Debates ant( Vrocettings in Iparliament.

BUSLNESS OF THE SESSION.

On Monday, the following newly-elected Ministers took the oaths and their seats in the House of Commons: Lord John Russell, Lord Palmers- ton, Sir George Grey, Mr. Charles Wood, Sir John Cam Hobhouse, Mn Labouchere, Lord Marcus Hill, Admiral D. Dundas, Mr. John Jervis, Cap- tain Berkeley, and Colonel Fox. The scene was peculiar-

" There was no cheering," says the Morning Chronicle, " or any remarkable sensation produced, in a not very full House, by the entrance of the new Ministers; who retired individually after their formal presentations to the Speaker. Upon their subsequent reappearance, the situation of parties presented a scarcely more

distinct aspect than at the close of last week." It was somewhat carious, and a little puzzling. The benches behind the Treasury bench were filled by those Members who have hitherto constituted what Mr. Tierney termed her Majesty's Opposition,' and they exhibited an apparently powerful Ministerial array. Among them were individuals whose names are familiar as steady supporters of Liberal opinions; as Mr. Hume, Mr. Williams, Mr. Ewart, :Mr. Strut; Mr. Christie Sir John Easthope, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Bannerman, Mr. Brotherton, and so forth. Below the gangway, those Members who have tieen conspicuous as defenders of Protection to native industry,' occupied their usual places; Sir Robert Harry In- glis, Lord George Bentinck, Mr. Disraeli, and their friends, all appearing un- moved ' by:tehterecireat change which has taken place. On the front Opposition benches ap Sir James Graham' Mr. Goulburn, the Earl of Lincoln, &c.; Sir Robert eel not being present. The Members immediately behind the front Opposition bench were those who usually supported the late Government; but below the 'gangway,' on the Opposition side, feriae the Protectionist party, there were indications of what might be considered the nucleus of a fourth party. At all events, whether by accident or design, there appeared on that side of the House, sitting together, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Spooner Mr. Thomas Duncombe, Mr. Bickham Escott, Mr. Collett, (Athlone,) Mr. Bernal Osborne, and other Members whose politics have not been considered, at least in former times, to harmonize." Sir Jazins GILMAN made suggestions relative to three bills introduced by the late Government, which had gone through certain stages— There was the Highways Bill, which stood for the second reading; as to which, looking at the advanced period of the session and the great length of the bill, he should advise its withdrawal. With respect to the Poor Removal Bill, he was most anxious that some parts of it should be proceeded with this session; par- ticularly that part which. provides that persona residing for a fixed number of years should have the right of not being removed from their residence. He hoped that a measure of so much importance world not be left in the hands of an indi- vidual, but would be taken up by the Government. He should propose to post- pone the order of the day for this bill till Thursday. The third measure had reference to the enlargement of the powers of the Enclosure Commissioners re- specting disputed boundaries. Into that bill he wished to introduce some clauses; and he hoped the House would allow it to go through Committee pro forma: an after opportunity would be afforded for considering the details.

Sir James's suggestion relative to the Highways Bill was assented to: the second reading was put off till that day six months. It was then moved that the order of the day for the committal of the Poor Removal Bill be postponed till Thursday.

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE accused the late Government of a breach of faith to the country gentlemen in connexion with this and other bills— The Highways Bill, the Poor Removal Bill, and some other measures, had been held out as an inducement to the country gentlemen to support the Corn Bill and the Tariff; and now Sir James Graham had thrown them overboard. Mr. Dan- combe had foreseen this; and would assert that it amounted to a breach of faith.

Sir JAMES Gassiest repelled the accusation : the measures had not been thrown ova. by the Government, but the House had overthrown the G overn- Mont—

' Had he continued in office, he would have proceeded with the Poor Removal BM; but he had yet to learn that the present Government would not take up and xesisecute that important part of it which gave the poor the great advantage of re- *dance.

Lord &Aix RUSSELL intimated his intentions—

He assured Mr. Dtuacombe, that the Government not only intended to proceed With the Poor Removal Bill, but that it was the very first measure which would be proceeded with. In voting for Mr. Denison's instruction relative to Union set- tlements, Lord John had expressed his doubts as to the propriety of acting upon it. He would strike out that part of the bill which related to Union settlement, and regard it as matter for future consideration. He advised Mr. Borthwick to postpone his motion for a select Committee to inquire into the Poor-law till next session; stating that he should have no objection to a full inquiry under suitable and convenient circumstances.

Lord John then made a short statement of the Government plan for pro- ceeding with business generally. " Her Majesty's Ministers have but lately ac- cepted office; since that period they have been in distant parts of the country for the purpose of their elections; and, as they have not all assembled yet, I do not think it will be wise or advisable now to state the particular measures with which we shall proceed, or in what respect it may be advisable to adopt or alter the bills now before the House: but I will take an early opportunity of making this statement, and I hope to do so on Thursday next. There is one subject in particular with respect to which I will make a statement on Thursday as to the day when I will bring forward my proposal—I mean the important question of the Sugar-duties. I am aware of the importance of that subject, and the injury done to the trade by aprotracted suspense. I will therefore on Thursday next fix an early day for that discussion. I believe also it will be necessary to give notice of a bill to continue for a further limited period the present duties, as the measure which I may introduce may give rise to considerable discussion, and it will not be desirable to lose the present amount of duties. I know not whether I have any further statement now to make to the House; and I trust that the House will give me till Thursday next to make the statement to which I have referred." (Cheers.) Some conversation followed as to other bills and motions; the results of which may be stated. Mr. EWART agreed to withdraw his motion relative to transportation to Van Diemen's Land; an assurance having been given by Sir GEORGE GREY that the whole subject of transportation would undergo the early consideration of Government. The bill for altering and amend- ing the law with respect to Lunatic Asylums world be proceeded with.

In a discussion which subsequently took place when voting the Esti- mates, some points of interest were brought out.

Mr. Wimaams called attention to the great increase which had taken place in the public expenditure. In 1835 the amount of the public expenditure was 48,780,0001.; for 1846 it was 55,500,0004 being an increase of 6,720,0001. in the latter year over the former. In the interval there had been a saving of 600,0001. a year by the reduction of the Three-and-a-half per Cents; so that there was an actual increase of 7,320,0001. That increase was not in their naval and military services only, but in every department; even the miscellaneous estimates had in- creased from 2,000,000/. to 3,400,0001. The increase in the cost of collecting the revenue was perfectly astonishing. He hoped the Government would revise the whole system of public expenditure. The settlement of our differences with America rendered a large naval and military force no longer necessary. Mr. HUME reminded Lord John RusseU, that at the commencement of Earl Grey's Government, a Committee was appointed to revise all the salaries of the officers who were at the heads of departments. The economy which that Govern- ment adopted was highly creditable, and gained for it alarge share of confidence from the country. He wished to ask whether the noble Lord was prepared, before the beginning of another session, to take into consideration the propriety of sub- mitting the estimates to such a revision as the Irish estimates underwent in 1830 by a Committee, of which Lord Congleton was chairman ? Dr. BOWRING suggested that the recommendation of the Commission for Pub- lic Accounts should be acted upon, with the view of bringing certain kinds of ex- penditure under the immediate review of Parliament. Lord Joins RUSSELL did not attribute the increase in the estimates to the dispute with America. Sir Robert Peel had stated that that dispute was not taken into account when framing them. The increase arose from the outlay necessary for the protection of our increasing colonies. Another source of expense was the loss of men which arose from the over-exertion of the troops in foreign service. He wished much that this could be rectified, and that the rule formerly laid down could be observed, namely, that a regiment should be ten years abroad and five at home. As to the miscellaneous estimates he was not prepared to say that he should consider it unadvisable to refer them to a Committee next ses- sion. It was obvious that the present Government had not had time to consider these estimates; but he was prepared to say that they would take into their serious consideration the suggestions which had been thrown out and which, if adopted, might possibly prove of considerable utility. Sir R. H. INGLIS protested against the responsibility of framing the estimates being devolved by Government upon a Committee, or upon any other body than the House itself.

Lord Joint RUSSELL explained. What he meant was, that the miscellaneous estimates, prepared by Ministers, might be referred to a Committee before being discussed in that House.

