Mantes an Vrottebingsin Valiament.

COMPENSATION FOR TENANTS IN IRELAND.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord STANLEY introduced a bill to provide for securing compensation in certain cases to tenants in Ireland.

Be began his explanatory statement by citing, from the Tenure of Land Com- missioners' Report, a declaration that the unimproved state of the country is con- sequent on the poverty and hardships under which the agricultural population labour; and he referred to the alarming disproportion between the amount of the population and the extent of the employment. The only remedy must be, to di- minish the population or increase the means of employment. Emigration has been recommended; but he did not believe that any system of emigration could have the effect of curing the evils under which Ireland labours. If compulsory, it would be oppressive. To the Colonies, an importation of labour alone, without capital, would not be beneficial; if both were sent out at considerable expense, you would not effect what has been done by voluntary emigration. If you send out the able-bodied and active, you deprive the country of the strength of its own population; if you send only the infirm and indolent, you send them from misery here to absolute destruction. "So I say that, although emigration to a certain extent may be had recourse to—and flume had recourse to it—you cannot look at any system of emigration as the means of increasing the means of employment." And It is not space which Ireland requires for her population; for though the po- *ation may be numerous in some particular districts, he could not say that Ire- land is an overpeopled country. New tracts of land might be brought under cul- tivation. Mr. Griffiths, in his State of Ireland, says, that of the waste and unoccu- pied lands of Ireland 1,300,000 acres are capable of toeing brought into a state fit for cultivation and tillage, and 2,400,000 acres more are capable of being made proper for pasturage; that is, capital might be profitably expended on no less than 3,700,000 acres. The Cornmissionera of the Poor, in 1836, mentioned another remarkable fact—more labourers per acre are employed upon the land in Ireland than in Eng- land. The number of cultivated acres in England was 34,354, and in Ireland 14,667; the price per acre in England was 41. 7s. 6d., and that of an acre in Ireland was 21. 9s. 3d., less than half the price in England. So that you do not want space in Ireland: what it does want is capital for employment; and that capital is to be had only from one of three sources—first, from the employment of the state; secondly, from the employment of the landlord; and thirdly, from the em- ployment of the occupying tenant himself. The first is scarcely a legitimate source; the last is the most important, and has been quite untried. Although the bulk of the Irish tenantry are poor, many have in their hands sums of money which it would surprise some of their Lordships to hear. But the occupying tenant conceals his capital, in order to prevent increased demands by his land- lord, and also increased demands by his clergy, and increased demands and exactions from other persons whose claims are not quite so legitimate. Besides, the tenant can at least employ his labour if he were secured the value of his im- provements. The agricultural system which prevails in England—with its exact contracts, farms so large that one of 50 or 60 acres is small, resident land- lords, and unineurabered properties—is precisely reversed in Ireland. The land- lords are many of them non-resident; some of the properties are farmed by middlemen, and let, under them, to the occupying tenant-at-will, and at a rack- rent; for leases in Ireland are the exception and not the rule, whereas leases in England are the rule and not the exception. In Ireland, again, the farms are of the smallest possible dimensions: out of 1,140,000 tenants rated for the Poor-law, more than half, or 629,000, were rated below 5/.; the " consolidated " farms, which have been made such a grievance, are but 25, 15, or even 10 acres in ex- tent. Yet with farms so small, placed under middlemen, held at will, and rack- rented, the tenant is to provide all that is necessary for buildings, fences, drains, and every thing which in England the landlord provides under the lease. Can it be wondered at, then, that there should be no improvements on the farms—that the houses should be hovels—that draining should be neglected—that the cul- tivation should be slovenly—and that there should be an idle, discontented, and turbulent population? In the North of Ireland obtains what is called the "tenant; right": it is acquired by purchasing what is called the "good-will" of the farm- but the occupier is still a tenant-at-will. What is the result? The amount of improvement such a tenant can bestow upon the land must be measured by what he can obtain between the sum paid down to the person quitting the farm and the landlord's letting him the land at a moderate rent. Instead of paying the land- lord, he pays the outgoing tenant a large amount in the shape of a fine, which leaves him a poor man. In the South of Ireland, the tenant-at-will holds by a much more dangerous tenure—not by the advance of money on entering the farm, but by a sense of the power of the landlord to eject him. "I say that a land- lord in the South of Ireland, if a tenant is unable to pay his rent, however ill he farms the land, the bulk of the landlords dare not and do not remove him, though Use tenant be idle and disorderly: such is the species of right acquired through the sympathy of the people towards him." The remedy is, to afford a legal se- curity to the outgoing tenant that he shalheecive a carnpensation for the capital he has expended upon the land. Before describing the provisions of the bill,.Lord Stanley utterly disclaimed the idea of interfering with tholandlord's righte. Ile also explained, that in reference to compensation for improvements, he should always speak of the occupying tenant, whether with or without a lease, whether wite a long or a short lease; but that he did, not include macre land, which is-held for a temporary pur- pose. " Her Majesty's Goverinnent propose to limit the compensation to be gmnted by this bill to three principal objects. First, building; second, draining; and thirdly, to an object which is peculiar to Ireland, namely, fencing,—and when I say fencing, I mean not making fences, but destroying them. First, then, with regard to building, we propose that the amount of outlay devoted to building-im- provements done on the land should, under certain restrictions, be laid down as the basis of compensation, subject to a deduction of one-thirtieth for each year after the making of such outlay that the tenant continues on the land; and that after the lapse of thirty years from the period of making the outlay, the tenant, provided.he has remained in occupation during that time, shall have lost all claim to compensation; and that the longer he continues on the land, short of that period of thirty years, the smaller will be the compensation be will be entitled to receive on quitting. Precisely the same principle we apply to drainiug,—mean- ing by that word deep, thorough draining, not less than thirty inches deep; and we are convinced that that will be a fair and proper principle to apply. And we propose