dates ant( Vtottettings in Varliament.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER.

Boma 07 Loans. Monday, July 16. Poor-Relief (Ireland) Bill, considered in Com- mittee : the maximum rating clauses negatived—Adjourned at 1 h. (Tuesday morn- ing.) Tuesday, July 17. Conversation on Australian Constitution Bill—Adjourned at Bit. 45 m. Thursday, July 19. English Passports at Rome—State of the Steam Navy --Adjourned at 6 h. 30 in. Friday, July 20. Affairs of Italy: Lord Brougham's Rese- ll:dime debated, and negatived—Adjourned at 4 h. 20 m. (Saturday morning.) , (Time occupied In the four sittings, 21 a. 35 m. Ouse the beginning of the Session, 226h. 8 in.] Holum or Commons. Monday, July 16 ; extra noon sitting tin 211. 45 ru. ; even. ing sitting commenced at 5 h. Small Debts Act _Amendment Bill considered In COM. mitten—Vancouver's Island : Lord Lincoln's Motion abandoned—Reduction of Public Salaries: Mr. Henley's Resolution debated and negatived—House in Committee of Sup- ply : Ordnance Estimates, Scc.—Nulsances Removal and Diseases Prevention Bill, read a second time—Adjourned at 2 h. 30 m. (Tuesday Morning.) Tuesday, July 17 ; extra noon sitting till 3 b. : evening sitting commenced at 5 h. Several bills advanced_ Baking Trade : Lord Robert Grosvenor's Motion negatived—Mr. 3Iackinnon's Mo- tion to remove Smithfield Market, debated and withdrawn—Adjourned at 1 h. 30m. (Wednesday morning.) Wednesday, July 18 ; noon sitting. Committee of Supply-- Bills forwarded—Adjourned at 5 L. 45;ra. Thursday, July 19; extra noon sitting till 4 b. : evening sitting commenced at 6h. Estates Leasing (Ireland) Bill and Muni- cipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, read a third time and passed—Taxation Mr. Henry Drummond's Motion, carried against Ministers—Minor Irish Measures, ordered to be brought in—Adjourned at 1 h. 5 m. (Friday morning.) Friday, July 20 ; extra noon sitting till 4 b.: evening sitting commenced at 5 b. Examination of witnesses before Committees : Conversation—Pilotage Bill, read a second time, and committed pro forma —Juvenile Offenders Bill and Administration of Jtistiee Bill, abandoned by Ministers— Audit of Railway Accounts : Statement by Mr. Labouchere—Ways and Means : Mr. Herries's Motion debated—General Board of Health Bill, read a second time—Adjourn- ed at 2 h. 25 in. till Saturday at noon.

[Time occupied In the nine sittings, 53 h. 5 m.

since the beginning of the Session, 8641i. 37 m.]

REDUCTION OF PUBLIC SALARIES.

In moving a resolution, " That a reduction of ten per cent he made in all

salaries in the Ordnance department, and in all other departments of Go- vernment at home and abroad," Mr. HENLEY stated his firm belief that her Majesty has the good fortune to be served in every department by men as mach distinguished by integrity, zeal, and ability, as could ordinarily fall to the lot of any sovereign.

The last time a general review of the financial circumstances of the country

took place was in 1830, when a Committee was appointed to revise the salaries of officers. He would take that period and compare the condition of the country then and now. The gross expenditure was then 51,700,0001.; in 1848 it was 58,990,0001. The population has increased from 24,000,000 to 28,397,000. The population has apparently increased about 10 per cent, and the expenditure about 14 per cent: but if the expenditure be measured by the price of the various productions of the country, its ratio is 44 per cent. The increase of taxation is shown in the increase of crime. In 1831, the population of England was 13,897,000; the criminals of England 19,677. (He excluded Ireland, as altogether exceptionaL) In 1848, the population was 17,497,000 ; criminals, 30,349. He attributed the increase not to demoralization, but to distress. Whenever there is a great cheap- ening of provisions joined to plenty of employment, there is a remarkable diminu- tion of crime; but the result never follows from cheapness alone: finding at the present moment cheapness and no diminution of crime, he concluded that the taxation presses unduly on the people, and he felt it a duty to lessen the pressure as far as is consistent with the honour and with the efficiency of the government of the country.. Finding that there has been on almost all the necessaries of life a reduction of 20 per cent since the last revisal of public salaries, he proposed a diminution of those salaries by 10 per cent—so dividing the advantage between the employers and the employed in equal shares. He proposed one scheme for all, and would therefore carry the reduction down to the very lowest on the scale, except mechanics; for his object was to draw a broad line of distinction between those holding places and receiving salaries, and those whose employment is very much regulated by the supply and demand. He saw no reason why the lowest salaries should not be included. Take for instance letter-carriers, who in his dis- trict are paid 12s. a week, though in some districts he heard they got as little as 7a.: these men are taken from the same class of labourers as carters, who usually get but 10s. or 12s. a week, though they walk farther with their horses every day, and are altogether much more hardly worked than the postman. The carter has long been undergoing a process of reduction in wages, in consequence of the falling-off in prices: why should not the letter-carrier submit to a similar reduction? There are five heads of revenue in the collection of which salaries are paid,—the Customs, 1,042,2741.; Excise' 628,2441.; Stamps and Taxes, 378,1251.; Post-office, 552,1891.; Woods and Forests, 44,0001.; altogether, 2,644,7321. is the sum paid for wages and salaries. There are further sums under Miscellaneous, for Education, Law, Justice, Colonies, Consuls, Boards of Health, and various commissions charged upon the Consolidated Fund to keep them out of the annual revision of Parliament, which make a sum of 1,191,0431. Further sums for diplomatic services, 140,0001.; for the Army, Navy, Ordnance, and Commissariat, 810,0001. The aggregate amount for for wages and salaries is about 4,700,0001.: upon this sum he would make his reduction. Mr. Henley detailed the steps he had taken to procure mi- nute accuracy in his data as to reduction of the prices of commodities. He had not taken wholesale prices from the current lists, but had got the most respectable tradesmen to furnish him with extracts from their books of the retail prices at which similar articles were supplied to given customers in 1831 and at this time. He found these results. The fall in prices has been—upon mutton ld. or lid. per pound, equal to 15 per cent; upon bread, 25 per cent; groceries, a mean of fifty-two articles, 25 per cent ; earthenware, china, and glass, 20 per cent; feather-beds, mattresses, plain mahogany tables, Brussels carpets, and the like, about 20 per cent; cotton goods, 30 per cent; beer, 20 per cent; a ride in an omnibus reduced from 6d. to 3d., and a sail on the river reduced from 41. to Id. On shoes it was remarkable, notwithstanding all which had been done to cheapen the article, that the reduction is not more than 4 per cent. There is but one thing that is as dear as ever—an ashen stick cost 6d. in 1830, and it costs the same stilL (Laughter.) The rule is universal, that there should be more work and less money: the only exception is in the public offices. He believed that more work has been done in the public offices, but that is only a fulfilment of one of the conditions of the principle: there has been no reduction of pay; and he saw no rea- son why public servants should not be placed in the same category with the rest of mankind. With respect to the clergy, the House has taken care that their income

should vary price with the pri of corn; and at the time that was fixed, neither the clergy i

nor those interested in them had the least idea that any law was in contempla- tion to prevent the possibility of an increase in their income. In conclusion, Mr. Henley implored the Government to consider whether, by a timely concession in this direction to the necessity of the times, they might not stave off en inquiry of a much more difficult kind. Sir CHARLES WOOD acquitted Mr. Henley of personal considerations is making his motion, and he hoped to be similarly acquitted by Mr. Henley in his resistance. Sir Charles elicited from Mr. Henley that he did not mean to " include the law " in his reductions: that would certainly give satisfaction to a large body of persons.