Sir DE LACY EVANS referred to the military preparations of France as a rea- son why England should be cautious in attempting retrenchments. Mr. CARDWELL (late Secretary to the Treasury) stated that reductions in the expense of collecting the revenue, to the amount of more than 52,0001., had been effected during the last eighteen months by a suspension of patronage, and a vigilant attention to that department of expenditure.

The Poor-law Commissioners underwent a severe handling, on the pro- posal to vote 120,7001. for expenses connected with the administration of the Poor-law.

Mr. HUME, from what he had seen unfolded in the Andover Union inquiry, had come to the conclusion that the Commissioners were wholly unfit for their situa- tions: he was prepared to submit a motion to the House for their removal, and was only waiting for the evidence being laid upon the table. He was very =- Vining to vote any more money to such incapable men; but heves unwilling that

medical officers and others should suffer, and he should therefore propose that the vote be limited to a sum of 100,0001. to account.

Mr. WILLLAMS seconded tie motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the greater part of the ex- penses had been actually incurred, and the House would not be precluded by this vote from a further consideration of the Poor-law. Next session there would 1* abundant opportunity fur renewing the motion. Sir ROBERT INGI1S thought that Mr. Hume's object was to get rid of the Poor- law and the Commissioners too.

Mr. HumE did not object to the Poor-law, but to the individulils appointed to administer it.

Mr. WAKLEY thought Mr. Hume bound to divide the House. The House could not show its opinion of the manner in which the Commissioners had discharged their duties better and more clearly than by stopping their salaries. He was not aware of this vote coming before the House tonight, or he would have brought the diet-table of Bromley m Kent. What did the Committee think was the amount of diet for an able-bodied man ? Why, the allowance of meat for a healthy, vigorous man, was four ounces per week. An able-bodied man, who had committed no offence, was to subsist for seven days upon four ounces of animal food, thirteen ounces of bread a day, and an ounce and a half of cheese. If this vote passed, he would bring down this diet-table to the House. He had considered that the Andover Union exhibited a frightful picture; but at Bromley he found things worse. A Guardian had informed him that there were eighty-seven poor in this house, and that forty or forty-seven out of the eight-seven were on the sick- list. Such an allowance was next to starvation; and, medically speaking, he said that if a man were kept upon that diet for a year, it must ultimately be fatal to him. And yet they were voting the Commissioners 2,0001. a year each for thus treating the poor—torturing men in order to drive them from the house. Captain PECHELL spoke in support of the motion. Mr. Joins PARKER and Mr. ILEsinEr opposed it, on the ground that the proof of incapacity or misconduct had not yet been produced. Eventually, Mr. HUME withdrew his motion; his reasons being that he did not wish to embarrass the Government, and that the House were not yet regularly in possession of the facts of the case against the Commissioners. He could raise the question on another occasion. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the whole question of the Poor-laws would come under revision next year. There must be some central authority ; but he did not say that that which at present existed was the best that could be constituted.

The vote as originally proposed was agreed to.

On Tuesday some questions were put to Lord John Russell, with the view of bringing out more clearly the Ministerial intentions.

Mr. HENRY BAILLIE asked Lord Johu whether he proposed on Thursday to state the precise nature of the measure he contemplated for the permanent settle- mentof the Sugar-duties ? He asked the question, because many Members were leaving town, and it was consequently desirable that the matter should be brought forward on as early a day as possible. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—." What I said yesterday, and I repeat it today, lest there should be any misapprehension, was, that on Thursday I will state the precise day upon which I will bring forward the question of the Sugar-duties. I will bring it forward at the earliest possible day: but the House must be aware that some previous inquiries are necessary, and I cannot, therefore, fix the pre- cise day now."

Mr. BA /.LIE—" Then, the noble Lord will not on Thursday state the precise details of the measure?"

Lord JOHN RUSSELD—" No; I will state on Thursday the day when I will do so." Mr. BanAan--" Then, I give notice that I shall oppose the temporary bill, until I know the details of the permanent measure." Lord Joint RUSSELL-- Before I ask for the temporary bill, I shall state the precise nature of the measure; but, as the details require some consideration, I shall propose the temporary bill at the same time when I state the details of the permanent measure. Sir WALTER JAMES inquired whether the noble Lord could name Friday ? Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE asked whether, on Thursday, the noble lord would state to the House the general principles by which his Government would be guided, and the policy he intended to,pursne; and if not, on what day he intended to do so?

Lord Joins Russann—" I do not consider it necessary to make any statement of the principles upon which the Government will be conducted. The principles will be those upon which I have always acted, and which I have always declared in this House."

On Thursday, Lord Joust RUSSELL made his promised announcement as to the day on which he was to state his Sugar-duty proposals, and to specify the bills the Government intended to proceed with in the present session— On Monday next he would state the Government plan with respect to the Sugar- duties ; and then adjourn the consideration of it till the Friday following. As only & fortnight would elapse from next Monday till the expiration of the Sugar-duties, he should at the same time propose a short bill, similar to the last bill, for the continuance of the Sugar duties. With respect to other bills, Government in- tended to proceed in the present session with the Poor Removal Bill, omitting the part respecting Union settlements, which would be postponed till next session for mature deliberation, the Drainage Bill, the Irish Ejectment Bill, the Irish Leases Bill. As to the other bills for the improvement of Ireland, Mr. Labouchere would be prepared to give all necessary explanation. Of the bills in the House of Lords, he hoped to see the Small Debts Bill and the Religious Opin- ions Bill passed into law this session. Other bills of less importance he hoped to be able to go on with. " With respect to measures to be introduced I will not give any detailed no- tice at present. I will only say, that looking to the improvement of the waste lands of Ireland as a subject of the very greatest importance, we shall endeavour to introduce preparatory measures; and if it be necessary to ask the aid of Par- liament for any measure of that kind, we shall be prepared to ask in the present session; but, at all events, we shall endeavour to make preparation for the introduction of a general plan for the settlement of the waste lands in Ireland next session. This, Sir, is the statement I have to make in moving the order of the day." (Cheers.) Mr. EVELYN DErimosi disapproved of the arrangement to proceed this session with the Poor Removal Bill; and then proceeded to criticize the construction of the Government— Of the constitution of the new Government he entertained great hopes—hopes of the good effects which their measures were likely to produce in Ireland: but the Ministry appeared to labour under one great defect. It contained many ele- ments of power and strength, but it wanted a just and adequate representation of the landed interest; the great towns were represented, and the Lords were more than enough represented, and the Anti-Corn-law League was represented; but he looked in vain for a powerful Parliamentary representation of the landed interest. It was true that the Cabinet contained Lord Lansdowne. a nobleman of large possessions in England; and larger still in Ireland; there were also Lord Grey and Lord Morrth than but the latter represented rather the commercial interests of the West Riding than the agricultural, and he had besides become a subscriber to the' League; Earl Grey's opinions were so extreme that it was difficult to classify him. kr. Charles Wood the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, could not be con- sidefed an ally of the agricultural interest. He repeated, that the landed interest

were not adequately represented in the new Government; and if such a represen- tation would be useful m ordinary times, it was peculiarly so at the time when the agricultdral interest had received a rade shock.

