Deflates Ent Vrottaings in Iglarlfainent.

THE CORN Bum.

On Monday, before the Lords entered into Committee on the Corn Im- portation Bill, the Bishop of ST. DAVID'S begged to make an explanation on a matter affecting personal character. This led also to an explanation from the Bishop of SALISBURY; and to a kind of debate, in which Lord 'STANLEY, the Earl of MALMESBURY, the Earl of HARDWICKE, the Bishop Of OXFORD, and the Earl of WINCHILSEA took part. The Bishop of Sr. Haynes wished to correct a mistake committed by Lord Stanley on Friday evening, during the Bishop's accidental absence from the House,—namely, that there was a difference in the sources from which the Bishops and the rest of the clergy derived their incomes; and that the circum- stance would make a great impression on the country. Speaking for himself, he wished to state, that of his public income very little more than one-third was de- :rived from fixed payments; and with regard to the rest—very little less than two-thirds—it was subject to reduction in consequence of any depreciation that might take place in the prices of agricultural produce, exactly in the same pro- portion as that of any of the clergy.

Lord STANLEY remarked, that the Bishop of St. David's, in the course of his Friday's speech, had spoken of motives, and had acquitted their Lordships of being actuated by any considerations connected with their own interests; but added, that a different impression might exist out of doors. In commenting upon this, Lord Stanley had expressed the same opinion as to the Episcopal Bench; and added, that the public would draw the same inference as to the Bishops' ure as the Bishop of St. David's said they would do in reference to their ships'. He had asserted that there was a broad distinction between the in- comes of the Bishops and those of the parochial clergy. The amount of the latter 'fell as the value of corn fell; but in the case of the Bishops, the fixed income part would undergo an increase in value from diminished prices.

The Bishop of SALISBURY said, that of the twenty-six English Prelates who bad seats in that House, fourteen, including-himself, received no portion of their income by fixed payment Like their Lordship?, they derived their income from landed property, except that they probably derived a larger portion than other members of that House from impropnate tithes—a description of property more likely than any other to be affected by. the operation of this bilL Four of the Prelates had to pay fixed charges out of uncertain incomes; and of those four, three had recorded their votes in favour of this bill. Two-thirds of the Bishops, then, were altogether removed from the possibility of any such imputation as that which had-been alluded to; one-third of them, in some small degree, per- haps, approaching to the extent of one-third of their incomes, were certainly re- ceiving fixed payments; but were none of their Lordships deriving fixed incomes from Funded property and other sources not liable to be affected by the fluctua- tions of corn ?

The Earl of Hsecowicss observed,_ that throughout the debate -nothing like personality or the imputation of motives had taken place, until the time when certain right reverend prelates had addressed the House for the first time. He was certain that those two right reverend Prelates, being young-members of their Lordships' House, had not been accustomed to observe the manner in which the right reverend Prelates generally were in the habit of conducting themselves in their Lordships' House daring debate, avoiding at all times the imputation of motives against any noble Lord. The Bishop of OxeoRD would not submit to be lectured in this style. He challenged any one to show that he had imputed motives. It was a very easy thing for a noble Lord to stand up and talk about his opponents in argument being young men: but why should he who for nearly forty years bad studiously, not carelessly, contemplated books, men, and things, not be permitted to deliver a plain opinion on a question without being taunted, by the noble Lord as being a young man? (Some laughter, followed by cheers.) He should consider it a far greater shame if, being other than young, he were on the wrong side of the argu Anent.

The Earl of WDTCHILSEA had sat in the House for nearly twenty years, and could conscientiously say that ho had never heard a lecture more strongly ad- ministered than that which was delivered by the Bishop of Oxford himself.

The Earl of GALLOWAY remarked, that the Bishop of Oxford was exposed to continual interruptions during his speech; and it was a marvel to him how he bore them with so much good humour. Their Lordships then resolved into a Committee on the Corn Bill.

On the first clause being read,

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM moved the amendment of which he had given notices—

According to the bill as it stood, the duties in the schedule were to cease on :the let February. 1849, and then there was to be a duty of ls. a quarter on wheat, barley, &c. With the view of affording some degree of protection, he pro- ,posed to leave out the data of the 1st February 1849, so that the duties in the schedule, according to which there was to be a duty of 10a. a quarter when wheat was 48s., would continue in force afterwards. He hoped those Peers who had taken part at Protection meetings would support his amendment; and he claimed the support also of those who preferred a fixed duty to a sliding scale. By acting in this way, they would not be going in opposition to their vote on the second sealing, but would be reserving some shadow of protection to the landed interest. Whatever the result might be, those who acted on his advice could reflect that they had with clean hands and clear consciences done what they considered just to the country at large.

The Earl of RIPON objected to the amendment—

The continuance of the sliding scale for three years was not adopted by the Government as a compromise: he would never have been a party to any compromise so miserable. The reason for the introduction of that clause was this—as a very great change was about to be made, it appeared to the Govern- ment advisable that there should be some gradation in the process of effecting that change. He would not allude to any circumstances which might here- after arise if this amendment should be carried; but he begged to say, that the amendment did in point of fact involve an entire alteration of the principle of the bill, for it professed to give permanency to that protection which it was the object of the bill after a limited time to remove. But the amendment was ob- lectionable even as regarded the object of his noble friend; and the Dake himself did not appear to attach any great importance to it. He spoke of it as merely preserving a remnant of protection: bat Lord Ripon could not think that it was de- sirable to preserve a remnant of protection, for it had been contended that that remnant was not wo:th having.

The amendment was supported by the Earls of Cneace.aurv,STannome, and HAaDwICsE, and Lord BEACMCGIE;-sanikopposed by the Marquis of Bova and Lord KINNAIRD.

Amid STANHOPE wouldamppit4 the amenciment,tbecanse no one could say what would be the situationif; the‘country three years hence. In the course of next yeanthere would-be an mealy e° the country. He should be very much surprised, anduhould regret if the laweowiservile-syconts of Ministers, those who crept Elie filthy " reptiles," shouldee brought intoliament again. As a measure of protection this amendment Nessaudicrous and inefficient; but he should vote for it, because it upheld the principle of protection. Lord Basumoirr said, he did not vote for the amendment because he thought any benefit would arise from it. If the protection was to be withdrawn at the end of three years, it would be more injurious to landlord and tenant than if the withdrawal were to be immediate. By passing the present measure, they would be guilty of the absurdity of adopting a pretended sliding scale for three years, without any of the benefits of the sliding scale. Lord Kuntainn--" Why, then, do yea seek to perpetuate this absurdity?" Lord BEAUMONT said, that they sought to perpetuate it because they did not wish to legislate for a future Parliament. The Marquis of Bum said, that from conversations he had held with many farmers, he was persuaded it was their impression that either an effectual 'Me- tiers or none at all was for their real interest. His experience had led to think that in many parts of this kingdom the farmers did not participate in the fears that had been expressed by some of their Lordships. The Earl of HARDWICK& said, that the sepporters of the amendment were ex- tremely anxious to maintain a fragment of protection that they might have the opportunity of asking the country at a future day their opinion upon it. That was the reason why he supported the amendment.

Lord KINNAIRD assured their Lordships that it was not protection which was wanted, but a better system of farming. Were the land made to produce what it ought, the English farmer, with his means and advantages, could compete with all the world. Land up the Ohio was producing but ten bushels an acre, and we must make our land grow twenty-eight or thirty. In Ireland two adjoining fields were so cultivated, that one produced a net profit of 231. 7s. 6d., to the other's 61. 12s. 6d. Where this system of better farming prevailed, rents were rising. In one instance in Scotland a grain-rent of 6001. a year had risen to one of 8501. in money; and there were many similar cases. So in England, Mr. Simpson, the well-known land-agent—who observed, that whereas he had been a thoroughgoing Protectionist, three years' experience of. Sir Robert _Peers _bill "had made the sliding and other scales fall from his eyes "—had remarked lately, "I never experienced a greater facility in the letting or sale of estates."

The Committee divided—For the Duke of Buckingham's amendment, 103; against it, 136; .Free-trade majority, 33. On the motion of the Duke of •RIOH2dOND, the.Committee was adjourned, soon after eleven o'clock.

On Tuesday, the Earl of Wrownow moved as amamendment to the first clause, that after the 1st February 1849, the duty on wheat not thepro- duce of our own Colonies be 5s. instead of le.

