iDtbates anb giroceettings in Varliamtnt.

POOR-RELIEF IN IRELAND.

The adjourned debate on the motion for going into Committee on the Poor-relief (Ireland) Bill was resumed on Monday, at some length. The bill, and generally speaking the Government view, were supported by Sir WILLum CLAY, Lord COURTENAT, Mr. LABOUCHERE, and Lord Jomm RUSSELL.

Some of the Irish Members expressed views not very different,—Mr. VILLIERS STUART, Major LAYARD, and Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL. Mr. VILLIERS STUART took the opportunity of saying that his name had been put to the resolutions of the Irish Party by mistake. He had not condemned the principle of out-door relief,—which, in fact, he thought ab- solutely necessary; but he insisted upon the necessity of other measures besides the Poor-law, especially emigration. Several others of the Irish Members also spoke on the same side, but woquiesced in the bill rather than supported it; many of them in fact speak- ing against a poor-law, but accepting it as part of the Government scheme,— or, as Mr. John O'Connell phrased it, " seizing at it because it would be the means of saving a few lives," although he believed that it would work ill. The gentlemen who may be ranged in this class were Captain JONES, Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL, Sir DENHAM NORREYS, Mr. VESEY, Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, Sir WILLIAM VERNER, Mr. DENIS CALLAGHAN, and Sir ARTHUR BROOKE.

The measure was more thoroughly opposed by Mr. G. A. HAMILTON; who endeavoured to show, by an exhaustive process, that a poor-law, ac- companied only by such auxiliary measures as the Government have de- scribed, would be utterly incompetent to provide for the immense mass of destitution, which it would convert into a class of active claimants. He took his illustration from the county of Mayo— The number of acres is 1,363,034; the population, excluding towns with 2,000 inhabitants, is 370,000. There are 231 families lodged. in 317 houses of the better class, gentry and clergy; 3,306 families lodged in 3,012 houses of the second class, farm-houses; 22,605 families lodged in 22,000 houses of the third class, built with mud, but having windows and more than one room; 40,808 families lodged in 40,000 houses with one room, and with no windows or chimney. Of 66,945 families, there are 809 who have means to live without labour; 9,761 families of artisans who have some means, but are not wholly exempt from la- bour; 55,982 labourers and small farmers without capital in land, money, or knowledge. The rental of the county, excluding the towns of 2,000 and upwards, and deducting 39,289L Grand Jury ma, is 260,5621., subject to rent-charge, Crown rent, cost of agency and repairs, the burdens of the Labour-rate Act &c. &c. In the same county, the Westport Union consists of 341,000 acres, with a population of 77,952; the number of 'persons rated is 13,122 and of those there are 11,156 under 41.; the valuation is 88,8751., subject as in the other case to county-rates, cost of agency and repairs, incidental losses, the Labour-rate Act, and encumbrances; and the residue is to support a population of 78,000, of whom 60,000 are rated at less than 41.

The Government scheme was further criticized with great severity by Lord Joint Maxims: he endeavoured to show, by a similarly exhaust- ive process, that it could not providq fir the immense mass of destitute persons; of whom he reckoned 600,000 at least as heads of families— Lord John Russell had said nothing the other night about waste lands; but, mrppedng that measure were not forgotten, 1,000,000/. would reclaim about 125,060 acres; which, split into farms of thirty acres, would afford occupation for about 6,000 peasant farmers. There is to be an increased grant for emigration- saythat disposes of 10,000; and allow that what with those measures, fisheries, employment on public works, And employment given by Irish landlords, 100,000 persons heads of families are disposed. o., : he calculated there would still remain destitute 500,000 heads of families, representing a population of 2,500,000. He contended that Lord George Bentihck's plan would have been the proper one to employthat large mass of people. Mr. ROEBUCK, who had been alluded to by several of the speakers, also supported at considerable length the position which he had before estab- lished; advocating the Poor-law as necessary to teach social morality to the Irish.

Eventually, the House went into Committee pro forma; but postponed actual progress till Friday.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord STANLEY presented three peti- tions from the Sheriff and Grand Jury of the South Riding of Tipperary. One complained with alarm of the unprecented sale of fire-arms at Clon- mel and other places—

Muskets were sold in Ireland in large numbers, at prices varying from 2a. 6d. to 30s.; and the manufacturers of Birmingham were unable to make their sup- plies keep pace with the demand. The fire-arms were purchased chiefly by la- bourers of the lowest grade, and it was a common circumstance for boys engaged on the public works to purchase pistols out of their earnings. An auctioneer, who officiated at a recent sale of fire-arms in Clonrael, recommended his articles by saying that one of his muskets would be a receipt in full for last November's rent, and would be warranted to bring down an agent at a hundred and fifty yards. He had from private sources been made acquainted with an anecdote bearing upon this subject, which he would relate to the House. Some gentlemen, passing through a district in which public works were going on, observed some men in the middle of a field practising firing at a hat, which was set up as a target upon a spade-handle, and every shot was received with loud cheers: the persons thus occupied were all receiving Government pay on the public works. The peti- tioners prayed that the Legislature would adopt some measure to prevent the in- discriminate sale of fire-arms in Ireland.