accordingly to allow a compensation for the amount of outlay m draining, subject to a deduction of one-fourteenth yearly; so that at the end of fourteen years the tenant shall have lost all claim to compensation, provided he have con- tinued for that period, reckoning from the data of the outlay, in occupation of the farm. I now come to the case of compensation for the levelling of fences. To those of your Lordships who have been in Ireland it will not be necessary to enter into explanation on this head; but those who have not will be surprised when I tell them, that a fence in Ireland, or, as it is called there, a ditch, does not mean what we call in England a ditch, but what we calla hank—such bank being some- times wide enough on the top to drive a car along, and being composed generally of loose crumbling earth. These fences are in many parts of Ireland eleven feet broad. Your Lordships will see that four hundred yards of such a bank gives a surface nearly equal to a statute acre. These banks are used as the enclosures or boundaries of fields, varying from three to two acres, and even to one acre; and from what I have seen I will be bound to say that no two out of three of these fences can be found which are parallel to one another. I never saw a straight one. I have seen them running in all imaginable and un- imaginable zigzags; and then, besides this, they are not a fence against any Irish. animal in the world. (A laugh.) Over these crumbling banks there is not an Irish horse, not an Irish cow, not an Irish pig, much less an Irish goat, that can- not make its way; because, as I have said, they are composed of loose crumbling earth. Therefore for the sake of the advantage and interest of the agricultura population of Ireland, it is desirable that these fences should be removed: but if we look to the proportion which the fences everywhere bear to the extent of the farm the removal would not only add to the advantages, but add to the cultivable extent of the farm. I venture to say, there are parts of Ireland where a removal of fences will add 20 or 30 per cent to the acreage of the farm. Then, this re- moval is an undertaking which requires no skill and no great amount of labour; it requires for its due performance merely the superabundant labour of the tenant and his two sons, at the time of year when they are unoccupied for several months, and when they cannot be more usefully employed. Now, the principle on which we propose to remunerate the tenant who destroys these unsightly obstacles in the way of agricultural improvement is this,—we propose to take the extent of the acreable area which shall be added by the removal to the contents of the farm; and we propose to give, by way of compensation for the labour, twenty years' pur- chase of the acreable value so obtained, deducting one-twentieth for every year that the tenant continues in occupation of the farm; so that, supposing five acres to bathe amount added by this means to the farm, at a rent of IL per acre, you will have 1001. to pay, deducting 51. for every year the tenant stays after the removal; and therefore, if the tenant, after this removal has been perfumed, continues to occupy twenty years longer, his claim to compensation will have expired. It is necessary to provide restrictions for the purpose of ascertaining that these improvements really are improvements, and that they do not entail on the pro- prietor an inconvenient burden when the tenant leaves before he has exhausted the period of his claim for compensation. With this view, we propose to limit the compensation to 31. an acre for buildings, 1/. an acre for repairs, 31. an acre for draining, and 51. an acre for fencing, subject to a deduction or diminution in proportion to the time the tenant may remain. If the tenant remains the whole period, no incumbrance will be left on the landlord, and the tenant will be repaid Mr his outlay by the advantages he derives from remaining on the farm. It is only, it will be observed, to the tenant evicted by his landlord that we allow the claim for compensation. In the case of a tenancy under lease, if the lease have determined before the time for compensation shall have been extinguished, and the landlord offers the tenant that he shall remain as tenant from year to year until the compensation is run ant, but the tenant refuses the offer, then, in that case, we do not propose to give any compensation. It also becomes necessary to provide that the improvements shall be real sub- stantial improvements; and therefore we have endeavoured to find inexpensive means of settlement between the landlord and tenant." Many suggestions hail been made for providing an inexpensive system of arbitration on such questions between landlord and tenant, and, among others, the Assistant-Barristers' Courts had been mentioned: but in many cases, distance, and generally the expense of processes and of providing counsel and witnesses and the doubtful impartiality of a verdict given by a Jury belonging to the ;manes neighbourhood or class, are decisive reasons against that tribunal. Government have chosen a less ex- pensive method. "Vie propose to establish an office and an officer, with the title of Commissioner of Improvements. We propose to remunerate this officer bya salary, and to establish his office in Dublin. Also, according to a plan which is familiar to many noble lords who are connected with Ireland, we intend to give the power of appointing Assistant-Commissioners to examine witnesses, on the same mode as the County Surveyors are, to a Board at Dublin, which will grant certificates of qualification. The mode of application will be this. A tenant wish- ing to obtain his compensation will write up to Dublin to the Commissioner of Improvements. Upon receiving this application, he will have to refer to a register to be kept in his office of all charges on lands and sums laid out for improve- ments, for the purpose of informing the tenant whether he has reached his maxi- mum, or whether any more can be laid out. If the result of the search is favour- able to the tenant's application, the Commissioner will send the tenant three copies or forms of the proposal he has made, which he will be required to fill up. The tenant will then, retaining one copy, send back the other two, one of which is to be served on the landlord or his agent. Provision is also made that each land- lord shall serve a copy of the proposal on his superior landlord, so that no one con- nected with the proprietorship shall remain in ignorance of what is going on. If the landlord is not satisfied with the proposal, or dissents from it altogether, he may call for a preliminary inquiry, to be conducted on the spot; and in order to carry on this inquiry, one of the Assistant-Commissioners will be ordered to go down, and examine the facts in the presence of both the landlord and tenant, to go into the whole matter, and report fully to the Commissioner at Dublin all the circum- stances of the case, and whether such proposal was judicious and proper, and cal- culated to add to the ultimate letting value of the farm. There is no intention that anybodyshould be compelled togo to Dublin fermi), purpose whatever connected with this bill. If the tenant is evicted before the compensation-time has expired, then the Assistant-Commissioner shall come to the spot and inspect the buildings, or other

