Valuta aut rnrrrbiug inVartumtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Hones OF LORDS. Monday, April 11. Canterbury Election; Address for Com- mission of Inquiry.

Tuesday, April 12. Compulsory Vaccination BiU, in Committee. Thursday, April 14. Compulsory Vaccination Bill, considered as amended. Friday, April 15. College of Maynooth ; Government Amendment to Lord Win- chelsea's Motion announced—Vaccination Bill reported.

House OF COMMONS. Monday, April 11. Clergy Reserves Bill, read a third time and passed—Consolidated Fund and National Debt; Resolutions reported and agreed to ; Bill or Bills ordered.

Tuesday, April 12. Duties on Carriages ; Sir De Lacy Evans's Motion—Public Income ; Mr. Williams's Motion—Kilmainham hospital; Mr. Butt's Motion carried against Government, by 198 to 131— Case of Mr. Craufurd; Question and Answer— New Writ for Huddersfield, in the room of Mr. Stansfield—Maldon ; Writ suspended till 1st May—New Writ for Athlone, in the room of Mr. Keogh—Clitheroe Elections; Commission of Inquiry. Wednesday, Apri113. Judges Exclusion Bill; second reading—County Rates Bill, in Committee.

Thursday, April 14. "Taxes on Knowledge"; Mr. Milner Gibson's Resolution against the Advertisement-duty, carried against Government by 200 to 169. Friday, April 15. Railway Resolutions agreed to—Seizure of Warlike Stores; Questions—Jewish Disabilities Bill read a third time and passed, by 288 to 230.

TIME - TABLE.

The Lord,.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Monday 5h6h Om

Tuesday 55 6h 35m

Wednesday No sitting Thursday 55 6h 5m

Friday 55 .... 75 Om Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 5h 41.1m Sittlngsthis Week, 5; Time,40h 14m — this Session, 55; — 85527,,, this Session. 70; — 4135 50ta

CANADIAN CLERGY RESERVES Bum.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the Canada Clergy Reserves Fund Bill was read a third time, and passed.

Before the debate began, Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied to a question by Sir Joint Rum:Grote, first, to the effect that it was the opinion of the Law-officers of the Crown, that should the clergy reserves be secularized by the Canadian Legislature, and the act be assented to by the Crown, there would be no claim for payments from the Consolidated Fund ; and secondly, that it was not the intention of Government to introduce any clause to make the existing guarantee binding.

When the order of the day for the third reading of the bill was read, Mr. Wsixotz commenced the debate by moving that the bill be read a third time that day six months.

He remarked on the strange admissions made by the Government, and the surprising announcement respecting the guarantee just made by Lord John Russell. He endeavoured to show that the principle on which the bill had been recommended to the House was not strictly that upon which it had been framed ; for while it was said that the bill was to enable the Canadian Legislature to deal with matters of local concern, it appeared that in operation it would enable them to deal with investments made in this coun- try under the plea of local self-government. Then they had been told on the second reading, that the bill would place the English and Scotch Churches on the same footing with the Roman Catholics ; yet in Com- mittee they learned that the endowments of the Roman Catholics could not be touched without the consent of the Imperial Legislature, while the Protestant endowments might be destroyed by the Provincial Legislature. It was said that certain existing interests were reserved, because the faith of the Crown was pledged to maintain them ; but when pressed, Government did not state how that pledge was given, because they knew that if they looked to the act of Parhament the faith of the Crown was no more pledged to those particular interests than it was to maintain the whole of the reserves. On the second reading also they were told that the settlement of 1840 was not a compact; but in Committee the third clause was withdrawn on the express ground that the settlement of 1840 was a compact as far as it affected the liability of this country. Having stated these anomalies and inconsistencies, Mr. Walpole entered into a dig- C11881.011 of the principle of the bill, urging many arguments which had been used in the previous discussions ; contending that Parliament had to take care of certain rights; that it could not delegate its duties, unless it were certain that those duties would be equally well discharged by others; that the reserves were a trust of which Parliament were trustees ; and contend- ing, at great length, that the act of 1840 must be regarded as a solemn and a final settlement. "What were men to trust to if they were not to trust to such guarantees as these ? " Enjoining the House to "be just and fear not," he predicted, as dangers likely to arise from the passing of this bill, the de- struction of the present religious establishment, religious strife and contro- versy, and the loss of Colonial confidence in Imperial protection. Mr. Hums briefly contested these arguments, and characterized the alarm of Mr. Walpole as "all moonshine." Mr. HRNRY Darsedoisn,be- gan by callink the measure neither more nor less than a bill for Church plunder ; and he was loath to leave it without a parting benediction. Lord Aberdeen had said the Government would be conducted on principles of "Conservative progress " ; but he had stuck to his substantive and had forgotten his adjective. So far as he understood the principle announced by the Premier, from the way the Aberdeenshire phrase had been translated into pure Cornish, "Conservative progress" meant "Consistent Radicalism." "I find that when a Bishop thinks it right and fair to stand up for the pro- perty of an absent brother, her Majesty's Ministers forthwith denounce loam as a pest to his diocese.' Now, that the right honourable Baronet should abuse a prelate who cannot answer him, may be consistent Radicalism, but is not consistent with Conservative progress. But there is another extraor- chnary matter which I wish to refer to. There was another Bishop who jus- tified the plunder of his brother in Canada. I have no doubt you remember, Sur, the anecdote which connects the name of James the First with Dr. An- The COMMOtilL

Hour of Honr of Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 45 .(m) 12h 45,u

Tuesday 45 .(m) 12h 16m

Wednesday Neon.... 55 Om Thursday 4h .... 1111 Om Friday 411 .(m) 111 15m drewes and Dr. Neale, the Bishops of Winchester and Durham. The Mo- narch asked their opinion whether he might not tax his subjects without going through the formality,of asking thesconsent of Parliament ; and Bishop Neale replied, Tour Majesty is the light tif our eyes and the breath of our nostrils—you my aD what you please.' 'And what do you say, my Lord ?' said James, turningto Bishop 'Andrewes : 'Sir,' said he, think your Ma- jesty .may lawfully 'take my -brother Nettle's money, for he says you may.' That, I think, will go some wartowards Showing the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer that we have a right to take the temporalities of the see of Oxford." (Laughter.) "Now, Sir, I do not much like doing things by halves. Since her Majesty's Ministers are going to act the part of Filch in Canada, and the part of Sixteen-string lack in Ireland, why not put a bold face upon the matter, and play Captain Macheath in England, beginning with the see of Oxford ? If ever I wished to rob or plunder, I should prefer a rich booty; the morality is the same, and the profit much greater. (Laughter.) I admit there is great difficulty between interfering in the internal govern- ment of Canada, and letting them manage for themselves. But you know very little of what is involved in free trade if you think it is confined to cot- ton and corn." He predicted separation from all these colonies as a neces- sary consequence of the measure.