Mr. HENLEY—" That will come after." Sir CHARLES Woon—" OhI then this is only an instalment!" He tb' ht it would have been far better in so sweeping a measure, that no mis er- standing should be encouraged by present exemptions. He went into the general arguments in favour of maintaining public salaries on a liberal scale. But he verily believed, rather that a large number of public servants had been ruined by Am, than that they had amassed fortunes by it. He dwelt on the reductions effected by the Committee of 1831; and coupled with those reductions, the reduction of taxation amounting to seven or eight millionth made in the last five or six years, and the imposition of the Income-tax, which is directly levied on public salaries, and is pro Canto a lowering of the wages of public servants. Then Mr. Henley seemed to have forgotten the t reductions now actually in progress in the numbers of public officers. a eery short period, there have been 2,000 reductions in one department alone; and Sir Charles admitted his belief that reductions can be carried still

further not only with economy but with benefit to the public service. He con-

fessed his inability to make the distinction set up by Mr. Henley between wages and place; and was unable to see any grievance in the postman's receiving better

wages than the carter. The carter needs not read or write, the postman must do both; and the carter has nothing like the trust or anxiety of the postman. But if it were justifiable, it would be quite impracticable, for Government to carry out any universal rule of raising or sinking salaries according to the fluctuations in the value of produce. The State must get the best and the steadiest men for servants; and these can only be got by paying the best remuneration, and giving the most permanent employment. Nothing would be more fatal than such fluc- tuations as these proposedWithout going into detail, he denied that the State servants are more highly paid than is necessary or adequate.

Mr. VERNON SMITH thought that the least advantageous method of re- duction was decimation: what they should aim at was an adaptation of sa- laries to the circumstances of the case.

For example, he did not think the Secretary to the Treasury or the Under- secretary for the Home Department overpaid; he thought the salary of the Pre- sident of the Board of Trade not sufficient for the position he occupied; and as to the President of the Poor-law Commission, whose labours and responsibilities are

eery great, and who had quitted a lucrative practice at the bar, he was certainly

underpaid. An indiscriminate application of the pruning-hook would be unjust, and would moreover have a tendency to throw all power into the hands of the aristocracy. Many persons whom this resolution would effect have effected ar-

rangements and made assurances whereby they parted with portions of their in- come. He considered such matters fit for minute investigation either by Govern- ment or a Committee; and he preferred the duty to be done by Government under their responsibility.

Mr. ROEBUCK deemed this a deceptive motion, as another had been call- ed a flash-in-the-pan motion.

If Mr. Henley could point out a place overpaid, let it be reduced; but when he says, all shall be reduced ten per cent, he overlooks the fact that some are never- theless not overpaid. There are very unjust inequalities in the rates of payment. Is

the hard-working clerk, who goes to his office at ten and works till six, weary- ing his eyes, his head, and his heart, to be sent home to his family ten per cent

poorer upon the grounds urged by Mr. Henley? It would be a shame upon that House—a shame upon common honour and honesty—to take any such step. Then as to the postman and the carter—People should reflect that the letter-carrier is a very responsible officer. We have to depend upon the honesty and regularity of the man who carries all the wonderful things in that strange instrument the post, fraught with the hopes, expectations, sorrows, and miseries of mankind, and in which the poor and the wealthy are alike interested; and yet we are asked to make the man upon whom all this responsibility rests, like the common hind who follows his horse, who is very little superior to the animal he drives, and has no more anxiety. The motion being thus indiscriminate and unjust, Mr. Roebuck would not vote for it: he would not vote at all.

Mr. HERRIES, in opposition to the motion, went into a detailed recapi- tulation of the extensive reductions which have been made in our establish- ments since 1831.

Since that year, there have been a reduction of 2,054 persons out of 9,081, and of salaries a reduction from 962,0001. to 715,000/. ; 22 per cent of persons, and 26 per cent of salaries. The annual average of the salaries in 1833 was but 1051. 18s.; whereas in 1815 it was 1301. No proposal was made to heighten salaries in 1839 when corn was 70a, and he saw no justice in now making them fall with

corn. He felt also that the motion was unjust in excepting certain departments. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND protested against introducing the commercial principle into public life, and against jobbing the Government at the cheapest rate.

He quoted the satirical panegyric of the Edinburgh Review in the time of Lord Sidmouth's Home Secretaryship, upon the Americans, who " got their Sidmouths for 3001., and their Crokers by the gross for nothing." Mr. Drummond was more and more-convinced that we must shift the public burdens from the low to the high ; and that we must take among the high, not mere placemen, as they are called, but all who have large incomes—who are in common parlance called the rich, and mast lay a larger burden upon them than we do at present. He could not refuse to vote for this motion. He knew that a great many persons, when motions of this kind were brought forward, said, " We are delighted with the mo- tion—but then." For a measure of financial reform of any kind there are always nineteen " buts " out of twenty Members. Mr. Mosxz wished the motion had gone further; and had no difficulty in supporting it.

Mr. HUME did not agree with the whole of the motion; but he would vote for it, as a pledge on the part of the House to reduce expenditure.

The payment of public officers was increased at the end of last century, avow- edly as a temporary measure in consequence of the high prices: the time is now come for them to be lowered again. In his opinion, all the Judges are overpaid; and though an increase was made in the salaries of the Scotch Judges, (for which they owed him no thanks,) he was of opinion that in Scotland there was as much delay in the administration of justice as ever. If all other establishments were reduced, the income of the Bishops and the diplomatists must likewise come down.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that the supporters of the motion all agreed in the fact that they had not quite liked it; and he suggested

that it was not good to support an objectionable motion with the inten- tion of leaving it to be discovered by and by how it could be carried into effect. He saw nothing but confusion as a result of going on any plan but that of considering whether or not the office is adequately paid. He thought the objection unanswerable, that you are proposing to carry this redaction into effect with regard to a great body of persons who have but very small salaries-1001. or 1501. a year, and you are not taking into consideration at all the amount of duty performed for those salaries. " The honourable gentleman says that everybody is to have his income lowered: I am not aware of that. I am aware that the right honourable gentleman the Member for Tamworth said when he proposed the Income-tax, that he would take 3 per cent from every in- come above 1501, but that he expected, by the measures he then proposed and meant afterwards to propose, there would be such a reduction in the prices of the necessaries of life that persons would be compensated for the loss of the 3 per cent. That was a fair expectation; but then that was to apply to all the differ- ent classes of the community. If you took 3 per cent from the official clerk in the Treasury or the office of the Secretary of State, you took the same from the man who had property in the Funds or property in land. But now, take this !me: Here is arson who leaves a certain sum in the Funds, giving a certain Income to one of his sons ; another son has entered a ublic office, and, working

up his way by industry, zeal, and intelligence, has got 801. to 1601. or 170/ ayear; from the first you take 3 per cent, but from the second you would take 13 percent-3 per cent under the head of income-tax, and 10 per cent under this Proposition that is now made. Now that, I say, is not a fair and just estimate of Paddic service. I do not think that the man who is endeavouring to earn his Ilvehhood—a man in a public office who is showing zeal and intelligence, working ever] day for many hours—ought to be treated in a worse manner than those who are enjoying an income for which they do not make those exertions."

Mr. Hume's proposition, whether right or not, went upon a much more just principle. "He says, 'I will not touch the law so far as salaries are secured to men who have accepted office on the faith of their being continued for the rest of their lives ; but as to the future, I will touch them as well as any others.' If the salaries of the Judges are to be reduced, and of the Chancellor—though I will not say the Chancellor, because he holds office daring pleasure—that is the just principle upon which they should be reduced. But why should they be left alone, as the honourable gentleman proposes? That a judge with 5,0001. accepting office six months hence should not be subject to reduction, but a clerk entering a public office and receiving 801. a year should, I must say I think, there is no jus- tice, no fairness in that." "If you say that you will take the price of provisions as your rule, and that every kind of pay and salary shall be reduced in proportion to the reduction of the price of provisions,—that you will go into the question of what a chair costs, and what a table costs, and what the articles of grocery cost,—I cannot see that there is any justice in reducing all civil salaries and not reducing the military and naval pay at the same time. I think, if this plan were carried out, those who would be for a reduction of the pay of the Army and Navy, reducing every officer, every soldier, every seaman 10 per cent, would have a case which it would be almost impossible to answer. But that is a very serious question—taking 10 per cent from every soldier and every sailor in the Queen's service, is a question which the House ought well to consider before they adopt it." Lord John corrected an impression as to a declaration made by him: he had not said he had no objection to a general inquiry with regard to salaries and du- ties of public officers and establishments—what he did say was, that when any specific case for inquiry was made out, he had no objection to enter upon it, in order to see whether the salaries were excessive, or the numbers connected with the establishment too large. In that spirit an inquiry had been instituted into the establishment of the Home Office, and the result of that inquiry had been a reduction of 3,0001. a year. Mr. COBDEN found Mr. Henley now going much farther than before, and proposing to descend even to so low a class as the humble postman at 123. a week. He, on the contrary, wished to see the Garter raised to the wages of the postman, and not the postman reduced to 103.: but under no cir- cumstance would he consent to reduce the wages of any man receiving only 123. a week.