improvements; and, being famished from the Commissioner at Dublin with the date of the period at which the outlay was made he certifies whether any reduc- tion is to be made; and if no reduction is to be Made, then the tenant is to have his compensation to a corresponding amount with the time that his compensation period has to run. In order to diminish the burden upon the landlord, he would Ise allowed to charge the sum-which he was called upon to pay upon the estate; subject, however, to a limitation analogous to that on the tenant's claim—the charge on the estate to cease by the end of twenty years." Lord Stanley subsequently added, that no compensation would be allowed in re- spect of buildings other than those in the occupation of tenants, or of buildings erected for the purpose of subletting. Several Peers, without opposing the introduction of the bill, started ob- jections both to its principle and its details.

The Earl of WICKLOW admitted that there might be difficulties; but, in his opinion, the principle of the bill was founded upon justice and good faith; and if the difficulties could be overcome, the result would be at- tended with the greatest benefit to the country. The Earl of DEVON said, that the measure did not profess to be a pa- nacea; and, referring to the Report of the Commission furnished some further evidence of the necessity for such a measure.

This bill did not interfere to prevent landlords from effecting any arrangements with their tenants which might be agreed upon between them. It rather applied to a class of cases where the landlords either would not or could not enter into arrangements of the kind which were necessary for the benefit of the tenant; and, in those cases, it afforded the power of securing the tenant's interests. He did hope that noble lords would not merely apply their attention to particular parts of the measure which they might consider objectionable, but that they would rather take into their consideration the real and admitted evils of Ireland, and en- deavour to discover whether any remedy less objectionable could be applied.

The bill was read a first time.

SPEAKERS IN TIIE FOREGOING DEBATE. For the measure—Lord Stanley, the Earl of Wicklow, the Earl of Devon. Raising objections—the Marquis of Clanricarde, the Earl of Rosse, Lord Portman, the Marquis of Westmeath.

COMPENSATION TO TENANTS IN ENGLAND.

On Thursday, Lord PORTMAN introduced a bill to make compensation to tenants for improvements made by them in certain cases.

He conceived it to be necessary to secure improvements to tenants on estates recently sold, in Chancery, belonging to minors, or belonging to ecclesiastical cor- porations; aud also to counteract the ill effects of leases for terms of years under the present system. He proposed that it should be made lawful for any tenant, with or without a lease, at any time within six months of the expiration of his term, to give notice to his landlord that he intended to make a claim for compen- sation; that that claim should not exceed in its amount three years' rent; and that the claim might be made for tillage or permanent improvements, of which the tenant might not have had such an enjoyment as the terms of his contract or the custom of the country affixed; deducting from that amount of compensation the value of such enjoyment of the improvements as the tenant might have had after the works were completed. He also proposed to give the landlord a claim for compensation from the tenant for injury done to the land. Disputes to be settled by two arbitrators, or by Justices in Petty Sessions.

The-hill was read a first time.

POOR-LAWS IN SCOTLAND.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, the second reading of the Poor- law Amendment (Scotland) Bill having been moved, Mr. RUTHERFCTRD rose to state some material objections to the measure. No evil, he said, would be so serious as to assent to a law which would not settle the ques- tion it professed to adjust. By the present laws, relief is to be given to the "permanently disabled poor ": all who are incapable of supporting them- selves, have no funds, and no relations, are to be maintained by parochial assessments. The method of assessment varies. In burghs, it is levied on the visible "means and substance" of the inhabitants—only touching stock in trade and profits, not other property. In landward or rural parishes, it is levied, half on the land, payable by the landlord, and half on the tenants, according to their means. The assessment is made and relief administered by a Parochial Board, consisting in burghs of the Magis- tracy, in parishes of the heritors; with an appeal to the Sheriff to compel the Local Board to do its duty, and an ulterior appeal to the Court of Session. The assessment and the extent of relief are placed in the hands of those who have an interest in keeping the assessment down: not a bad policy, if an easy, expeditious, and inex- pensive appeal were given to the pauper. But that cannot be said of the Court of Session, which is slow to interpose; though at times it has done so sharply. Having criticized the proposals of the Commissioners who in- quired into the Scotch Poor-law, Mr. Rutherfurd came to the provisions of the bill. It retains the appeal to the Court of Session; but there is to be a Board of Supervision, whose sanction the pauper must obtain before he can make his appeal. In other respects, the Board, with one paid member and a paid Secretary, seems established only to give information to the Se- cretary of State. The method of assessment, a fruitful source of litigation, is untouched, unless it is to be left to the Board of Supervision to re- arrange; though it is a matter that demands the consideration of Par- liament rather than the control of a Board. As for the assistance which is to be given to the Magistrates by the Kirk-Sessions, it might have answered well enough when the Church of Scotland was united; but at present the Kirk-Session do not represent one half of the people, and as their assistance would not be generally acceptable, it would have been much better to omit it. He doubted the propriety of extending the period of obtaining a settlement to seven years instead of three, as it would throw the settlement generally upon the parish of birth. Other points which needed attention were—the removal of paupers from England or Ireland to Scotland; the capricious arrangements for combining parishes, which would often, as in the case of Edinburgh and Leith, affect the value of property by removing the burden of indigent districts from wealthy to poorer parishes; some plan of affording medical relief in re- mote counties; and some method of affording temporary aid to the able- bodied poor in tunes of emergency. The bill had evidently not received sufficient consideration; and while he did not oppose its being read a second time, he suggested that it should be referred to a Select Committee.

. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD argued that the administration of the Poor- law in Scotland could not be placed in worse hands than those in which it is. at present reposed; reading passages from the accounts sent up to London by the " Commissioner " of the Times, especially his narrative of the clearances at Glen Calvie, whose cottars are turned out of their hold- ings without assistance or shelter. He described some parts of Scotland as thus reduced to a state of "desolation."