Mr. KER SEYMER considered himself the Conservative—Mr. Drum- mond the Radical—in supporting a measure which would preserve the union between Canada and the Mother-country. The present state of the clergy reserves question be looked upon as the greatest proof of the progress of public opinion. For he recollected hearing Sir William Molesworth speak with great ability, but little effect, on the right of the Colonies to self-government ; and he also remembered hearing Lord John Russell speaking slightingly of the proceedings of the Society for the Reform of Colonial Government.0—a society which had suspended its proceedings only because its principles had been fully adopted by the Government.

The principle on which the few Opposition votes would be given would be, that the colony had a right to manage its own affairs. He did not regard the settlement of 1810 as more final than treaties of peace. At the end of his speech, Mr. Seymer addressed a few words to the gentlemen on his own (the Opposition) side of the House. There were many honourable Members known as " straight-running men," in whom whippers-in delighted ; but the straight-running principle was a very dangerous one to apply to Colonial affairs. If they, as an Opposition, opposed any measure on which the people of England had set their hearts, they would be sure to hear of it at the hustings; but they had no such means of squaring accounts with their Colonial fellow subjects, for if they met them, it must be on the field of battle.

Sir EDWARD BERING also spoke in favour of the bill ; Mr. LIDDELL and Mr. Cann against it.

Mr. PEEL replied to the arguments of Mr. Walpole.

He maintained that the bill violates no compact, for the interests of exist- ing incumbents are provided for, and that is all Parliament is bound to do. The bill would place the endowments of the Church of England in Canada on the same footing with those of the Roman Catholics, which rest on the good pleasure of the Canadian Parliament alone. He showed, that although it had been over and over again asserted that the settlement of 1840 was final, yet every party interested in maintaining that act had taken the course best calculated to sap its foundations : the people of Canada, by condemning the act three times ; the Imperial Government, by the ,promise of Lord Grey in 1850, to bring forward a similar measure ; and Sir John Pakington, by admitting that he was prepared to reconsider the act of 1840 and redistribute the funds from time to time.-

Mr. NAPIER contended, that the bill would not place the Church of England on a footing with the Roman Catholics ; for it would take away the protection guaranteed to the former in 1840; and that this, therefore, was not a case of local self-government—it was a measure for the spolia- tion of property. To this the SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied, that the rights guaranteed were those of the incumbents, which are also strictly guaran- teed by this bill. The remaining portion of the fund was by the act of 1840 thrown into a public fund, part of it placed at the disposal of a pub- lic body in this country. But the money was to be distributed for the benefit of the people of Canada ; and could it be said that Parliament violated a compact, by placing at the control of the people of Canada con- tracts entered into for their sake and for their sake alone ?

Sir JOHN PAKINGTON began by expressing an opinion that threw the House into a convulsion of laughter : he was afraid "the proceedings of that evening would throw a stain on the character of British statesmen."

