Debates awl girotettrings in VarIiament

TEE OREGON DISPUTE.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Earl of CLannwnow moved for the production of such correspondence as had taken place with the United States on the subject of the Oregon territory as could be produced without injury to the public service. He also asked what course the Government proposed to adopt in the event of the Senate of the United States concurring in the resolution to give notice that the joint occupancy Was to cease? Nothing could be further from his intention than to embarrass the Govern- ment, or to ask for any premature disclosure of information; but he thought that **people of this country should not be altogether dependent upon the American newspapers for information as to what was passing between the two Governments. He approved of the silence which Parliament bad kept on the subject, because it showed a prudent determination to leave the Government unfettered. It MB no- ()essay, however, to guard against the notion that England was so determined upon peace that she was indifferent to preparations for war, or so anxious to avoid a contest that she would submit to peace purchased by dishonourable concessions. Though the language of the two Governments, in their communications with each other, had been entirely pacific, and was continuing to be so, yet it could not he disguised that the countries were insensibly drifting towards war. Lord Clarendon expressed a high opinion of the competency, intelligence, and conciliatory disposition of Mr. Pakenham ; and had no doubt that his declining to forward the proposal of the Government of the United States must have arisen from conclusive and satisfactory reasons. " But of this I am sure, that my noble friend, in instructing Mr. Pakenham to renew the negotiations, has faithfully re- presented the opinions and wishes of this country. My noble friend, in departing from the ordinary, course pursued in such cases, and desiring that the question_af title as well as of territorial division should be submitted to arbitration—to the arbitration, not of a sovereign power only, but of any competent individual—has pursued a most judicious course: for we have thereby given the best proof to the world that we have advanced no claim in the justice of which we are not able to confide; and that however confident we are in the belief that our claim is well founded, we are yet so little desirous of obstinately adhering to it that we are .wil- ling to have the whole case submitted to an impartial tribunal. This places us in a proper position." The people of this country will not go to war till they find that every effort to preserve peace has failed, and that on the part of the United States there is a determination to injure and insult. It is scarcely to be believed that the United States will adopt such a course, and compel a war about an almost unoccupied territory, the whole value of which could not compensate for one single month of war and its evils. It is true that a party exists in that country reckless enough to engage in such a contest. By that party England has been rudely assailed, her claims repudiated, and her whole policy misrepresented: but Lord Clarendon thought that offence should not be hastily taken at such pro- ceedings; they are mainly attributable to the vehemence of the popular will, and the operation of the electoral system. He did not think the party alluded to represents the opinion of the enlightened majority of the people of the United States.

The Earl of ABERDEEN felt assured, and had not been disappointed, that Lord Clarendon's sense of public duty and his intimate knowledge of the great interests at stake, would prevent him from adding anything to the difficulties with which the question is already surrounded— The desire to obtain information from our own Government, looking at the de- tails which reached this country from the United States, was natural and reason- able. He could not, therefore, object to the production of some of the papers; but he must reserve to himself the discretion of suppressing for the present a large portion of the correspondence, the production ot which at this time would be injurious to the public interests. He would not have been inclined of his own accord to produce the documents he agreed to place on the table. The position of the United States Government in this respect was different from that of the English Government. The former had called upon the Legislature to adopt a certain course; but her Majesty's Government had no intention in the mein time of calling on Parliament for an opinion; and, therefore, the information sought was not essential. Another reason was, that an inference might fairly be drawn from the correspondence unfavourable to the result of the negotiation: but he nevertheless thought such an opinion would have no sound basis. He had no- doubt of the sincere desire of both Governments to arrive at a satisfactory result; but he hoped he should not be deemed discourteous if he declined to communicate the steps which, in the present juncture of affairs, her Majesty's Government may think proper to take. Leo ,kng upon war as the greatest cal ity that

could befal a nation, and the greatest crime generally that a nation c 'commit, every effort consistent with national honour would be made to avert it. "If I might without presumption add the expression of an opinion, it would be, that you would believe that the conduct of this great transaction will be forbearing, conciliatory, moderate, and .just, without any sacrifice of honour, or of the real interests of the country. But, my Lords, on the other hand, it is certainly. sible (though I would reject the notion) that all our efforts may be unavailing. In that ease, I can only say that it will be my endeavour not only to secure the support and countenance of every one of your Lordships, but the sympathy and approbation also of every state in Europe, and of the whole civilized world."