He was of opinion that the high officers were excessively paid, and he would go further than the motion in reducing them. It is impossible that any gentlemen on the Treasury bench should conceive him to be detracting from their merits when he compared them with the principal American Secretaries of State; yet these American officers receive only 1,250/. a year. Could any man feel it dero- gatory to his dignity to be compared with Mr. Bancroft?—yet Mr. Bancroft re- ceives but 2,0001. a year, while our Ambassador at Paris receives 10,000/. a year. Mr. Cobden did not ask them to bring down their establishment to a Republican scale. If the House would reduce such salaries 20 per cent, he would be satisfied and the officers be well paid. There are many public servants who might be dis- pensed with altogether—supernumeraries not at all required. Then in America there are no retiring pensions for civil services. Mr. Henley's plan would be im- practicable. If it were proposed to strike off 10 per cent upon the salaries of more than 20,000 public servants who are receiving not more than 1001. a year, it would cause a general strike among them, and Ministers would not be able to carry on the affairs of the Government. He should propose that a Select Com- mittee be appointed to inquire into the number of persons employed in the various departments of the Government, and the amount of salaries paid, with a view to such a reduction of those numbers and in the amount of salaries paid as could be effected consistently with an efficient performance of the public service. Let an honest Select Committee be appointed to carry out this object—not nominated by the Government, but by the House.

Mr. Bum= supported the better course thus suggested. It was impos- sible to agree to an indiscriminate reduction of salaries: they ought to in- vestigate every case. With regard to wages, he considered they were gradually rising. The other speakers were—for the motion, Mr-Worm- HOUSE, Mr. SPOONER, and Mr. TATTON EGERTON; against the motion, Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. GOULBURN.

On a division, Mr. Henley's motion was negatived, by 149 to 102; and the House went into Committee.

On the first vote, of 361,8951. for the Ordnance Corps and Departments, Mr. ANSON commenced a series of explanations; taking the report of the Committee as his text, and intimating the extent to which Government are prepared to assent to the recommendations made.

As to No. 1, the number of the Ordnance Military Corps, they advise no reduc- tion, but that every purposed change be officially communicated to the Master- General by the Secretary of State, and a distinct vote be taken in that House. These points will receive attention. No. 2, which relates to Barrack and Com- missariat supplies fur troops in Ireland, the Government adopts, as practically useful. No. 3, the proposal of certain changes in the constitution of the Board of Ordnance, needs calm deliberation. The recommendation that" the warrant of 1825 should be revised, and the control of the Treasury be rendered complete," is an unob- jectionable alteration. The recommendation to reduce the artificers and workmen at Woolwich, &c., to a peace complement, shall be brought under the consider- ation of the Treasury, with a view to making such reduction as new armaments, new requirements in the laboratory departments, &c., will permit. The recom- mendation to diminish the Colonial stations in the West Indies and Canada shall be taken seriously into consideration, with a due reference to the increased facili- ties of communication and of concentrating stores. The recommendation regard- ing the large stock of stores shall be seriously considered, with the object of dis- pensing with obsolete stores, and economizing those fit for modern purposes, so as to effect a considerable saving. As to the subdivision of vote No. 6, he thought the accounts already as simple as it was possible to make them. The additional check of a written order of a Secretary of State recommended on vote 7, as to buildings and repairs, is a wise recommendation. Mr. Hums complained that the Artillery had been increased from 471,0001. in 1828 to 711,0001., although the Committee of 1828 expressed " a doubt whether the Artillery was not on a larger scale then than was ne- cessary for a preparation for war."

Lord Jonw RUSSELL repeated briefly the often-told explanations of the causes which have induced a gradual increase of the Artillery, for succes-

sive years up to 1848. The number of men is less this year than last. He stated also, that the step of forming two battalions last year, rather than twenty companies, was taken by the Master-General with his express con- currence. The efficiency of the Artillery would be better promoted by having the same number of men formed into two battalions with senior officers and fewer subordinate officers than by adding the companies in the way originally proposed.

The vote was agreed to.

On the proposition to vote 45,6201. to complete the sum necessary for the Ordnance Office, Mr. COBDEN objected to proceed further at so late an hour. Lord Jonas RUSSELL pleaded the understanding come to on Thurs- day last. But Mr. COBDEN contended that he and his friends were not to blame if circumstances rendered it impossible to abide by that engage- ment. He protested against this slovenly way of doing the business of the country. Objections to going on were urged by other Members; whom Lord Joni; RUSSELL endeavoured to satisfy. As to the points on which Sir William Molesworth wished to address the House, they were agreed; for the wish of her Majesty's Government was to stop the works at Ber- muda, the Mauritius, and the Ionian Islands. Mr. HORSMAN moved that the Chairman report progress, and the House was cleared; but the vote was agreed to without division. Mr. COBDEN repeated the motion; saying it was not consistent with common sense or decency that they should then proceed further. The motion was negatived, by 107 to 14; but was im- mediately renewed by Mr. KERSHAW. Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave way, and consented to put down the votes for Wednesday, in the hope that Members with bills for that day would consent to allow the Supply to come on, and he would endeavour to make an arrangement for those bills on another day.

The House then resumed, and the report was received.

REVISION OF TAXES.

Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND moved the following resolution- " That whereas a greater amount of taxation is levied upon the people than is required for the good and efficient government of the United Kingdom; and whereas large sums are expended in supporting needless places, extravagant salaries, and unnecessary works and establishments; and whereas the present taxation of the country depresses all clasies, and especially the labouring classes, by diminishing the fund for the employment of productive labour,—it is the opi- nion of this House, that adequate yentas should be forthwith adopted to reduce the expenditure of the Government."

He disclaimed association with former motions simaar in terms, particu- larly because those Former motions were hostile to the Government, which he did not intend to be. He declared that the spirit of party was dead, and he regretted that it was so; but still he found Protectionist Members agreeing to his motion yet refusing to go into the lobby with Mr. Cobden, and Liberal Members declaring it time to be off because they saw Protec- tionists supporting him. He did not deny that the revenue raised by taxa- tion returns to the country, but insisted that the amount is excessive and the mode of levying it unjust. He quoted collateral authorities to support his opinion that the welfare and tranquillity of the country must be secured by more equal taxation. That principle was recognized in England by the -Quarterly Review; in Trinidad, by Lord Harris; in Jamaica, by Lord Grey; in British Guiana, by Sir Robert Peel, author of the report on that colony; and again by Burke, in regard to affairs at home.

Sir CHARLES Woo]) had no objection to the abstract terms of the pro- position, but maintained that its principle had already been carried out to a great extent. The whole policy of recent legislation has been to transfer the burden of taxation from the poor to the rich. In the last seven years, taxes on the raw material of manufactures and on articles of consumption used by the great body of the people have been repealed to the amount of not less than 9,000,0001.; and the diminution of revenue consequent on those reductions has been made up to a great extent by the Income-tax, which falls mainly on the richer classes. Sir Charles specified reductions of personnel and expenditure under Government within the last two years, —10,000 men in the Army, 3,000 in the Navy, the consolidation of the revenue board of the Pay Office, with reductions of the staff of the Home Office, in the Customs and other branches of the civil service: the whole savings in money amounting to 2,361,0001. In fact, reductions of expen- diture have been made in every possible way, and are continued. It is not Government that L‘es eks an increase of.patronage, but the House, in calling for new Inspectors, Commissions, &c. As the resolutions seemed to imply a censure which Government does not deserve, he hoped the House would not consent to them.

Acting ou that suggestion, somewhat later in the debate, Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR moved the following amendment- " That whereas no greater amount of taxation ought to be levied than is suffi- cient for the good and efficient government of the empire; and whereas it is ex- pedient that a searching inquiry should take place, whether some places may not have become useless, whether some salaries are not too large, and whether some works and establishments may not be unnecessary,—it is the opinion of this House, that a vigilant superintendence should be exercised over the expenditure of the country in all its departments, in order that every reduction may be made therein which can be effected without detriment to the public service."