His mind was so full of the extraordinary course which the Government had that night taken, that he was not disposed to dwell on their previous vacillations and inconsistencies. The third clause was withdrawn because Lord John Russell felt bound to retain the guarantee given by the act of 1840; but Sir John heard with grief and astonishment, that, according to the judgment of the Law-officers of the Crown, should the reserves be secular- ized, the guarantee would have no effect, and that no provision to give it ef- fect would be introduced. Lord John Russell was as bound as any man well could be, either to withdraw the bill or to insert in it a provision to give full effect to the guarantee. "In my opinion," Sir John continued, "it 1.8 a sad day for England "—here a burst of laughter cut the sentence in two ; but, " treating that affected ridicule as it deserved," he repeated, "it is a sad day for England when party necessities and party feeling induce men of high personal character to deviate, when transacting business as Ministers of the Crown, from those high principles which would actuate them in their private capacity." And he proceeded to quote the speeches of Lord john Russell and Sir Robert Peel in 1840 ; the former speaking of the guarantee as "permanent," the latter as "in perpetuity." "What faith is there in words ? " Sir John exclaimed, "what faith is there in public men?" Referring to the recent despatch of the Duke of Newcastle to Canada—" a document the main part of which I turn from with pain and regret"—he said he did not find, as Lord John Russell had promised, the noble Duke writing to express the wish and expectations of Government that the Legislature would make some provision to meet the justice of the case ; but he found him writing such a document "as a man would who was afraid of his subject." Adverting to the general arguments which had been previously used, Sir John insisted that the claims of the Churches of England and Scotland to a part of the reserved fund were as obligatory on Parliament as any claim under the guarantee on the Consoli- dated Fund; and that, since upwards of 600,000 of the Canadian people were Roman Catholics, the measure could net be said to be one ex- clusively affecting the whole people of Canada ; for in what sense did the question of the reserves affect the Roman Catholics ? Because he had admitted the possibility of redistribution, Mr. Gladstone thought that justified him in spoliation. (Cheers.) He noticed that Mr. Goul- burn cheered. He was an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, busily engaged in the redistribution of Church property; but Mr. Goulburn would not ad- mit that he was therefore engaged in the spoliation of Church property. If they enabled the Canadian Legislature to deal with these reserves and they ware secularized, Government would be accessories before the fact. If they would not maintain their faith and the pledge they had given to the most loyal portion of their fellow subjects in Canada, the time was come when they would no longer retain Canada with honour to this country. He had always believed, and he believed now, that when they signed the act of union of those two provinces, they virtually separated Canada from England. That separation then only became a question of time ; it is a question of time now. He should be sorry to see the day when they lost Canada ; but if there was bile measure by which they would hasten that separation more than another, it was by the deep offence they were now giving to the loyal portion of the people of that colony. Lord Tonx RUSSELL closed the debate with a general reply. It was worth while, he began, for the House to consider whether there were sufficient reasons in justice or policy for the rejection of this bill, when its opponents had not shrunk from stating that they were prepared to em- brace the consequences even if a refusal of this power to the colony should lead to separation. He showed by a reference to the debates in 1791, that when Mr. Fox objected to the grant of one-seventh of the lands to the Pro- testant clergy, in a colony where numbers might not be Protestants, Mr. Pitt candidly acknowledged that this was an arrangement open to revision ; and accordingly a power to repeal or vary the act of 1791 was established. He further pointed out, that Lord Goderich, in 1831, could not have supposed that this was an inalienable endowment; for he proposed to part with it altogether, and otherwise appropriate it. In 1840 an arrangement was made, which he did not think equitable, but which he had considered in the light of a final arrangement. For several years it was undisturbed; but in 1850 the Provincial Legislature prayed for a power of disposing otherwise of the clergy reserves ; Lord Grey replied that it was a matter ex- elusively affecting the domestic concerns of Canada ; and although he regretted that the act of Parliament should be disturbed he could not refuse to Canada the power required. "Now," continued Lord John, "was it a matter of domestic concern for Canada or not ? Was it such a matter, that at a time when the members of the Church of England were one-eighth of the population of Upper Canada, they should have one-half of the proceeds of this fund ? Was it a domestic concern of Canada, or of the empire at large ? I think it cannot be denied that the Protestants in- terested in that arrangement were people of Canada ; but what did the right honourable gentleman say when he was Secretary of State ? He said he was for redistribution ; and now he says redistribution is entirely different from spoliation—(Cheera and counter-cheers)—and that my nght honourable friend the Member for the University of Cambridge is engaged in redistribu- tion, but in a very different process from spoliation. What my right honourable friend is engaged in doing is transferring property which is held by the clergy of the Church of England in one portion of England to the clergy of the Church of England in another portion of England. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition, answered by counter-cheers.) What is pro- posed in Canada is not a redistribution of those funds, but it is to give to those other Protestant subjects and even to Roman Catholics—according to their number, where the Church of England are a small portion of the population, and they comprise seven-eighths of that population, the power to make a distribution of those revenues more in conformity with the demands of the country. That is totally different from the redistri- bution with which my right honourable friend is concerned ; and if such are the doctrines which the right honourable gentleman holds, friend as ho is of the Church of England, they will not apply to the Church of England in this country. I hope we shall not hear from him that any redistribution of the funds of the Church of England, of the Wesleyan Methodists, Pres- byterians, or Baptists, would not be spoliation, and that is a measure that might fairly be resorted to under the modest form of religion." After some more sparring with Sir John Pakington, Lord John said that the great issue to be decided was, whether or not power should be given to the Legislature of Canada to legislate on this subject That was his answer to Mr. Walpole ; who said the voluntary principle was bad and the Church establishment good. Mr. Walpole should address that argument to the As- sembly of Canada. Arguing as respects the establishments of the United Kingdom, Lord John would agree with him. "But with respect to this question, if the people of Canada—and I do not shrink from the consequences —say, We are of opinion that Church establishments are not for the benefit of Canada—that religion will be increased by adopting the voluntary prin- ciple—and that neither the Church of England, nor the Church of Rome, nor the ministers of any other denomination shall have any income from the State, or any part of the clergy reserves,'—I say, if that is their solemn and deliberate conclusion, they must have their own will upon that subject." . . . . "If we insist that we must have our own notions carried out, and our own ideas prevail, the connexion between this country and that great province of Canada will be very short. If you wish to retain your Colonies your legisla- tion must be founded upon liberal principles ; and if so founded, the con- nexion will long endure, and the colonists will value your generosity and maintain their reverence for the name of Britain. I believe such a connexion would be highly honourable both to this country and to the Colonies, and it is a connexion which may be a source of prosperity to both. If, on the other hand, you select to go back to the system of minute regulations in local affairs, then indeed you must bid adieu, not only to this noble colony of Ca- nada, but to many others. These principles are not new, they are the ancient principles upon which your Colonial empire was founded, and I trust you will not depart from them ; and if you confirm the third reading of this bill, I believe you will promote a long continuance of this honourable con- nexion between this empire and its Colonies." (Loud cheers.)

The House divided—For the amendment, 208; -against it, 288; major- ity for Government, 80. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

"THE TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE."

Mr. MILNER Ginscor made his annual motion under this head, by moving three resolutions. The first was simply—" That the advertise- ment duty ought to be repealed." The second stated that it is inex- pedient to debar the cheap periodical press from narrating current events by imposing stamp-duties and other restrictions, and that the law is in an unsatisfactory state. The third declared the maintenance of the duty on paper impolitic, and inconsistent with the efforts Parliament is now making to promote education among the people.

He explained at the outset, that he had submitted his motion in the form of three separate but simultaneous resolutions, because, while for the last hun- dred and thirty years all these taxes had been dealt with by the Legislature at the same time and while he viewed them as parts of a policy which had been enforced for the purpose of restraining the press, he would not commit the House to the full extent of his proposition in one vote. In answer to the anticipated objection that he should have waited for the Budget, he said his experience told him, that he should not in the least degree benefit by bringing on the motion after the Budget. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to include any part of this scheme in his resolutions, a vote of that House would strengthen his hands; if he did not so intend, then a vote might suggeat the reconsideration of the Budget and the propriety of se- quiescing in the views of the House. He thought he was not going beyond the legitimate function of a Member of that House in inviting discussion on taxation before or after the Budget. Having cleared the ground, he went into the subject at more than usual length and completeness.