The other two petitions prayed for the introduction of railways into Ireland upon a grand scale, and for an extensive system of emigration under the auspices of Government. Lord Stanley asked whether it was true that a tax upon emigrants had been imposed by the State of New York?

Lord GREY replied, that the tax was imposed for the purpose of check- ing the emigration of persons, chiefly from Germany, who were incapa- citated for work by bad health or advanced age. Ho also stated that Lord Elgin would devote particular attention to the satisfactory distribution of emigrants on their arrival in Canada.

Lord ASHBURTON derived reassurance from the Registrar-General's re- port—

On looking at the Registration Report for England, he found that the excess of births over deaths, on an average of the last three or five years, had not exceeded 150,000 or 160,000 a year. Now, admitting that there was a considerable ab- sorption of persons born in this country into our colonies and dependencies, it was impossible that more than 100,000 of these could die out of this country; so that there was nothing in the facts brought out in the registration reports to lead to an apprehension of any great increase of population.

Several Peers spoke with approval of emigration as a topical relief for particular districts,—namely, Lord BROUGHAM, Lord ASRBURTON, Lord MONTEAGLE, and Lord STANLEY; but discouraged the idea of any delusive anticipation that Government could pay for the removal of such numbers as would produce a sensible effect on the population of Ireland. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL and the Earl of RIPON also favoured emigration.

The subject of Irish immigration into Liverpool was revived by the Earl of DEVON; who had received information that several persons had been paid 2s. 6d. each for their passage from Cork to Liverpool, as Lord Brougham had stated [and Lord Devon denied]; but he found that this money was furnished to them by an emigration-agent connected with a private house in Liverpool. Lord BROUGHAM said, that Mr. Rushton the Magistrate distinctly referred to that class, and also to another class whose passage was paid, though by whom was a matter of inquiry.

SHORT TIME.

At the early sitting on Wednesday, other orders of the day were hastily set aside so that the House might come at once to the order for the Com- mittee on Mr. Fielden's Factory Bill. Mr. DENNISTOUN brought forward a proposition which had been trans- mitted to him by three of the principal cotton-manufacturing firms in Glasgow. He prefaced his statement with some general arguments against restrictions on labour—

By the bill it is proposed that no female or young person should work meet than fifty-nine hours in the week. The master-manufacturers agreed to that; and all they asked was this, that if they conceded that which appeared to be the principle of the measure, they should be allowed to work three days in the week as much as twelve hours a day, engaging at the same time not to work the hands for two consecutive days more than twenty hours. That would be equal to a ten-hours bill. It was proposed to carry this plan into effect by means of relays, as is now the case with regard to children; and in order to do so, it would

need an increase of labour by 20 per cent. Say 100 hands commence work on Monday morning: 40 of these would work permanently at the same machine for twelve hours; 60 would work with the view of being relieved during the day. by the 20 additional hands, or substitutes. It was proposed to divide the day into

three equal parts of four hours each: 20 substitutes would work in the first divi- sion of the day; then the same substitutes would relieve 20 regular hands du- ring the second division of the day; again, they would relieve another 20 regular hands during the third division of the day. Thus, at the end of the day, 60 per- sons would have worked twelve hours, and 60 would have worked eight hours. This would be reversed on the Tuesday,—namely, by the 60 hands who worked twelve hours on the Monday working only eight hours on the Tuesday, and by those who worked eight hours on the Monday working twelve hours on the Tues- day, or twenty hours in two days. This, of course, would apply to each day in the week except Saturdays; which day would be divided into portions of three hours instead of four hours, and the time would be equally divided amongst the hands.

Having stated as clearly as he could the nature of the proposal he was author- ized to make, the course he would suggest for the House to take would be, that

the Committee should be postponed for a fortnight, in order that the manufac- turing interest might have time to consider the proposal, and to say " Ay " or " No to it.

This proposition gave rise to a brief and very desultory discussion; in

which not only Mr. Dennistoun's statement, but other subjects—the authen- ticity of signatures to certain petitions, Mr. BrigJere consistency, the general merits of the bill, &c.—came under consideration, without any dis- tinct advancement of the immediate question. Mx. FIELDER declared that he would not yield to any association of manufacturers. The system of relays has worked ill in the case of children, even for the mill-owners. Mr. AGLIONBY and other supporters of the bill also expressed diSsatisfac- tion with the proposition; treating it as a mere pretext for delay. Lord Joule RUSSELL thought that it might work well, and that it was made in good faith; but he did not advise that the progress of the bill should be delayed. Sir Ronxav PEEL also concurred in the opinion, that after the full discussion which the bill had received on two occasions, it would not be well to postpone it for a fortnight. On perceiving the general feeling of the House, Mr. DENNISTOUN withdrew his motion.