Thb original motion was supported by Mr. HUME, with the usual arga- ments against war-expenses, half pay establishments, &c. What had been done for transferring taxation from the poor to the rich, was done chiefly by Sir Robert Peel; but still 40,000,0001. is levied by customs and excise on articles chiefly consumed by the labouring classes. The resolu- tion was also supported by Mr. EWART, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Colonel THOMPSON, Mr. SPOONER, Mr. CHRISTOPHER, and Mr. BARRE& Mr. ROEBUCK called upon the House to adopt the motion of Mr. Drum- mond rather than that of Lord Robert Grosvenor, as more plain-spoken and proper, and as truly a motion against the Government. He con- trasted the present state of things with the position of affairs in 1830, when the House saw a Government with an overflowing exchequer and the Whigs with a majority on a motion for economy—Sir Henry Parnell's mo- tion on the Civil List, which ousted the Wellington Government. At that time the exditure of the country was 49,000,0001.; last year it was

pe,q

57,000,0001. The English dominions are profoundly tranquil; the Indian war expenditure does not fall on the English treasury; and if true repre- sentative government were given to the Colonies, we might bring back our .troops: it is therefore preposterous to continue expenditure on the score of warlike necessities. - He wholly denied that party was dead in that House— It was by accident he spoke from the place he now occupied (on the Opposition side.) fhe least trifle would split the party in two. The Protectionists at one end of the bench, the remainder of the leading Oppositionists who sat at the other, were as distinct as positive and negative electricity. None could be more opposed to each other than those who sat above and below the gangway. The bench op- posite to him was totally unlike the bench behind it, and the whole House was but as a nest of partisans. He really wished, instead of all this, that there was something like a strong Government established. For his part, he would willingly give up a popular for a strong government He should gladly support a Govern- ment that had vigour enough to carry out its own right intentions: but he could notgive his support to those paltry., hesitating fears, that feeling of shrinking from trouble, that self-deceit, which, like the wild ostrich in the bush, bid its bead and thought it concealed its body. If he could force out such a. Government and force in a strong one, he would most willingly do so; and therefore he gave his cordial support to the motion of the honourable Member for Surrey. Lord JOHN Roseate. could not assent to Mr. DrammOnd's mbtion; though he regarded it less as a censure on the Goverument than on the Rouse iteelle it condemned the manner in which the votes of that House had been given; it charged the Members with misapplying the powers intrusted to them by their constituents; and it was very extraordinary to bring forward the accusation now, when a large proportion of the House, probably 500, including the ablest debaters in Parliament, were absent. Had not Mr. Drummond been driven to take advantage of the thinness of the House at the end of the Session, to bring forward a motion which he could not hope to propose at an earlier period with equal success? Lord John repeated some of Sir Charles Wood's arguments as to reductions already effected. He went back to show how the Civil List was reduced on the accession of William the Fourth, and again in the subsequent reign. He showed how taxes on popular consumption have been reduced,—for instance, salt, from 15s. to 6d. a bushel; sugar, from 3d. to lid. per pound; and bow if the revenue increases in spite of reductions, it is because the wealth in the country is more productive. The great burden is the Na- tional Debt; but you cannot without a breach of faith get rid of that burden by any sort of hocus-pocus—the Sinking-fund will never ma- terially diminish the capital of the Debt, and the only way of dealing with it is regularly to pay the interest He advised the House to negative a resolution proposed not as a vote of censure upon the Government but as a vote of censure by the Members present on the Members absent; and rather to adopt Lord Robert Grosvenor's amendment.

The House divided on the question " thet the words proposed to be left out [the body of Mr. Drummond's resolution] stand part of the question "; which was carried, by 71 to 68. The adnouncement of the numbers was received with load cheering; and the main question was agreed to.

SUPPLY VOTES.

The morning sitting of Wednesday was chiefly occupied in discussing Supply votes.

On the first vote, of 165,3731. for establishments at home and in the Co- lonies, Mr. Main renewed his objections to the throwing away of the gun- powder used as salutes: " Why, a Bisiatip cannot go from one place to another in the Colonies without recentin,„o royal salutes!" He heard, too, that the siege operations about to take place at Chatham would oost many thousand pounds—he had seen a letter from an officer mentioning their cost at 20,0001. Colonel Anson said, the siege operations at Chatham would not cost twenty thousand pence.

Mr. COBDEN called attention to the system of manufacturing-establish- ments carried on by Government, which the evidence before the Com- mittee had shown to be conducted extravagantly and inefficiently. In the Navy and Ordnance departments, he had been astonished at the loose management; the country being put to an enormous expense for a fixed eats blishment of superintendents not having the slightest knowledge of the business they were superintending. The powder made b' Government at Waltham Abbey costa more than if it were made by eminent pnvate makers; for nothing is put down for the cost. of plant, for cottages connected, or for interest of the capital embarked in floating stock. He also attacked thesystem of keeping up such enormous "stores in hand "-142,000 pikes, equal to forty-seven years' consump- tion; 170,000 havresacks, equal to twenty-four years consumption ; 24,000 kettles, equal to eight years' consumption of kettles; 1,200,000 sand-bags, equal to thirty-four years' supply. The evil is liable to sudden aggravation from the necessity of adopting the numerous superior inventions of the day, whereby the old stocks are made totally useless. Thus, 10,000 pieces of light artillery were discarded as useless on the adoption of the Continental example in using guns of heavier calibre; and jest now the Prussians are using a new musket having a range of five hundred yards, which threatens to supersede the percussion-mus- kets, not long adopted by our army. Mr. Cobden referred to Lord Grey, as a Minister who is going-in the right direction in these matters, and ought to be en- couraged: he has given notice to the Australians, that after the beginning of the next financial year they must be prepared to take upon themselves the expecte of their barracks and of keeping up their ordnance stores. Lord JOHN RUSSELL admitted that the general rule should be to con- tract with the private dealer; but he thought Mr. Cobden pushed the case in reference to Government manufactories to an extreme. With respect to the Colonies, he could not defend any unnecessary or wasteful expendi- ture: but, on the other hand, he thought that the course hitherto pursued should not be et, once abandoned, and they should not give the Colonies reason to believe that, if attacked, this country would not defend them.

The vote was agreed to.

In the discussion upon vote 5, of 71,3301. for wages of artificers, Sir JAMES GRAHAM criticized the Navy and Ordnance store accounts: it amounted to a misappropriation of the sums voted by Parliament. Sir CHARLES WOOD admitted the fact. He would earnestly address himself to this subject, and would endeavour to have the store accounts put in a proper state before the next meeting of Parliament. On vote 7, of 236,5361. for works, buildings, and repairs, Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH moved as an amendment, that the vote be reduced by2the sum of 19,1541. which it is proposed to expend on ordnance works at-Ber- muda, the Mauritius, and the Ionian Islands. As to Bermuda, he rested on the opinion of Lord Grey, that no new works should be undertaken, because he had been informed that Lord Dundonald, the Admiral on the station, and Captain Elliot, the Governor, recommended altera- tions in the system of defence—suggesting a flotilla of steamers as the most effective means of defence. The works at Mauritius are to go on at a rate which will complete them only in forty years: he agreed with the Committee, that if they could be dispensed with so long, they could be done without altogether. A8 to the Ionian States, under the convention of 1817 they are bound to provide subsistence and payment for 3,000, but not to provide fortifications. But the burden of the men alone would be far beyond their whole revenue in 1817, which was 80,0001. a year. It was arranged they should make a military contribution of about 35,0001. a year. In 1824, it was supposed that great fortifications were necessary: it was therefore arranged that 20,0e81. a year for the fortifica- tions should be taken in lieu of their military contribution.

The nature of this transaction is evident: 20,0001. a year was virtually taken from the appropriations in aid of the Army, and transferred, without the cognizance of Parliament, to the Ordnance.

Colonel Alison assured Sir William Moleswortb, he was labouring under a mistake in thinking that the money spent was improperly laid one: the original works have been contracted, and have been made mere works of economy.. It is not the case either that the Government has robbed the Army tor the purpose of expending the money on the Ordnance; for the money which had been expended was to be repaid by the Ionian Is- lands to this country. However, this expenditure for the defences of these islands would be stopped. -

Vote agreed to.

LTMITATION OF LABOUR-HOURS.

The subject Of prohibiting labour in bakehouses daring certain hours al the night was brought before. the Ifoitse ,of -Commons by Lord Ileterser GROSVENOR; who moved for leave to bring in a bill upon the subject, and supported his motion by a speech of considerable length.