If his amendment were sanctioned, he should propose-a proportionate duty'on the other kinds of grain. Steadiness of price was one of the great objects con- templated by the bill; and he did not think that a fixed duty of 5s. would have any effect in causing fluctuation. The protection-of 5s. would be advantageous to the farmers, and it would also benefit the revenue. If the alterations in the Sugar-duties advocated by Lord Monteagle, were adopted, there would then be such a revenue from sugar and from corn as would render it possible to reduce one half of the Income-tax. He knew that the proposition, if carried, must defeat the bill; but he was most anxious to do so, because he was desirous of getting a better 'and a more serviceable bill. The Marquis of CLswares.mme-spoke against the amendment; the .Earl of Catistesvow and Lord. DE MAULEY, for; Lord Ctoiectrmir, against; the Earl of WINCHILSEA and Lord POLWA.RTH, for; the Earl of TEez- lemmata and Lord BROUGHAM, against; Lord Ssraunint,. for; rthe.Marquis of LANSDOWNE, against.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, with the view of upholding -hie oonsistency, referred to a speech which he delivered in 184.1, and in which he expressed his opinion that protection to agriculture should be reduced as speedily as it could be done safely. He bad -HO apprehension that foi8fgaeompeStion would injure the English farmer. He considered that a small fixed duty of 5a. or 4a. would have been useful as a matter of revenue, and not felt as a burden by the con- sumer; but looking stall the circumstances connected with the manner in which the subject had been brought before their Lordships, he did not think it advisable to hazard the measure by voting for the amendment. He ridiculed the notion that Sir Robert Peel was the greatest Minister of the day." He did not con- sider him to be a man of foresight. Some of his followers died fighting as it were in the hist ditch, but Sir Robert himself always surrendered in time and e.telis- cretion. The Earl of CARNARVON feared that there would be a rapid and extensive diminution of prices, and then would come upon the tenant-farmers of England that deep distress which his heart bled to think of. It was unfair to oppose the amendment on the ground that its success would involve the loss of the bill: another bill could be brought in. This might occasion some delay; but was the inconvenience of delay to be compared to the incalculable evil of the adoption of a vast and ill-considered legislative measure affecting so many great and varied interests of the country as this bill would affect?

Lord CLONCURBY complimented Ministers on the success of their precautions to relieve Irish scarcity. Had it not been for the assistance rendered, great mul- titudes world have died of famine or consequent disease.

Lord POLWARTH wished to explain the reason why rents had risen in Scot- land: it was not owing to the Ministerial measure of 1842, but was to be assigned to the great im vements which had taken place on the farms during the pre-

vious leases. any of the farmers in Scotland disapproved of this bill.

Earl Frrzwrtuzur was anxious that the question should be settled; but he did not approve of the settlement provided for in the bill,—although he should vote for it, to prevent the measure from being lost. He thought tJae:House had been ill-treated by Ministers: their Lordships ought to have had a voice in this question, by resolutions, and ought not to have been driven into a corner. The course of Ministers was not in keeping with the character of men who had ob tamed power from the aristocracy and landed interest of England, which aristo- cracy was most intimately connected with the agricultural democracy. He loved that democracy, though lately he had been rejected by a portion of it for the vote he had given on the second reading of this bill. He would not run the risk of losing the bill; he would not run the risk of a general election upon it; and he did not think Ministers would. Lord Briouomara agreed with Lord Fitzwilliam in thinking that their Lord ships were placed in a corner--but only physically, and not politically. He was surprised to hear Lord Fitz william say that he would shrink from a new election; for Lord Brougham's opinion was that the verdict of the country would be for the Government and for the bill. He wished to administer comfort to those alarmed individuals, whom he greatly esteemed, but who seemed to feed on the chimeras of their own imagination. To them he would say, that he had received accounts of recent sales of land at prices which showed that the purchasers had no fear of in- jury from the repeal of the Corn-laws. In one of the cases the price fetched was so high as to astonish the Protectionist auctioneer, and almost .to make him a Free-trader. In-almost every case the price exceeded the valuation; and, what is more remarkable still, this happened in the neighbourhood of -the Bentinck es- tates, a relative of whose proprieter.hadmade-himeelf congpieuous of late-in strong language against the measure. Lord Brougham had always-hem an opponent to 4 fixed duty on corn: it-was taxing the food of the people; it was to all intents and purposes a poll-tax. There was little chance of the question being decided by its merits. There had been-such a marvellous combination, such unparalleled suignalarity of critical position among all parties—such an extraordinary concate- nation of singular, inconsistent, and conflicting elements, to form one general, -:grand, and, as he hoped, wholesome and useful result—as he had never before witnessed with respect to any measure or question. It had been alleged that many persons had voted in both Houses in favour of the bill, not from love of free trade, but to prevent a change of Government; but a noble Earl, himself a Pro- tectionist, had cut away that ground, for he told their Lordships that a change of Government was inevitable. Indeed, so completely was the noble Earl a con- vert to-this opinion, -that he addressed his noble friends on the Opposition, side, particularly his noble friend near him, who was he presumed to be the First Lord of the Treasury, and tendered them some advice for the purpose of smoothing their way to office. Lord Brougham, however, would not place the least credit in the prediction. Earl Fitzwilliam had implored -noble Lords on his aide of the House not to think of anything so vile as a coalition. But their Lordships need not be alarmed; they need not be frighted from their propriety by any fear of so horrible an event. A coalition required two parties; and he bad no belief what- ever in any willingness on the part of his noble friends opposite to tend themselves to-any such coalition. But had his noble friends looked at what was going on elsewhere to protect Ministers against a coalition in the other House of Parlia- ment to turn them out of office and thus jeopardize the Corn Bill? The object of the meetings to-which he referred was clear; for the speakers said, " We must make the Coercion Bill last very long in the House of Commons, that the Corn Bill may be quite safe; because if the Government is turned out the bill is lost." He judged from information he had received from a person who was present, and who had told him that a person from the sister kingdom undertook that there -should be long debates, and no better persons were there for making long debates

than these great orators; and he bad found that the Coercion Bill was put off from day to day. It had been postponed till Thursday, and then, no doubt, it would be put off Monday; and if their Lordships didnot deckle upon the Corn Mill, the Coercion Bill would atilt be postponed.

Lord -Sresii.nr made the House laugh at the expense of Lord Brougham. That learned Lord, he observed, had complained of the fatigue of listening to speeches which had no connexion with the question; a fatigue which, as he said, was severely felt by one who, like himself, was not in the prime of youth and beauty. (Roars of daughter.) " Now, my noble and learned friend did himself .injustice. Lam sure -when your Lordships look at Any noble and learned friend, you will.be reminded, as I was myself, of these lines of Milton- ' And now-a-striplingelterub he appeass--4/aattlatightes)— &Tot of the-prime, yet such as in his face

-Youth smiletteelestial,and to every limb Suitable grace ditiused.' • (armlets/Wider.)

After these complaints of the effects which my noble and learned.friend—who, as -he says, is not now of the prime'—experienced from the heat, and from the fatigue of this long discussion, he proceeded, not indeed to the amendment now before the House, but to a variety of subjects more or less,.but I must say rather less than more, connected with this question." •After playing with some of Lord -Brougham's arguments, Lord Stanley proceeded to deny all knowledge of the-pri- vate meetings and coalitions of which he had spoken. But this he would not deny, that the present measure had arrived at its present stage by a most eat:a- ordinary combination of parties. "I sup se we shall be overpowered; but we

have put a plain case and plain reasoning re the public and the country. The

• noble and learned Lord says that the Gerrernment is not likely to resign. Revoke, indeed, as if he were supporting a Government in power. (A. laugh.) I don't doubt the sincerity of my noble and learned friend's conviction that the Govern- ment are to remain irr office. Perhaps he thinks that if the Government.fall, the prospects—of the country, of course I mean—are not likely to be improved brit." (A, laugh.) The Marquis of Lastsnowatt -remarked, that his noble-'friend's search after information had not confined itself to this or the other House of Parliament, but had extended to,private houses, from which be had provided himself with not -very accurate reports. Bat there was one house to which his -noble-friend had -thought tit to allude, with respect to which he humbly conceived he -had -the means• of giving ,more -accurate information -than -the -noble -and learned lord. i Now, with that information in his possession, he begged distinctly to state, that what took place in that private house, to which he would not have alluded if the noble and learned Lord had not done so, WA the reverse of what he had stated. It related in no degree-whatever to •the born -Bill, but -solely to what was called the Coercion Bill; and the oniradvieti given by -the personinthattneeting who -was:most likely to-influence its decisions, was not-to protract thodiscussion on that Bill. If his noble -and learned friend had reporters in private houses, the ought' tobe better iaformed than he appeared to -be as to what tookplace within them. The Marquis could safely defy any person to e:pointout any'rs- nage in the speeches which he-had at any.time addressed to the House inwluch he had supported. a-fixed duty hinny other -sense-than that of revenue. -But;-since--the noble Earl opposite -bad seen ,the necessity of proposing a fixed duty, and

still further of bringing it down-toes., Lord.Lansdowne- did net think that either the amount of revenue which he regarded, or the amount of protection which other noble Lords -regarded, -was worth • contending -for, compared-with-the pro- • spect of a settlement of this great question.

