taken place. Nothing can be more fallaci- ous than any inference drawn from a falling-off in the declared value of manufac- tures exported. The honourable Member said if I recollect aright, towards the conclusion of his very able speech the other night, 'Nene quidem novo quodam morbo civitas moritur ' now I want to show that this is an old disease. (Laugh- ter.) And I undertake to prove that it has, at former periods, afflicted the country under a much more aggravated form than it doesat present. (Cheers and laugh- ter.). The doctrine which infested the late Alderman Waithman, and which he earned with him to his grave, was this, that there had been a vast diminution in the declared value of articles exported, and that the country therefore was rapidly consuming its own strength and approaching utter extinction. (Laughter.) The honourable Member for Buckinghamshire would have been surprised at hearing how eloquent Alderman Waithman could be upon this point. This was the worthy Alderman's argument: he said, that the Government forgot that every branch of our trade was founded on prohibition—that the country was struggling with dreadful difficulties—that 3,000,000 quarters of corn and 2,000,000/. worth of silk manufactures had been imported into this country, and although it was argued that the money paid for all this would come back, he could tell the House it was no such thing; for that, whatever we might import, our exports would not increase in consequence—that in the course of the last twelve years preceding that in which he spoke we had lost 120,000,0001. of our export trade; and he proved it by the paper which I now hold in my hand. This only shows how much more aggravated the disorder was in those days. (Cheers and laughter.) Ob- serve that this fatal decline took place in the time of protection. Alder- man Waithman took the exports from 1814 to 1828, with their official, de- clared, and real value, and divided them into two periods, one from 1814 to t8e0, and the other from 1820 to 1828. He showed that in the first period the excess of real over official value was 41,521,0001.; and in the second period, namely, from 1820 to 1828, 83,243,000L • making a total amount of depreciation in value 124,764,000/. He said that the yearly value of exports from 1814 to 1820 vas 45,262,0001., and from 1820 to 1828, 36,462,0001. He made the annual decrease amount to 8,800,0001., to which he added decrease of colonial and foreign produce, 4,524,000/., making together 13,325,0001. Finally, the worthy Alderman made out that there was a depreciation in value of 28,000,000/. on 48,000,0001., or 60 per cent; and then he prophesied, as, doubtless, he would have been justified in doing if his theory had been correct, that we could not continue in that coarse without being overwhelmed by bankruptcy and ruin. Ought not this to su to the mind of the honourable Member for Buckinghamshire the possibility 0 Ns being wrong in the deduction which he has drawn from the falling-off on the de- clared value of exports? Having diminished the cost of cotton, oil, and eeerle thing which enters into the composition of manufactures, it is the natural roue that there should be a.diminiehed cost of production, though not a reductionlfl the amount of wages paid." He boldly maintained that Mr. Disraeli's principle of protection to domestic industry,— meaning thereby, legislative encouragement for the purposes of Poe tection, not of revenue,—is a vicious principle. " I deny the honourablegentlemans assumption that you cannot fight hostile tariffs by free imports. ISO totalll differ on that point, that I maintein your true policy is to compete with hostile tariffs by free imports. I deny that you ought to return to protection as a prie- ciple; and I say that the wider you extend your principle of protection, the greater injury you will inflict on the national wealth and on the interests of the peoeie. Surely the capital of the country is a fund from which the industry of the country must be maintained. Surely the industry of the country must be pro- moted in proportion to the capital which can be employed in its manufactures. surely the augmentation of capital, as our population increases, must depend on the saving of annual revenue. If you choose to give for certain articles produced at home inure than you can purchase that article for if it is to be brought from abroad, is it not a diminution of your annual revenue? If you say, 'No, but protection will be extended over all,' I can only say that in proportion as you ex- tend protection so are you in proportion diminishing revenue ; so are you dimi- nishing the fund from which the capital of the country can alone be augmented ; so are you diminishing the means by which the industry of the country can be employed: and all this protection, all this giving of high prices for that which you can purchase at lower prices, so far from encouraging domestic industry, is first an interference by domestic legislation with capital; in the next place it is a diminution of annual income by giving more for a thing than it is worth." He supported these views by reference to foreign countries in detail. " Take the United States. The United States imposes duties on our manufactures, say 20 per cent on our cotton goods; and, admitting that we maintain a not very sue- c.essful competition in the markets of the United States, what course are we to take? We must, it is said, have countervailing duties on America. Would it be wise to have a high duty on raw cotton? What good should we gain? The complaint is on the part of the English cotton manufacturer. He says, ' I meet the United States manufacturer in neutral markets, I meet him in his own mar- ket; but in the neutral markets I maintain my ground, What is the course I ehould take? Impose countervailing duties on the produce of America ?