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE referred to the question which he put to Lord John Russell on Tuesday, as to whether he intended to make any declara- tion of the policy he meant to pursue?— He had put the question, not to produce the irritation which it seemed to have created in Lord John's mind, but because it was expected that on Monday last, from what was stated in the public press and elsewhere, he would have explained the principles on which his Government was about to act. His Lordship's silence had caused much disappointment; and it was with the view of preventing a repe- tition of that disappointment that he had put the question. The country had a right to expect a declaration, and the House ought to insist for it. He was satisfied there was sufficient around him to justify such a question. Let them look at the state of the House—no one exactly knew where he ought to sit. If they had a Liberal Government, the gentlemen who were about him on the Oppo- sition benches were the natural allies of such a Government, and ought to sit on the same benches with the Government. But he saw honourable gentlemen who were the bitter opponents of the Ministers in former days, sitting on the same aide of the House with them, and he believed ready to support them because it had been intimated that nothing but the extremes would be dissatisfied with the Government. That was even stated to be the case with regard to the Sugar question. According to all Parliamentary usage, when a man became Prime Minister he explained the principles on which his Government was to be con- ducted. There was nothing in the question he had put to induce what he considered was rather a pettish answer at the time. But if he objected to the tone of that answer, he was still more astonished at its substance. The noble Lord replied that Ins Government " would be conducted on the principles on which he had always acted, and on the opinions he had always professed in that Mouse." Now, he had asked many gentlemen what interpretation could be pat upon that reply, and what construction could be given to the words of the noble Lord; but he had not found any one able to put a satisfactory construction. If Lord John had said that the principles of his Government were the same as those which regulated the Governments of Earl Grey and Lord Melbourne, he would have understood him: but Lord John's reply had puzzled him. The noble Lord ought to fix the time of the principles on which he bad always acted, and of the opinions he had always avowed. There was another question connected with the present. Rumour, for which in a very short time he would give an undoubted au- thority, declared that the noble Lord had applied to the right honourable Baronet, Sir Robert Peel, to lend him three of the most distinguished members of the late Admi- nistration--LordLincabi, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Lord Dalhousie; and perhaps their secession to the Government would have satisfied the honourable Member for Melton, [Mr. Denison,] since they were closely connected with the landed interest. At first this report was denied, and he did not believe it for some time. He had read in one paper, the Weekly Chronicle,—where everything was ably written and ably stated, as everything was able which proceeded from his honourable friend the Secretary fcr the Admiralty, CMr. H. G. Ward,] a statement on the subject. [Mr. Duncombe read an extract tram an article in that paper, ridiculing the re- port in question, end mocking the individuals spoken of.] Then in a few days after he read another statement in the Times, a newspaper which he was told was now to be considered the Government organ, " vice the Morning Chronicle super- seded." If there was no truth in that report, it would be some consolation to the Chronicle, who had waded thin-deep in the mire to support the Ministers, and had waited till the tide of victory had turned in their favour, to find that the Whigs had not neglected their old friend, and that it could still obtain the authority which it ought ito have as the organ of 'the'present Government. In the Times, then, he had seen it authoritatively stated, that almost one of the first acts of the noble Lord was to apply to the right honourable gentleman, the head of the late Government, for the loan of these three gentlemen; and that "to this Sir Robert is said to have replied, that he felt unwilling to interfere in so delicate a matter; that he would offer no opposition, but could certainly not recommend a step which would be liable to unfavourable comment, as indicating a too great tenacity of office on the part of those youthful statesmen." But why did the Premier not ap- ply to the heads of the late Government? He would have secured by so doing the services of an excellent Secretary of State for the Home Department; an old and experienced Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose budgets for years had braved the battle and the breeze, and who was at any rate to be preferred to a raw and in- experienced man, though he might come from Halifax. It would have been better for Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel to have taken their place together.

On several points Mr. Duncombe wished for explanations from Lord John Rus- sell. He wanted to know what his intentions were respecting the Irish Church? Last year he had voted, for Mr. Ward's motion to endow Maynooth Coll from the funds of the Irish Church: was tliat the principle upon which noble Lord would act now that he was in office? After a humorous allusion to the remarkable Conservative dinner which took place recently at Greenwich, and to the singularly indefinite declaration made by the patriotic company, that their principles in 1846 were the same as they held in 1841, and showing that Lord John's declaration was equally indefinite, Mr. Duncombe proceeded to his list of special inquiries. The noble Lord had said that he supported the Maynooth grant only as a prelude to other measures which would lead ultimately to the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy; and Lord Howick, who was then in that House, had gone further, and said that he would take the revenues of the Protestant Church, and apply them, in the first instance, towards the payment of the Roman Catholics, whose original property they were. He wanted to know whether these were the principles on which the noble lord's Government was to be conducted ? He hoped that they were, for it would then receive an extensive popular support. Was he favourable to an extension of the suffrage? Did he hold his old opinions about the finality of the Reform Bill? Then there was the Factory. Bill: the noble Lord had given a zealous support to that measure daring the existence of the late Government; he was now at the head of the Government; and as he believed he had the means, by a great majority in that House, of carry- ing out the proposals he had supported, he hoped the noble Lord would not tell him that he left that measure in the hands of individual and independent Mem- bers of the House, but that be would take it out of their hands and bring it, as he could do, to a satisfactory issue. He looked then to the composition of the noble Lord's Ministry; and he found sitting beside him the honourable Member for Taunton, Mr. Laboachere, a violent opponent of the measure, and the honour- able gentleman the Member for Sheffield; and what was he to think of it? Would any one say that this state of things did not require some explanation?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied nearly as follows-

" When the honourable gentleman asked me the other night whether I was prepared to make a declaration of the principles upon which the Ministry of which I am at the head is to be conducted, I declined undertaking that task. I, however, took no offence, as the honourable gentleman seems to suppose, at the question; thorigh it did not appear to me to be necessary that a person who had taken a part—.perhaps an unwise, perhaps to the country an injurious part—in the discussions of this House, yet at least always an open part, should after being called upon by her Majesty to form a Government, and after having succeeded in inducing individuals who, in his opinion, are competent to conduct the affairs of the different departments, to share with him the responsibility of Government—make a general ViAparade of 'opip Ors and principles; a parade which it is very easy to make, of declare thus which may combine the sentiments of a very large majority in this House, and pet, when that_ de is made, may leave Members as ignorant as they were be- re t"... se to, measures which the Government intend to introduce. I

therefore did not think it necessary to make any such declaration; and though the honourable gentleman has alluded to various persons who filled the situation I have now the honour to hold as having made such declarations, I am at a loss to call to mind when those general declarations were made, or who were the persons that made them, on assuming the Government of the country." Mr. DUNCOMBE—" Earl Grey did." Lord JOHN RUSSELL-•-•" I do not remember that Earl Grey made, in the House of Lords, a general declaration of policy; or that Lord Melbourne or Sir Robert Peel made any such general declaration. My honourable friend the Member for Malton makes a criticism, which I own I do not think very just, as to the composition of the Ministry. I own that I think, considering the vast extent to which commerce and manufactures have proceeded of late times in this country, considering how vast a portion of the community depends on them, that it would be rather ajuster criticism, if such criticisms are to be made, to say that there are too many Mein- hers of the present Administration who are connected by family entirely with land, than that there are too few. But I decline to enter upon any answer to that allusion. I think that we have heard enough, and more than enough, on the one side, of the importance of the landed interest, and how exclusively its interests ought to be considered; and, on the other hand, that the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire are hereafter to govern the country. For myself, I deny the justice of eitherplan or principle. I hold myself, that not for land, not for commerce or for manufactures, but for the benefit of the whole people of the United Empire, the Ministry ought to be constituted; and it will be according to the manner in which Ministers shall discharge their functions—it will be accord- ing to the mode in which they can answer to their high trust, that their conduct must be judged; and not by any particular computation as to how much income one gentleman may receive from land, or how far another, who happens to hold the situation of Lord Chancellor, has been all his life connected with the profes- sion of the law.