There are 10,000 persons in London employed in making bread ; and their hours of labour are from eleven at night to six or seven next evening, with an in- crease on Fridays and Saturdays, and with work for five or six hours on Sundays; an average of 100 hours per week, in places little better than cellars, and exposed to the utmost vicissitude of heat and cold. They come asyouths, principally from Scotland, to pass through the fire of Moloch in this metropolis, about the age of fif- teen or sixteen. After that period, they have no time to give to mental improve- ment, religions instruction, rational recreation, or attendance on public worship; and if they do not all entirely " live without God in the weed," it is no fault of the System to which they are sacrificed. No fewer than 2,500 master bakers have petitioned in favour of their workmen. The objections grounded on the "immu- table principles of political economy" come too late; for interference has already occurred in various analogous instances—by the Coal-whippers Act, the Collieries Act, and the Ten-Hours Act. He begged the House to agree to his motion on account of the sufferings of the unfortunate men whose case he bad undertaken to lay before them. If they rejected it, he hoped they would be able tojustify them- selves for prolonging a system which all declare to be grievous and deplorable.

Mr. LAnoucRERR opposed the bill, as involving a principle altogether novel in the legislation of this country,—the principle of limiting the hours of labour, not in factories, where large numbers of persons are congregated together, and where, consequently, a system of inspection is possible with- out the necessity of constant visits of Government Inspectors, and the lia- bility to information by private parties against the employers of labourers; but in dwelling-houses and work-shops, where the system of minute and constant inspection that would be necessary to carry out the plan of Lord Grosvenor would be quite intolerable. He believed the bill would do more harm than good, and advised the House to reject it. Lord DUDLEY Smarr and Sir DE LACY EvANs felt a difficulty how to act: a strong case had been made out, but further information was necessary. With

Mr. Du:seals' they would support the motion if a Committee would be conceded by Government. Mr. STAFFORD, supporting the motion, called

on Mr. Cobden for a statement of his opinion, because such questions re- specting labour must enter materially into those economical theories with which his name is associated.

Mr. COBDEN answered the appeal. If the present measure were adopted, would not the glass-blowers come for- ward? would not that class known in London as nightmen come forward ? would not the iron-founders come forward ? There was hardly a trade that could

not be proved to be more or less noxious to a healthy man. If honourable Mem- bers were not prepared to carry out that principle they would lead only to wide-

spread disappointment by the atop they now proposed to take. On such steps, when taken by amiable persons like the noble Lord, he looked with alarm. He knew their social influence, he knew their moral weight. He would tell the noble Lord publicly, as he bad told him privately—this was Communism. The noble Lord was startled when it was so described privately. At that time, the spring of last year, Paris was in the hands of the Communists. What was the result? In June a bloody outbreak occurred in Paris; which he attributed to the Com- amulets not having realized the promises they had made. He predicted that when the Government undertook to find labour for tailors and shoemakers, great disappointment would be experienced on the part of the working classes, and a fearful reaction would ensue. And it came. By encouraging that system, by leading working-men to suppose that Parliament had the power to regulate the hours of labour and give work to the adult labourer in this country, they were at- tempting to invest themselves with a power which they could not wield; and when the working-man asked them to carry out their promises, they could not fail to disappoint the expectations they themselves excited. He should vote against the principle of undertaking to manage the affairs of adult males through the intervention of the Legislature. Members of Parliament bad quite enough to do; and if they gave themselves a ten-hours bill, they would then be setting a better example to thereat of the community. If the House adopted the principle of this bill, they would have somebody coming from the agricultural districts to talk of the terrible occupation of thrashing beans and peas. Did honourable gentlemen ever see a poor draggle-tailed woman in a wet turnip-field? He saw an honourable friend in the House who had turned amateur farmer for

a time, and who said that he had gone out into the field and sent home the wo- men, as he could not bear to see them. Were the House once to act on the prin- ciple of interference, they would involve themselves in an inextricable labyrinth. They would make the condition of the working classes worse than it was because they would make the working classes rely upon that House.

The motion was also opposed by Sir GEORGE GREY, as the admission of a principle under which no limit to interference could be placed. Sir George would not consent to granting a Committee, as the information sought was already before the House. On a division, the motion was negatived, by 77 to 19.

THE PALACE COURT.

On the proposal to consider in Committee the Small Debts Act Amend- ment Bill, Lord DUDLEY STUART protested against giving any compensa- tion to the officers of the Palace Court, on any supposed ground of right arising out of the losses they might sustain by this measure. Men who have had great, exorbitant, and above all unjust gains, are exactly the peo- ple who ought on no account to be compensated: they ought to rejoice at not being made to refund the profits which, to the injury of suitors and the disgrace of the country, they have too long enjoyed. In Committee, upon the first clause, Mr. OSBORNE resisted compensation on higher grounds,—on the ground that the original institution of the Pa- lace Court was illegal and unconstitutional; and that it now imposes taxes and fees upon her Majesty's subjects without the consent of Parliament.

Originally supposed to be necessary for settling disputes between the members of the Royal Household, it came, under the reign of a Stuart King, to exercise do- mination and tyranny over all who resided within twelve miles of it. Many de- cisions of the superior courts had been, both directly and indirectly, pronounced against its legality; especially in the case of Fyscbe versus Wagstaffe. It was better during the Commonwealth; but in the days of Charles the Second it was revived with its six attornies and four counsel. There are documents in the Bri- tish Museum which establish beyond all possibility of doubt that the parties then interested in the revival of this public wrong gave a bribe of 1,0001. to Lord Chancellor Hyde to promote the reconstruction of this Court. Chancellor Hyde put the 1,0001. in his pocket, and the letters-patent were issued forthwith: from that day to this, the Palace Court went on blooming in all its corruption and sat- iny; and if it had not been for Mr. Jacob Omnium and the spirit which he loused, the bloodsucking attornies of the Palace Court—yes, he would repeat it, for he could by perfect proof justify such an epithet, and be should never apolo- gize for having used it—the bloodsucking attornies of the Palace Court might have gone on indefinitely plundering the citizens of this great metropolis and the acountry for twelve miles round. He opposed the idea of taxing the kingdom at large for the purpani of relieving the persons residing within the jurisdiction of Intl ntolerable nuisance from its tyranny. Parliament admitted that a police- Sete for Manchester ought not to. -be et:tatted upon the nation ; then why should

the nation compensate these lawyers? When the County Courts were established,

the business of lawyers was diminished one-fourth by the agency of that change; but who thought of giving them compensation ? The number of writs issued was one- third less; but who thought of compensating the parties who gained by the issue of writs ? But on the establishment of those courts the business of the Palace Court was immensely increased; nevertheless the officers of that court got "compensation." Before 1846, the Judge received about 2141. ayear; he then got 601. cash down, and 3061. a year compensation: in 1848, his fees had increased to 7141. a year. Mr. B. G. Willoughby, one of the attornies, got 8301. in fees before 1846, andgot 1,9001. for compensation: in 1848, his year's fees were 1,5471. Mr. Miller's tees were 3001.; and he got 7501. compensation; his fees in 1848 were 1,444L Mr. Mark Sheppard gave 1001. for his place in 1844, and hie fees were 7281. in the two succeeding years; he got 2401. compensation: in 1848, his fees were 3,5371. The number of writs issued in this court in 1846 was 2,231, and 409 causes were tried by the four barristers of the court. Taking each debt at 8L, which be should think below the average, the amount involved was 17,8481. The profits of the barristers and attornies would be, on 1,822 undefended cases at 51. each 9,1101., and on 409 defended cases at 201. each, 8,1801.; and yet these persons had now the assurance to call upon the House to compensate them I They had had ample time for feathering their nests well. He altogether objected to referring this question of compensation to the Lords of the Treasury, and considered that the matter should be left for the decision of a Committee of that House.

The ATToRNEY-GENERAL explained to Sir H. Willoughby and Lord Dudley Stuart, that by adopting the resolution the House would not be pledged to make the compensation chargeable on the Consolidated Fund. If the House thought fit, they might provide the compensation by a rate upon the county of Middlesex.