—that is, chiefly on raw materials, and no doubt cotton will be among the foremost. Will you tell me how you favour the manufacturer by imposing a duty upon his cot- ton? Take France. France will not take our hardwares or our cotton goods. How should we deal with France? Should we impose a heavy duty on her wines? If so, you are going to embody the principle of the Methuen treaty in your legis- lation: by the Methuen treaty with Portugal, because that country undertook to admit our woollen goods, you admitted her port wines on a better footing than you took the wines of France. I thought that the treaty had been practically abrogated with the unanimous good-will and consent of all persons of experience on the subject. We redaced the duty notwithstanding her hostile tariff; and no- thing but advantage has been gained. We are dissatisfied with Russia. We think the Russian is a restrictive tariff. Would it be any advantage to lay a heavy duty on the raw produce of Russia—upon her tallow—upon articles we use in our manufactures? I admit it would be for the interest of free trade—for the interest of those countries, to reduce their tariff; and nothing but the interest of powerful individuals induces the Governments of those countries, to the manifest iniury of the great body of the people, to keep up those restrictive duties. I ad- mit that if they would reduce them it would be for the benefit of our commerce. But, if I cannot get that, I utterly deny that we should gain any advantage by countervailing duties upon articles of raw materials imported from those countries which are unwilling to take our manufactured goods; and therefore I say, with- out the slightest compromise, that the doctrine of Lord Stanley, that we must re- turn to protection as a principle, is an erroneous doctrine; that when he says we must extend legislative encouragement to every branch of domestic industry, you may redress the injury you do to the particular class you favour with protection, but you are widening the circle by the damage you inflict on the consumer of those articles, and are extending the injury to the revenue and the consequent augmentation of capital." In conclusion, Sir Robert referred to the majestic spectacle of the metropolis, when 160,000 men of the middle classes were ranged in her streets in sup- port of authority—not of disaffection—and with the determination, without re- ference to party consequences, to preserve the peace of the country, and to put down the threats and menaces of the disaffected. "Bat," said Sir Robert, "my belief also is, that this metropolis exhibited an incomplete and imperfect example of the advantages you derived from the measures you have adopted: you must go elsewhere to look for it in its highest effect; you must go to the great resorts of manufacture ; you must go to the mines—to the collieries—to those places not subject to those influences which tell in favour of submission to the authorities and the maintenance of order in the metropolis. You must look to Stockport, Paisley, Manchester, and see if order was preserved there in February 1848. See, again, when the manufacturing interests were deeply suffering—when there was loss of employment, and when there were great privations among the people—see the patience and resignation with which thew sufferings were borne. Why? Because it was felt that human legislation was not responsible for the evils under which they laboured. (Loud cheers.) - - - - Sir, it VAS no act of a sagacious Minister. The great and coming crisis was not foreseen by any statesman. It was not a lucky accident. My belief is that it pleased Almighty God to listen to your prayers to turn scarcity and dearth into cheapness and plenty, and so to direct and prosper your consultations, on the brink of a great precipice and on the coming of a tremendous calamity, that you 'es- tablished peace and happiness' on the foundations of truth and justice.' (En- thusiastic cheering.) You have reaped the reward of that policy. You have passed unscathed through the sternest trials to which the institutions of any na- tion ever were subjected. You stood erect amid the convulsions of Europe. (Great cheering.) And now you are to have a proposal made to you of some paltry fixed duty. (Cheers and counter-cheers.) Take then your five-shilling duty, and consider what it is. If it be 58. on wheat, it will give you 2s. 6d. on barley, 2s. on oats; that is is. 6d. more on barley, and Is. more on oats than you have at present—an equivocal advantage at the best. But by every consideration which can influence consistent and rational legislators—(Ironical cheering from the Protectionists, and counter-cheers from the rest of the House)—by the highest suggestions of a generous policy, by the boldest calculations of the lowest and most selfish _prudence—I implore you to reject this proffered boon. (Renewed cheering.) I implore you not to sacrifice, not to barter, the glorious heritage you have obtained by your sagacious and most timely policy, for the smallest and most worthless policy for which the greatest advantage was ever surrendered since the days of him who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage." (Loud and general cheering, except from, the Protectionist benches, from which came ironical laughter.)