Taking first the paper-duty, involving something like 900,000/. of revenue —but the House would see that it was not pledged to an immediate repeal of the duty—he described how the duty prevented the development of an important branch of manufacture carried on in the rural districts, and af- fording employment for the agricultural population. But the ground on which he connected the duty with his motion was, that it obstructed the diffusion of knowledge among the people, by raising the cost of cheap litera- ture. Mr. Charles Knight had paid in twenty years 80,000/. to authors ; but he had also paid 50,000/. to the State for duty on paper. The next great section of his speech was on the advertisement-duty, producing 178,000/. ; which he characterized as a barbarous tax, hindering the growth of the periodical press. While the pressure of the duty is limited to newspapers, books, railway-carriages, and public vehicles, contain advertisements which pay no 'duty. Mr. Gibson estimated that the revenue would not be all lost by his pro- posal ; for he anticipated a great increase [166,0001] in postage if the duty were repealed, as there is an average of eight letters for every advertisement. He then, treating the subject historically, showed at great length, that the intention of previous Governments, in imposing the stamp-duty, had been to restrain the issue of small publications at a low price ; and he inferred from an expression used by Lord Lansdowne when the last act reducing the duty on newspapers was passed, that the same policy continued. At that time the term "safety" was applied to the policy—the tax, it was said, could not be remitted with " safety." Would it be safe now ? Ile ap- pealed to the leaders of both parties to unite and remove the duty. It is not a party question. All parties are interested in having their views promulgated. The House would remember, that when Lonl Mel- bourne reduced the stamp-duty, he was charged with having. "courted tho Radicals." But these are times when to be a Radical could be no reproach. We have got a Radical in the Administration, we have a Radical in the Cabinet; and, more than that, we have a Radical acting with those who once were Conservative Ministers. The days, then, for any reproach upon Radicalism are past. Old party watchwords have lost their force. Each day these old conflicts are becoming more and more matters of tradition, and every party now that aspires to power must found its claims upon the utility of its policy and its sincere desire to benefit all classes of the people. Lord Brougham, in a letter recently written, had said the stamp was the most hurtful of these bad taxes, because it pre- vented the diffusion of sound information among the peasantry. The Useful Knowledge Society, he added had always been met and defeated by the stamp. Mr. Gibson described in detail the various evils arising from' the operation of the stamp-duty ; and very elaborately showed the uncertainty of the present state of the law. Renewing his protestations that he was actuated by no party feelings, he urged the House not to reject all the resolutions he had submitted to them.

Mr. EWA.RT seconded the motion.

Mr. GLADSTONE complimented Mr. Gibson on his able and compre- hmeennstive speech, and Mr. Ewart for his temperate and intelligent state- It would be his duty to disentangle the subject of revenue from the sub- ject of policy ; and although he did not wish to qualify his description of the speech they had heard, he hoped to show the House that it would not be wise to adopt the resolutions. But first he ought to state, that the Govern- ment would propose, within a very short period, a bill for the purpose of clearing up the state of the law—(Cries of " Oh! " from the Ministerial side)—well, if some honourable gentlemen did not consider that desirable, he was sorry to differ from them. The bill, however, was intended to prevent harsh or severe interpretation of the law, quite irrespectively, he fully granted, of the further question. He protested in this, and other parts of his speech, with great emphasis, against the practice of condemn- ing taxes which the House was not prepared at the instant to re- peal. He controverted Mr. Milner Gibson's calculations of a substi- tute revenue from postage. The advertisement-duty amounts to 170,000/. or 180,000/.0 and Mr. Gibson calculated on an increase of 166,000/. in the Post-office from the repeal of the duty : but in the Post-office for every 3/. returned, 2/. is absorbed in the cost of collection, and that reduced the 166,000/. to 55,000/. If it were proposed to abandon the whole 1,400,000/. which these taxes produce, Mr. Gladstone would say we had no means of doing ; and as it was not proposed to abandon but only to condemn it, he objected to leaving it in that position. He disclaimed hostility to the object which Mr. Milner Gibson had in view, and he asked the House to join with him in the vote which he should propose, called "the previous question." Towards the close of his speech, Mr. Gladstone again reverted to the fact that the House seemed to be sliding unawares into a practice perilous to public interests and public credit : he showed that within eight weeks- " they kept their time regularly, Tuesdays and Thursdays"—motions had been made to repeal duties amounting in the aggregate to 7,800,000/. That was a serious state of things. If the House were disposed to think that the best mode of managing the finances of the country was by these succes- sive votes at the instance of individual Members, regulated by all the chances and accidents that determine which motion should come first,— if they thought it a safe course to encourage these motions, and divi- sions with respect to them, then he had no more to say, except to sug- gest a public economy which might be highly acceptable to many- (" Hear ! " from Mr. IV. Willions)—a particular reduction, not a ge- neral economy—the total abolition of the office he had the honour to hold. With regard to the question of policy, he had stated in the most distinct terms that the Government had no wish to retain, and would not retain, any ' restraint whatever upon the press for the sake of restraint; that for them the question would be a purely fiscal question ; and that the claims of news- papers for relief from taxation, if it could be shown (which probably it might be) that they paid more than an equivalent for the service they received, should meet with fair consideration ; and he meant by fair consideration a icnotemrpeasrtsiscoonnbeeerntweer inthtoisiee rceladiumestiofonr :37.1iteafxttartiidonthe Vols. joTtthaenodthalerparetiaatl Gibson stoodgN;here Mr. Gladstone was standing, he would not give more— he would not consent to these affirmations. If Mr. Gibson were Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not consent to adopt a policy of promises instead of performances. It would be much better to digest mature plans of legisla- tive reformation, and lay them before Parliament, than deal in well-intend- ed promises, which might found a practice highly derogatory to the pub- lic interests and the dignity and honour of Parliament. Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Mr. DANDY SEYMOUR, and Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE, maintained the debate on Mr. Gibson's side. I Mr. J. L. RICARDO called upon the Attorney-General to explain the provisions of the contemplated Government measure respecting the stamp- duty on newspapers.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the object of the measure would be, to ni10.0ha of Ex- . remedy certain defects in the Stamp-law, and to remove uncertainty which had been caused by a decision of' chequer. /

The bill would insure the payment of the stamp-duty by all publications which are really newspapers, while it would exempt from it publications like the Narrative of Current Events, which are published at intervals ex- ceeding twenty-six days.