Lord Bitonomax mentioned that he bad just received a letter from Mr. Everett relative to the affair of the globe manufactured in London, and upon which a boundary-line as claimed by the States was marked— This globe bad been referred to as evidence by the American Minister in fa- vour of the claims of the United States. Mr. Everett's explanation was, that he had ordered the globe through another person, and that the line was drawn with- out his previous knowledge.Perhaps the tradesman had marked the boundary in the manner referred to as a compliment to Mr. Everett. As to the question before the House, Lord Brougham's anxious wish was that the negotiations, troublesome as they might be, would terminate happily. Replaced entire confi- dence in Lord Aberdeen and the rest of the Government; and should—unhappi for England, America, and for humanity at large—the hope of peace prove f cious, mankind would see that the blame did not rest with us. Although the calamity of war would be looked at by all the subjects of the Queen with the ut- most possible aversion, by none would it be regarded with apprehension or alarm.

Lord Asirsfrarow felt sure that the sterling good sense which especially characterized the two countries would ultimately prevail, and preserve both from the horrors of war. It was needless for the one to seek advan- tage over the other in the terms of negotiation. The negotiation could not be in better hands than in those of Lord Aberdeen.

THE TARIFF.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, previously to the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Tariff resolutions, Lord GEORGE BENTINCE asked a question of which he had given notice— From a report submitted to Parliament, the House would be glad to learn that the total abolition of Excise-duties upon auctions and glass bad enabled the Government to part with the services of 450 Excise-officers, thus effecting a saving of 52,636/. a year: what he wished to know was, whether the reductions made in the Customs-duties since 1842 had been productive of like happy re- sults as regarded reductions in the number of Customhouse-officers? Sir ROBERT PEEL assigned reasons why the reductions which had been found practicable in the Excise could not be adopted in the Customs— hi the one case, the services of the officers were no longer required, because the Excise-duties were entirely abolished; but in the other., the circumstances were different. It would be observed, that although certain reductions were made in the Customs, it was still necessary that vessels should be taken in charge, in order that an entry might be made of the duty-free goods for statisti- cal purposes, and also that care might be taken that goods liable to duty should not be surreptitiously brought in. For these and other reasons, it was impossible that reductions could take place in the number of officers. But an equiva- lent had been obtained in the shape of a largely increased commerce. To show this, Sir Robert selected from a return a few of the principal ports, and stated the number of vessels with foreign cargoes entered in each, for the year before the operation of the new duties of 1842 and for the year 1845, together with the number of entries made of the various articles composing the cargoes. The fol- lowing table embraces the details—

Ships with cargoes Number of Years. from foreign ports. muses. 11842 6,370 484,000 / 1845 7,521 567,000 .$ 1842 3,285 188,000 / 1845 3,900 220,000 .$ 1842 612 22.000 I 1845 908 30,000

11842 261 21,700

1 1845 307 30,219

S (1842 312 7,700

1845 415 9,600 1842 280 22,000

11845 418 30,700

It was obvious from these particulars, that no diminution could take place in the Customhouse establishment; because the greater the number of vessels the greater most necessarily be the superintendence.

The consideration of the Tariff resolutions was then entered upon. During the sitting, formal objection was made to the reduction of duties on two articles—hops, and manufactured silks. First, as to Hops—

Mr. PLIIMPTRE alleged that the home-grower could not maintain his position upon a protecting duty of 45s. per hundredweight, the amount now proposed. It would throw much land out of cultivation, and many persons would be deprived of employment. If the Excise-duty were remitted, the hop-growers would he satisfied.