Lord BROUGHAM rose to explain, but was met by sounds of impatience. He would not yield to cries. He stood on his defence; he -had been attacked, and by God's blessing he would let those who.attacked him know it. He had notques- tioned the purity of the noble Marquis's conduct; -but would it -not be implied from what had just been said, that the Marquis accused him of collecting-infor- mation as an eavesdropper of what passed at a meeting within the walls of a private mansion ? When meetings were called by circular—when reports of what took place appeared in the newspapers and extended to a column and a half —when, people talked to each other at the corner of every street about what took place—there was surely an end of all secrecy. But, after all the advice given by the " influential " person spoken of, not to protract the debate on the Coercion Bill, had been anything but followed. Lord Stanley, with the view of enabling him to bring in his quotation from Milten—a very excellent joke he admitted— had put in a word which Lord Brougham never used. He never dreamed of using that word—a word which he, at his time of life, as well as Lord Stanley at his less advanced time of life, had both of them the greatest possible interest in razing out of their vocabularies. He repelled with indignation the insinuation conveyed in Lord Stanley's closing remarks. He defied any man breathing to cast the

i

shadow of a shade of an imputation on his motives in defending the measures of the present Government. It was no fault of others—it was his own fault, and his fault only—that he was out of office, a supporter merely and a friend of the present Government. That Government was no sooner formed than he declined, ' firmly but respectfully declined, most high and brilliant offers. This should not have been wrung from him but for the imputation conveyed (unintentionally, he believed) by his noble friend. He certainly had chosen to be unconnected with office—to hold no office, either judicial or otherwise, in or in connexion with the present Government; for reasons of his own—for reasons applying to his own personal convenience, and from no want of respect for them, from no want of con-. fidence in them, or want of friendship for them individually. The Earl of BESBOROUGH corroborated Lord Lansdowne's statement as ,to -what took place at the meeting referred to

Thettommittee divided—for Lorillrtoklow's amendment, 10Z;-agnietst it, 140; Free-trade majority, 33. It was-agreed that the remaining clauses of the bill should be consideTel -on-Friday. The House adjourned-at half,past one o'clock.

lentraTrEs TO LORDS HARDIRGE AND GOUGH.

On Tuesday, the Earl of Rtrou moved the,postponement of the report of the Committees on the annuities to Lords Hardinge and Gough, until a day to be afterwards named. This led to a short conversation, with an indication of the intentions -of Government on the subjeot of a reversal-of -the. previous Note.

-Earl GREY hoped the Government meant to.-give their Lordships an oppor- tunity of reviewing that decision.' and if they did he should certainly support them. The previous decision had been come to in the absence-of many Peers. The Duke of RICHMOND said, when he asked the Government if they meant to reverse the decision, he had understood Lord Ripon to say that nothing of the kind would be attempted. The Earl of-Ripon was not conscious of having given any-such assurance: certainly he had-not intended to convey the idea that the Government would not avail themselves of the forms of the House to alter the decision which had been come to. The -Earls of St. GERMANS and ii;LLIUI- MOROUGH confirmed this statement.

The motion was agreed to.

THE IRISH COERCION BILL.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the adjourned debate on the se- cond reading of the Preservation of Life (Ireland) Bill was begun by Lard WORSLEY, who spoke in opposition. He was followed by Sir Rosa= -hams who spoke in favour; by Mr. BOWMAN, who spoke against; hy

'

Mr.-CcLanuomt who would only support the second reading on certain conditions; by Colonel SIBTHORPE, against; by Lord Joint RUSSELL mud air. DISRAELI, against. Sir ROBERT PHEL spoke in explanation. Lord WORSLEY mentioned as one of his particular objections to the bill,-that the Government had not tried the effect of a just and prudent administration of the existing. laws. Until this were done, the-Minister was not justified in bring- ing forward a measure of the present description. It was not likely that the Irish people-would place confidence in a Government which has endeavoured to .stay the progress and development of municipal reform-and the extension of the franchise. Great expectations of the-administration of Lord Eliot had been en- tertained; but they had not been realized. Had it not been for Mr. O'Connell'a -prudence, the means employed by the Government to put an end to Repeal meet- --mgs-would have endangered the public peace. One act of justice, however, had been done: the grant to Maynooth had been increased, and money appropriated to the building of Colleges. He believed -that the measure now -under discussion would-be ineffectual for any beneficialpurposo; but thought that the substitu- tion of mild though determined measures would be likely to produce tranquillity in the country, and tend to remove dislike to-English governments by degrees. -Sir ROBBRT.INGLIS thought the delay -which bad taken place with the bill totally inexplicable. Deeming the question, -however, as one upon which the responsibility of the Government was mainly involved, he was bound to give to Sir Robert Peel the same support which under like circumstances he would ex- tend to-Lord John Russell. He considered the measure as one of police; and he should give the same confidence to the Government, in any measure connected with the police of Kent or Cumberland,'aslie had given them with respect to the -five disturbed counties of Ireland. He should vote for the second reading of the bill;•batits provisions must not be altered in Committee.

Mr.-HorismaN could •not vote against -the bill on the ground of any want of evidence as to -the amount of crime; nor would he vote against it on the ground that the Government had not pressed it forward with due diligence. He opposed -it because he looked upon it as part of -the old impolitic and sanguinary system which had-been productive of disastrous consequences to Ireland in times past. Mr. Conannotai would not vote for the second reading, unless he received an -assurance from-Ministers that they were determined to stand by the clauses which

had been objected to by Lord John Russell. If these clauses were expunged, the bill would be worthless. Mr. Colquhoun touched upon the question, whether it would be better for the Conservative party that Sir Robert Peel were continued in office or that he be expelled and Lord John Russell put into the vacant place. He strongly objected to the adoption of Whig measures by the Conservatives; and arrived at the conclusion that no good could arise from retaining the present Mina' try in power. The course pursued by. Sir Robert Peelwould prove fatal to

y party.

anLord one RUSSELL could not assent to .Sir Robert Inglis's doctrine, that if a-measure were introduced on the responsibility of Government for the protection of life and property,. (that being the assumption on the present bill,) it was the duty of Parliament to assent to such a bill. That was a proposition conttrraarry to -all his notions of Parliamentary duty. In commencing his examination of the-bill, he was-tempted to take that course which a -Minister sometimes adopted in re- posing important measures, namely, to Callon the Clerk of the House to refer-to that paragraph in her Majesty's Speech which directed attention to this particular measure. On thepresent occasion the Minister eonld hardly. take such a course, because that very Queen's Speech afforded an argument against proceeding with the bill in its present shape. By delaying this measure five months after•mich an announcement, it was clear that the Minister could have no very great confi- dence in-the efficacy of its provisions. It is said that the course of public Mad- ness was the cause of the delay: but if Ministers attached so much importance to the-measure, and fearing at the same time that there was an insufficiency of food, they might have adopted a temporary measure for admitting food into -Ireland and another for protecting life and property; leaving the great question of the Glom-laws as a permanent measure for future consideration. Their better course in that case would have been, not to have advised her Majesty to make any allusion to the subject in the Speech from the Throne,-but to reserve-them- selves till the Corn and Customs measures passed the House, smd then take the state of Ireland into consideration.