Lord Joikr RUSSELL renewed the appeal of Mr. Gladstone, not to de- cide upon the question until his financial statement had been heard. He denied that the general term "taxes on knowledge" could be properly applied to the duties referred to in the resolutions. He disavowed every idea of restraining the press by taxes. Mr. DISRAELI boasted of the intentions of the late Government with regard to the advertisement-duty. An unexpected increase of the Estimates had obliged them to revoke their intention. ("Hear, hear !" from Lord John Russell.) If the noble Lord supposed that he was making a declaration in that House that was not main- tained by facts, he could only say he would not have presumed to refer to anything that occurred in Council, or in private conversation ; but it would be recollected that a deputation waited on Lord Derby, and that all that was said by him was said by Lord Derby on that occasion. (Cheers.) Looking at the ability of the present Government to meet the demand made on them, he recommended the House to vote for the first resolution, and to settle for ever the repeal of the duties on advertisements. Mr. Disraeli attacked Lord John Russell for what he called his principal argument—that no proposition should be made for the repeal of a tax before the Budget. That was a dan- gerous doctrine. No Ministers ever remitted taxes till public opinion com- pelled them. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT exposed Mr. Disraeli's insincerity.

Mr. COBDEN made a speech on the merits of the question ; but at the beginning he accepted "with all his heart" the assistance proffered by gentlemen on the other aide of the House. He expressed his readi- ness to agree to the abolition of every grant for education if the taxes" on knowledge were removed.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR meant to vote against the resolutions, in spite of the speech of Mr. Disraeli; which he thought calculated to lower the character of public men. The House ought to wait for the financial statement, as it was so near.

Sir Joux PAILDIGTON retorted, that Lord Robert had not waited : he had no scruples in pressing his motion for the repeal of the Attornies' Certificate-duty.

Mr. MAcuraz addressed some remarks to a heedless House, and a divi- sion rapidly followed.

There were three separate divisions, each on the words "that this ques- tion be now put." On the first, the numbers were—Ayes, 200; Noes, 169; majority against Government, 31. The first resolution. "That the Advertisement-duty ought to be repealed," was then agreed to without a division.

On the second resolution—the Stamp-duty—the Noes were 280, the Ayes 98; Government majority, 182. On the third resolution—the Paper-duty—the Noes were 279, the Ayes 80; Government majority, 199.

INTERCENTD Promo Licosiz.

Mr. WiLilem WurrANs moved a series of resolutions, setting forth that an enormous amount of public money [6,072,1511.] was intercepted in 1851 on its way to the Treasury, and expended without the sanction of the House, "in violation of the constitutional principle" that no taxes shall be imposed or expended without the authority of Parliament ; and asserting that the whole of the public income should, without any de- duction, be paid into the Exchequer, and not issued without the consent of Parliament, as it was recommended by the Commission of 1831. In support of his motion, Mr. Williams described the various steps which have been taken since 1806 to inquire into the cost of collecting the re- venue ; and showed, that while the cost of collecting 58,000,000/. in 1806 was 2,797,0001., the cost of collecting 56,000,0001. in 1851 was 3,936,0001. Since 1842, the number of articles subject to customs-duties has been reduced from 800 to 420; but the cost of collecting the revenue of Customs has risen from 1,254,000/. in 1842 to 1,290,000/. in 1851. In 1848 Dr. Bowring made a motion similar to the present, and on a division it was carried ; but it has remained inoperative.

Captain SCOBELL seconded the motion ; estimating the saving, if its recommendations were adopted, at 1,000,000/.

Mr. GLADSTONE said the task he had to discharge was an extremely simple one, both with regard to himself and the Government. He had long ago expressed an opinion that the charges with reference to the col- lection of the revenue ought to be brought under the control of Parlia- ment. Since he had been in office he had caused an investigation to be instituted in regard to the necessity of effecting that great change to which the resolution had reference ; his colleagues had considered the subject ; they were of opinion that effect should be given to this prin- ciple; and they should not desist from their endeavours until they had organized the measures which were necessary for so giving it effect. At the same time a great deal had to be done before a good, clear, and simple system, could introduced. He pointed out some of the obstacles. A large class of the charges in the gross sum of the charges Mr. Williams included in his resolutions, it is impossible to bring under the control of Parliament, because they do not constitute public income. Sums received in error, and which are liable to be repaid, constitute a portion of those charges, which of course he would not wish to be brought in as income of the country in order to be discharged as expenditure. No doubt he knew perfectly well, also, that many charges have been imposed on the public re- venue under acts of Parliament. There was one not very extensive charge, the hereditary pensions : Mr. Gladstone did not think there would be any advantage in making those hereditary pensions the subject of an annual vote. The way to deal with them would be, to make an arrangement—a voluntary and optional arrangement on the part of the holders—to offer to the holders of those pensions reasonable terms of compensation, and to discharge the public accounts of them altogether. Again, there were public services the charges for which had been imposed on a particular revenue : the Scotch Judicial service was chargeable on the Excise. These charges are all inde- fensible, and ought to be undone. Everything belonging to the expenditure of the public income ought, unquestionably, to be brought in as income ; and the country would not arrive at a sound system till those terms have been fulfilled.

Mr. Gladstone, however, was not sanguine as to the immense saving to be effected by the change. He could not agree to the resolution as it stood. It could not be said that the constitutional principle was violated by the prac- tice that now obtained, because it had been a uniform system at all periods der all Governments, and because it had been held that the power of oi venue was part of the prerogative of the Crown. He was " kit not only of perfect integrity but enlightened economy prevailed among the heads of public departments ; and the object of the Government would be to strengthen the hands of those gentlemen.

Mr. Wurasias expressed his gratification that the resolution had been met in so fair a manner; and, with the high opinion he entertained of Mr. Gladstone's good intentions, and of the integrity with which those in- tentions would be carried into effect, he should preferleaving the matter in his hands.

Motion withdrawn.

Dirrir ON CARRIAGES.

Sir DE LACY Eveivs asked leave to introduce a bill to:alter the scale of duties on carriages.

The present duties are divided into twenty-six different classes, and the rates range from 11. 5s. to 91. is. 5d. He proposed that these twenty-six classes of duties should be reduced to three—a duty of 3/. on four-wheeled carriages drawn by two horses, of 2/. on four-wheeled carriages drawn by one horse, and of IL on two-wheeled carriages. He believed that this reduction would be a gain to the revenue. Since 1849 the number of four-wheeled carriages paving duty has diminished from 25,447 to 23,778 ; of one-horse four-wheeled carriages, from 41,621 to 38,883; of two-wheeled carriages, from 28,474 to 24,591. In the same period, the duty paid had fallen from 425,000/. to 413,0001. Not fewer than fifty coachmakers had become bank- rupt, or had been forced to retire' during the last ten years. The list of ex- emptions was numerous, and the frauds and evasions very great. Noblemen, right honourable gentlemen, and even prelates, used "dog-carts." The right which was extended to parties to compound for the tax likewise led to numerous frauds. A person, for instance, who had been in the habit of using five, six, or seven carriages, would cease to use more than two for a few months, and then, having compounded with the taxgatherer for two, he would forthwith resume his five, six or seven carriages. The last statement was questioned by Mr. TURNER, who seconded the motion. Mr. BRIGHT dwelt on the hardship the duty inflicts on industry. There was only one coachmaker in Manchester who turned over more than 10,000/. a year. If a coach were let for one week only, the tax of 6/. had to be paid. Mr. Bright contrasted England with Ireland, showing how much more carriages were used in the latter country.