On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, Lord JOHN Rusear.a. [who had again been taunted with silence] rose and made a speech in favour of the measure. He mildly called in question Mr. Bright's right to lecture him ; and showed that he might retort with imputations on the mo- tives of those who had advocated repeal of the Corn-laws by saying that it would enable the working classes to have their ten-hours limit to labour: but he did not do so, because he thought that, at the time, those who used that argument really believed that it might be so. He repeated several pleas in favour of the bill. It was said that it would indirectly restrict the labour of adults; but he maintained that an incidental effect of that kind is not open to the objections which direct interference would merit. He in- sisted on the beneficence and policy of securing some brief leisure to the working classes, even though no security were taken for the mode in which they should employ their time: he should be quite content if it were spent only in the interchange of domestic kindliness. Some said that the ad- vantage could not be given to the sons and danghters of the working classes without injuring them by crippling the manufacturing power of the country, especially as opposed to foreign competition; and he ad- mitted that that was a very formidable question. But he did not believe that the manufacturers would be so enfeebled. Of course they would pay less wages for shorter time ; the import-duty has been taken off cotton; the corn-trade is thrown open: all those advantages, he calculated, would counterbalance any increase in the cost of production arising from the bill. Moreover, it is an assumption without proof that the people of this country work twelve hours each day all the year round: the reverse is the fact, and at this moment the factories are working short time. The effect of the bill, he thought, would be to equalize the daily duration of labour as spread over the whole year; and it would tend to a similar equalizing of the wages received at different periods. He found that in Russia, manufacturers work ninety hours in the week without being able to compete with this country; and that in one of the United States of America, Massachusetts, the labour of persons under fifteen years of age is restricted to nine months in the year; and yet America, with wages a third more than ours, is not unable to compete with this country. In fact, manufacturing prosperity depends upon other things more than upon the daily duration of labour—upon manufacturing skill and political freedom. At the same time, he believed that it would be better to enact a bill for eleven hours than for ten- " I should wish the bill to remain in that shape; and it will then show, that while the House has considered the arguments of those who object to the bill, the measure remains aproof that this House is disposed to do everything it can to promote the relief of this part of the community." (Cheers.)

The House went into Committee. Clause 1, establishing sixty-three hours per week as the limit of labour for persons under eighteen years of age, was agreed to.

Clause 2 enacts, that after May 1848, the limit shall be ten hours a day: Mr. FIELDER proposed to postpone the operation of this clause until 1849. Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. BERNAL both objected to the delay, on opposite grounds; and Mr. Fielden abandoned his suggestion.

Lord MORPETH then moved to expunge the clause; which would thus have made the measure permanently an eleven-hours bill. This proposi- tion [previously scouted by Mr. ROEBUCK and other opponents of the bill, who called for a decisive experiment] was negatived, by 144 to 66; ma- ority against the middle term, 78. The announcement of this result was

ed with cheers.

The remaining clauses passed amid much exulting clamour; the bill to be reported on the 21st of April.

ABSENTEE TAN.

On Thursday, Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN moved the following resolution- - " That, inasmuch as the non-residence of landed proprietors in Ireland is one of the causes of social disorganization of that kingdom, it is expedient to impose a charge by way of special assessment, in aid of local objects of an useful nature, upon the estates of absentee proprietors, with a view to make some compensation for the evils resulting from their non-residence."

The importance of baying a resident proprietary could not be overrated— A single case would illustrate the difference between residence and non-resi- dence. In the counties of Clare and Limerick the late Lord Egremont had estates yielding 25,0001. a year; but he never saw those estates, and did not spend upon them 5001. a year; while in England, where he resided, he was, by universal ad- mission, one of the best landlords to be found. Let the House compare the con- duct of this non-resident nobleman with that of Sir Robert Gore Booth, as de- scribed the other night by the Secret 7 for Ireland. [Sir Robert had supported Meat numbers on his estates in Sligo. It was very difficult to obtain authentic information on such a subject; but,from the most careful calculations, he esti- mated the amount of rents drawn by absentees from Ireland at not less than 4,000,0001. sterling, or one third of the whole rental of Ireland. He enumerated some of the principal absentees; premising that he had been unable to make out a complete list of untitled proprietors— There were the London Companies; the Irish Society; the Dukes of Devonshire, Buckingham, Bedford; the Marquises of Hertford, Conyngham, Thomond, Lans- downe, Anglesea, Clanricarde, Donegal, Abercorn (occasional visiter), Bath, Ely; Lords Fitzwilliam, Cork, Essex, Clanwdliam, Orkney, Chabot, Palmerston, Strad- broke, Limerick, Beresford, Audley, Dillon, Southwell, Maryborough, Middleton, Trimleston, Albemarle, Portarlington, Dungannon, Boyne, Darnley, Clifden (occa- sionally resident), Sandwich, Normanton, Vans, Congleton, Ranfurley (occasion- ally resident), Galway, Ashbrooke, Stanley, Arden, Portsmouth, Lifford, Lisle, Stanhope, Strafford, Fortesene (occasional visiter), Hawarden, Templemore, Va- lentia, Templetown; Lady Bray; Count de Salis, Colonel Wyndham, Mr. Sidney

Herbert, Mr. Ke4lUcounty, Roscommon), Mr. Stafford O'Brien, Mr. Greville, Mr. Fox Lane, Mr. y Gore. A great portion of these proprietors never visited their estates at all. Some were occasional visiters only, and a very few were oc- casional residents. Mr. O'Brien cited precedents--

During a series of years the coarse of legislation had been in favour of an alp- seatee-tax: laws with that design were passed in 1295, 1310, 1331, and 1380, when two thirds of the profits of the land were taken. The same course was pursued in the 10th of Henry the Fourth, in 1431, and in the time of Henry the Eighth, when all licences for non-residence were repealed, and there was a re- sumption of the estates of the Duke of Norfolk, of Lord Berkeley, and of Lozd Shrewsbury; whilst so late as 1752 a tax of 20 per cent was imposed on those who held offices in Ireland and lived out of the country.