In Committee, a clause was moved by Mr. FITZROY for giving jurisdic- tion to the County Courts over debts of 501. instead of 201. only as at present. This proposal was supported by several Members; but the AT- TORNEY-GENERAL deemed such an extension unsafe, unless an appeal were- given to the superior courts. Mr. SPOONER suggested, that the jurisdic- tion might at least be given in cases of consent by the parties. Sir GEORGE GREY believed that if Parliament gave the County Courts too much to do, they would not work so satisfactorily. He was not prepared to say that after more experience, and in conjunction with other provisions, it might not be possible beneficially to extend the jurisdiction; but to effect that extension incidentally in the way proposed, would tend very mach to de- feat the very benefit it was desired to obtain.

Mr. MILLINGS and other Members complained of the parsimonious al- lowances to the Judges: they should be allowed 1,500i. and pay their own travelling expenses. The clause was negatived, by 62 to 34; and the House resumed. In Committee, on Tuesday, Lord DUDLEY STUART renewed Ms opposi- tion to the insertion of any compensation clause. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL stated, that if the compensation clause were negatived, the bill could not be passed this session. In fixing the compensation now to be given, the Treasury would take into account the compensation given under the act of 1846. The returns made by the solicitors in 1846, to show that their business had decreased, would be taken as the basis of the compensa- tion, and the increase since that will be left out of question. Lord DUD- LEY Samara divided the House on the question that clause 20 (the com- pensation-clause) should stand part of the bill; and the clause was affirmed, by 52 to 2. The bill was then reported.

SMITHFIELD MARKET.

The subject of the Smithfield Market nuisance was brought under notice by Mr. MACKINNON, in a motion for an address to the Queen, praying that her Majesty's Ministers should be directed to take the report of the Select Committee into early and serious consideration. Mr. Mackinnon went over the beaten ground on the subject,—the growth of the market, till its transactions have become vastly too great for the area of the ground used; the morbific influence of the congregation of upwards of 310,000 cattle and 1,600,000 sheep every year; the evils to the inhabitants from the passage to and fro of such a multitude of animals; with the incidents of brutalizing cruelty, and fatal or serious accidents. Among the medical testimonies he quoted, was that of Professor Owen, that ill-

treatment of the cattle, their being over-driven and slaughtered in a state of ex- citement, caused the meat not to cut up light, and that it soon became putrid; and that where the animals were slaughtered as they were about Smithfield in cellars, the contagion from the putrid meat got into the fresh meat and the whole mass was tainted. Professor Owen concurred in stating that the number of dis- eases engendered in consequence was not to be calculated; but he mentioned par- ticularly that of cancer among the lower classes. Mr. Mackinnon would suggest to Government, in the first place, to introduce a abort bill appointing Commis- sioners to purchase forty or fifty acres of land wherever they thought fit; then, when the purchase was made, to establish a market for live and dead cattle, and build abattoirs and houses for the accommodation of the poorer workmen in its vicinity.

Mr. OSBORNE undertook the general defence of Smithfield market, and went into a criticism of the case made by Mr. Mackinnon.

He depreciated the testimony of Professor Owen and Mr. Grainger, as that of men who, though eminent in science, never had a case in private practice in their lives. He insisted that the neighbourhood of the market is particularly healthy: there is not a word in the report about any epidemic; only one case of cholera occurred there in 1832. The testimony of Dr. Burrows, Mr. Lawrence, and Sur- geon Lynn, is as good on the one side as that of the doctors who have impugned the health of the market on the other: in fact, the medical men are four to one against Mr. Mackinnon. "Dr. Conquest, who practised in the neighbourhood for twenty years, said it was not more unhealthy than any other part of London, and that it was less affected by fever than any other locality."* As to the evil from driving cattle through the streets, that will exist where-.

ever the market is placed, unless it be removed so far out of London as to be moat expensive to the butchers, and by consequence to the consumers of meat. If the health of the Metropolis were seriously injured by the market, no sum of money ought to stand in the way of its removal; but the House ought to consider how far any individual is justified in calling upon the Government to purchase the site of a market which has never been injurious either to the public health of the city or to the general health and convenience. Alderman SIDNEY, in opposing the motion, observed that the direct in- terest of the Corporation was a very minor question, compared with the value of the market to the trade of London—from 7,000,0001. to 8,000,0001. a year. Sir DE LACY EVANS alleged that the Committee was packed. Mr. STAFFORD opposed the motion, because no definite plan was proposed for substituting another market.

• Dr. Conquest has written to the Times, acquitting Mr. Osborne of any intention to state what is untrue, but denying that his evidence is in favour of this monstrous Me- tropolitan grievance. He says—" I unhesitatingly affirm, that I have ever considered that If there be one spot in the city more prejudicial to the health of its inhabitants, or more pregnant with physical evils, or more disgraceful to the Metropolis than another, It is this source and centre of filth and pestilence." The motion was supported by Lord Roentax GROSVENOR; who sug- gested that the Government should appoint Commissioners to cooperate with the Corporation in carrying the proposed plan into effect. Mr. ORMSBY GORE took the same side. Sir EDMUND Fuson, as a member of the Committee, said, the evidence was so loose and contradictory that it was not trustworthy.

Mr. ConNswass LEWIS, another member of the Committee, concurred with Mr. Osborne, that the existence of the market was not shown to be any serious injury to the health of the neighbourhood. The report is so voluminous that it was impossible to give any assurance of assent to the conclusions of the Committee. But the report will be oonsidered, and Go- vernment be prepared to give assistance in arranging any plan that may be proposed for attaining what he would confess appeared to him a highly desirable object.

On this understanding, Mr. MAciessietom withdrew his motion.

RATING OF STOCK IN TRADE.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on the Stock-in-trade

Bill, Sir Hamar WieLouctanr brought the general question of rating un- der the notice of the House; pointing out the inequality and injustice of the rating, and of the exemptions from rating. He called on Government to rescue the law from the odium to which it is now justly liable, for fastening on real property the whole burden of the rate. Mr. CORNEWALL LEWIS went over the history of.the exemption of stock in trade, and finally ventured to affirm, that the rating of stock in trade, if carried into effect over the whole country, would produce (considering the deductions allowed by law) no sensible relief to the landed interest or to the rate- payers in the great mass of the rural parishes. He said nothing in defence of the system of annual bills. The subject of valuation generally to the local rates, including the question as to stock in trade, had occupied the attention of Sir George Grey since last winter, and a bill had been in preparation; but there had been no opportunity to bring the subject for- ward: upon the earliest fitting opportunity it would be brought before the House.

lamer Pool-LAW.

Before going into Committee on the Poor-Relief (Ireland) Bill, Lord STANLEY bCgged to trouble their Lordships with a few objections to the bill, which could not be so properly stated in Committee.