In proposing. the present measure,-the Chief Secretary for Ireland dwelt upon offences not different either in character or in amount from the outrages which have been stated ever since Lord Johiknew anything of Ireland. Those -are unfortunate outrages belonging to-a state Of havlessness and combination against the authorities intrusted with the administration of justice; but they hardly, foam sufficient groundwork for this measure. Lord Lincoln had. appealed to him on the subject of his own measure of 18115: but his reply to that appeal would be, that ever), case ought to be tried on its own merits. The bill of 1883 was much more stringent than that now proposed, but it was accompanied with certain ameliorative and remedial measures. In 1834 it was mitigated; in 1885 it was mitigated still further; and on that occasion Ministers declared that they in- tended to govern Ireland on principles more congenial to the feelings and affec- tions of the people than before. Confidence was placed in these professions, and the bill was never put into operation. As to the question of crime upon which the present measure was based, he thought the statistics ought not to be confined to the five counties, but should embrace the aggregate of Ireland; and if this were done, it would be found that crime had decreased considerably. He did not think there was anything in the statements and details produced by Ministers -which should convince him that anything beyond the powers -which already existed to repress, detect, and punish crime, ought to be

granted. Lord John controverted the opinion expressed by Lord Lincoln, that the origin of moot of the crimes was not agrarian. He believed, on the contrary, that competition for land was the great source of Irish crime. He repeated his objection to the clause which empowered the Lord-Lieutenant to shut up persons in certain districts within their own houses from sunset to sunrise; and he would move its omission in Committee. As this was the most essential part of the bill, he thought it better to offer his resistance to the whole measure on the present occasion than to reserve his objections for the Committee. If he had objected to the first reading, he would have been accused of factiously refusing to consider so important a measure as that which related to the preservation of life in Ireland: but he took care to signify objections which, as he then stated, went to the very foundation of the bill, and thus prepared the Government for any refusal of sup- port. He opposed the bill, then, on the grounds that the general state of crime did not warrant a measure of such extraordinary severity; and that with regard

to the few districts in which crime has greatly increased, no expectation hasn held out that the measure will be accompanied or followed by ameliorative or re- medial measures.

He had no political confidence in the Government; and no wonder, looking at the policy they had adopted. The measures they have introduced both with re- spect to England and Ireland are testimony—not a testimony in words, but a practical testimony—that in former years, as far as their opinions go, they were mistaken, and we were right. He did not impute to them wrong motives. "I

am not saying they were not perfectly persuaded in former years that their

course was a right one, nor that they are not persuaded in the present year that their altered course is for the benefit of the country; but I use this argu- ment to show that I am not bound at least by theit authority, and that where I have differed from them—where I have had the misfortune to ask them to propose other measures, which they have refused to introduce—they have after-

wards, by their conduct, allowed that those who on this side of the House

urged those measures took the wiser view of the interests of the country." When the Whigs attempted an improved system of education, they were slan- dered; when they attempted to knit in bonds of affection the people of England

and Ireland, they were slandered; when they attempted on the ground that there was a greatly increased population in this country to relax those protective laws

that prevented the introduction of food into this country, they were slandered. He acquitted Sr Robert Peel of having indulged in the imputation of dishonour- able motives against the Government; but his colleagues and those who acted

with him indulged freely in such imputations. Now look at their own course as a Minis "The measures that we proposed with respect to education it is their boast thattry. they have carried farther. The principles that we professed to adopt

towards Ireland, they have adopted; and they have attempted in the last and the present sessions to act upon these principles. With regard to the admission of food from foreign countries, they have gone far beyond what we proposed." He thought that, 'under these circumstances, Ministers were bound to make the

. amends honorable. "And now when this great measure, upon which we mainly supported them, has quitted this House, I will more confidently say so—I did wish some expression of regret that honourable men, doing that which they thought was their duty to the country and to the people of these realms, should have so long been the object of slander and calumny, when they who embarked in those glanders and calumnies now admit we were in the right." Take Sir James Graham for an example. " Why, Sir, the right honourable gentleman opposite, the Secre- tary for the Home Department—and I allude the more readily to him because he has not yet spoken in this debate—accused us, when we were going out, of being . like pirates who set fire to the ship; and it now appears that, having got posses- sion of the ship, they have lived upon the stores which we left there. (Cheers and laughter.) They have guided themselves by the charts which we have de- posited in the cabin; they have steered by the compass which we left on the deck. And, having so done, I think it would have been hardly too much, if they had on soide Occasion or other, on some night or other out of years of debate, ex- pressed some regret that we had been made the.subject of so mnch.reproach for the coarse we thought ourselves bound to take—if they had considered,that it was no light matter to bo charged before the country, and with very considerable impression resulting, as promoting measures that tended to set up a Popish Go- vernment is this country, instead of our ancient constitution—as promoting mea- sures that tended to rob and destroy the agricultural interest. For my own part, • I have felt deeply, I will not deny, both the buoyancy and the success of those measures; and, seeing measures founded on the same principles succeed in this House, and I trust succeed in Parliament, I think it would have been little more than justice to confess that we were not justly liable to those invectives for pur- suing a course which, in effect, was only seeing what was required a little earlier than her Majesty's Ministers."

Reverting to theqaestion before. the House, Lord John made an earnest appeal to those Members who, disapproving ofthe measure, were nevertheless inclined to support it with the view of keeping the Ministry in office. He understood there are gentlemen who although they disapprove of the measure are determined to • vote for it rather than shako the stability of the Administration. Let these gen- tlemen leek at the case of Ireland.. There is a numerous body there—far more . numerous than is generally supposed—who think that a domestic Legislature can alone remedy the evils which afflict their country. lint he had found in a news- . paper published -in Dublin, and of large circulation, sentiments expressed which go far beyond a domestic Legislature. To such a party he thought the English Parliament was bound to show that they can legislate for Ireland as well and as beneficially as if they legislated in Ireland. " But if you say—` We have no confi- dence in the Government; we think this a bad measure, we think it an unconsti- tutional measure; but nevertheless we will allow it to pass because there are de- pending, other measures more especially relating to England, and for the benefit of England, going along with or shortly preceding if—look what an argument you will make, and how it will be caught at by those who advocate a repeal of the Union, and by others who look to ulterior measures. They will say, and not un- truly= You miserable peasants, you are to be shut up from sunset to sunrise; you are obliged to be kept in your miserable hovels; it you go out to look for a stray cow—if you visit a parent who is sick in a cottage situate a few miles from your own home—you will be liable to transportation; not for the purpose of securing to the people their liberty, but because English measures are passing the Parliament at the same time, and for the sake of those .

measures these restriction. ariiiiflicted on you. Now, tell us, ay or no, whether , the Parliament of England and of Scotland is fit to legislate for Ireland; and will you not seek for a domestic Legislature? will you not use your utmost efforts to obtain a repeal of the Union ?' (Cheers.) What will be the answer to such an appeal but the unanimous shout and the unanimous effort of a people who shall he so used, embodied in the declaration—' We have not justice! we are . determined to obtain justice; and it is now proved that we cannot obtain it from the Parliament of England and of Scotland?' I say, let the House hesitate before it enables the people to give such an answer, if it wishes, as 1 do, to maintain the . Union—if it mules to improve the Union, and to make it the source of happiness . —of increased right—of blessingi to Ireland as well as to England, and of in- creased strength iu future times to the United Empire: let the .House beware how it thus weakens the links which bind the two countries together; let us not set far apart the governors mid the governed; do not permit the Irish to believe that we are indifferent to their affairs, and that out care and our interest are centred only in measures which relate to this country: I say that if you are ppeerrssuaded this measure is right, pass its second reading, and allow it to go through Committee: hot if you are not so persuaded, give it no sanction, and let it be at , once rejected; because the loss of confidence which. will fellow the belief• of such conduct and of such maxims wilt not be temporary; 'and it will not be repeired in

one year, or in five years, or in ten years, but it will be an irrevocable loss." (Much cheering.) Mr. Disowns' expressed his regret that the fate of a Ministry is supposed to depend after all upon an Irish subject. That,' however, is no fault of his party. It could not be denied that the time had now arrived when it was impossible to consider a Coercion Bill for Ireland apart from the general circumstances that disturb society in that country. He specified days and dates with the view of

showing the little anxiety displayed by Ministers to push on the measure; and as- serted that the circumstance afforded prima facie evidence for coming to the con- clusion that there has not been an earnest, even if there has been a serious, in- tention on the part of her Majesty's Government in forwarding this bill.

After further show of arguing against the bill, Mr.Disraeli went on to the main business of his speech—an attack on Sir Robert Peel, in the shape of a reply to Sir Robert's defence, last Friday evening, against the charges made against him by Lord George Bentinck, that in 1827 he chased and hunted Mr. Canning to the death; and that he told the House of Commons in 1829, that he had changed his opinions on the subject of the Catholic claims in 1825, which change he intimated to Lord Liverpood at the time, but which change he concealed in 1827. Mr. Disraeli first replied to Sir Robert Peel's remark that Lord George Bentinck had assumed for the first time a licence in speech that was injurious to the cause of legitimate debate. In defence of the strong language commented upon, Mr. Disraeli quoted from a speech delivered by Fox when Mr. Pitt reproached the Coalition Ministry for clinging to their offices. In that speech Mr. Fox stated that under certain circumstances " delicacy and reserve" were criminal, and in particular, used the words—" For God's sake, strangle us not in the very moment when we look for success and triumph, by an infamous string of Bed-chamber Janissaries." He quoted extracts from the speeches of other persons, to show Lord George Bentinek's language was strictly Parliamentary, because authorized by the greatest speakers.