To define residence, Mr. O'Brien would take it as it was laid down in the exemption from the Property-tax: he would fix the duty at a minimum of 10 per cent, with power to increase it hereafter; and it might be applied to education or any other useful purpose of a local kind.

The motion was supported by Mr. TUITE, Mr. Joule O'CornrEtt, Sir ARTHUR BRooNE, Lord CASTLEREAGH (partially), Colonel RAWDON, and Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. JOHN O'CoNNEtt said a word for Repeal—

The absentee drain, which began after the Revolution of 1688, continued to increase until 1782; but from that period until 1800, when Irish affairs were managed by an Irish Parliament, it had considerably diminished. It commenced again after the Union; and was estimated by Lord Cloneurry, in 1844, at 6,500,0001. There was nothing to supply the place of that drain. It would be seen that Ireland was gradually recovering from the evils of absenteeism from 1782 until 1800, when England smote her with the Union and struck her down.

Alderman HUMPHREY defended the London Companies from the charge of draining their Irish estates. The company over which he presided spends 7,0001. a year on its Irish estate out of 9,0001. or 10,0001. which it receives for rent; other companies act in a similar way; and he computed that ea the whole the City Companies return four-fifths of their rent to Ireland. If an absentee-tax were forced out of them, they might cease to make those payments, and draw the whole of their rents. Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted the evils of absenteeism; but did not believe that the House of Commons would sanction such a serious interference with the rights of property. The object, he thought, would in a great de- gree be attained by the Poor-relief Bill, which would oblige absentee pro- prietors to contribute their quota to the relief of the poor. Some of them already do so munificently,—as Lord Abereorn, Lord Londonderry, and Lord Devon; and he warmly protested against Mr. Stafford O'Brien's being included among absentees; for he spends a considerable part of his time on his large estates in Ireland, most honourably to himself and use- fully to the country, by his example animating his neighbours to fulfil their duties— Such a proposition was not only unjust, but impolitic. In effect it would pro- claim that no proprietor having property in England should bold property in Ire- land also. Nor could they in justice refuse to extend the principle to England; there must be the same rule for both countries. It was a principle the operation of which would be inconsistent not only with the political union of the two coun- tries, but even with their social union. He did not believe there was an example of any state, however despotic, in which it had been laid down as a principle that it was impossible to hold property in two different provinces of the same empire. Mr. BELLEW said that it is not absenteeism that is the sole cause of evil in Ireland—though he would gladly bring all absentee property to the hammer—but want of capital. Much property held by absentees is well managed, much held by residents most wretchedly managed. A good poor-law would correct many evil results of absenteeism; and he called for auxiliary measures—emigration, and facilities for sale of estates. The resolution was also opposed by Mr. REDHEAD YORKE, and Mr. SHARMAN CRAwFORD: who saw practical " difficulties " in the working of the project.

On a division, the motion was negatived by 70 to 19.

CRACOW: THE RUSSIAN-DUTCH Loss/.

The debate on Mr. Hume's resolutions—denouncing the violation of treaty in the annexation of Cracow, and recommending the discontinuance of payments on the Russian-Dutch loan—was resumed on Tuesday; the arguments, with some striking exceptions, being the mere continuation and repetition of those advanced on the previous evenings.

The greater number of Members concurred in the opinion of the Go- vernment, that there had been a gross violation of the treaty; but that it would be inconsistent with the dignity of this country to take advantage of a doubt and to refuse payment of the money. The upholders of this view were Sir JOHN WALSH, (who stoutly denied that the insurgents of Cracow were the representatives of Kosciusko or the companions of Adam Czar- toryski,) Lord HARRY VANE, Mr. CHRISTIE, and Mr. SMYTHE. The resolutions were supported without qualification by Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN and Mr. BICICHAM Escorr. Mr. O'Brien strongly objected to Lord John Russell's position that the House of Commons had no right to express an opinion in an affair which not only involves a pecuniary obligation but so greatly concerns the interests of the country. Mr. STUART WORTLEY entered into a long argument against Sir Wil Liam Molesworth's position that the payment of the loan was made as a kind of purchase-money by England for the Dutch colonies. From the time of the first arrangement under the treaty of Chaumont, in May 1814, by which the King of Holland was restored, to the last transaction on the subject, in 1831, the position of those colonies had never been treated as a matter of bargain for purchase and sale; but throughout the course of the negotiations the evident purpose was to assist in the estab- lishment of an independent power in the Netherlands. The Russian- Dutch loan was a debt due by the crown of Russia to the subjects of Hol- land; and the treaty by which the crowns of Holland and England un- dertook to pay the money did not in any way alter the position of Russia towards its creditors in Holland. It appeared by the diplomatic records, that the payment was continued by the convention of 1831 on the score of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, and the facilities which Russia gave to those arrangements. Russia having now violated the treaty, it became a matter of option for the other parties to the treaty to take advantage of her neglect, and to refuse a further observance of their agreement. But then came the higher consideration of policy; and Mr. Wortley could not vote for discontinuing the payment. He strongly ad- vised Mr. Hume not to press his motion to a division, as it might not ob- tain a very strong array of supporters, and the result would be misconstrued elsewhere. Mr. Duntsmis delivered a very long and elaborate speech, full of his- torical references and diplomatic authorities and quotations. He cautioned the House not too readily to assume that there had been any violation of treaty, or that the policy or impolicy of the partition of Poland was !to- tually in issue. More than half a century ago Cracow was an Austria! town; it then became a Saxon town; then a Polish town; then a neutral