" But the honourable gentleman the Member for Finsbury proceeded to other questions; and he inquired, in the first place, whether in the construction of the Ministry I asked for the aid of three gentlemen who were the colleagues of Sir Robert Peel in the late Government. The honourable gentleman asks, in that vein of agreeable levity with which he sometimes entertains the House, Did I ask Sir Robert Peel to lend me three of his colleagues ? ' Let not that representation on the part of the honourable gentleman be taken as any resemblance of the fact: but with regard to the fact itself, I do not deny that I did ask Lord Dalhousie, Lord Lincoln, and Mr. Sidney Herbert, to do one the honour to become colleagues of mine in the Government which I was about to form. It was my opinion that I ought not to endeavour to procure the aid in office of persons from whom I widely differed in political sentiments; and that those who maintained, and honourably maintained, I admit, as bad been lately declared by them, the same opinions in 1846 as they held in 1841, and which opinions are entirely adverse to mine, could not properly be asked by me to assist me in the formation of the Government. But, at the same time, I did think it of consequence—of great consequence—to the honour and happiness of my Sovereign, and to the welfare of the country, that a Ministry should be formed which should combine as much as possible of support„—some placing their confidence in some members of the Government, and others placing their confidence in other members of the Government—(Slight laughter)—but all agreeing as to the general line of policy to be pursued. Now, with respect to great questions of late years—not certainly up to 1841, 1842, or 1843, but for the last two years, I have found myself sitting on the Opposition side of the House, agreeing in a great measure with those gentlemen who were the colleagues of the right honourable gentleman the Member for Tamworth. I agreed with them, and supported them, whenthey brought forward measures for the advancement of what is called free trade '—the taking away restrictions mad abolishing monopolies. I agreed with them when they endeavoured to bring for- ward measures which I thought just in principle, if not wise in the moment of their introduction, for the conciliation of Ireland. Therefore I did not see that there would he any sacrifice of honour, on their part or on ours, if they should join me in the Government. They expressed themselves, I must say, in terms personally very courteous to me, stating that they thought they could not take a part in the present Administration. That was a point entirely for them to form their own judgment upon; but I cannot reproach myself with failing in my duty to my Sovereign in making that proposition to them. The honourable gentleman next alluded to what be had seen in the public newspapers; with respect to which I shall not follow him, for I think I am not responsible in any way for what is stated in the public papers. He then adverted to certain questions, with respect to which he wished to know the opinions of the Government. I will not deny that, though I should not have thought it necessary to make any such general or vague declaration as that to which I have alluded, yet being called on with respect to certain questions, I do think I am bound, as far as I can, to give my opinion as to the mode in which I think the Government ought to be conducted with respect to these particular questions. " Now, in the first place, I think, as regards any Government to be formed at present or in future, but more especially as regards a Government to be formed of those who profess general Liberal opinions, it is necessary to combine in office men who agree in general principles—who agree on those questions which are urgent questions of administration of the day; but that it is not necessary that every mem- ber of such Government should agree on every question which may come under the consideration of Parliament. Such was the mode in which of old days statesmen of great ability, and who have conducted the affairs of this country with great suc- cess, formed their Governments. Such was the mode pursued by Mr. Pitt, who formed a Government of great strength and duration in 1784. The members of Government and of the Cabinet might entirely disagree with respect to Parlia- mentary Reform—a very great question in those days, and at all times until the act of 1832 passed. Mr. Pitt had colleagues in that Government who disagreed with him on the important question of the Slave-trade in their speeches and their votes. WhenMr. Fox succeeded to Mr. Pitt, he formed a Government in which there were members differing from him with respect to Parliamentary Reform and the Catholic questions. When a Government was formed afterwards by Lord Liverpool, he comprised in his Cabinet members who differed entirely on the Catholic question, and which became in the end the most important question of the day. With respect to this latter case, I think that that combination of men, differing on the Catholic question, was carried on too long: but yet I think, when there was a question of carrying on war with France— when there was a question of endeavouring to oppose resistance against a mighty military chief, who threatened the existence and independence of this country—that the head of the Administration was perfectly justified in placing in the several departments of the Government men who could act together on the imminent questions of administration, though they differed on particular questions connected with the internal policy of the empire. The right honourable geatleman the Member for Tamwortli, in forming his Government, certainly seems to have aimed at a much greater agreement of opinion, and at a much greater identity of conduct on the part of the members of his Administra- tion, and of his party generally, than was aimed at by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, or Lord Liverpool: but I own, that though the right honourable gentleman, from his great talents, great power in conducting a Ministry, from various circumstances, for a time succeeded in that attempt, I do not think that it is an attempt likely to be very successful again, or to be advantageous to the country. I say this because there are several matters, I will readily admit, on which members of the Adminis- tration of which I have the honour to be at the head are not completely agreed in opinion. With respect, for instance, to the opinions of Earl Grey on the Irish Church, I do not concur in many of the statements made by that noble Lord in, this and the other House of Parliament. Some members of the Administration, main, may think that I have gone too far with respect to the statements I made with respect to the Irish Church. "I will state, however, at once, what is my intention, and the intention of my colleagues, with respect to the affairs of Ireland. We consider that the social grievances of Ireland are those which are most prominent, and to which it is most likely to be in our power to afford, not a complete and immediate remedy, but some remedy, some kind of improvement; so that some kind of hope may be entertained that some ten or twelve years hence the country will, by the measures we under- take, be in a far better state with respect to the frightful destitution and misery which now prevail in that country. We have that practical object in view. We shall endeavour to undertake it—we will endeavour to apply our whole minds to the subject, and we will not be led away from it by any differences on other sub- jects not calculated to effect any immediate good. I say, secondly, with respect to the franchise in Ireland, that it is my opinion that it is a great mistake to sup pose, as some persons seem now to suppose, that there is no immediate connexion between the political franchise and the social condition. My opinion is, that in proportion as men are raised by the enjoyment of those franchises which belong to a free state, their energy and industry are promoted, and they aspire to better things and to a higher condition. And so, seeing that I agree with those who have been the greatest lights and ornaments of this House, as, if I went into mat- ters of detail, I could presently show, I shall endeavour to obtain for the people of Ireland the enjoyment of equal franchises with the people of England. My honourable friend says that it is necessary that I should make some declaration of principle, and that is the answer I give him. But is it necessary for me to make any declaration? In 1886 I contended successfully in this House, with respect to municipal franchises, that the people of Ireland ought not to be abased or placed on a lower level than the people of England. What I contend for in 1846 is ex- actly conformable with what I contended for in 1836; and I do look to be able to complete more fullythan I did then the measures I had in contemplation; because I have heard from many of those who were then opposed to me in opinion the most ample concessions, the fullest and freest admissions that the franchises of the peo- ple both of England and Ireland ought to be perfectly equal. On this subject, then, I have better hopes than I formerly had; and it is but honourable in those who have changed their opinion on the subject, and who now think that this equality ought to exist, to avow that change of opinion, and to aid us in the en- deavour to procure the desired equality.

" With respect to the Church in Ireland, and the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy, I voted with my honourable friend the Member for Sheffield in favour of providing for the establishment of Maynooth out of the funds of the Established Church. We were defeated by a great majority, the opinion of the Mouse being adverse to that proposition. I afterwards continued to the end to give a zealous support to the bill which provided for the establishment of May- noeth out of the Consolidated Fund. I made no difficulty in supporting that bill because the motion of my honourable friend was not carried. Well, I now say that I retain my opinions with respect to the Protestant Church, and with respect to Roman Catholic endowment; but I do not think that it is necessary that I should urge these opinions at the present moment, for I should be doing that which I must confess at the present moment to be impracticable. I believe that with respect to what some have proposed, viz. the destruction of the Protestant Church in Ireland, there could be no worse or more fatal measure sanctioned by Parliament. I believe that it would be politically injurious; because I believe that many of the most loyal in Ireland—many of those the most attached to the connexion with this country, would be alienated by the destruction of that Church, to which they are fondly attached. I believe, that in a religiouspoint of view, it would be the commencement of a religious war,• that there would be that which does not at present prevail—the most violent and vehement attack on the Roman Catholic religion; and that the Roman Catholics themselves would be the first to complain of the destruction of the Protestant Church. Can you found or endow the Roman Catholic Church? It is quite evident from Mr. Pitta speeches, and the memoranda left by his friends, that he was of opinion that it was possible to endow or to make some provision for the Roman Catholic Church by the State. My belief is, that if Mr. Pitt had carried that measure, he would have carried a measure conducive to the welfare of Ireland, to the maintenance of the Union, and to the peace of the United Kingdom. In conformity with that opinion, I gave my vote in 1825, twenty-one years ago, in favour of a motion made by Lord Francis Egerton, now the Earl of Ellesmere, who moved that a provision be made for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church. But what do I find at this moment? I see, generally speaking, that the Church of England, that the Dissenters of England, that the Established Church of Scotland, that the Free Church of Scotland, that the Established Church in Ireland, that the Protestant Association in Ireland, and, lastly, that the Roman Ca- tholics of Ireland themselves, are all vehement in opposition to such a plan. I received only this morning a placard from Edinburgh, in which the Roman Ca- tholics of Edinburgh declared that they would resist, to the utmost of their power, any plan for the payment of the Roman Catholic clergy. I cannot see, then, that that is a measure which I am bound, consistently with my duty, to bring under the consideration of the House, until I see some kind of more favourable disposi- tion towards it on the part of the people. I should say, if that measure, or any other measure were urgent, that, though impracticable, I might still be bound by my duty to the Crown to propose it, and resign office if I should not carry it: but I must confess that with respect to ecclesiastical questions in Ireland—admitting as I do that neither the state of the Protestant Establishment as affecting the South of Ireland, nor the Voluntary system as affecting the Roman Catholics, is satisfactory to my mind—yet I do see that there is not that cause of urgency that any immediate measures need be proposed with rest to them : there are many questions which are more beneficial to Ireland, and more practicable; and there- fore I do not see the necessity of urging forward those questions which I confess to be impracticable. If any Member of this House chooses to express or feel and act upon a want of confidence in my Administration, on the ground that I am not disposed to rest for ever satisfied with the present condition of ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland, or inclined to say that the state of these affairs is consistent with jus- tice, and that it must be kept up in perpetuity on the principle of endowment for the Protestant minority, and of the Voluntary principle for the Roman Catholic majority—if any persons are disposed to favour a vote of want of confidence on that account, I cannot help their acting on such an opinion. But I cannot, in my own mind, say that I am satisfied perfectly with that condition of affairs. I can- not pledge myself, if I find the people of England and Scotland disposed to what I think a more just and useful arrangement—I will not pledge myself to be an opponent of such arrangement.