What were the heritors or the Kirk-Sessions doing, that these things should be *flowed? The system was not confined to the district-to which he had referred— it extended over the whole Sutherland estate: that estate covered a district of hem 90 by 70 miles in extent, and consisted of rock and heather-covered hills with arable straths and glens. Nearly the whole county was parcelled out into sheep walks held by a few individuals. As an example, it appeared in evidence that Mr. Donald Macdonald of Lochinvar rents 30,000 acres—the whole u pas- ture—and employed only eleven shepherds. If a proper poor law existed, would these things be ? Mr. LOCH contradicted this representation; declaring that the statements were grossly exaggerated " I happen to have been acquainted with that country for the last thirty years; and I can any that there is no set of tenantry in the world that form so anxious a care to their landlord. I can state, as one fact, that from 1811 to 1833 not one sixpence of rent has been received from that country, but, on the contrary, there has been sent there for the improvement and benefit of the people a sum exceed- ing 60,000/. in addition to the entire rental being laid out there- There is no set of people more industrious than the people of the county of Sutherland. Thirty years since, they were engaged in illegal distillation to a very great extent; at the present moment there is not, I believe, an illegal still in the county. Their morals have improved as those habits have been abandoned; and they have added many hundreds, I believe thousands, of acres to the land in cultivation since they were placed upon the shore. Since 1817, and their settlement within reach of fishing, they have known no famines such as previously visited them. They now export cat- tle ; and in 1844, they cured in the county 50,000 barrels of herrings. Although the Duke of Sutherland only contributes 421. a year to the Kirk-Session, he ex- pends in private charity within the county more than 4501. a year." The LORD-ADVOCATE defended the bill, and suggested that clauses might be modified in Committee of the whole House. Without defending wholesale clearances, he gave some explanation respecting the clearances at Glen Calvin-

" It was not a case of persons suddenly ejected; for a negotiation had been going on between the landlord and the tenants for nearly two years in regard to their removal, and an arrangement had been made to the satisfaction of the tenantry (as they declared) upwards of a year ago, whereby they undertook to remove at a certain period. The lands were let to another person upon that arrangement with those tenants; and it was impossible for the landlord to continue them when they changed their minds and desired to remain. Further, the landlord did, in regard to several of them, as I am informed, give them abatements in rent and offers of assistance with money, and of conveyance to any place where they were disposed to go; and, so far from being in a state of destitution, several hundreds of pounds were paid to them as the value of their stock. Therefore, the state- ment made is greatly exaggerated."

The debate proceeded in a similar tone; several Members strongly in- sisting on alteration of the bill, and recommending a Select Committee. Mr. HUME thought that the bill might stand over for a session. Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, (St. Andrew's,) one of the strongest objectors, said, that without vouching for the correctness of the accounts in the Times, he was grateful to any persons who would bring the whole state of things in the Highlands, such as he had himself witnessed, before the public.

Sir James GRAHAM contended, that after the inquiry, after the exposure of the necessity for legislative interposition, it would be a mockery not to proceed with the bill. In fi-amiug it, Government had endeavoured to ad- here as much as possible to the ancient law of Scotland with respect to the poor, while they had also endeavoured to remedy the evils that have arisen from it. Thus, in terms, the assessment had not been made com- pulsory; though he believed that it would be so practically. If appeals were multiplied, he believed that they would fall into the hands of low practitioners, and would give rise to the worst feelings between the rich who contribute and the poor who seek relief; and he thought that a better tri- bunal for a preliminary appeal could not be found than the proposed Board of Supervision-

" I think that the combination of nomination by the Crown and of parties holding high station and owing that station to popular influence, and the admix- ture of persons possessing local knowledge, does constitute the excellence of this Board, and entitle it to public confidence. I certainly have the strongest opinion that the presence on this Board of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh and the Lord Provost of Glasgow will give additional importance to the Board. The presence of the Solicitor-General for the time being connects the Board directly with the Executive Government. From his avocations he will always be present in Edinburgh; he is a great legal authority; and he will form a connecting link between the Government and the Board. With the addition of the three Sheriffs, this Board will combine with legal knowledge local knowledge of the most im- portant description. There is also vested in the Crown the power of appointing three Commissioners."

The first appeal, however, is given to the Sheriff or his Depute, who always resides in the county; a new, easy, and inexpensive resort. By the ap- pointment of Local Inspectors, parochial visitation is secured; and if those Inspectors are under the influence of the rate-payers, they are also to be con- trolled by the Board of Supervision. And he attached great weight to the influence of public opinion with the greater publicity of the proceedings.. Heshowed the impracticability of affording medical relief in vast High- land districts with a thin population; and it would be a nice question in the statistics of health to determine whether the Highland constitution is well adapted for the display of medical skill. To the principle of the bill no objection had been made, and lie requested that it might be allowed to proceed; promising, that in Committee of the whole House the suggested alterations should be considered, with the wish to meet every objection in a fair spirit.

After some further discussion, the hill was read a second time. SPEAKERS IN TIM DEBATE. For the bill, but assenting to it4 amendment—

The Lord-Advocate, Colonel Wood (Brecon), Mr. Colcrhoun, Mr. Francis Scott, ,

Sir James Graham, Mr. Borthwick, Mr. Edward Ellice (Coventry), Mr. kffies (Bristol), Mr. Aglionby. Objecting to the bill, but assenting to amendment— Mr. Rutherfurd, Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. Edward Ellice (St. Andrew's), Mr. Fox Mauls, Mr. Hastie. Utterly opposing the bill—ldr. Patrick Maxwell Stewart. In correction—Mr. Loth.

BANKING IN SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.

On Monday, the House of Commons resumed the Committee on the Banking (Scotland) Bill.

The 13th clause enacted, that if the monthly average of bank notes of any banker should at any time exceed the amount which such banker was authorized to issue, such banker should in every case forfeit a sum equal to the amount by which the average monthly circulation should have exceeded the amount which such banker was authorized to issue. MT. PATRICK MAXWELL STEWART considered this clause to impose a tremen- dous penalty, and lie wished to modify it: supposing one, two, or three banks in Scotland issued short of the amount which they were by law per- mitted to issue, he would permit other banks to issue in excess to the same amount that those banks issued short. He therefore moved a proviso, "that such banker -shall not be liable in such penalty, unless the aggregate

amount of such monthly circulation of all the bankers in Scotland shall exceed the aggregate amount of the average circulation of all the banks in Scotland to be taken in manner herein provided." Sir ROBERT PEEL asked, how were the bankers individually to know whether there would be an excess or a deficiency upon the permitted sum to be issued? Each banker would be trying to take advantage of any supposed deficiency of issue by other banks, in order to push out their own notes. The penalty would be in proportion to the excess. The amendment was negatived; the clause, with the remainder of the bill, was agreed to; and the House resumed.