town,—that is, merely forbidden to the exclusive occupation of either of the protecting powers; and now finally it is once more an Austrian town. That has nothing to do with the partition of Poland- " It is easy for gentlemen to talk, as the honourable Member for Bolton has done, of the injured rights of twenty millions of human beings. Did they live in Cracow? Dia they live in the suburbs of Cracow? (Cheers and laughter.) Does he believe that the rights of these twenty millions of human beings are secured by the treaty of Vienna, so that by it they have a title to political inde- pendence and social freedom? It is nearly eighty years since Poland was parti- tioned,—that is, more than one fourth of the period which historians have recog- nized as the epoch that forms what is called modern history. During these eighty years, England has lost her Colonies, France has been revolutionized, the Conti- nent has been conquered, Ireland has been united to England; events subsequent even to these great affairs have taken place which are still fresh in the minds of all present, and to which some of us owe our seats in this very assembly that now arrogates to itself the right to decide on the policy of foreign nations. (Cheers ) Who can deny, then, that in such circumstances the partition of Poland has ceased to be a political catastrophe, and must now be received as an historical fact?"

Mr. Disraeli bestowed great pains and time on an argument to show that the breach of a particular treaty annexed to a general treaty is not of ne- cessity a breach of the general treaty. Ho rested upon precedents. The treaty of Osnaburg was inserted in the general treaty of Westphalia. The treaty of Osnaburg secured to the free cities of Germany certain rights which were infringed, and the free cities appealed to the treaty of West- phalia. But it was decided by authorities no less than Chancellor Oxen- stiern and Cardinal Mazarine, that though the treaty of Osnaburg had been infringed there had been no infringement of the treaty of Westphalia. A similar question arose, and was similarly decided by Louis the Four- teenth of France, respecting an infringement of the treaty of Osnaburg, when Sweden attacked the territories of the Elector of Brandenburg; and again, when the stipulation to maintain the Protestant religion in the Palatinate was infringed. It was said in the treaty of Vienna that the annexed treaties should have " the same force "; but what does that phrase mean? Mr. Disraeli acknowledged that they had the same force; but (if we rightly construe the drift of his argument) he maintained that they had no greater force than they originally possessed; that the recital of a particu- lar treaty in a general treaty is only a reference to that particular treaty; and that if a particular treaty is inserted in a general treaty, it in fact pre- vents any of the signatories to the general treaty from being called upon by the signatories to the particular treaty if that treaty be violated. Ac- cordingly, Lord Palmerston had acted on that principle. So had the King of Holland. When Belgium was taken from Holland, the King did not ap- peal to the treaty of Vienna; but he appealed to the two superior Courts of Europe that had made him King of the Netherlands—Russia and England; and Lord Palmerston concurred in that mode of reference.

Mr. Disraeli enlivened this dry argument occasionally by sallies against the less argumentative orators at the recent Polish meeting: for ex- ample—

Some Members having interrupted him with cries of " Oh !"—" Yes, but who are you, who come down here to give your votes upon this question? You are ready to meet in Freemason's Hall, and on the platform of a tavern pass reso- lutions which may excite a war in Europe: you are perfectly ready to prostitute the influence of the English Senate in the attempt to guide the opinion of Europe: but let me tell you this, unless your opinions are founded on knowledge, and ex- pressed in more decorous language than many phrases I have heard during this debate, you will not assist your client, or maintain the honour and credit of your own country."

Lord Mahon had said that the independence of Cracow was intended as a concession to France, by way of compensation to that country for the frustration of its victories and glories! Sir Robert Peel had censured the annual protest in the French Chambers in favour of Polish nationality, as ridiculous: a Member of the French Chamber might retort by saying that there is one thing more ridiculous still—for a Member of the English House of Commons to explain the reasons why the arrangements of the treaty of Vienna were instituted- " I have always thought it of very great importance in discussing these affairs, that we should form our opinions of the conduct of cabinets and individuals from public documents, such as treaties and protocols, and not listen to the sort of diplomatic gossip which has, I am sorry to say, prevailed too much in the present debate. One gentleman rises and says, 'It is very true, the treaty of Vienna states this thing or that; but if you had the good fortune to be on as intimate terms as I am with Prince Metternich, for instance, you would know that the secret history of the treaty is quite the reverse of that.' Another gentleman said, 'I was in Paris last week, and M. Guizot assured me that Prince Talleyrand told him so and so.' These things, doubtless, produce a brilliant effect in debate; but I prefer sticking to the letter and spirit of treaties, and to the expressions of protocols." Now what, from the public documents, does appear to have been the intention of the Allied Powers with respect to Cracow, at the time of framing the treaty of Vienna?