" My honourable friend went on to ask whether I should promote an extension of the franchise in this country; and he alluded to that word which has been often thrown in my teeth by those who wished to diminish any reputation I might have with the people, namely, the word finality.' Now, the word' finality,' be it re- membered, was no word of mine; it was a word invented for the purpose of ex- pressing a system to which I never, I think, gave any countenance. ?What hap- pened was this, that my Lord Grey and my Lord Althorp, the one in the other House of Parliament and the other in this, had brought forward a great measure of Parliamentary Reform; and when they were told by many persons, We shall be ready to support this ;dorm if you intend to stop here, but we cannot support it if you mean it to be a step to some other scheme of Parliamentary Reform which is immediately to follow it, they said, No, we do not intend any other scheme to follow this; we consider this as a final measure; this is the only measure we pro- pose. I repeated in this House that such had been their language, and that I did not think it would be consistent with what they had said—I did not think, sitting by my late noble friend Lord Althorp, and consenting to his language, it would be consistent or honourable in me, immediately to propose some other large scheme of Parliamentary Reform. I never said that the whole Reform Bill should be kept just as it was in all its parts; I said I could not be a party to any large and new scheme of representation. I said, It may be that the people of England differ from me; they may wish to have a new Reform Bill; they may wish to have household suffrage or universal suffrage; they may wish to have triennial Par- liaments or annual Parliaments. If that is the case, I think it is far better that scheme should be brought forward by some one who thinks it would be benefi- clid, and not by me, who sat by Lord Althorp when he made this declaration.' With regard to that, I am of the same mind still. I am for improvement—I am for any improvement that can be made—I am for improvement with regard to all subjects: but as to intending to bring forward a new scheme of Parliament- ary representation—as to introducing either household suffrage or (what I be- lieve my honourable friend favours) the five points' of the Charter, I will do no such thing. If I lose my honourable friend's confidence, I am sorry for it; but if he brings forward the five points of the Charter, I shall think it necessary to give my_ decided opposition to such a plan."

Mr. TUOMAS Duiscoanan—" I asked about the extension of the franchise, not the five points." Lord JOHN RUSSELD—" What my honourable friend says now is, ' the ex- tension of the franchise'; but what he actually brought forward was a motion founded upon a petition for a reform—a petition most numerously signed, but for that specific object of which he is the advocate. As to extension of the suf- frage, I must beg to wait till I hear my honourable friend's proposition upon the subject—till I know what it is that he proposes under those very vague and in- definite words."

Mr. THOMAS Dir.:1003111Fr" Indefinite ! "

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—" Yes; they are very vague and indefinite." Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE—" What ! extension of the franchise."

Lord JOHN RUSSELL" Why, I myself, at the time that I made that declara- tion which was so much attacked, stated that there were certain matters—that

there were other classes of voters who I thought might be introduced consistently with the Reform Bill. I will not say whether those schemes were wise or not; but what I opposed was, any new scheme of representation which was to super-

sede the Refo:m Bill. Sir, I must confess that, generally speaking—and my honourable friend may take advantage of that declaration if he likes—that with regard to great measures that have been under the consideration of Parliament,— whether you speak of the Reform Act of Lord Grey—whether you speak of the Roman Catholic Relief Act—whether you speak of the repeal of the Corn-laws, which has only passed the other day—I hold that it is wise in this House, it is wise in Parliament, to rest satisfied with the settlement which has been made after long deliberation by the Legislature; that there is not a gain to be acquired by the people equivalent to the stirring-up of agitation consequent on the revival of subjects which have been once settled by the deliberations of Parliament. "But now, with regard to the Factories Act. I have already stated what I think should he the latitude allowed by persons who in the present day meet to- gether in a Cabinet. I have given my vote in favour of shortening the hours in factories. I stated, I believe on the last discussion upon that subject, that if we went into Committee I should be in favour of shortening the time to eleven hours by law. if such a measure is introduced again, I shall give my vote in conformity with those that I have previously given. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary [Sir G. Grey] is, I believe, of the same opinion; every sentiment I have ever heard from him agrees with my opinion upon that subject. My right honourable friend who sits near me, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, [Mr. Labou- there ] has studied the subject likewise; he has studied it very attentively; he has formed a deliberate and conscientious opinion that such a law would be in- jurious. Sir, I do think that an Administration can be carried on usefully with regard to the general interests of the country, usefully with regard to many topias of administration, and yet not have identical views upon this question of the lac-. toriea I mean to give my vote in favour of such a bill if introduced. I shall not expect my right honourable friend who sits near me, or others who differ from me, to make their opinions bend to mine upon that subject. " Sir, I have now stated, I believe, what are my opinions with regard to the questions that the honourable gentleman the Member for Finsbury asked me. He has mixed with those questions a great deal of pleasantry, in which I certainly have been unable to follow him. I consider that I have undertaken a very grave and deep responsibility. Not being able to make up my mind that the Protection of Life Bill, introduced by the late Government, would be efficient for its purpose, or that it would contribute to the protection of life in Ireland, I felt myself com- pelled, being asked whether I would agree to that bill, to answer' Not upon the second reading. I was compelled to decade one way or other upon that question; it was brought forward by the late Government; they considered it their duty to bring it forward; I could not avoid my duty in forming an opinion on it, and acting according to the best of my judgment. The right honourable Baronet at the head of the Government resigned; and after having given that vote, after having been a party to that decision, when her Majesty called upon me to endea- vour to form a Government in the place of that which had resigned power into her Majesty's hands, I conceived that it was my duty to endeavour to see if in conjunction with others, I could carry on public measures for the benefit of the country. On Monday next I shall have the opportunity of stating to this House the measure that we propose to introduce with respect to a very important sub- ject; that measure will be founded upon the opinions which I have stated from 1841 to this tune upon the subject of free trade—upon the subject of restrictive duties. It will be for this House to consider whether that measure is suited to the interests of the country; it will be for this House to consider whether there are any reasons which will induce them to withhold their approbation from that measure. But this I am determined upon—as I told the honourable gentle- man the other day, and taking no offence, I must tell him plainly and decidedly— I will act according to the principles that I have professed in this House, accord- ing to the principles upon which 1 acted when 1 sat on the opposite aide of the House, and upon which alone I could consent to take office in the present situa- tion of affairs. I am determined, whether I sit on this side of the House or on the other to act according to those principles which I think the most for the advantage of the country. I have now sat for more than thirty years as a Member of this House, proclaiming and declaring my opinions on almost every occasion, and I do not think that my principles need now be any secret to the House: they are principles which, as I think, tend to increase the commerce, to set free the industry of this country, to promote the Union, not merely by a legislative act, but in heart and affection, between this country and Ireland. My opinions are such as tend, as I think, to promote, to maintain, and to extend, the principles of religions liberty, which together with its civil liberty, have made this country conspicuous as one of the greatest nations of the world." (Cheering at the close and fre- quently throughout Lord John's speech.) Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE thought the House and the country were under great obligations to Mr. Duncombe for the questions he had put— What the effect of the declarations now made by Lord John Russell on the subject of the government of Ireland might be, he was not prepared to state; but he must distinctly tell the noble Lord, that jf those declarations had been made when the Ministerial Members sat on the opposite benches, a considerable portion of those who now sat behind the noble Lord would have followed the right hon-