Entering next into the matter of Mr. Canning and the Catholic question Mr. Disraeli delivered a somewhat inflated panegyric on the modest patriotism and retiring disposition of Lord George Bentinck; and took pains to make out that though he had supported Sir Robert Peel as a political leader, there was no pri- vate intercourse between them. Sir Robert Peel had read a speech delivered by himself in 1827 in the presence of Mr. Canning, together with Mr. Cauining's reply. In that speech, no doubt, Sir Robert Peel repeated his objections to Ca- tholic Emancipation. But it is curious enough that Sir Robert, although making reference to his speech of 1829; did not read it. • Mr. Disraeli, however, would read a passage from that speech as he found it in Hansard- • ' So far as my own course in this question is concerned, It is the same with that which suggested itself to my mind in 1825, when I was his Majesty's Principal Minister for the Home Department, and found myself In a minority of this House upon this question. When I then saw the numbers arrayed against me, I felt that my position as a Minister was untenable. The moment, Sir, that I, the Minister responsible for the government of Ireland, found that I was left in a minority on the question which was of paramount Interest and importance to that country, that moment I sought to be relieved from the duties and responsibility of office. I stated to the Earl of Liver- pool, who was then at the bead of the Administration, that In consequence of the de- cision given against me In this House, it was my anxious wish to be relieved from °Mee."

Mr. Disraeli was ready to admit that Sir Robert Peel was correct in saying that this speech as reported in Hansard, did not contain anything which he did not say in_1827 in the presence of Mr. Canning; but that statement is certainly in opposition to what many gentlemen who were connected with Mr. Canning, and who were Members of the House at the time, believe. Without imputing any charge to Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Disraeli undertook to prove that the report con- tained in Hansard was a garbled and a mutilated or, to adopt the language of the Home, a " corrected" report of the speech; and that it omitted the important statement in question. "It so happens, that in those days there were two reports of, at was said in this House; for therm was then not merely Hansard, the s es in which are generally corrected .by honourable gentlemen themselves, but there was 'arse the Mirror of Parliament; the speeches in-whicb were taken in short-band, verbatim by the most able short-hand writers, most of them being men of education and intelligence; and at that time the speeches were published every three days. Now, Sir, I call the attention of the House to what it appears from The Mirror of Parliament, the right honourable gentleman really said in that famous speech of 1829. " ' So far as I am personally concerned, I beg to say, my own course is the same as that which suggested itself to my mind In 1825, when I was his Majesty's Principal Minister for the Home Department, and found myself in a minority upon the Catholic question in this House. I felt that, looking at the numbers arrayed against me, my position as a Minister was untenable. The moment that I found that I was in a mi- nority on that question, I felt that it was no longer advisable that I should continue to be charged with the responsibility of Irish affairs. I stated to the Earl of Liverpool, who was then at the head of the Administration, that In consequence of the decision against me by the voices of the Representatives of that country, the time was come when something respecting the Catholics ought, in my opinion, to be done, or that I should be relieved from the duties of the office I held, as it was my anxious wish to be.'

" The words left out of the report, in Hansard, are these= I stated to the Earl of Liverpool, that in consequence of the decision against me by the voices of the Representatives of Ireland, something respecting the Catholics, ought, in my opinion, to be done.'" As corroborative of the accuracy of the report contained in the Mirror of Par- liament, Mr. Disraeli quoted the following extract from a speech made by Sir Edward Knatchbull in reply, Sir Edward was at the head of the then betrayed party. Sir Edward's speech appeared in the Mirror of Parliament, but not in Hansard

"If at that period the policy of conceding the Catholic question were clear to the right honourable gentleman, I say that in justice to himself, in justice to his friends, in justice to the country, in justice to Mr. Canning himself, who has always been the able, powerful, and consistent advocate of the Catholics, he ought not to have eon- cealed it. If, as he now says, he had discovered in 1825 the necessity of passing this question, I ask why lie did not say so in 1827, and give his support to Mr. Canning then, when the supposed difference between him and Mr. Canning obtained thr him the support of many honourable gentlemen who differed with him only on that, which I confess was the case with me ?"

Mr. Disraeli continued—" Now, Sir, I have a right to speak of that report of the speech I have read from in //award, as being corrected by authority; for I

i

find a note,—and every one knows how seldom one finds notes in Hansard,-on the 5th of March 1829, appended to the beginning of the right honourable gentle- man's speech, in these words, 'Inserted 'with the permission and approbation of Mr. Secretary Peel. ( Vociferous cheers.) Now, I have inquired, and been in- formed that the report I have quoted from the Mirror of Parliament was made by Mr. Barrow, one of the first short-band writers in the country, and a man of ability and intelligence." Mr. Disraeli had searched the files of the Times in quest of further evidence; and there he found Sir Robert Peel reported to have said—" He stated to Lord Liverpool, then the head of his Majesty s Government, that in his opinion the time had come when something' respecting the Catholics ought to be done, and that he must be relieved from the duties of his office." (3 fuch cheering.) "Therefore it appears also by this report that, in•1825, in the opinion of the right honourable gentleman the time had come when something re- specting the Catholics ought to be done. After this, I think it is unnecessary to offer any more evidence: I have accomplished the vindication of my noble friend, who had not the power e spelling again in this debate. My noble friend told me that there were, no means by which he could have the power' of speaking again; though I had hoped means might have been fimind; and, therefore 1 felt it my duty to Undertake his defence." .Mr. Disraeli next referred to an article which appeared in the Edinburgh Re- tnew for Apri11829, and which Mr. Disraeli stated "was written by a man