" The Emperor Alexander was in military occupation of the ancient dutchy of Warsaw, and he naturally wished to keep it; whilst the other European Powers as naturally were afraid that its retention would make Russia too powerful. Aus- tria had once possessed Cracow, and she wished to have it again; whilst Russia wanted to preserve it. In the end, it happened with Cracow and other places, as always happened in political affairs, a combined conrse was taken, which ended in a mezzo termine. Russia proposed that Cracow should be a protected town, that Thorn should become hers, and that Mayence should be a confederate garrison. This was agreed to: Thorn went to Russia, Cracow became a protected town, and Mayence remains a confederate garrison. Prince Metternich warned Russia that Cracow would be a disturbing focus in that country: but the Emperor of Russia disregarded the warning, because he did not wish Cracow to belong to Austria; and, not being able to obtain it for himself, he preferred the middle course, which was adopted. At the end of thirty years, experience proves the foresight of Prince Metternich. Cracow is again an Austrian town; and Russia has conceded to Austria the very point which was the subject of great and even hostile discussion at the treaty of Vienna. In the face of this historical tenth, which no man will venture to question, we are told that in the suppression of Cracow the last evi- dence of the nationality of Poland has disappeared; and the right honourable Member for Tamworth, with grave authority, states that Cracow was instituted as a normal form of political liberty and constitutional government; whilst the noble Lord the Member for Hertford—once an Under-Secretary of State—assures us that Cracow was intended as a compensation to France for the loss of her empire."- , Mr. D4abli again attacked the declaimers on the subject. He wished they could divest themselves of that idea of the immortality of Poland which exists f the mind of Sir Robert Inglis: but a dangerous excitement seems to haver ized that honourable Member, especially when he transfers himself from House of Commons to the hustings of a tavern, where parties try to outrival each other in language the most violent, most ex- aggerated in council, and in policy most perilous- " Let it be remembered, that when they tell us of the fate of twenty millions of men, there must have been some good cause for that great and numerous race having met the doom which,we all acknowledge they have encountered. We hear much of a great nation. The honourable Member for Bolton tells us of twenty millions of people: but it is not the number of the people which makes a great na- tion. A great nation is a nation which produces great men. It is not by millions of population that we prove the magnitude of mind; and when I hear of the infa- mous partition of Poland, although as an Englishman I regret a political event which, I think, was injurious to our country, I have no sympathy with the race which was partitioned. The gentlemen who go to Freemason's Hall ought to be reminded of a fact which they always find it convenient to forget, that just a hun- dred years ago it was proposed to partition another empire." Why was not Austria partitioned? " Why was not that young and interesting female [ Maria Theresa] expelled the throne? I speak of Austna,—which you revile in your hustings speeches, the statistics of which you are so familiar with, and the destiny of which you dare to announce. I speak of a faithful ally of England,—which you tell me is in a state of political decrepitude, but which, I believe, will show that she has sources of power in the moment of exigency and of peril which will astonish Eu- rope and battle her adversaries. I say that Austria, at the time I speak of, was in a far more difficult position than she can be under any circumstances now. I ask again, why was not Austria partitioned, when Poland was at the head of a conspiracy which would have severed her dominions? Answer me that, before you deliver your harangues of superficial rhetoric. I ask you why Austria was able to preserve her ancient dynasty? I tell you that she owed it to the great qualities, to the bravery, the religion, the honesty, of her population. It was the national character which saved Austria. She was not twenty millions then; and yet she baffled Prussia, she baffled France, she baffled Poland—that Poland which always comes before us as if she had been the victim of Europe, instead of having been a ready conspirator on every occasion, and the pamperer of the lusts of an aristocracy which ultimately betrayed her. It is all very well for you to come for- ward with an affectation of sympathy with popular rights; but the men who really caused the fall of Poland were not the great powers whom you denounce in hustings speeches. It was this order of men who never supported the people— under whom the people, indeed, were serfs, and not free men—who never showed any spirit except in opposing the clergy—a priesthood who, whatever their faults even at the worst periods of the eighteenth century, were always more or less the friends of the multitude. This is the aristocracy about whom you have raised a false cry, and appealed to morbid passions."