Mr. GLensvottz pointed out a material omission in the speeches. No one could doubt but that one of the great causes of the decline of the trade and the diminution of the revenue was to be found in the extension of railway travelling. He admitted that the duties were high and com- plex; and that the multitude of the exemptions was a more serious evil. The 'Louse in dealing with the subject must either pluck up courage and strike at the root of the exemptions, or sacrifice 100,000/. of the revenue. But he would not enter into the subject; as on Monday his financial statement would show what Government could or could not do.

Motion withdrawn. KnattrYisszi HosterrAt.

Mr. These Burr moved for an address, stating that it is right and ex- pedient to maintain Kilmainham Hospital ; that its abolition would be opposed to "the feelings of the Irish nation, and injurious to the honour and interests of her Majesty's service" ; and praying her Majesty to take such steps as she may deem expedient to remove any obstructions to the fulfilment of the objects of the institution, in consequence of any di- rections issued by the Secretary at War, prohibiting the further admis- sion of maimed and worn-out soldiers.

Kilmainham Hospital was founded by Charles the Second, in 1684, under a charter of incorporation, for maimed and worn-out soldiers. It was to be supported by sixpence a month stopped from the pay of the Irish army ; and it was likewise endowed with sixty-four acres of land close to the city of Dublin. Up to 1794 it was so supported ; but then and afterwards Pailia- meat voted estimates to maintain both Chelsea awl Kilmainham, and the stoppage of the soldiers' pay ceased. In 1833, Mr. Ellice, then Secretary at War, attempted to close the Hospital; but Mr. Stanley, Sir Hussey Vivian, and the Marquis of Anglesey, who then held high office in Ireland, protested against the step, and it was abandoned. In 1815 Lord Vivian's plan was adopted, as a final settlement, by which the expenses were reduced, and the number of pensioners admitted was diminished, being limited to six captains and two hundred men. But in 1850 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the Army and Ordnance Estimates, and in 1851 they reported that they were satisfied a saving would be effected by a consolidation of Chelsea and Kilmainham. In 1851 also, but before the report of the Committee was made, Mr. Fox Maule wrote a letter ordering the Governors to make no fresh admissions. Mr. Butt referred to the Committee, and made merry with the character and scantiness of the evidence on behalf of consolidation. He urged the retention of the Hospital as an "appendage to Royalty." Backing himself with military authority, he pointed out that the Irish sol- dier looked to Kilmainham as a refuge. And this would be destroyed for a paltry saving of 50001.

Lord GEORGE PAGET seconded the motion ; which Sir J. Frrzozastio and Mr. VAN= supported.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said, the question was, whether the House would reverse a policy which they had three times approved of, and which had been adopted by two Administrations. Mr. Butt's arguments applied, not to any plan in existence, but to one proposed twenty years ago. What the House had to decide was, whether Kilmainham should be reopened and reestablished up to its former extent. When it was proposed that Kilmainham should be closed, 139 out of 207 in- pensioners were under fifty-one years of age, 70 were under forty-one, and 19 under thirty-one ; so that it was not the men of long service who came to be in-pensioners. He showed that the Royal charter had not been strictly adhered to in the appointment of the Master, Deputy Masters, and Quarter- master. He thought that as it was the duty of the Secretary at War to ask Parliamentary sanction for the vote, it was for him to decide whether he would ask or not. The estimates on the plan of Lord Panmure had been approved by Parliament and adopted by Mr. Beresford. No doubt, 7000/. a year spent in Dublin caused a strong feeling there in favour of retaining Kilmainham ; but the money would be spent in some other part of Ireland. Although it had been declared on high authority that recruiting would be ruined if Kilmainham were closed, "there never was a time when recruiting went on better." There is an increasing disposition among pensioners to live with their friends and families.

By this time the House seemed heartily tired of the subject, and Mr. WurrEamv spoke in behalf of the motion amidst loud cries of "Divide!" He did not advance anything new; except the correction of a statement of the Secretary at War, that the charter had not been strictly adhered to. Mr. Whiteside said the trustees had power to elect whom they saw fit. He sneered at the idea that old soldiers desire to live with their families —" particularly when they have none to live with." Amid the con- tinued cries of " Divide," Lord SEYMOUR pointed out the advantages en- joyed by out-pensions, and the impropriety of setting up a division be- tween the English and Irish soldiers. Mr. &tics defended his own

conduct in 1833: he found the daughter of a Peer laundress of the Hos- pital, and Staff-officers of all descriptions pensioned on the establishment, all living on money intended for old and disabled soldiers.

At length the House divided—For the motion, 198; against it, 131; majority against Ministers, 67.

COMMISSIONS AND DONTB.OVERTED ELECTIONS.

The Earl of ABERDEEN moved that the Lords should agree with the Com- mons in an address to the Queen praying her Majesty to appoint a Com- mission to inquire into the corrupt practices which had prevailed at elec- tions for Canterbury. The time is come when something must be done to diminish and check corrupt practices at elections. The people of this country look with in- creasing distrust at the frequency and growth of these practices, and even the lowest people are indignant at the abuse of the franchise by those above them. He did not think it his duty to enter into the particulars of the evi- dence; and it would have been better perhaps had all these preliminary proceedings been left to the House of Commons. This was not evidence on which to found a legislative proceeding, but merely to lay ground for fur- ther inquiry. He thought they would atonce agree to that, and reserve to themselves the power of deeling with any measure which the inquiry might give rise to. Lord Aberdeen explained, that the report did not embody the precise terms required by the act of last year, but reported that a system of corruption prevailed at the last and previous elections generally," instead of using the words "extensively prevailed." The House of Commons had thought that when bribery was systematic and general it was extensive ; and they had adopted the words of the act in the address. He had been told that on this an objection would be teken ; but he could scarcely suppose it probable. He was speedily undeceived ; for Lord LYNDHURST, and subsequently Lord Sr. LEONARDS and Lord REDESDALE, rose and urged the objection at great length.