ourable Baronet at present out of office. For the life of him be could not see what difference there was "'twist Tweedledum and Tweedledee." The noble Lord had always led those who voted with him to suppose that the great point of difference between the two parties was "the Appropriation clause " of 1886:

but now he had announced that he would give-Ireland some few social reforms, hat would not tench the question of the Irish Church, at least until the "pres-

sure from without" was so strong as to compel him. He agreed with the noble

Lord in not wishing to destroy the Irish Church,- but in its present condition it is a disgrace to the country. He looked back with considerable pain to the effect of

his vote the other night m turning out the late Government, apparently merely to change one set of men for another, the former also being very able men; for the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary were men not to be equalled in their conduct of public business. It seemed now that there was no difference of principle between the two Cabinets; that they had always agreed; and there might even be some understanding "under the rose," to walk across

the House for a time, and -then walk back again. Why, the more honest pro-

ceeding would have been for the noble Lord to take office under the right hon- ourable Baronet. All questions, it seemed, were to be open questions—the Cabi- net were agreed upon none, except the thorough drainage question: they had

resolved themselves into a set of Commissioners of Sewers. (Laughter.) But the country had a-right to look for something more than a few sanitary regu- lations from the Government. Mr. Osborne would give the Government an early

opportunity of testing their sincerity upon the subject of the Irish Church, by moving the resolution formerly brought forward by Mr. Ward; whose appoint- ment to office, howeyer, was ajudicious proceeding. A wise discretion had also been exercised in departing from the former role of excluding from office gentlemen who entertained Repeal opinions. The parting speech of Sir Robert Peel, in which he had signified that he would no longer " give up to party what was meant-for mankind," held out great hope for the future government of this country. Mr.

Osborne knew not whether the right honourable Baronet contemplated ever re- turning to office—power he had never quitted—but if he was prepared to carry

out the principles indicated in that parting speech, he must at no remote period be returned to office with the confidence and support of the middle classes of this country- Mr. %CERAM Escorr said that the conduct of Lord John Russell in regard to measures of commercial freedom and other reforms entitled his government to a fair trial—

To some of the observations made by the noble Lord tonight he could not give his entire acquiescence. The noble Lord had a difficult task to perform. He had alluded to the state of Ireland, which had been the destruction of the late Cabinet; and the noble Lord knew that if he proposedrneasures which he believed to be necessary.for the salvation of that country and for the future peace of the United Kingdom, he would destroy thereby what power he now possessed to carry leis future intentions into effect. He hoped the noble Lord would avoid what had been the stumbling-block of former Whig Governments. Why had they professed so much and been able to perform so little ? Because they had frightened the

people by enonncing principles which were new to them, and which, instead of enabling them to carry great measures, had prevented them from carrying into

effect the wise suggestions of their own hearts. and the adoption of their political principles. Sir Robert. Peel had derived great advantage from not frightening the Conservative people of England by enouncing principles for which they were not prepared. He waited for the time when public opinion enabled him to carry them into effect; and he would, in consequence, always be remembered as the greatest practical reformer of the century in which he lived.

Mr. WAELEr said, he was puzzled a little while ago and now he was re- gularly bewildered—

Lord John Russell had told the House that his principles had been before the country for thirty years, and that he intended to act upon them. Then they were the old Whig principles, and the noble Lord had so explained them. But during the time when those principles were in operation, what was the conduct of the honourable and learned gentleman who had just sat down? If there was one more vehement opponent of the Whig Government than another in the West of England, and he might add, a more effective or more eloquent opponent, it was Mr. Escott himself. The farmers, when they wanted some one to abuse the Whigs, said, "Send for Escott, he'll do it. Send for Bickhara. Where is he ?

Find on out." (Much laughter, arising from Mr. Wakley's imitation of Sic dialect of the Weld of England.) " He'll be sere to give un the most

terrible thrashing they ever had." (Laughter.) The honourable and learned gentleman was the life, add soul, and spirit of all the public dinners held in the West of England. Then who was it that had ;changed? What did it mean? He could not comprehend it. Mr. Wakley was among those who wondered that Sir Robert Peel was out of office. The Coercion Bill was the understood cause; but had not Lord John Russell asked Lord Lincoln, who had drawn that bill, to take office under him? Were the principles that regulated the present Government the same as those of the last ? and if so, why had the change been made ? With reference to the Irish Church, the speeeh'of the noble Lord was most unsatisfactory. He feared to propose measures when he could not carry them. That did not become a at mind, which should be prepared to meet difficulties. It was no credit to a Minis- ter to propose measures when he knew he had a supple and convenient majority at.his tail to carry them. He inferred the very worst from the noble Lord's India - 1inct reply—that he did not intend to propose at present any change in the Irish Church. Lord John Russell had stated that Sir Robert Peel when in oppo- tuition had made no promises: why then had he been charged with treachery to his party, but because when in opposition he had had the candour to declare his principles ? Having found them to be incorrect, he had the boldness, the manli-

ness, and the virtue, to act on the increased knowledge and experience he hadac- ; and had thus produced the greatest measure of commercial reform that had ever been proposed: the right honourable Baronet was now the most popular

man in the kingdom; he was beloved and almost adored by the mass of the peo- ple. (Cheers.) No Minister had made such sacrifices as the right honourable Baronet on the people's behalf; and if the Whigs did not act on the principles the right honourable Baronet had declared in his last speech to the House, their con- tinuance in office would be for a very short period.

Mr. NEWDEGATE denied the justice of Mr. Wakley's panegyric—

Had Sir Robert Peel adhered to his professions, the Protectionists would not have had to deplore the loss they had sustained. He had no confidence in the present Government; he stood there as an individual Member of Parliament, whose duty it was to guard the interests of those who sent him.

Mr. WARD, having been pointedly alluded to in connexion with the Irish Church, begged to offer an explanation—

It would be admitted that he had never concealed his opinions respecting the Irish Church to obtain office, and he did not intend to sacrifice them now he had taken office. The House, however, would recollect that when he had no visions of office floating before his eyes, which could warp his judgment, he had expressed his opinion that the social evils of Ireland more pressingly required attention

even than the Irish Church; and, with the full concurrence of his Iriah friends, having twice brought the Irish Church question before the House and having been twice defeated upon it, he had stated to them that he did not intend to bring it before the House during the present session. When it came before the House again, he should show that he had not changed his opiuion; but he had proved that long before he thought of taking office he had expressed opinions almost perfectly in accordance with those expressed by the noble Lord tonight. Mr. Holleman did not approve of the hostile strictures which had been Made on Lord John Russell by some of the speakers—

The noble Lord had shown no anxiety to obtain office; and the circumstances under which he took office eminently entitled him to the considerate indulgence Of the House. He believed it was the opinion of the people of England, who were

a just and generous people, that ff the Government was to be conducted on the principles of the noble Lord, it was fit and proper that it should be intrusted -to his hands; and he had no doubt that that Government -would be so conducted as to lead to the most useful results.

Answers were given to several questions— 'In reply tolls HUM E, as to the expediency of continuing the office of Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord JOHN RussELL said, his present opinion was, that the. Government of Ireland could not be advantageously carried on if the office of Lord-Lieutenant were abolished.

Mr. HINDLEY inquired what was to be done with regard to a bill for them- rolment of the Militia? Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that no such bill wouldle introduced during this session: the existing system would.continue. In reply to Lord LaNcome, Mr. LABOUCHERE enumerated the several Irith measures which Government intended to Lceed with this session. .[Most of them were mentioned by Lord John Russell The Valuation of Heritable P

Bill would be proceeded with; bat as to Drainage Bill and the Landlord Tenant Bill, they would have to undergo consideration, with the view of improving the machinery. Poor REMOVAL Brix.