was himself a great part of a Cabinet" From that article he read this extract-

" teir R. Peel at that time told Mr. Canning, in the House of Commons, that his =looked for opposition to Mr. Canning was grounded on a difference of opinion on the Catholic question ; yet at that very time he had In his writing-desk a letter In which two years before he had told Lord Liverpool that, In his opinion, the Catholic claims ought to be granted, and proposing that he should retire from office in the mean time." Along with his own speech of 1827, Sir Robert Peel had quoted the reply of Mr. Canning, in which a Parliamentary compliment was paid to his candour and sincerity: but before forty-eight hours were over, Mr. Canning expressed his real o • ion of Sir Robert PeeL On that occasion, Sir Robert Peel had delivered one of the most violent opposition speeches ever heard in Parliament. " What did Mr. Canning say then? ' I rejoice,' said Mr. Canning, 'that the standard of opposition is at length unfurled in this House. Such an act is to me worth a thougand professions of qualified neutrality. ' In whatever mind the feeling of opposition lurks, let it come boldly forth, and boldly will I meet it. I never have shrunk—I never will shrink—from explanation or defence, whether the charge preferred against me be conveyed in the avowed hostility of ,the open and manly foe, or in the not less dangerous insinuation of the disavowed opponent.'" (Loud cheers.) " • But,' says Sir Robert Peel, I did not hunt him to death.' I am not going to enter into any details for the purpose of determining whether the right honour- able gentleman did hunt Mr. Canning to death. That is a poetical phrase; that is'metaphorieal language; and it only expresses the feeling entertained by the frienda and relatives of Mr. Canning. If I were to enter on such matter, I must go into secret councils—into private correspondence. I must speak of newspapers set up to hunt the noble victim—newspapers supported by men who were mem- bers of Mr. Canning's Government. I must go into details on which I will not • enter." Mr. Disraeli accused Sir Robert Peel of having come before the House with a suppressio yen unprecedented in Parliamentary discussion. " Sir, I think I have answered the elaborate attack of the right honourable gentleman on the noble Lord—his attack on my noble friend's consistency, his attack on his Par- liamentary language, his attack upon the imputation my noble friend made upon him as to the conduct of the right honourable gentleman to Mr. Canning. But I trust I have done more than vindicate my noble friend. I trust I have put in its true and intelligible light that mysterious passage which has so long perplexed the politicians of Europe, and which the right honourable gentleman on Friday night so elaborately explained for the benefit of the rising generation." " The right honourable gentleman once said that Ireland was his great difficulty. I aslc the right honourable gentleman, why Ireland was his great difficulty; and whether, if he had acted with frankness to Mr. Canning in reference to his com- munication with Lord Liverpool in 1825, Ireland would have been his great difficulty? (Cheers.) This the right honourable gentleman must feel at the pre fent moment, when we are about again to divide on an Irish question—a division which may be fatal to the endurance of his power: he mast feel that it is a Ne- mesis that dictates this vote and regulates this decision, and that is about to stamp with its seal the catastrophe of a sinister career." (Continued cheering.) Sir ROBERT PEEL said—" I am quite aware that the forms and usages of the House altogether pfeclude me from making any reply to the honourable gentle- man; yet the House will allow me to trespass on them, not so much to reply, as to desire them in justice to suspend their judgment. (Cheers.) The whole question turns on this—Did I or not, in 1825, state to Lord Liverpool that my opin- ion on the Catholic question was changed? Well? then, I publicly assert, that the report of my speech of 1829, of 5th March, is a correct statement of the troth: that I said to Lord Liverpool in 1825, in my position as Secretary of State for the Home Department, the only member of the Government opposing the Ro- nian Catholic claims, seeing my "colleagues were in constant concert with my op- ponents, that I said, my position being alone, it was so intolerable that I asked to resign my office. . I presume .I lied a right to do that. The noble Lord has stated a similar eireumstance in the iiourse of this evening—that, wishilig to re- tain his-opinions, he pursued a similar course. In 1825 I opposed the Roman Catholic claims; and.in 1825 Lord Liverpool, made the strongest sph he had ever made in opposition. I spoke after the decision of the House of Lords, and I beg to refer te,my speech on that occasion. In 1828 I still offered opposition to the Roman Catholic claims, and I said my position resembled that of 1825." I told the Duke of Wellington, that I could no longer Continue in office .forthead= ministration of the affairs of Ireland. But the Clare election had taken place the circumstances to which I had before referred had occurred. I I said that mast not only relinquish my position in the House of Commons, but that the time had come when the question must be settled; and I would do all that I could in my private capacity to facilitate the settlement of that question. (Cheers.) With respect to the Edinburgh Review, there has been a -lapse of seventeen or nineteen years, and all the evidence which the honourable gentleman has been quoting now has been available to him during that time. He his had the same opportunity which he has had now of making this attack upon me: but it is reserved until this period. (" Oh, oh! " from Mr. Disraeli, folloWed by loud cheers from the Ministerial and Opposition benches.) Can it be expected that I should be enabled after the lapse of so many years, to reconcile every contradiction there may be in reports? ("Hear, hear!") But as I said before, the main question is this—Did I in 1825, or did I not, state to, Lord Liverpool that my opinions had changed? Why, Lord Liver- pool was the friend of Mr. Canning; and do you believe it to be possible, from the intercourse existing between them, if I had told him in 1825 that the Roman Catholic question must be settled, he would not have communicated that import- ant fact to Mr. Canning? ("Bear, hear!") I did what many others have done, I corrected my speech in Hansard; and what object could I have had in omitting that passage ? ("Hear, hear!") I had nothing, however, to do with the Mirror of Parliament. I spoke on the 5th of March, and on the Gth of March it is reported in that publication, and to which I beg to refer the House. The Mirror of Parliament will also show the answer I made to the question put to me in consequence of my speech of the 5th of March. Then again, I say, with respect to the Edinburgh Review, what public man can be safe if he is to answer for some statement made by an anonymous writer in the Edinburgh Review, which he did not at the time contradict? Am I to contradict every malignant ph? and because I do not, is the truth of it to be assumed? (Cheers.) ut state to the honourable gentleman, that if, as the writer in that Review as- serts, there is a letter in existence from me to Lord Liverpool, stating the opinion that the Roman Catholic claims ought to be settled, first I challenge the produc- tion of that letter by him, for he must be aware of the existence of it. He says I have a copy of that letter; what is his authority for making that statement? (Cheers.) What is his authority for saying that that letter exists? I challenge its production. (Cheers.) But, Sir, I go a great deal further—I pledge my honour that if the letter was written, and if I have a copy of it, that I will m extenso produce it; and it will then be seen (if such a letter exists) what were the contents and what was the purport of it. But, as I expressly stated in my speech of the 5th of March, that I waited on Lord Liverpool and communicated my intention to him, I have every belief, as far as I can recollect, that the com- munication between Lord Liverpool and myself was a personal and not a written one. But if the letter exists, a copy of it shall be produced. I assert that I never did., in 1825, (as that is the main fact,) intimate to Lord Liverpool change In my opinions upon the subject of the Roman Catholic claims. I cannot say one word more, as I have no right to notice any of the observations of the honourable gentleman. I refrain from doing so. I am deeply grateful to the House for having listened to me so patiently during this explanation." (Loud cheers.) Upon the motion of Mr. CALEB POWELL, the debate was adjourned to Thursday.

Before the resumption of the debate on Thursday, Sir ROBRRT PEEL, with visible emotion, said-

" Sir by the permission of the House, I will tomorrow, when the order of the day is lead for proceeding with the bill for the Prevention of Murder in Ireland, make some statements with reference to those charges which have been recently preferred against me, relating to transactions alleged, to have taken place in the years 1825, 1827, and 1829." (Loud cheers.) Sir ANDREW ARMSTRONG, Mr. Bineere (Wiltshire); Captain LAYARD, Mr. HENLEY, Sir H. W. BARRON, and Mr. HAWES, spoke against the bill; Captain FITZMACRICE and Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, in its support.

Mr. Basurrr had bestowed the utmost consideration on the question, and the conclusion he had arrived at was that he could not conscientiously support the measure. He objected to any measure which would punish the people of Ireland while those who were misleading them were allowed to pursue their illegal practi- ces with impunity.

Captain LAYARD described the bill as unconstitutional and uncalled-for. If the Government meant to govern Ireland, it must be by doing justice; and if they meant to prevent the separation of Ireland from England, it must be by govern- ing both countries by equal laws. All those honourable gentlemen who cheered the recent attacks on Ministers were bound to assist the Irish Members in throw- ing out the bill. Mr. HENLEY deemed the measure unconstitutional in its character and coercive in its tendency. A measure of that kind ought to have the concurrence of the two leading parties in that House: the present bill had not met with that concurrence. Lord John Russell had distinctly declared that he did not think there was any necessity for the measure; and were Lord John in office, he would no doubt act upon that conviction. For his own part, after having given his best attention to all the evidence submitted to the House, he had come to the deliberate and settled conclusion, that there was by no means a case made out to justify such a bilL Its only tendency would be to irritate and exasperate, and render bad worse.

Sir H. W. BARRON agreed in the opinion expressed by one of the speakers, that the English Parliament must learn to govern Ireland by the common law of the . land. Coercion had completely failed. The miseries of Ireland were not to be cured by two or three measures, nor by this Government nor that: it could only be accomplished by a lung steady course of conciliation, and by affording relief to

Cappt

the eople.