The Government, contrary to the wish of their Lordships, bad determined to

appoint a Committee to consider:the existing state of the Irish Poor-law and the remedy which might be desirable. The Committee had taken evidence from Christmas to Easter, and had come to a decision adverse to the proposition of the rate-iu-aid, as impracticable, injudicious, impolitic, oppressive, and ineffectual. The condemnation of the rate-in-aid was unanimous on the part of every member of the Committee except those who were themselves members of the Government —even members of their own choice voting against the Government. Yet the Government decided on pressing the rate-in-aid upon the House. Indeed, not more than two or three out of the whole number of important recommendations suggested by the Committee were adopted. The subject of appeals is emitted al- together; the quarter-acre question has been left untouched; the very large powers now vested, sometimes perhaps of necessity, but most unconstitutionally, in the Vice-Guardians, have been left unguarded; and those officers are still left to dis- tribute, without any responsibility to the rate-payers, the whole amount of the yearly expenditure under the law, 335,0001. of which goes in salaries alone. He thought, as the Committee recommended, that the local managers should be con- trolled in their extravagant outlay by a paid Assistant Guardian ; but the advan- tage should be retained of the local knowledge of the Guardians as a means of distinguishing between true and fraudulent applications for relief, and checking enormous abuses. But to make anything like a real and substantial amendment, they must go deeper into the question: if they intended to make the Poor-law beneficial, they must return to the principle of the original bill, namely, that with few and rare exceptions, in-door relief should be the only mode of relief in Ireland. It is of the highest importance to arrange the electoral divisions. The Boundary Commissioners have presented the reports on two unions, and, unless he was mistaken, are now ready to lay their whole propo- sitions before the House. As the law now stands, Parliament has no veto; but the Government has a veto. The decisions of the Boundary Commissioners is not final, but that of the Poor-law Commissioners is final: if when Parliament should be up it should have received the report of the Boundary Commissioners but not the decision of the Poor-law Commissioners, they would next session be told that it is too late to interfere. He admitted to the full the principle that property has its duties as well as its rights; but the bill will impose the duties which appertain to some property upon the possessors of other property, at the same time that it will prevent the latter persons from performing the duties which attach to their own property. Upon that principle he objected to the two-shilling union rate after the five-shilling electoral rate had been "collected so far as was thought practicable"; for although not half of the latter were collected, the ad- joining union was to be called on, after having paid the whole of its own rate. That was a premium on non-payment of rates, and a discourage- ment to all exertion. Lord Stanley himself had this year sent out between three and four hundred persons as emigrants, at a cost of between 1,1001. and 1,5001.; but he had a list of 375 persons turned out of an electoral division in the same union without relief; and, under the existing law, after enabling three or four hundred persons to emigrate to America, be is now obliged to support these per- sons evicted from neighbouring properties. This bill would pauperize one part after another, till the whole of Ireland is pauperized. The eighth resolution of the Committee states truly, that where the tenant allowed the arrears of poor- rates to run up, the landlord might find after a time that the fee-simple of his property was absorbed by them. It is said that the landlord is liable for only one half the rate: but the remaining half may still become arrears to more than twenty shillings in the pound of the full value; and powers are given which make a decree of a Revising Barrister for these arrears to have the effect of a judgment upon the lands of the landlord wheresoever situate, in England as well as in Ire- land. [Lord Campbell denied this.] Another point is, that the bill makes no provision for a more regular and perfect audit of the Poor-law accounts. Lastly, as to emigration: power ought to be given to a certain extent for emigration or migration; but that power given to the irresponsible Viee-Guardians will be liable to abuse. He found in this bill some little alterations of the present law here, some trifling modifications there ; but, passed in whatever shape and however amended, he had no hope that by it would be cured that canker of the Poor-law which was now eating into the vitals of the country.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the appointment of a Committee:

if the Government had refused that step, they would have been reproached with shutting out the evidence of persons actually acquainted with the working of the Poor-law in Ireland; but at the same time, Government had not shrunk from the responsibility of proposing a measure they deemed indispensable for preventing the people from dying by starvation—the rate- in-aid.

kin entirely concerrel with Lord Stanley in regard to what had fallen from him relative to the system of out-door relief: the adoption of that system originally could be justified only as an act of necessity; he himself had viewed it with alarm: it is the imperative duty of Government and the Legislature to recur as soon as possible to the sounder and safer principle of in-door relief. There is every disposition on the part of Government to hasten the period for the resump- tion of the workhouse test, and he hoped that period would prove not very distant. As to Lord Stanley's complaint that landlords will be liable for the rates, the bill affords especial protection, by making it imperative on tenants to produce to their landlords receipt for rates paid. Lord STANLEY—" That is only when they pay rent, which they never do." Lord LANSDOWNE hoped there would be a change for the better in that reams,: Then, the abuse of paupers rushing in to fill up the places of those who may have emigrated from an estate, is expressly provided against by the clause which fixes the chargeability of relief upon the electoral division in which the pauper shall have been resident for three years before his application. The question of the re- arrangement of electoral divisions is under the consideration of the Boundary Commissioners, and their detailed report may be expected soon. The House went into Committee on the bill. Clause 1 (the maximum clause) was opposed by the Earl of Wrcxsow. It would be absurd to approve a maximum rate unless there were a guarantee that the deficiency should be supplied: the House of Commons, however, virtually admit that they will supply the deficiency when it occurs. He should vote against the maximum in principle, but if it were affirmed he should not consent to abandon the rate-in-aid; because they could not hold the House of Cons_ mons to their implied engagement without first meeting the difficulty so far as it could be met by the rate-in-aid. The clause was also opposed by Lord STRADEROORE, as calculated to remove the inducement in poor elec- toral districts to avoid deficiencies; and by Lord WHARNCLIFEE, as a mem- ber of the Committee quite unconnected with Irish affairs, but most anxious to arrive at a just conclusion. While the bill professed to maintain the value of land, this clause would really lower those divisions which are bet- ter off than their neighbours. Lord REDESDALE thought the bill impracti- cable and unjust—it actually gives power to collect a five-shilling rate ia the half-year. The clause was supported by the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, Earl FITZWILLIAM, the Earl of ST. GERMANS, and the Marquis of Learenowsrn; mainly on the ground that a large proportion of the gentlemen best able to judge from experience, and most intimately connected with the disturbed districts, gave it as their opinion that a maximum rate is more likely than anything else to encourage purchasers and restore confidence. The proportion of unions in which the rate-in-aid will be demanded is very small; out of 1,923 electoral divisions, there are only 328 in which the maximum has ever been reached. The total number of unions is 131; in 61 of these there is a balance in hand, and where the debts are highest they amount to no more than 6.e. 2d. in the pound on the entire valuations. After that, would any one allege that the fixed liability to a rate after the fixed maximum would weigh a feather in the minds of capitalists? On a division, the clause was negatived, by 35 to 26; majority against Ministers, 9. Clauses 1 and 2 were accordingly erased from the bill. Clauses 16, 17, and 18, were objected to by Lord MONTEAGLE. Under the original Poor-law, it was an inadvertent result that the decree of a Re- vising Barrister for the tenant's arrears of rate gave a " lien " over the landlord's whole real estate. The present bill goes further, and gives such decrees the force of a " judgment." Lord CAMPBELL, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, and the Earl of ST. Gni:arena dissented from this view, and supported the clauses. Lord STANLEY and the Earl of Luoaie sided with Lord Monteagle.

On a division, clause 16 was negatived, and removed from the bill. The other clauses were then agreed to.

IRISH ENCUMBERED ESTATES.

In considering the Lords' amendments to the Encumbered Estates (Ire- land) Bill, Sir JOHN ROMILLY moved amendments to modify a clause in- troduced by the Lords, authorizing the Commissioners under the bill to sell estates when the income should not exceed one half of the expenses. That clause was generally disapproved by Members of the House of Commons; and Sir John Romilly received support in limiting the operation of the clause to the net income, instead of the gross income, with some further alteration in the same spirit. He also moved to reject a provision introduced by the Lords, allowing poundage to certain ushers: it was inconsistent with the spirit of the existing practice in Chancery. With these exceptions, the Lords' amendments were agreed to.

MINOR IRISH REFORMS.

Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE has obtained leave to bring in three separate bills,—one to establish county boards and district boards for managing the fiscal affairs of counties; another to secure the safety- of public roads and highways in Ireland, in regard to accidents and offences; a third to enact sanatory laws for Ireland: the bills to stand over for consideration during the recess. Sir William has also announced asin preparation, a bill to im- prove the prison discipline of Ireland.

IRISH PARTY COLLISION AT DOLLY'S BRAE.

Mr. MOORE, moving for papers, called attention on Thursday to "the out- rages lately committed at Caatlewellan": he and several other Members in- dignantly complained that the military had not effectually interfered, and that the whole affair had not been prevented by the reenactment of the Party Processions Act. Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE replied, that the act had not been renewed because Government had hoped that the common sense of all parties had rendered the renewal unnecessary. As to the occur- rence at Dolly's Brae, it was very recent, and he had not had time to inquire into the facts; but he would do so. Some Members pressing for a renewal of the Party Processions Act, Mr. LABOUCHERE observed, that if such pro- ceedings could be put down by the concurrence of men of character and influence without distinction of class, the object would be much better gained than by an act of Parliament.—Motion withdrawn.

FURTIVE LEGISLATION.

On the second reading of the Sites of Religious Congregations (Scotland) Bill, Lord REDESDALE opposed the bill, and complained of the manner In which it had passed the House of Commons. He opposed the bill because it makes a great alteration of the Scotch law without sufficient delibera- tion. The Dissenters of Scotland are placed on the same footing as the Established Church in this country with respect to the holding of land; since the bill makes all office-bearers in congregations trustees quicii virtute. Had it not been for the way in which bills pass at this period of the ses- sion in the House of Commons, it would never have reached their Lord- ships: every one of its stages in the House of Commons had been taken after half-past twelve o'clock at night. Lord Caleestam. contended that the bill had been deliberately considered in the House of Commons. The Earl of ABERDEEN said, it only carried cut the provisions of a bill passed several years ago. Lord BEstrwosim said, it only enabled parties to do that cheaply which they can now do at considerable expense. Ultimately, the bill was read a second time.