On Thursday, Sir GEORGE GRET moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Poor Removal BilL He explained the leading provisions of the bill as modified by the Government—

It provided that any one residing in a parish for five years previous to the day of making the order for relief, should not be removed from that pariah, bat should be entitled to relief in the parish in which he had so resided for five years; and should be irremoveable therefrom. The principle of " irremoveability ' was also applied for a certain period to the widow of any man who had resided in the parish in which he died for five years. No child under sixteen years of age could be removed for twelve months after the death-of its father, in a case where the father himself was irremoveable. Provision is made for giving temporary relief in cases of sickness and accident.

A long discussion followed; the prevalent opinion being that Ministers had acted judiciously in excluding that part of the original bill which re- lated to Union settlements.

Sir JOIES PAKINGTON objected to that part which rendered a widow removeable after a certain time. Mr. SPOONER and Mr. PACKE could not regard the mea- sure in the light of a boon to the agricultural interest. Mr. VERNON Sstrru and Mr. &Burr advised the postponement of the measure till next session. Lord HARRY VANE would approve of three years, instead of five, as the period for gaining a settlement. Mr. HENLEY thought the better course would have been to introduce a short bill suspending all removals for twelve months, to afford an opportunity for a satisfactory adjustment of the law of settlement. Mr. WAKIMY complimented the Home Secretary on the humane feeling he had displayed when explaining the provisions of the bill. If the acts of the Government were similar to this proceeding, he should seldom remind them of their pledges or promises; for he liked acts infinitely better than professions. After some farther discussion, the House went into Committee pro fort* the report was brought up; and the bill was ordered to be printed.

Tun TOBACCO-DUTIES.

On Tuesday, Dr. Bowl:ono called attention to a return moved for by Mr. Hume, and ordered to be printed on the 11th May; exhibiting the miseries and crimes created by the enormous duties levied on tobacco— If he could show that a vast amount of guilt and misery arose from the present state of the duties affecting tobacco, then lie thought that he went a great step towards affirming the propositions upon which his motion was founded. During the year ending in the month of May 1846, the number of seizures of smuggled tobacco was 538, of illicit spirits 171, of tea 11, of silk 10, and only 26 of all others. It was evident, then, that the smuggling of tobacco was carried on upon the widest scale • that tobacco was the principal article smuggled upon the over Thames; and that all the evidence of the Customhouse-officers went to show that the smuggling of tobacco was much more extensively carried on in the river Thames than that of spirits. In proof of this, he should call their attention to the number of convictions which took place before Magistrates for the smuggling of tobacco. In the year 1843, the number of convictions amounted in England to 430; in 1844, to 583; in 1845, to 702; in 1846, to 872. In Ireland, in the year 1843, the convictions amounted to 61; in 1844, to 141; in 1846, to 154. In England the smuggling of tobacco within that peritid showed an increase of 102 per cent, in Ireland 252 per cent, and in Scotland 451 per cent. But this was not all. Great expense was entailed upon the country fronithe existence of this state of things. The expense 'of maintaining prisoners convicted of smuggling in gaol could not be less than from 4,0001. to 5,0001.; and the expense of the Coast Guard was between 600,0001. and 700,0001. Dr. Bowring also proved that the quantity of tobacco smuggled into this country equalled the quantity that paid duty. This result was not surprising, considering that the duties upon tobacco were so high as to enable the smuggler to beat the Government with ease. Enough surely ex- isted to call upon the Government to consider the subject in framing their finan- cial measures, and to justify him in proposing his resolution, "That the tobacco- duties require the immediate revision of this House."

Mr. HUME seconded the motion. But it proved fruitless; for the House, on the motion of Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, was counted out.

Cesitream,E TRUSTS BILL.

On Wednesday, Mr. HUME moved the second reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill— As serious objections had been taken to this measure, he thought he should beet fulfil the object in view by merely retaining those clauses which secured the ac- countability of those who had charge of public money. It was the duty of this House, after the expense which had been incurred in inquiries, to have some accounts available *at would show how the revenues of each trust had been-ex- pended. It was not his intention to include the Bible Society, and other religions trusts or charities where the founders were alive, but those only where the indivi- duals were dead.

Diversity of opinion was expressed, not so much with respect to the merits of the bill, as to the expediency of adopting so important a measure on the suggestion of an individual Member of Parliament. Sir GEORGE GREY did not offer any opposition to the second reading of this bill; but the House must not suppose that this was a substitute for another bill, which had been thrown out in the other House, or for a more general measure. Mr. BERNAL thought that Mr. Hume had not considered the sea of difficulties he would have to encounter. If he attacked the City of London, he would find that a very strong body to deal with. He recommended Mr. Hume to withdraw his bill, and wait for the introduction of a more comprehensive measure by the Government.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN protested against any great principle like this heirA determined by the House on the representations of any private Member. la should move as an amendment that the bill be read that day six months.

Mr. TATTON EGERTON, Mr. ESCOTT, and Sir DE LACTEVANS supported the bill. Mr. SPOONER and Mr. ESTCOURT thought that enlarge a measure oughtle be introduced on the responsibility of Government. Sir JAMES GRAHAM gave a short history of the bill. On the failure of the more comprehensive measure introduced into the House of Lords by the late Go- vernment, Mr. Hume asked Sir James Graham, if he would consent to a single /enactment ,requiring :trustees of charities to present to Parliament a statement

annually of their accounts. Sir James approved of the suggestion, thinking that it would prove a salutary check upon the conduct of trustees. Mr. flume's bill appeared to him to be right in principle. Some parts may admit perhaps of a too extensive application, but that could be corrected in Committee. There could be no doubt that the general rule of accountability ought to be enforced. Great abuses were admitted to exist; and he knew no remedy for those abuses so effi- cient, so clear, so obvious, as that which accountability presented. If they wanted analogy or proof, they might find both in the case of the turnpike trusts. With respect to those, an enactment similar to this had been passed. Each turnpike trust was compelled to render its accounts, and a more salutary enactment could scarcely have been devised. Debts, jobbing, and abuses, prevailed. The debts of those trusts were now 8,000,0001.; and if the bill to which he referred had been

twenty years earlier, not one-half the debts of those trusts would now exist. passed Even if no more were done than to enact the one provision now proposed, it would have the effect of bringing public opinion to bear upon the subject: if no more than that one measure were enacted, one-half the objects contemplated by the larger bill would be accomplished.

Mr. HOME would not object to alteration in Committee. When daylight was once let in on the practices of trustees, there would be time enough for Parliament to consider what was the next step to be taken.

On a division, the second reading was carried, by 42 to 12.

SALARIES OS' THE LORDS CHIEF JUSTICES.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, Lord BROUGHAM, in connexion with the appointment of Sir Thomas Wilde as Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, brought under notice a circumstance relating to judicial selaries- He confessed that he took shame to himself that what he was about to allude occurred when he held the great seaL He alluded to the steps that had been taken with regard to the reduction of the salaries of the Lords Chief Justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas. At the time lie alluded to, the salary or allowance of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, by act of Parliament, was 10,000/ a year; but by some arrangement with the eminent Judge who then filled the office of Lord Chief Justice—he meant Lord Tenterden—the salary was reduced in reality to 8,0001. a year. This arrangement had been continued with the present Lord Chief Justice, and a proportionate reduction, namely, from 8,0001. to 7,0001., was made in the salary of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Now, he contended that the executors of Lord Tenterden were entitled— as those of the Lord Chief Justice would be—to claim this 2,000/ a year for the time it was stopped; as the act of Parliament did not give the power to the Trea- ',eury to make any such arrangement with any Judge; for the charge was directly on the Consolidated Fund, and out of the control of the Treasury. It was mon- strous that acts of Parliament should be superseded by arrangements with indi- viduals. " I need not remind your Lordships how monstrous it is, because a Government makes a bargain with a Chief Justice, that therefore he is to take less, the residue to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Why, the consequence of such a system will be, if you get a Chief Justice to take 6,0001. instead of 10,0001. ayear, that you will dole out an increase, year by year, according as he behaves, and in proportion to the satisfaction which he gives to the Government or to the Crown. He took a fall share of the responsibility of this proceeding on himself; and he could only account for it that it took place daring the severe pressure of business on the Government at that time. He would have brought the matter before Parliament, and had only abstained at the request of Lord Denman: but there was no reason why he should do so if there were now to be a repetition of the same traffic in reference to the office of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, to whom the act of Parliament gave a clear yearly salary of 8,000/ a year. The act says distinctly that the Lord Chief Justice shall receive a salary of 10,0004 whereas the Financial Accounts show that he only receives 8,0001. a year. Earl GREY admitted the importance of the subject, and explained the origin of the arrangement-

-In 1830, a Committee was appointed in the other House, which revised the salaries of all the Government officers of state: it recommended that the salaries of many should be reduced; and while the incomes of some judicial officers were reda.ced others were raised prospectively. When a vacancy occurred in the office of Chief Justice of the King's Bench some arrangement of the kind was carried into effect. If Lord Brougham thought at the time this should not have been done without an act of Parliament, why did he not bring in a bill on the subject? In point of form, it would, no doubt, be better that this should have been done; but practically diey accomplished the same thing by this arrangement, and he did not think that the difference was very material. The amount paid was dis- tinctly stated in the Finance Accounts for the year, by which fuller attention would be called to the matter; and therefore practical abase was impossible.