Mr. Disraeli twitted Mr. Hume with having voted for the continuance of the payment on the Russian-Dutch loan, when the question was raised in 1832- " He says he piques himself on his feeling for pounds, shillings, and pence: but I want to know how on that ground he reconciles it to his conscience to allow twelve years to elapse and that payment to be still made? I am aware he gave an historical description of the motives which actuated his mind on that occasion. That was the memorable occasion on which he sacrificed even his conscience to his country. (Loud laughter.) Then he voted that black was white, in order that he might secure, I will not say his party, but at any rate the payment of this money to the Emperor of Russia. This was his obscure harangue; tonight we have his pellucid pure address. But whereas he has screwed up his courage to make tonight a white speech, and to give a white vote, he will also tonight, as I understand, show the white feather. (Laughter.) Having recorded in me- morable language, which I hope will obtain a niche in the history of the Parlia- ment of England—having recorded his conviction in 1832 that the money ought to be paid—in 1847 he is to make his penance for that juvenile error. (Laughter.) And now that he is the recognized Father of this House, he is coming forward with the brutum fulmen that we have heard so much of in this debate, and is about to recognize his mistake by his vote, and to show that his age is so impo- tent it cannot vindicate his reputation! (Laughter.). This is the motion you are called upon to pass: this is the expression of opinion on the part of this House, the effect of which will be to aggravate Europe and insult the sovereigns of it who are our allies. An honourable gentleman this evening has referred to the moral influence we exercise in Europe: though the exercise of this moral in- fluence may be one of the most inestimable of our functions—though of our pos- sessions it may be the most proud—yet, as it is an inestimable possession, so it is held by a very delicate and fine tenure. You cannot abuse it i you cannot in crease its efficacy by Hudibrastic speeches and grotesque resolutions."

Lord PALMERSTON, in a comparatively brief speech, reasserted the po- sition of Government. He conceded all that Mr. Disraeli had contended for on the subject of annexed and general treaties: but the whole of that argument was disposed of by the fact, that in order to make out the vio- lation of the treaty of Vienna implied in the annexation of Cracow, it was not necessary to rely on the annexed treaty, but upon the 6th and 7th ar- ticles of the treaty itself. The real question at issue also was not the mere breach of treaty, but was the substantive one whether, as Cracow was constituted a free state, England was bound, or had a right, to object to the extinction of that state. Lord Palmerston showed also that it was wrong to speak of the annexed treaties as properly separate arrangements. In fact, all the articles of the treaty of Vienna were drafted by representa- tives of the Five Powers,—namely, Metternich, Talleyrand, Wellington, Humboldt, and Nesselrode. By those five Commissioners the independence of Cracow was arranged. Again, in the case of Belgium, Mr. Disraeli was in error: the King of Holland did appeal to all the five Powers who were parties to the treaties of Vienna and Paris, under which the King- dom of the Netherlands was constituted—the application was not made to two or three Powers; and when the separation of Belgium and Holland was finally arranged, the convention was signed by the whole five Powers, one as soon as the other.

Reverting to the original question, Lord Palmerston again explained the circumstances under which England undertook the payment on the score of the Russian-Dutch loan; the original principle of that arrangement being continued by the convention of 1831. He stated his intention to move the previous question on the resolution denouncing the violation of the treaty, and to meet the resolution respecting the loan with a direct negative: but he urged Mr. Hume not to press any part of the measure to a division-

" There is, I think, with few exceptions, a great unanimity of opinion in this House as to the transactions which have taken place at Cracow; and it would be most unfortunate if that opinion were put in doubt by a division which would be sure to be misunderstood. The technicalities of the House of Commons are little understood elsewhere; and if the honourable gentleman presses this House to a division on the previous question, although we understand what that division means, I am sure he will see that it would be considered as a division of opinion on a question upon which hardly any division of opinion exists. I am sure that my honourable friend, with that Parliamentary judgment which he possesses— sincerely wishing, as I know he does, to give effect to the opinions he entertains— will take the advice given to him by others, and not divide the House upon the first resolution."

Mr. Home declared that his object was gained by having elicited these declarations of opinion; and accordingly he withdrew his motion.

THE ROYAL ASSENT was given, by commission, on Thursday, to the Consoli- dated Fund Bill, the Loan (8,000,0001.) Bill, and the Labouring Poor (Ireland) Bill—the Indemnity Bill.

A NEW WRIT was ordered, on Tuesday, for Bedfordshire, in the room of Mr. Astell, deceased.

THE FAST DAY. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on Tuesday, it was ordered, that the Venerable Dr. W. Dealtry, Archdeacon of Surrey, be requested to preach before the House of Commons on Wednesday the 24th instant, the day appointed by her Majesty for a general fast. Lord John remarked, that he made this motion conformably to precedent.

ANNUAL DUTIES. In reply to Lord GEORGE BENTnecw, on Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that 'he had received information from various quarters showing that the change from permanent to annual duties on any important articles would cause great inconvenience, and therefore it was not the intention of the Government to propose that any of the now permanent duties should be an- nual. There were still votes of large amount annually made in Committees of Supply, on the Military and Naval Estimates, the Miscellaneous Estimates, and the Appropriation Act.

SMITHFIELD MARKET. On Thursday, Mr. ORMSBY GORE succeeded in ob- taining a Committee "to inquire into the necessity for the removal of Smithfield Market, as a nuisance in the centre of the British Metropolis, to some appropriate site, comprising an area of not less than twelve acres; and the establishment of abattoirs in the vicinity of London."