ain Frrzseemucz would support the second reading. He regretted to to differ from Lord George Bentinck, the leader of his party; but such had been the change in parties, that an honourable Member on his side of the House could hardly say to which or to what party he belonged. It was an old saying, that it was a clever child who would know its own father; but he thought it would be an uncommonly clever man that would know his, own party. (Laugh- ter.) If the bill were rejected, Ireland would be greatly excited: indeed, he had no doubt but in that case bonfires would blaze from Connemara to the Hill of Howth. Inconvenience might arise from the bill; bat it was en inconvenience which every good subject and lover of peace should submit to in order that great social evils may be rooted out. Mr. HAWES did not complain of the delay which bad taken place. He thought it unavoidable, looking at the other important business which had interposed. He placed very little reliance on Constabulary returns of crime. It frequently happened that the same individual appealed oftener than once in the returns for the same crime; and the classification, too, was often inaccurate. For example, a sweep who lost his life in a chimney, appears in the special returns on the table of the House, among the murders. The returns did not show that any great in- crease had taken place in the amount of crime in the five counties; and altoge- ther he could not allow that the bill was called for on the ground that crime had increased. If Goveenrcent sought to pat dawn crime, it muatebe by a change in the system. Ireland was improving at that moment. Land was rising in value, and the consumption of exoiseable articles was on the increase. Ireland must be governed through Irish instrumentality; and. hen Ireland was governed justly, he had no fear that it would be governed tranqiiilly. Lord FRANCLS Eouirrosr understood that, from some special combination of -parties, the rejection of the bill was certain. • He did not possess authority suffi- cient to question the justice of such a course; and his object in rising was rather to explain his own views of the measure than to comment on the views of othere. So far as he had read the discussion, Government did not fest the bill on the state of crime in the whole of Ireland. The question really at issue was, whether the ordinary powers of the law were sufficient for the prevention of crime or not, and whether this bill could be expected in any reasonable degree to effect that effect. Lord John Russell and Mr. Hawes had objected to the details: he believed that most of those objections that would apply to the bill introduced by the Whig Administration in 1885. He was unwilling to prophesy, but should Lord John Russell succeed to power, as some honourable gentlemen anticipated, and should he fail in realizing the benevolent projects for what he rather vaguely called the amelioration and regeneration of Ireland, Lord Francis believed that the House would see him coming down and proposing a measure with some analogy to the present bill, or differing from it only by some wider departure from the constitu- tion. But if he should so come down, and make out a case as satisfactory (or rather as unsatisfactory) as the present Government had done, Lord Francis should have a strong bias in his favour, even on a measure involving a more en- larged departure from the constitution than the bill before the House; and if the noble Lord proposed to substitute for this bill something of the nature of a sus- pension of the Habeas Corpus Act, he should feel disposed to entertain the pro- position. He believed that the secret associations which prevailed in Ireland were the mainsprings of crime. It was wrong to say that the powers conferred by the bill were inapplicable to the case. The evils for which a remedy was sought had long existed, and could not by light measures be removed; and it was in no way uncomplimentary to Lord John Russell and to those with whom he acted, to say that, even if, in the event of a change of Government, they were to occupy their former position, they might find it a matter of no little difficulty, despite their abilities and good intentions, to eradicate these social and deep-rooted evils. The measure was not offered as a perfect care, but rather as a means of prevent- ing certain evils. Lord Francis regretted, as no doubt many others did, that in commenting on this bill expressions had been used somewhat passing the ordinary usages of de- bate. He was sorry that, in this age, any difference in political sentiments should have a tendency to interrupt the dignity of discussion or the warmth of personal regard. Mr. Disraeli had defended one of Lord George Bentinck's expressions on the score of precedent; but they were not in a Court of Chancery, where the argument of precedent was valuable; and even that precedent which had been brought forward would in itself hardly justify the violence and intemperance of the language defended. Mr. Fox applied the expressions of "paid jamsaaries" to the Lords of the Bed-chamber—to rivals who were in every respect open to the charge of baseness. Precedents might be found for any nonsense or any vio- lence; but the precedent would not alter the case. The political provocation was undoubtedly great; but it was a question whether it justified the retaliation. The citation made from the speeches of Mr. Fox reminded him of a citation once simi- larly made from a speech of Mr. Pitt, during It debate in that House on the silk- trade; on which occasion Mr. Canning observed, that the honourable gentleman who quoted Mr. Pitt resembled those blind nations of antiquity who paid neither reverence nor homage to the sun when parsuing his path of beneficence and glory, but, the instant that his career was closed, and the observation complete, knelt down and displayed symbols of fear and worship. (Cheers.) Mr. Disraeli had not culled the choicest flowers from the eloquence of Mr. Fox—that able but not-very temperate statesman. He was once reported to have said, speaking of" Lord' NOrth, that he would nottrust-Mmself in the same room with him; and-yet they afterwards .got on very well together side by side in the same Cabinet; (p sughier and'cheers.) And'in the same way, fierce as were-now thealeauncia- twos, there could be little doubt that all would come to rights again. (Laughter.)' They were, it was to be supposed; to understand by the word jani.ssaries," those- paid servants of 'the Crown-who had conscientiously voted with the Government; and it was not for any individual in that House to disparage either those servants or those service& ("Hair; hear !')• Who knew how soon the noble Lord might hoist the-standard-of the Prophet, and summon round him, as did the -Commandh- ers of the-Taithful; these samwjanissaries-P (Laughter.) It was best. not to abuse them news the-noble Lordkrnightfindthem too numerous at lasts and he might,- then; in attempting. to -red. himself of his over-eager- allies, share- againthe ELternh fate, another- Sultan Mahmoud. (Cheers and laughtere)- Ierd Francis- might be allowed- to. refer to one other expression- of the noble Lord. He could not say that he had not felt the imputation; he could- not say that he had any- character to throwaway, or that lae. could assume-to himself any position which would render, that character unimpeachable-for political con- duct.: The. word "renegades,' had been applied to many honourabk.gentlemen, and-he had no right to assume-that it was not the-intention-of the noble Lord-to include him in the-category. Redid notexaetly understand what the-noble Lord. meant to imply by that term; but the noble Lord ought to recollect that diftbrent- individtmls, placed• even in the- same circumstances; might, either slowly-or ra- pidly, be led to forts different conclusion& ("Hear, hear! ") He had'deliberately formed his opinion, and, he.had given his vote according to that opinion • he.did.. not know how, therefore, he hadearned.the character-of a " renegade." ' had• been earned by the-speech which he made at the last election, he could-only-say that helieed them on certain subjects connoted with trade, atiivedat conclusions, with*, with his-then experience; he believed to be correct; he unreservedly stated thoseconvictions—not to his advantagm for-the avowal- probably lest-lint-many-- votes: but he had given no pledgeahathis opinions would not undergo a change. Hefted-given voieeen- that occasion to-his-convictions, and ho-now acknowledged hiserror. (Cheers.) , On-the motion-of Mr. SHARMAN- CRAWFORD, the. debate-was. again ad= jettrned. THE &tom, arm- Nsautovs. Gateau:

On Tuesday; Sir. GEORGE CLERK: moved, in conformity. with.the.reeom- mendations-of the-Committee of Privy Council on Trade-

s 1. That no lins shall hereafter be-formed-on any.other than the -four feet eight-and a half inch gauge, excepting lines to the South of the existing line from London to Bristol, and excepting small branches of a few miles in length in Immediate connexion with the Great Western Railway ; but that no such line as above excepted'shall be sanetioned by-Parliament, unless- a special report shall have-been made -by-the Com- mittee -on the bill, setting forth the- reasons-which have led-the Committee -to advise- that such line should be-formed-ore angether than tlm four feet eight andel-half inch- PAM- • 2. That, unless by the oonsentor the Legislature, it shall not be permitted to the directors of any railway company to alter the gauge of such railway. " 3. That in Order.to complete the general chain of narrow gauge communication' houttiestiorth of- England to the Southern coasts and-to the port of Bristol) any suit- able measures Astrid, be promoted- to form a narrow gauge link from Olomester. to Bristol, and also frum-Oxfbrd to Basingstoke, or by any shorter- route- commuting-the, proposed Rugby and Oxford line with the South-western Railway.

"4. That the South Wales line, and its branches to Monmouth and Hereford, should be permitted to be formed on the broad gauge, as sanctioned by their act.

That the-Rugby andOxford line, andthe Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line, should be permitted to-be formed-on the broad gauge, as sanctioned by their acts ; thessene Lords of- the Committee-of Privy Council for Trade shall exercise the powers Widened upon them by the several acts, and shall require that additional narrow gauge rails shall forthwith be laid down from. Rugby to Oxford, and from Wolverhampton to the junction with the Birmingham and Gloucester um ; and that if it should hereafter apppeeaarr that there is a traffic requiring accommodation on the narrow gauge from the Staffordshire districts to the-Southern coast, any suitable measure shall be promoted by- Paritunent to form a-narrow-gauge-link from Oxford to the line of the Birmingham and Gloucester railway." No difference of opinion could exist as-to the desirableness of avoiding-a break of gauge; but he agreed, with the Board of Trade in thinking that it would be unfair to charge the public with the expense of bringing about- a perfect uni- formity. His noble friend-at the head of the Board-of Trade and himself had paid every attention to the subject, with the view of seeing how this desirable object could be effected; but they-found it impossible to find a means without great in- justice to the parties -interested; or without involving a great public expense which he did not feeljustified in recommending. The question-of adopting a double line

of rails had been considered by the Commissioners; but it wasevident from their report that the plan could not- be recommended as a general-rule. He compli-

mented the Great Western Company on-their enterprise and public spirit in de- veloping the powers of'the-broad gauge; though such had been the-improvements • of the narrow wee, that he believed it was now capable of nearly equal speed. He did not think there.as any great difference between them; but he hoped that nothing would badone to shut out the-opportunity of trying the-merits of zsgauge. more than. 4-feet-8/finches.