It was argued, that as' the proceeding in this case would form a precedent, it was peculiarly necessary to be cautious. They were asked to inform her Majesty that a Committee of the House of Commons had reported that cor- rupt practices "extensively prevailed" at elections for Canterbury ; but, said Lord Lyndhurst, no such report had ever been made, and to af- firm that it had would be an untruth. But it had been said the terms made use of in the resolution of the Committee were equivalent to those in the address. Their Lordships had no authority to draw such a conclusion. If the precise words used in the report were used in the address, was there any legal authority for saying this commission ought to issue ? Might not the validity of its acts be questioned ? The terms used in the report were not equivalent to those used in the address ; for the existence of a "system of corruption" did not import necessarily that it had been carried out. Neither did the word "general" mean "ex- tensive." If they took upon themselves to substitute other words for those used by Select Committees where were they to atop ? It was found extremely mischievous in courts of justice to depart from the strict letter of acts of Par- liament; and it would be found so in this case. As a remedy, it was sug- gested that the Committee should be reappointed and that another report should be made.

To this reasoning the ,Lord CHANCELLOR, Lord CAMTBELI., and ,,the Duke of NEWCASTLE replied.

A serious imputation had been made against the other House of Parlia- ment, that it had called on their Lordships to state an untruth. But the address had been solemnly adopted in that other House, and not per in- curium. The ipsissinaa verbs of the act were not indispensable ; although undoubtedly it was desirable that they should be used in future. For sup- pose the Committee had reported that nineteen-twentieths of the voters had been bribed; or that bribery had "universally" prevailed : would that be ground for refusing to issue a commission ? The word "extensively" was popularly used to signify "to a great extent," but it did not necessarily mean that ; and if the words of the statement, that "a system of corruption prevailed generally," were analyzed, they were far more stringent than the other form.

The Duke of Newcastle, on behalf of the Government, said they would willingly and cheerfully accept the responsibility of this proceeding. Al- though, he continued, it was true that one great use of the House of Lords was to check any hasty and sometimes unfair legislation of the House of Commons, yet if there was one thing more than another in which the House of Lords ought not to be found to lag behind the spirit of the time, it was in the attempt to put an end to corrupt practices at elections of the representa- tives of the people.

Lord LYNDHURST did not persevere; and the address was agreed to.

Mr. GAIDIXLL moved an address for a Commission to inquire into the state of the borough of Clitheroe : Commissioners' names—Mr. Percival Andree Pickering, Mr. George Goodin Barrett, Mr. Gathonae Hardy.

Clitheroe is a small constituency, containing only about 440 or 450 persons. There was not only gross and systematical treating, but large sums of money were offered for votes : 40/. was offered in one case, 50/. in another, 100/. in a third, and 30/. was offered and accepted in a fourth, as was proved to the entire satisfaction of the Committee. The cooping of voters prevailed to a very great extent. People of weak nerves and doubtful intentions were re- moved to a place of security about twenty miles from Clitheroe, under a safe escort. Intimidation also was employed, and large bodies of armed men were introduced for that purpose.

Mr. COBDEN presented two petitions, one from 160 electors, the other from non-electors, praying for inquiry. The question was raised, and argued on both sides of the House, whether treating comes within the scope of the act; and opinions on the subject were divided. Mr. WALPOLE, who announced "at no distant day" a measure to consolidate and amend the laws relating to bribery, treating, and intimidation, regarded them all as "corrupt practices" in- terfering with freedom of election ; but he held that treating and intimi- dation do not come within the act, and he agreed with Mr. Cobden that the act required amendment. The ArronteEv-GEEERAL and Sir FITZROY KELLY concurred with Mr. Walpole ; but Mr. WORTLEY thought treating in the manner described might come within the scope of the act. Lord Joan RUSSELL said the House ought not to endeavour to strain the law. Mr. DISRAELI agreed with Lord John. It was a difficult case to decide. But if he were asked, he must vote for the issuing of the commission. Incidentally, it was pointed out by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, that the Lords' amendments to the act of last year had excluded the treating ; and it was generally agreed that those amendments were bad. Lord Joffe. RUSSELL said, that although he did not concur in the amendments, he thought it better to have the bill with them than no bill at all.

On a division, the motion for a Commission was carried by 141 to 58.

With the reassembling of Parliament Select Committees on controverted elections again appear. The incriminated boroughs were Cockermouth, Dartmouth, Leicester, Taunton, and Tynemouth ; and a Committee has also been inquiring into the validity of Mr. Keogh's qualification for Athlone.

There were two petitions in the case of Cockerniouth, one against each of the sitting Members ' - the Committee took that against Mr. Aglionby first. One Graves had been carried off by the Aglionby party ; but he voted after all for Wyndham. Mr. Benson, agent for Mr. Aglionby, had bought a bedstead for one Crone, giving 6/. ; not a word was said about Crone's vote. This man was produced ; he was too drunk to speak in- telligibly, and was ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. It was alleged that Willis, a voter, had sold a horse worth 3/. for 12/. to an agent for Aglionby.

In the case of _Dartmouth no direct ease of bribery was proved ; but several witnesses deposed to having received inducements not to vote,— .one voter riding away on a horse which he found conveniently saddled and bridled in a field near to the spot where he was working. He with others went to a farmer's house, where they helped at haymaking. But they paid their own expenses. They went away to avoid being " pestered." Attempts where made to prove intimidation on the part of Sir H. Seale, for the sitting Member, Sir Thomas Herbert. Examined before the Com- mittee, Sir Thomas said the election cost him 5001. He had not interfered at all in the election. The Committee found Sir Thomas Herbert duly elected for Dartmouth.