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION.

Yesterday week, Lord JOHN RUSSELL put off the second reading of the Australian Colonies (No. 2) Bill from Monday in the present week till Thursday's morning sitting. On Monday, Mr. ADDERLEY asked Lord John, whether he was aware that the Judgments (Ireland) Bill stood be- fore the Australian Colonies Bill on Thursday morniog, and was likely to raise a debate? whether he would consider the remainder of the morning enough to discuss a new constitution for five colonies? if not, whether it would not be better to give the bill another day, on which it might come on first? and whether an evening would not be fitter than a mere morning sitting for so large a subject? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the Australian Bill must stand for Thursday morning, but he would see if the Irish bill could not be put out of its way.

On Tuesday, as soon as the House met at five, Lord Jona. Russsr.r. at once said, as he found, though there was no dispute about the principle of the bill, yet there were amendments to its details, he believed there would not be sufficient time left; he therefore withdrew the bill.

Mr. ADDERLEY said, that as Ministers had now abandoned their plan for Australian government, he hoped some one on his side of the House would be prepared with another bill at the first opportunity next session: if no better man was ready, he at once gave notice of a bill himself; and he would move for leave to bring it in as soon as Parliament met again. Lord Jome RUSSELL said, Government had not abandoned the bill—only post- poned it to next session. In reply to Mr. VERNON SMITH, he was under- stood to decline bringing in a smaller bill, merely to separate Port Phillip. In reply to Mr. FRANCIS Score, he said he was not aware that the course of laying on the table the bill to be introduced next session was called for. He informed Mr. Hume, that it was his intention next year to introduce the bill as it now stood; " subject, of course, to such changes as on con- sideration might be found advisable." Of course, no one was bound to stand by every clause in it; but at all events the people of the colony would have full opportunity of seeing and considering the measure. On Tuesday, in the House of Lords, the bill was treated as still unaur- rendered by the Government. Lord STANLEY repeated a suggestion made by him about a fortnight ago. He then stated that her Majesty's Government would find some difficulty in passing the bill for the regulation of the constitutions of the Australian Colonies through their Lordships' House in the present session. Since that time, he found that no progress whatever had been made in that bill in the other House of Par- liament. It now stood for a second reading in the House of Commons on Thurs- day next. It was quite impossible, after the 19th of July, for their Lordships to pass through Parliament with sufficient deliberation a bill for regulating the con- stitutions of five or six of our newest and most important colonies. He wished to know whether the noble Earl would restrict that bill to the mere separation of the colony of Port Phillip from the colony of New South Wales? To a bill so re- stricted he should offer no opposition; but if the noble Earl intended to carry his bill farther, he warned him that it would meet with strong opposition, not only in the other but also in that House of Parliament.

Earl GREY regretted that pressure of business had prevented the pro- gress of the bill in the House of Commons.

The bill now stood for a second reading on Thursday; and he could give the noble Baron no decided answer to his question until he knew the result of the discussion which would then take place. He admitted that if the bill were really a bill for the establishment of new constitutions in the Australian Colonies, it would not be proper to consider it at so late a period of the session: but the bill was limited to one point, the extension of that constitution which was established in New South Wales to our other colonies in its vicinity. It also made provisions that those colonies, by the authority of their respective Legislatures, should make alteration in those constitutions, subject, however, to the controlling power of Par- liament. He believed that the parties in the colonies fully concurred in the pro- priety of the measures which had been introduced.

Lord MONTEAGLE commented upon an alteration, of a very extraordi- nary character, which had been introduced into this bill. He should like to know whether it was intended to introduce a clause into it entirely changing the present mode and rate of selling land in these colonies? Earl GREY, in answer to the question, expressed his conviction that it was of vital importance to maintain the principle of the Land Sales Act: he should not, therefore, consent to any alteration of it. Great complaints, however, had been made by the Colonies, that they were tied up so as not to be able to make any the slightest change in it, even when the change was palpably for their own interest. They had represented to him that this subject should be left open for their consideration. It should be recol- lected that all these colonies are closely connected with each other. A large part of the produce of the sale of these lands is spent in the promotion and support of emigration. It would be a great injustice if one colony, by reducing the price of its land, should be enabled to induce the emigrants who had been carried out at the expense of another to leave that colony, and to transfer their skill and labour to another which had not incurred the same expense. Uniformity of price was therefore a matter of great importance. But, in conformity with the wishes of the Colonies, he had said that he would have no objection to a clause by which, if a Federal Legislature were formed for all the Australian Colonies, that Federal Legislature should be at liberty to amend the Land Sales Act. But, in giving that power, he should be very sorry if the Colonies should avail themselves of it to reduce the selling price of land. Lord STANLEY hoped that Lord Grey bad now satisfied his colleagues in the Government, as he certainly had satisfied the country, that it was im- possible to pass this bill in the course of the present session. From what the noble Earl had just stated, it was clear that a Federal Govern- ment was to be constructed. That would give rise to much important discussion. Besides, various other questions would be raised under this bill, which was not yet printed even for the House of Commons. It was to be discussed on the second reading in the House of Commons without being printed—a course rather un- usual; it would then have to be discussed again in Committee, where it would be thoroughly sifted and seriously opposed. It would then have to be read a third time in that House ; after that it would have to be submitted to their Lordships; and all this was to be commenced on the 18th or 19th of July!

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.

On Monday, the Earl of LINCOLN announced that he should not be able to renew his motion on Vancouver's Island this session. Mr. Henley's motion on public salaries, besides three or four others, had precedence of his on Thursday; it was not probable that there would be four more Supply nights in the remainder of the session; and Government had de- clined to give him a night for the discussion.

FRENCH AND ENGLISH NAVIES.

Earl TALBOT drew attention to statements by Sir Charles Napier, who said that the English have only three steam-frigates with armaments on their main-decks, whereas the French have twenty-three such frigates; with similar statements disparaging to the English Navy. Lord Talbot cited a comparative table, one part derived from our own Navy List and the other part from the French Journal of Marine and the statement of President Bonaparte. This table showed a preponderance on the aide of England in line-of-battle ships and frigates; on the side of France in cor- vettes and brigs: the total of English sailing-ships under commission being sixty-one, with 2,047 guns; of French, fifty-five, with 2,100 guns. Stearn navy in commission—sixty-nine English ships, with an aggregate of 15,071 horse-power; French, fifty-eight ships, of 12,330 horse-power; the Eng- lish preponderance being greatest in steam-ships of the greatest size and weight of metal. Of screw-steamers we have nine, with 1,560 horse- power; the French, three ships, of 540 horse-power. In the reserve force we have forty-three vessels, including twenty-five line-of-battle ships; the French have forty-one, including ten line-of-battle ships. Lord Talbot moved for further returns.

In acceding to the motion, the Earl of MINTO expressed his regret, that an officer of Sir Charles Napier's rank and standing should have thought proper to carry on a correspondence like the one which he recently waged with the Duke of Portland.

BRITISH PASSPORTS IN ROME.

The Earl of MALHESBURY, complaining that Mr. Freeborn, the British Consul at Rome, had abused his authority by giving passports to revolu- tionists in that place, the Earl of MINTO stated that he was accidentally enabled to explain Mr. Freeborn's conduct— He had recently received a letter from Mr. Freeborn, in which he stated that he was completely overcome with fatigue in consequence of his having been thirty hours without sleep, whilst engaged " in facilitating the departure of individuals who might be shot if they were taken in Rome."

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

On Wednesday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL requested Members who had No- tices or Orders of the Day which would take precedence of Supply, to come to some arrangement with him so as to allow the public business to be ad- vanced— He proposed that those Orders and Notices which were fixed for being proceeded with on going into Committee of Supply, should on Monday next at twelve o'clock stand in reference to all other business and to each other as they stood at present; the House continuing to sit from twelve o'clock to four, five, or six, and resuming again after the usual interval, to proceed with the appointed business of the evening. Mr. BOUVERIE assented, if other Members would do the same; Ur. MIME would not resist, provided his statement on Guiana could be laid before the House; Mr. STUART WORTLEY and Mr. Ilonssoar did not object, if they could be secured six hours apiece. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that all should be accommodated as far as practicable.