It was then moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Banking (Ireland) Bill.

Mr. Ross objected; complaining that material changes had been made in the measure since the statement with which Sir Robert Peel introduced it. The method of taking the averages had been altered, and the banks are required to have more gold in their coffers than is equal to their circu- lation. [This alludes, we believe, to the restriction which obliges the cir- culation to be calculated on the bullion at the head office of each bank only, excluding that at branch banks.] He deprecated the abolition of fractional notes, and he wished that Bank of Ireland notes should be made legal tender; at present, only gold was legal tender in Ireland. He re- gretted the absence of many Irish Members; who, instead of attending to the interests of their country in Parliament, were hatching vain empires in Conciliation Hall.

Sir ROBERT PEEL represented that no country on the earth was sus- ceptible of deriving greater advantages from a sound system of banking and currency, while no country had suffered more from a bad and imper- fect system of banking. The sufferings be had himself witnessed in Ireland when in office there, from the simultaneous rain of banks in the South and West of that country, were per- fectly frightful: and again at a later period, in 1837, the ravages inflicted by joint-stock banks, under an improvident system, were almost equally great; the best-administered banks being endangered by the ruin of those that were ill-con- ducted. For example, the conduct of the Agricultural Bank in pushing its notes into circulation, obliged the Provincial Bank, which was admirably conducted, to provide an immense quantity of gold in case of a " run "; their supply of bullion exceeding their issues. The demand for gold at the Irish banks at that time did not fall short of 2,000,0001.; all drawn from England. Talk of relief from the ne- cessity of having great quantities of gold !—why, the necessity arose from the want of stability in the banking system. He pointed out some new advantages which the bill would give to the Irish banks—such as to have agencies in London, and to circulate their bills within the circle of sixty-four miles round Dublin— which he maintained would fully compensate for any restrictions in the measure.

Objections were started by Mr. ROCHE, Mr. REDINGTOK, Sir ROBERT FERGUSON, Lord CLEMENTS, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, and Mr. WYSE. But the House went into Committee.

On the first clause, Sir WILLIAM SOMERVII.LE brought forward two eases of hardship—those of the Hibernian Bank and the Royal Bank. Be averred that Lord Ripon promised to the Directors of the Hibernian Bank, in 1824, that the charter of the Bank of Ireland should not be con- tinned,—which would have allowed the other establishment to be a bank of issue; but that, by the measure of last year, it is prevented from being. The case of the Royal Bank, though not so antiquated, is similar. Sir William moved an addition to the clause, authorizing those two banks to issue notes. Mr. GorimuRN said, that the two banks had no right to complain, since they had evidently carried on a profitable business; and he read a letter written by Lord Ripon in 1839, to Lord Monteagle, dis- claiming the pledge imputed to him. :After a short discassion, the amend- ment was negatived, by 103 to 43.

With some abortive attempts at alteration, the remaining clauses were agreed to; and the House resumed.

The Scotch bill was read a third time, and passed, on Thursday.

The Irish bill was reported. A few attempts were made to effect alterations, but ineffectually; except that Mr. GourEnuRN made a change, taking the bullion at four of the principal offices of each bank, instead of one, as the basis of the circulation; provided that not more than two of such head offices be in the same county. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN [just arrived from Conciliation Hall] moved that the bill be recommitted, in order to allow of its further consideration in Ireland. But the SPEAKER told him that his motion was made too late. Eventually, the report was received; the bill to be read a third time on Monday.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Committee having been moved on the Maynooth College Bill, the Duke of LEINSTER took occasion, as a Magistrate who had resided for thirty-two years near the College, to de- clare that he had never heard of the least impropriety in it; testifying also to the Principal's exemplary conduct and abstinence from politics.

The Earl of CLANCARTY, renewing some arguments against the bill, moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

The Earl of Wwir..Low expressed his sincere thanks to Government for their wisdom in planning and their courage in carrying out the measure. At the same time, in his opinion, it was only part of what they had to pro- pose; and he trusted that he might regard it as an index of an intention to connect the Roman Catholic Church with the State by merns of an en- dowment. This was now only a question of time and mode: the time was as propitious now as it ever would be, but the mode was still a 'clifficultY. He objected either to charge the endowment upon the Conso- lidated Fund or to take it from the property of the Irish Church; but thought, that if it were placed as a rent-charge upon the land, neither Par- liament nor the landlords would have a right to complain.

Earl FITZWILLIAM expressed his almost entire concurrence with Lord Wicklow; except that he thought it necessary to place the Roman Catholic clergy quite on an equal footing with the Protestant clergy.

Lord WHAENCLIFFE. disclaimed the intention of which the measure was assumed to be an earnest; though when in the House of Commons he had voted for Lord Francis Egerton's motion for endowing the Roman Catholic clergy— He would fairly state, that until he could see that the people of England would be favourable to such a measure, he did not think it would be prudent in any Go- vernment to propose it. He did look forward with hope to a time when a change would take place; but there were now so many'clifficulties in the way, that he did not know bow any one could conceive that the Government had any intention of proposing such a measure. It would be for the Government to watch the feeling of the country on the subject; and in the mean time, they proposed this measure as one which was important in itself, and as an earnest to the people of Ireland that it was their wish to do all that lay in their power to conciliate them.

The Marquis of BREADALBANE hoped that Lord Wharncliffe's speech would have its proper effect on the country; for he regarded this as not an isolated measure but as the small end of the wedge, to be followed by the endowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

The House went into Committee; and in about half a minute, the hill passed that stage; to be read a third time on Monday next.

THE CORN-LAWS.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. VILLIERS made his annual motion for an inquiry with a view to total repeal of the Corn-laws, in these terms-

" That this House resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of consider- lug the following resolutions. , That the Corn-law restricts the supply of food, anl prevents the free ex- change of the products of labour. That it is therefore prejudicial to the welfare of the country, especially to that of the working-classes, and has proved delusive to those for whose benefit the law was designed. " That it is expedient that all restrictions on corn should now be abolished."