The _Leicester inquiry presents some peculiarities. It would seem that the chief witnesses for the petitioners had deceived their employers. One Ludlam told an extraordinary story about his having been offered bribes to give evidence, and threatened with a Speaker's warrant if he refused. Another man of the same name gave an account of a bribery trans-

action which it turned out occurred fifteen years ago. A third Ludlam implicated the agents ler the petitioners in a charge of bribery. But the whole of their depositions were contradicted. Evidence was taken to show that the petition had been got up; and Thomas Holyoak, the princi- pal agent in the matter, was examined. His account was equivocal. In the case of Taunton there were four petitions : one from Sir Thomas Colebrook, praying for a scrutiny into the votes of Mr. A. Mills the sitting

Member ; a second from electors, alleging bribery ; and two others, one to defend Mr. Mills's seat, and one alleging bribery and treating against the other side. A gimlet worth 3V. had been bought of James Eames

for 21., on condition that he should vote for Mills ; but he did not, and did not mean to. He carried the two sovereigns about in his pocket for some time, intending to return them' but ultimately he spent them Wil- liam Finn received 41. for going out of town. Weller a tailor had over- heard Turle bribe Farmer with 10/. to vote for Mills. Farmer showed Weller the money. 'lemmings received 51. to vote for Mills.

It was also stated that rent was paid and clothes were taken out of pawn for votes given. No attempt was made to call witnesses in defence of Mr. Mills.

Finally, Mr. Mills himself, and his agents Mr. Trenchard and Mr. Sut- ton, were examined. Mr. Mills had paid 375/. as his expenses, but with- out any detailed account of the expenditure. Mr. Trenchard had kept no accounts, nor had Mr. Sutton. The Committee decided that Mr. Mills was not duly elected ; and that he had been guilty of bribery by his agents, but without his own privity or concurrence. The Athlone petition against Mr. Keogh, on the ground of qualification was not substantiated. Mr. Keogh stated his qualification to be a rent- charge for lives of 600/. a year, a life estate for his own life for 1501., and a rent-charge for two lives, his own being one, for 300/. a year. Judgment debts to a large amount, nearly 10,000/. it was alleged, affected this qualification. But it was proved that at the time of the election the balance of these debts due was only 1799/. Mr. Keogh was called by his own counsel and examined. The Committee decided that he had been duly elected, but that the petition was not frivolous and vexatious.

JUDGES-EXCLUSION RILL.

Lord NOTHAM moved the second reading of his bill for excluding cer- tain persons holding judicial appointments, like the Master of the Rolls, from seats in the House of Commons.

Lord PALMERSTON; and subsequently Lord Jortie RUSSELL, stated ob- jections to the bill. It was held that where the performance of judicial duties and of the duties of the House were incompatible, there was good ground for exclusion ; but if it were laid down that all persons holding judicial appointments were to be excluded, because they might have to decide on the interests of their constituents, surely Recorders of towns, the Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer, and Chairmen of Quarter-Sessions, should be included in the schedule of the bill. It was also urged, that in the case of the Master of the Rolls, against whom the bill was really directed, many distinguished men, such as Sir Joseph Jekyll, Sir W. Grant, Sir W. Scott, and the present Master, had been not only orna- ments of the House, but had greatly assisted at its discussions. Another reason put forward against the bill, especially by Lord John Russell, was that the proposed exclusion would limit the choice of the constituency ; that it was a measure intimating to the people that they are not fit to judge who ought to be their representatives. Mr. EwAwr took the same view. On the other side were Sir Josue FAELNOTON and Sir FITZROY KELLY; who complained that a judge should have to stand before a low rabble, and go hat in hand to ask for votes. Mr. IrEartost SMITH denied that a gentleman seeking the votes of a free constituency sacrificed his personal honour or dignity, or was degraded in the eyes of his coun- trymen. The bill was supported by Mr. ArrrEwron and Mr. WHITESIDE. Lord DOTHAM vindicated his bill. It is impossible for the judges of the supe- rior courts to discharge the duties of both positions ; and as to restricting the choice of the constituency, surely there are cases where the choice of electors ought to be restrained. He referred to the opinions of Lord Brougham and the late Lord Langdale in behalf of his bill.

No division was taken, and the bill was read a second time.

THE COUNTY-RATES RILL.

The adjourned debate in Committee on this bill was resumed on Wed- nesday. Sir Joni; FAAINGTON advocated his amendment on clause 4, to the effect that instead of the county Financial Board being wholly representative, it should consist of representatives added to the Board of Magistrates. A long discussion, marked by no novelty, continued until nearly six o'clock, when the Iona° divided, and the amendment was negatived by 144 to 115.

COMPULSORY VACCINATION.

• Lord Lv riaLToN, in moving that the House go into Committee on the Vaccination Extension Bill, entered largely into statistical accounts to show that smallpox decreased and disappeared in proportion to the extent of vaccination. England and France are the only countries where it is not compulsory ; and he proposed to make it compulsory by means of re- gistration and by the infliction of penalties in case of neglect. The Earl of SKAFTESEURT enforced the same views ; and the Earl of ELLEN- nonoiroa, who thought a case had been made out for an alteration of the law, proposed several amendments, suggesting that the House should go into Committee, and agree to the amendments, with a view to reprinting the bill, and recommitting it at some future period. This was accordingly done ; and the bill, as amended, subsequently passed through Committee.

CASE OF M. CRAUFURD.

In reply to Lord Drimzy STUART, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that Lord Clarendon had remonstrated with the Tuscan Government for ex- pelling Mr. Craufurd from Florence ; and that the Tuscan Government expressed its regret at the proceeding, which had originated in suspicions entirely without foundation.

IRISH ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT.

Sir Joe Yousa has given notice that Government intend to continue this Court for one year more.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.

The fourth report of the Select Committee appointed to considet the principle of amalgamation as applied to railway or canal bills has been issued. The Committee, not having been able to bring their inquiry to a conclusion, and desiring not to hinder the necessary legislation of the session, provisionally recommend that no bill containing powers of amal- gamation, shall be read a second time, unless those powers be struck out ; that in any bill for a new railway, or for an extension of time, promoted by an existing railway, provisions shall be inserted in Committee provi- ding that after the expiration of five years in the former case, and three in the latter, the payment of dividends shall be suspended until the line shall be opened for traffic ; and that in other cases the deposits in the hands of the Accountant-General shall be detained until the line be com- pleted and opened, or until one half of the capital shall have been ex- pended on the railway before the expiration of the above-mentioned pe- riods, otherwise the deposit shall be forfeited to her Majesty.