Lord Bnorronsar asserted that he knew nothing at all of the arrange- ment gone into with Lord Denman till six months after it was completed. Earl GREY maintained, rather peremptorily, that Lord Brougham knew it at the time. Lord BROUGHAM repeated his denial. Earl GREY adhered to his assertion; sailing that he would direct the attention of Lord John Russell to the subject of a bill; and, if it was deemed necessary, a bill would be brought forward, so that a more regular form of proceeding might be adhered to in future.

Lord BROUGHAM returned to the charge; remarking that he had not addressed Earl Grey at all, but those who were higher in office at the time, and who would naturally know more about the matter-

-He repeated his assurance that he knew nothing of the transaction till it was over. He only heard of it from a communication sent him by the late Mr. Justice Bosanquet and Mr. Justice Patteson, remonstrating on the step that had been taken after the circumstance had taken place. The noble Earl had stated that he ought to have done that under the circumstances which the noble Earl was himself unable to do, namely, pass an act of Parliament under circumstances which it was impossible to do—that is, to pass an act when he was, as the noble Earl was himself now, in a minority in that House. And what would have hap- pened if he had brought in a bill on the subject? Why, it would have been thrown out. But he should not have approved of any bill of the kind; for he thought that 10,000/ a year was a fit and proper salary of the ,Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and he should persist in calling it so; and those who chose to make a change, and also to say "queendom" and not "kingdom," might do m. "-I ho we shall retrace our steps; something ought to be done. I have in- of the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, whether he understood was any arrangement for cutting down the salary; and he said no; adding, that had be known it, he should have thought twice before giving up a lucrative practice to take it."

Lord CAriceaRLI. expressed the same opinion as Lord Brougham in re- ference to the illegality of the arrangement with Lord Denman— He never for a moment imagined that Lord Brougham had neglected to bring in the necessary bill providing that the salary o. the Chief Justice of the King's

Beach be reduced to 8,0001., and that of the C Justice of the Common Pleas to 7,0001. a year. Lord Brougham had now told the House that he could not have carried such a bill: but Lord Campbell knew that his noble and learned friend had carried bills despite of the large majorities with which his mea- sures were threatened; and lie also knew that if he had introduced a bill on this subject, it would have passed both Houses of the Legislature with perfect anis- nimity.

Lord BROUGHAM denied that it was any part of the duty of the Lord Chancellor to frame acts of Parliament on the mere reports of Committees of the other House.

The -Loan CHANCELLOR agreed in thinking that there ought to have been an act of Parliament— When his noble and learned friend found out that the Lord Chief Justice's salary had been reduced, then he should have put it either into proper form or the salary should have remained 10,0001. Either the salary ought to remain 10,000/, or there ought to be an act of Parliament to make it 8,0001. Lord Brougham ha alluded to some supposed understanding with the present Lord Chief Justice; but he utterly disbelieved that anything of the kind had passed. He succeeded to the office, and of course succeeded to the office with all the emoluments belonging to it.

THE HARDIEGE AND GOUGH ANNUITIES.

On Thursday, the Marquis of LANsnowNE, bringing up the report on Viscount Hardinge and Lord Gough's Annuity Bills, moved that the bills be restored to their original state— It ought to be remembered that the grants were not made as a pecuniary re- compense for splendid military services, but as a provision for the dignities to which the new Peers had been raised. On no occasion had a larger provision been made than that granted to Viscount Hardinge in the original bill. It bad been urged that the provision of the East India Company ought to be kept out of view: but it was impossible that this could be done. The sovereignty of the East India Company is delegated from the Crown; and it is well known that in many in- stances rewards from the Company have been held to supersede the demand for a reward from the Crown. It was also desirable that their Lordships should avoid a collision with the House of Commons on the subject of a money bill. If they sent down the bill, they would be sending down a money plan proposed by them- selves; and the consequence would be, not only the rejection of the proposition, but increased jealousy on the part of the other House in reference to such questions. Lord Lansdowne mentioned, that just before coming down to the House, he had received a letter from Viscountess Harding; intimating, on the part of Lord Hardinge's family, their perfect satisfaction at the amount of the original provision, and their wish that unanimity should prevail in Parliament on the subject.

The motion was opposed by the Duke of RICHMOND and Lord Bement- AM; and supported by the Earl of Ittrott and the Duke of' WELLING-Tow. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE and the Earls of GALLOWAY and WICK- LOW acknowledged that they had received new light on the subject from the Ministerial explanations, and would vote for the motion, although it went to rescind what they had previously supported.

The Duke of RICHMOND referred to the preamble of the bill, to show that the Marquis of Lansdowne was wrong in saying that the annuities were not given as a reward for military services. On any other but a public question he should have yielded to the wishes of Viscountess Hardinge. The East India Company would not in future be foolish enough to grant such large sums to public servants, when they saw that advantage was taken of their liberality to save the public exchequer. The Earl of Meow showed that it was a mistake to suppose that the East India Company, in granting these pensions, were paying the money from their own funds. Since the suppression of their monopoly, the revenues they adminis- tered were not their own, but the property of the public. Lord BROUGHAM contended that the revenues administered by the East India Company were not the property of the public: it was true that the revenues would not go into the pockets of the individual stockholders, but they would go to the Company as a corporation. He insisted upon the right of the House of Lords to consider freely what reception they were to give to money bills which came from the Commons.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, it was an understood arrangement between the two Houses of Parliament that their Lordships should not alter a money grant in a bill of supply; and he did not think that Lord Brougham could pro- duce a single instance of their ever having done so. The previous vote on these bills ought not to have been given; because, if adhered to, it must follow that the bills would be rejected; and in the position in which matters stood it was very desirable they should not be lost.

The House divided—For the motion, 47; against it, 18. So the bill is restored to its original form.

CAPTAIN WARNER'S INVENTIONS. In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord INGESTRE moved to address the Queen, praying for the investigation of the Warner "invisible shell" and "long range" inventions. This led to a repetition of what is already well known about the failure of previous negotiations, through the objections raised by Mr. Warner to one thing or other connected with the ordeal to which his inventions were to be subjected, or to the persona by whom the experiments were to be conducted. On the present occasion, Lord INGEST= withdrew his motion, in consequence of an assurance from the CHANcELLoR of the EXCHEQUER, that the Government were perfectly prepared to appoint im- partial officers, to whom there could be no objection, to investigate the merits of the inventions, and that a thorough consideration would be given to whatever report might be made by those officers.

New Waurs have been issued, for St. Ives, in the room of Mr. William Ty- ringham Praed, deceased; for the County of Kilkenny, in the room of Colonel Butler, deceased; for Sutherland, in the room of Mr. Dundas, the new Solicitor- General.

THE PEERS' PROTEST AGAINST THE CORN Bum.. Earl RADNOR brought under notice, on Thursday, an irregularity which occurred in the case of the pro- test placed on the Journals of the Peers against the third reading of the Corn Bill. It was a rule that no protest could be signed except by those who were pre- sent when the question was put; but of the ninety-three Peers who had signed the protest in question, not one-third were present at the division; and about a dozen were present at no stage of the discussion. Lord BROUGHAM confirmed Earl Radnor s statement of the practice of Parliament: the irregularity had, no doubt, arisen from inadvertence. The conversation had no result.