He began by referring to the progress of the question; Lord John Rue- sell having affirmed the duration of the Corn-laws to be simply a question of time; and Sir James Graham having stated his concurrence in Lord John's resolutions, to which he only objected that they were too many— too much of a good thing. He thought, however, that Government had not sufficient confidence in the principles they avowed: it would be wiser to apply those principles freely an& boldly than partially and sparingly; for he did not see that the House favoured what are called "moderate" mea- sures. He believed, indeed, that the Government, the lending members of the late Government, and the leaders of the League, were agreed in think- ing the Corn-laws quite unsuited to the present circumstances of the country Mr. Villiers proceeded to argue against the policy of agricultural protection, the Corn-laws particularly; which he believed to have been maintained tin- der delusion by two influential classes in the country—the agricultural and the labouring classes: but he thought that the delusion was passing away, and that those classes were beginning to understand that high prices and high profits are not synonymous. For all his "protection," the farmer is prostrate and aghast; and Mr. Villiers called upon Mr. Stafford O'Brien to "tell them all about the farmer," and explain his present position. Mr. Villiers contrasted the meetings of Agricultural Protection Societies, where all the complaint has been against Ministers for diminish- ing protection, with the meetings of farmers, where the speakers looked to the landlords, demanding leases and corn-rents. He bantered the Govern- ment for answering the landlords by telling them to "be quiet and all would be well"; and the landlords, for likewise telling their tenants to be quiet. He touched upon the evils of tenancy-at-will, continued for poli tical purposes; on primogeniture, &c. Recurring to the subject of high prices, he called upon the Protectionists to explain how making food dear can improve the condition of the people, or reduce wages. And he called upon them to explain the change in the state of the country from distreat to prosperity. The distress was attributed to over-population, over-produc- tion, joint-stock banks, machinery, want of emigration, want of reciprocity treaties: now the banks have not been touched, there are more people, there is more machinery, money is more abundant, and in place of reciprocity- sreaties foreign tariffs have been raised against us: what then has been the change?—great reduction in the price of food, great redaction in certain protective duties. There is no other way of accounting for the improve- ment. With all the alterations in the Tariff and the Corn-laws, however, there has confessedly been no real legislation with a: view of increasing the supply .of corn to fee,d 'the people in order to meet the yearly increasing population. He therefore claimed some alteration of the Corn-law. He anticipated augmented difficulties in obtaining future supplies from abroad, as Belgium, France, and some others, have become importing countries; and the operation of the new Banking Bill will oppose difficulties to the export of bullion in payment for such irregular supplies. He pointed to this as a very fitting time for the change; as prices are low in this country, and the law could be altered without inconvenience.

Mr. OSWALD having seconded the motion, there was some hesitation; the House expecting Sir James Graham to rise, and the more since he touched his hat as if about to take it off. Mr. Christopher moved; but some one pulled him down, to make way for the Minister. Still no one rose.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER again stood up, to meet the motion with a direct negative. He repeated many of the arguments usually advanced on his side,—the necessity of preventing fluctuations of price, the certainty of reducing wages, the risk of depending on foreign countries for any large portion of the supply of corn, (say half of the 20,000,000 quarters annually consumed,) lest foreign countries should meet us by hostile tariffs. He contended that agriculture was entitled to be placed on a higher footing, as regarded protection than manufactures—

The manufacture; could ascertain the state of his foreign market, and could regulate the supply by the demand; and if he found a glut in any market, he could restrict his operations without difficulty. If there was no demand, the manufacturer had nothing to do but to lock up his mill and put out the fire of his boiler. But such was not the case with the producer of corn: it Was impossible for him to regulate the supply by the demand. He must cultivate his land to the best of his ability, and to the utmost of his skill and power; and he was subject, besides, to the fluctuations of the seasons.

Mr. MITCHELL, who came into that House an advocate for fixed duty, now doubted whether the agriculturists, after refusing Lord John Rus- sell's eight-shilling proposition, were entitled to so much protection as they might have claimed a few years back. He foresaw impending difficulties—

About six weeks ago, no apprehensions were felt from the appearance of the crops in Holland, Belgium, and France: should they prove deficient, and should this country be compelled to look for a supply from the markets to which it bad,' been accustomed to go, no great quantity of corn could be procured from the North of Europe under an advance of 10s. per quarter on the present price. As to the Mediterranean he was not so well informed, but he understood the prices of corn were rising there every day. In the North of Russia, contrary to the general case, the crop last year was bad, and prices there at present were ex- orbitant. There was no place except Odessa whence they could get a supply: there they might procure a million quarters; but from the length of the voyage no prudent man cared to risk an order, as by the time it arrived the duty might be so high as to amount to an actual prohibition. For the same reason, because no one could tell what the effect of the duty might be, dealers did not resort to the - legitimate market for corn—the United States. With the chance of a bad crop, and, the certainty of a short supply from Europe—with a population increasing every year, and now accustomed, from the enormous amount of money expended in railways, to consume more wheat than had hitherto been the case—what would be the effect on the labouring population, should corn rise 84. or 10s. per quarter? The screw would be put on the circulation; and the effect, under the new banking law, though he supported it and approved of its principle, would be undeniable: it would me any money pressure in the country more severe than had ever yet been the case. They might, perhaps in the next autumn, have such a crisis as the country had not yet witnessed. Mr. Manic Plumrs denied that the manufacturers can leave their fac- tories more easily than the landowner can suspend his operations: if he stops his works, the millowiter loses his connexion, and suffers injury to his machinery from rust and other causes; so that he must continue work- ing even when losing money. Mr. Philips wished that the laws of primo- geniture and entail did not prevent the manufacturer from buying land and applying his surplus capital and business habits to that kind of invest- ment.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM', opposing the motion, nevertheless admitted the im- portance of the subject, and did not shrink from repeating those principles which he had so often avowed- " I do not shrink from acknowledging that those principles are in accord- ance with the general principle on which the honourable Member for Wol- verhampton takes his stand. I am as ready as any man to acknowledge that the prosperity of agriculture mainly depends upon the prosperity of other branches of industry, and that the prosperity of all rests upon five intercourse with foreign nations; and I agree with him, further, that these objects are to be effected by a safe and gradual continuation of those laws which have a ten- dency to establish a nearer approximation between the policy which regulates the importation of corn and that by which the importation of other commodities is governed." (Cheers from the Opposition.) He protested, however, against sud- denly and at once throwing open the trade in corn to the rivalry and competition of foreign nations; and, in correcting an error, he continued his declaration of policy. "It has been stated on a former evening, that, without distinction of party, it was the object of every successive Government to substitute protection for prohibitory duties; and again, where protective duties existed, to raise them as much as possible. Now, the protection to agriculture did not form any excep- tion to that general rule. In the year 1828 a change took place, the avowed object of which was to accomplish a relaxation of the Corn-laws ; and I am sine it must be obvious to the House that the policy of 1842 forms no exception to the general rule. On the 9th February 1842, I find my right honourable friend at the head of the Government stating, that it was impossible to deny that the course of the policy of every Government had been to effect a decrease of protec- tion, and to effect that decrease at all times and under all circumstances consistent with justice: at the same time, my right honourable friend lays down this posi- tion with perfect distinctness—that agricultural protection ought to be diminished in proportion as agricultural burdens are removed. To the principle which my right honourable friend lays down I most firmly adhere."