Mr. LABOUCIDARR thought the Government had adopted.a discreet course- on one of the moandifficult anchinmortant subjects that was-ever submitted to Parliament—

If he thought-it exceedinglyfor.the interest of-the-country-that allahe ways-should -be-on the narrow-gauge, the consideration that a million of money was involved would' not prevent him from -proceeding to effect the-change. It would of course-be-the-height of injustice-to throw the expense upon the railway- companies. He would- not enter into any-examination of the- merits of the-two gauges; but-no-one could-travel by the Great Western line and-look-at the power of its engines and other appliances -without feeling proud of it, and at once con- cluding that it ought-not to be put down-by belay -interference. Besides-, the- public had derived benefit from the competition between-the two gauges. There , Were, however, evils attending diversity- of gauge which asteris paribus were quite sufficient to-induce-the House-to-determine thatthe gauge to be adopted on new railways-should be the gauge -which had- been adopted- in the majority of eases.

Mr. Hulce-didinot coincide- in the- opinion that the- Government?were acting wisely—

Personally be was in favour or the broad gauge; but; looking-at-the thousands of Tulles over which the narrow gunge extended, and would'yet extend, he thought

it impossible that Parliament could-go back to a general broad-guage. The

difference of expense between the one gauge and the other, he understood; was estimated at from 5,0001:to 8,0001. per mile. It appeared to him that every avail-

able step ought-to be taken to bring about as near as possible a general narrow ouge. He would move as an amendment, "that a gauge of 4 feet si inches be hereafter adopted in all railways to be constructed in Great Britain," leaving out the subsequent resolutions altogether. A desultory-discussion followed.

Mr. Cr:tunas RUSSELL would support the resolutions. Government bad adopted the only.course open, looking at the conflicting opinions which existed.

It was a wise policy not to fetter the broad gauge. No man could for one moment doubt that a much higher rate of speed tould be maintained upon the -broad gauge than upon the narrow. He did not deny that a break of gauge was a great, evil; bet it had been much exaggerated. Mr. Hume was altogether misinformed on the question of comparative expense; thievery-largest sum given in evidence-before, Committees of that House was no more than from 4001. to 5001. per.mile. Mt. LADOIIMIERE and: Sir THOMAS WILDE suggested the propriety-of with drawing the resolutions for- the present: A little further consideration was re- quired to render-them consistent with each other and-unobjectionable.

Me: E. Disrusonethought-the House-should agree oa some general principle. au seen as-possible. Sir ROHM= Placa complained that the benefit of-future scien- tifin-discoveries andof cerapetitiemmight be stoppedby-the resolutions.

Ultimately, Mr: Hustn-withdrew-his-amendment.

The first resolution was agreed to, with the addition of the words "-and. South Wales Railway," after- the words " Great Western Railway." The second resolution was-altered to the following--" That it is the opinion of the House- that- provision should be made by law. toprevent.directores of railwayenfrom altering the-gauge."

The discussion on the remaining-resolutions•wassresumedon Thursday.. The- third was-agreed, to-without a- division.. The. fourth-was-put- to-the- vote, and' adopted. by 67'to N. In-reference-to the fifth resolution, Mrr LABOUCRER.ft said= If it were possible-to extend-the principle of-a double gauge, the inconveniences. attending a break of gauge would be materially lessened. His wish would be to ' leave the question of 'gauge to be decided'by the Executive department of the Go- vernment.

Mr. Htinsow- had'etrong objections to. the introduction of` two gauges_ on one line— It was true eminent engineers had given their opinion-that-there would be no difficulty, in the-introduction of this complicated system;: but still it appeared to him attended with so many objections, that not only- would' the public be put in imminent danger, , but there would-be such confusion and diffieulty-in.the work. ing theta would be rendered of no possible advantage.. The,fifth.resolution.waaagreed.,to, and this exhausted the scrim: .A3i2oRii4r2T, REWORK: Werliteschey. Sir ettantrEs • l'iLlersat moveclithe-seeond,readhig-or bill-for-improving the Civil and Professienat Administration of the Navy,— In support or this bill; he specified- many-particulars, showing the ineffithent mannenan which the affitirar of' the--N e.7. were- conducted' under -the present spa- tent. The experiments• made in- shipbuilding, had not been successfill ; would have-been saved-to the country had- a different system been adopted: He• bad moved'for a return relative to the steam navy, and'an incorrect and imperfect return had-been mad& He specified several defects in the construction of several• of the steamers. No attention had been paid-to placing the engines and boilers in

a proper- manner. All the steam-boxes were five or six feet above the water: now every one must see, that if, in action, a single twelVe or twenty-four pounder

struck that steam-box, every man below must be destroyed,, must- be boiled to. death or fried to a cinder. If such a thing hammed-in action, they could not ex- pect a single head-man or engineer to occupy bs place. In the steamer built by himself this defect was remedied by .placing the steam-box under water. Many ships were-to be cut down; and-this was an admission that- the Admiralty did, not know how to build-them. Ho did not eee the use of going on year after year

building ships of enormous size. He did not mean to say the-Admiralty should

not keep up a certain number; butif they had fifty sail of the line, and the slips full besides, it was more than they. wanted, and more than they could possibly man. All the steamers with one or two exceptions, had been built after the de- signs of the Surveyor of the Navy; and the consequence was that no improve- meet had taken place. There was not a builder in Glasgow, or on the Thames who would not produce better steamers than were to be found in the Navy. The Canard steamers sailed to Helifes and the West Indies in all seasons, and carried-

coals enough to cross the Atlantic with cargo and an immense number of passen- gers; the Scotch and Irish boats sailed winterand summer; • but the moment the Admiralty sent a squadron to sea, the steamers had to put back into port perfect - wrecks.

It was with the view of remedying this state of things that Sir Charles pro. posed his bill. He would reduce the Board of Admiralty to three, the First Lord and two others-, and in addition to them, his bill provided for the appointment of three Comptrollers, the one to superintend the dockyards, the other the victual-

ling department, and the third the accounts. The Admiralty ought to be ruled by three men, for then they, could be sure of a majority; but when it was ruled by six, they saw the delay and procrastination that took place; one in- dividual shoved the responsibility from him to another; and in fact there was no responsible person at the Admiralty at the present moment.

Lord INGESTRE seconded the motion— Under the presept system the, responsibility was -so divided that the Boardwas- absolutely inefficient. He thought there should be a Based of Construction, to which all plans ought to be referred. He complained of the imperfect manner in which, naval returns-were got up. CORRT (Secretary-to the Admiralty) opposed the motion, and des fended the Board— Amore objectionable measureitavasoliffieult to conceive. It was tantamount in principle to the reconstruction-of the old Navy Board. The appointment- of ' the Comptrollers -was not to be vested in the Crown, but in the Admiralty; so- thattheoffioem would not be responsible to Parliament. His-objections to the- bill were .se great; that he-would not reply-to all the- details- adduced in Sir, Charles Napith's speech. He might remark, however, that the greatest possible ;

painahad been taken-to improve the -build of the steamers; anti the experiments which had been made-with the- Battler gave him the -utmost• confidence in the

result: It was incorrect to say that all the steamers had- been built after the design of one man; for of the fifty-four steamers built within the last five years; thirty-four were constructed on lines- other than those-of the Surveyor of the Navy. The Admiralty-had recently appointed a- Commission, composed of the, most-eminent practical seen, to inquire into the -manner-in which shipbuilding-is;- conducted.

The- bill- wee supported by Captain- PECIEOLL, an opposed,- by- Sit GBORGR, COCKBURN:- Captain PLIIHRIDOD defended the Sunneyets of 'the/ Navy- On a division, the hill wreuhrejected, by-JOS-to I'll THE SUGAD-DUITES. On Thursday, the CHANCELLOHrOr the R/CCHEQVER gave-notice, that on Monday he would move a resolution to continue the existing Sugar-duties, from the 5th July to the 5th August-in the present year. His rea- son for proposing their continuance for a month was, that at present, owing to the length of the debates on the Irish Bill, sufficient time could not be given to that ample discussion of them which their importance required, and which must in. evitably.take place on the various important amendments which had already been. placed on the Order-book. If the House had no objection, he would include in the-resolntienthe reduction of the duty on free labour sugar, which had been, mentioned by his right honourable friend at the opening of the session. Mr: HUMK thought it would be better not to make any partial alteration.

Poon REsiovan Ma. The• consideration of this-bill has. beere.postponed to Wednesdabnext.