OXFORD AND BIELMTNGHA3I RAILWAY. There was a further discussion in the House of Lords, on Tuesday, respecting the manoeuvre effected by the North- western (London and Birmingham) Railway Company: the Directors of which i had bought up 38,000 shares out of 50,000 in the Oxford and Birmingham. The Directors of the Oxford line had previously entered into a negotiation of alliance with the Great Western, which was thus defeated by the rival company. It was admitted by the Peers who took part in the conversation that the case might constitute no infraction of law, but they held that it demanded investigation. The London and Birmingham Company presented a petition through the Earl of St. Germans, stating that they did not wish to monopolize the line, but merely to have the joint use of it with the Great Western Company; and representing that their case would be inquired into by the Committee upon the bill before the House of Commons: they therefore wished any special inquiry in the House of Lords postponed until the bill should come up. Lord BROUGHAM, however— knowing the sort of little, mutual, reciprocal conveniences between the share- holders of one railway who cannot sit upon the affairs of that railway but who can sit upon the affairs of some others in which they have no concern, and the shareholders of that other railway who cannot sit upon their own but can sit 'upon their neighbours' affairs—strongly counselled that the House should not trust to inquiry in " that other place, but should keep the inquiry in this place," in the House of Lords. Lord LywDennisr therefore persevered in the motion of which he had given notice; and ultimately the House agreed to refer the matter to a Committee named by the Committee of Selection.

A Spumous BLUE Boos.. In the House of Commons, on Monday, a conver- sation arose respecting Mr. Morrison's report on Railways. The SPEAKER stated, that last session Mr. Morrison had made the draft of a report to lay before the Committee; but there was no Committee sitting at the time; and, owing to the inexperience of the Clerk, the document with the evidence was reported to the House as the report of the Committee. He suggested, that the best course would be to reappoint the Committee, in order that the matter might be referred back to it. Accordingly that was done.

REPEAL RENT AND FAMINE RELIEF. On Thursday, Lord BROUGHAM said, he understood that a circular had been issued to all the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland, from a place called Conciliation Hall, urging on them most impressively, almost imperatively, the necessity of raising subscriptions for the Repeal rent—in the midst of all this misery ! He hoped that stringent precau- tions, if such could be devised, would be taken to prevent any part of the millions which the people of England,. Scotland, and Ireland, are now spending in that country, from fmding its way into the coffers of Conciliation Hall. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said there could of course be but one opinion on that subject. He bad not seen the circular to which Lord Brougham alluded.

ETON MONTEM. Mr. JAMES asked, on Monday, whether the decision arrived at by the Provost and Head Master of Eton, to discontinue the practice of Eton Montem, was to be revised by a higher authority ? and if so, as the young gentle- men who go about collecting money are no doubt liable to be apprehended under the Vagrant Act,—for it really amounted to highway robbery,—whether Govern- ment did not think it desirable and proper to bring in a bill to exempt those young gentlemen from the penalties of the law which they were now subject to for collecting money at that triennial and very discreditable ceremony? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that he had advised the Queen to leave the matter alto- gether to the Provost and Head Master.

RECORD OFFICE. In reply to Mr. MONCKTON MILNES, on Tuesday, Sir GEORGE GREY said that Government had not decided upon the site for building a general Record Office; but that a plan was before the Commissioners and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

QUARANTINE. On Thursday, Dr. BOWRLNG moved for a continuation of the correspondence on the Quarantine-laws; enforcing his motion with brief arguments against those laws, as nugatory for all sanatory purposes, and productive only of injurious effects. Mr. MILNER Geasos said that England had reduced her quarantine establishments until they were almost nominal; and there was every disposition to reduce them still more. No objection was made to the motion; and it passed of course.

RAJAH OF SATrARA. Mr. HUME moved, on Thursday, for the production of certain official papers, which, he said, would exculpate the Rajah of Sattara. Sir JOHN HOBIIOUSE denied that they would do so; and he refused to produce the papers,—ostensibly because copies of them had been purloined from the Secret Department in Calcutta. He was supported in refusal on that ground by Sir ROBERT PEEL. Eventually, after a sharp conversation, Mr. HUME consented to withdraw part of his list, and Sir JOHN HOBROUSE consented to produce the remaining papers.

EASTER RECESS. Lord JOHN RUSSELL has given notice that, on Wednesday the 31st instant, he will move the adjournment of the House of Commons until Monday the 12th April.

PROGRESS OF RAILWAY BILLS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Brats READ A FIRST TIME. Monday. March 15.—Glaagow•Kllmarnock-and-Ar-

- (amendment, deviations, and branches, &c.) Wednesday, March 17.—Chester-and-liolyhead (extension to Chester and Holy- head) (No. 2.) Friday, March 19—North-British (No 2).

RILLS READ A SECOND TIME AND CONSIIITTED. Monday, March 15.—Arnbergate, Nottingham-and-Boston, and Eastern Junction (alteration of line and branches to Not- tingham). Glasgow-Paisley-and.breenock (branches to Port Glasgow). Glasgow- Paisley-and-Greenock (branch to the Caledonian Railway and diversion of canal). Part- gate-and-Chester and iihkeuhead Junction.

Tuesday, March 16.—Waterford-and-Limerick.

Wednesday, March 17.—Gloucester-and- Hereford Railway and Canal purchase. York- and-Newcastle (main line improvement, He.) Thursday, March IS.—Eastern-Counties (enlargement of London and Stratford sta- tions, and amendment °facts). Shrewsbury-and-Birmingham Amendment and Branches. °nth Devon Extension and Amendment.