He would not in such a matter lightly reject the authority of a century and a half. As to delusions, there is none greater than that which leads men to suppose that they would gain in the price of bread by repeal of the Corn-laws, or any other advantage: wages have little to do with the price of food, but depend upon the supply and demand for labour. It is said that there are 1,500,000 paupers: no doubt, in a population of 24,000,000, there must always be a large amount of poverty- " We must not listen to the statement, that under the system of extreme agri- cultural protection agriculture must necessarily flourish; and, on the other hand, we must not be too ready to believe that the sudden removal of protection must materially affect the value of wages. We know perfectly well, that under a sys- tem of protection, agriculture went on improving to an extent which provided food for a population which had in the interval doubled." He himself knew of a tract of land in Cumberland over which he had sported when it was a heath: it has been reclaimed at a cost of 6,0001.; and there are now on it nine farm-houses, eleven cottages, and a population of 120 Lord John Russell, in proposing a persons. Lord had admitted the necessity

of some protection; and said, that simultaneously with alteration of the Corn- laws it would be necessary to alter the law of pauper-settlement, so as to relieve the agricultural districts. And in all the debates it has been held, that the doctrine of protection is sound, because local burdens make it a matter of justice that the landed interest should be favoured. He ad- mitted the primary importance of securing an abundant supply of food for the labouring population: the question was, how to do so with most certainty-

" If the honourable gentleman could show me that, upon the whole, in a series of years, free trade in corn would most certainly secure that objeet, I will say that all other considerations—remembering the amount of population in this country—would be secondary to such proof; and that, as far as I am concerned, he would make me a decided convert to the doctrine of free trade in corn. I must say, that I do not attach any importance whatever to the offer of a protect- ing duty of some four shillings a quarter. Under such an arrangement we should still incur all the obloquy of a protecting duty, while that amount of duty would be utterly insignificant for protection. The real question would be brought to this, and I do not think it has been put at all unfairly by the honourable Member for Wolverhampton= Will you adhere to the present scheme of protection, or adopt a system of perfect free trade in eorn ? ' " Ile believed that the quantity of wheat that would be imported in ordinary years has been over-estimated. Mr. Tooke estimates it at 2,000,000 quarters: the total amount that is produced in Great Britain and Ireland is 16,000,000 quarters; so that the expected importationwould displace one-eighth of the home growth, or, allowing for an increased demand consequent on greater cheapness, say that it would displace only 1,600,000 quarters: that would throw out of cultivation the lands least suited to growing wheat, the cold day lands; but they are precisely the most ancient corn-lands, and therefore the most heavily-burdened with tithes; they could only be con- verted into indifferent grass-lands; and his firm belief was, that in such case the tithe rent-charge would exceed the nominal rent. He was persuaded on the whole, that by the improvement of land, by the capital progressively devoted to its better cultivation, and by the skill applied to its management, a more sure and certain supply of food can be provided, even for an increased population, in a series of years, than by any other means. He went on to show that as France, Belgium, and other countries now need more corn, the supply from abroad must be more precarious; and that even if regularity were established in the supply of 2,000,000 quarters, the seasons must cause uncertainty and fluctuations in re- spect of the remainder. He contended that under the existing law the supply from abroad is sufficient: the imports in 1843 were 800,000; m 1844, 700,000 quarters. From a change so sudden as that proposed he should anticipate the most disastrous consequences.

The debate proceeded without much force or novelty, till Mr. COBDEN, in a brief speech, desired the House to stick to the real question,—whether or not they had a law to diminish the supply of food for the people; such being the effect of the artificially-raised prices. And he pointed to the state of the poor in Dorsetshire, Lincolnshire, or Somersetshire, of frame- work-knitters in the Midland Counties, of the poor in Scotland, and of 5,000,000 of the labouring population in Ireland, as no theoretical tests of the ill effects of the past policy. The fact is, that wherever you come to a class in the country not employed on new machinery, their condition is di.graccful. He believed that with free trade in corn, so far from injury to

the agricultural interests, every mortgage and marriage-settlement would be better paid than under the present system; and so far from Mr. Villiers's proposition being rash, the rashness was in neglecting the present oppor- tunity for effecting the change in peace and safety.

Lord Jonsi Rtasm.t. avowed his intention of supporting the motion for going into Committee, with a view to consider what would be the beet way of relaxing the protection; himself arguing in favour of fixed duty. But he suggested, that Sir Robert Peel might make a step towards free trade without abandoning the policy to which he is committed, by contracting the scale to a range from le. to 10s. instead of 20s. And he warned the House against braving the invidious charge that the present law is main- tained in order to keep up rents—

"I do believe that this Corn-law, as it at present stands, cannot long be main. mined. I see its fall signified, not only by the ability of the attacks made upon it, but also by the manner in which it is defended in this House. I cannot conceive, unless it be better defended than it has been hitherto, that it is likely to last for many years to come. Well, then, if that be the case—if there is any proof of that representation, why should not the landed gentlemen take advantage of the present situation of things? Why not avail themselves of a moment of quiet and calm to make an alteration with coolness and deliberation?"

Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed the motion at some length; good part of his speech consisting of stock arguments. He said that he would not taunt Lord John Russell with being able to vote for the motion this year, though he could not vote for the identical proposition last year- " But I think we must be fast approaching that period when the noble Lord will not only give his support to the first two parts of the resolutions of the ho- nourable gentleman, but cordially concur with the others. And when the noble Lord says that the effect of the existing Corn-law is to increase the rents of the landlords, and advises them to consider what must be the invidious effect of that in the eyes of a scrutinizing and intelligent population, let me remind him, that that objection applies with equal force to his own proposition." Sir Robert contended, that the increased consumption of divers articles proves the people to be in an improving condition. If he could believe in the confident predictions hazarded by Mr. Cobden and his friends his ob- jections even to repeal of the Corn-laws would be greatly weakened: but he thought that the advantages to be expected from repeal were greatly exaggerated; and he firmly believed, that establish what system of Corn- laws you please, you must expect to find such differences in this country and in a state of society like this—you must expect to find the extremes of wealth and poverty: they exist in every country on the face of the earth; and indeed, the more civilization and refinement increase, the greater seems the tendency to those extremes. If the Corn-laws were re- pealed, very little way would be made towards the cure of such evils. Sir Robert wished to reconcile the gradual approach towards sound prin- ciples with a full and cautious consideration of the relations that have been established and the interests that have grown up under a different system; and he maintained that his recent commercial alterations consti- tute such progress both with respect to the Corn-laws and the importation of foreign products- " I must claim a right to continue the application of that principle. I sin bound to say that the experience of the past, with respect to those articles on which high duties have been removed, confirms the impression founded on the general principle. But, Sir, with the strong opinion I entertain, that in the ap- plication of this principle it IS necessary to exercise the utmost caution, for the purpose of insuring its general acceptance and stability, I cannot consent to give my vote for a proposition that implies the total disregard of every consideration in the application of the principle of free trade." Lord HOWICH observed, that had Mr. Villiers's resolutions been for gra- dual abolition, both Sir James Graham's and Sir Robert Peel's speeches would have been unanswerably in favour of the motion. The House divided, and the motion was negatived, by 254 to 122; ma- jority, 132.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For MT. Villiers's motion—Mr. Villiers, Mr. Oswald, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Mark Philips, Mr. Bright, Dr. Bown Mr. G. H. Cavendish, Lord Ebrington, Mr. Cobden, Lord John Russell, Lord Howl Against it—Mr. Christopher, Mr. Buck, Sir James Graham, Mr. Stafford O'Brien, Mr. George Bankes, Sir Robert Peel.

limn RAILWAYS. The Select Committee appointed to inquire whether the Standing Orders which are enforced in the case ot Railway Bills in Great Britain are unnecessary, and ought to be dispensed with in the case of Railway Bills in Ireland, have reported, that "although some difference of opinion has been ex- pressed by the witnesses as to the operation and effect of the existing Standing Orders upon bills for the formation of railways in Ireland, the general result of their evidence has been such as to convince your Committee, that where due dili- gence is used by the promoters of such bills, no particular obstacles are presented by the Standing Orders to their successful passage through Parliament, of a suf- ficient magnitude to require a partial relaxation of those Standing Orders in fa- your of Irish Railway Bills."

PRIVILEGE. On Monday, the Sergeant-at-Arms informed the House of Com- mons, that in the case" Howard versus Gossett," in which a verdict for 2001. damages was returned against him, execution for damages and costs, to the amount of 436/. 12s., had been levied upon Saturday last. On the motion of Sir ROBERT PEEL, the communication was referred to the Committee on Printed Papers.

COUNTY-RATES. OIL Tuesday, Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER moved the second of the County-rates Bill; of which the object is to equalize the collec- tion ol county-rates. Several objections were made; but ultimately the bill was read a second time, in order that it might be taken in Committee pro forma and altered.

DOG-STEALING. In the HORN of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. LIDDELL moved the second reading of the Dog-stealing Bill; the object of which was to make dog-stealing a misdemeanour, and to visit the second offence with trans- -portation for seven years. The motion was opposed by Mr. Hums and other Members; who objected to the bill as likely to be abused for purposes of oppres- sion • as needless, since the present law is sufficient for its object; and as a ridiculous attempt, by spwial legislation, to protect old ladies' pug-dogs. Cap- tain Banice.isly, Sir JAMES GRAHAM and others, defended the bill, on the score of its being necessary to meet the organized system of dog-stealing which exists. The second reading was carried, by 67 to 23.

LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT. 011 Thursday, Dr. Bowl:info drew attention to the case of John Waters C,olclicott, an Englishman born and a freeholder in England, who is imprisoned in the Isle of Man. On the 4th September, Mr. Coldicott was charged by his wife, before the High Bailiff of Douglas, with assault; and ordered by Deemster Heywood to give bail to the amount of 401. with two sureties for 201. each for his keeping the peace for six months; and in default he was committed to pnson. While there, his trunk in prison was attached by a tradesman of Man, for a debt of 141.; so that he was left destitute. It is alleged that there are seve- ral irregularities in the documents by which he was imprisoned; that the term of six months expired long ago; and that, moreover, the charge made by the wife • was a fabrication. The prisoner has memorialized the Governor; who referred his memorial to Deemster Heywood—the very functionary against whom he com- plained. Mr. Heywood ordered the prisoner's release—on condition of his finding the bail mentioned in the original order, for keeping the peace towards his wife for three months, with costs. Mr. Coldicott is still in prison; and Dr. Bow ring asked whether the Home Secretary was aware of the circumstances P Sir James GRAHAM said that he had called upon the Governor for an explanation.