Sir ROBERT PEEL reminded Mr. Plumptre of the alarm which was felt in 1842 when it was proposed to reduce the duty from 91. to 4/. 10s. The cry was that land would go out of cultivation owing to foreign competition: but it appeared that, daring the three years since 1842 only 2 hundredweight of foreign hops had been brought in, and the whole amount of duty received had been 101. in the three years. He could not consent to repeal the Excise-duty. As to foreign competition, he did not think there was anything to fear from it, the English hops were so superior.

Mr. Plumptre's views were supported by Colonel Austin-, Mr. KNIGHT, Mr, A. J. B. HOPE, Mr. FREWEN, and Lord GEORGE BENTINCK; and op- posed by the CRANCELLGE. GE THE EXCHEQUER.

On a division, 91 voted for the resolution, and 44 against it; Ministerial majority, 47.

As to articles of Silk manufacture, Mr. GEORGE BANKES moved their omission from the list— He was prepared to meet Sir Robert Peel's challenge to show that any material interests had been injured for any length of time by reductions of dirty. In 1832, six years after the reductions made by Mr. Huskisson, the silk trade urged such grounds for inquiry, that the House, then under the control of a Whig Govern- ment, could not refuse the appointment of a Committee. The Committee sat for five months; but the inquiry was brought prematurely to a close by a new election, and no report was presented to the House. The Committee, indeed, divided upon a report submitted to it; but Sir Henry Parnell was sent for, who gave a casting- vote against it. The facts, however, proved that Mr. Huskisson's experiment had been productive of much injury to the operatives. The manufacturers might be satisfied with the change; but wages had been reduced one half or more, and the poor-rates had been largely increased, in Coventry, Mseelesfield, and other seats of the silk manufacture. The means of employment, too, had been largely di- minished. Mr. Brocklehurst, of Macclesfield, stated that in 1824 there were 276,000 spindles in that town, and that the mill-people engaged in the trade were 10,000. In 1828, two years after the completion of the alteration of the duty, there were 159,000 spindles and the mill-people had been reduced to 5,254. In 1831, the spindles were reduced to 122,600, and the mill-people to 3,000. In 1824, the wages of able-bodied men in Macclesfield were 18s. per week; in 1828, Sr. 6d.; in 1831, 4s. 7d.; and the wages of the women and children exhibited a similar reduction. These results ought to be a warning to the House not to in- terfere further in the way of reducing duties. He denied that the working clesees were in favour of the change; and quoted from several reports to show

• that the number of silk-mills had fallen off of late years, while other kinds of factories had multiplied in number. He referred also to the fact that many of the Spitalfields weavers had been obliged to betake themselves to other employment. In Dorset, there used to be two very large establishments for the manufacture of throwing silk; but now there was only one. The Vice-President of the Baird of Trade might say that the silk trade was now in a flourishing condition; but Mr. Bankes's reply would be, if that be the case do not interfere with it.

- Mr. W. Estas, from an experience of case, years, undertook to say, that it would be very much to the interest of the Spitalfields weavers that all protection were abolished: thus would persons of large capital, with skill and enterprise, be induced to enter into the trade; and the Spitalfields manufacturers would then be found not only the rivals but the superiors of the French manufacturers.

Mr. BROCKLEHTTRST was not at all surprised at the observations of the last speaker, inasmuch as it was the interest of the wholesale dealers in silk to repeal all the duties which now prevented the free importation of foreign silk manufactures. He entered into details.

Sir GEORGE CLERK met these and Mr. Bankes's figures by a counter- array—

Reference should have been made to the state of the silk trade during the time that it enjoyed the highest state of protection, such for instance as in 1812 and 1816. In those years the utmost distress and misery prevailed at Spitalfields and other districts. The manufacture had not prospered under prohibitory duties. From the year 1765 down to 1817, including the first triennial period referred to the silk trade had only doubled the amount of the raw material worked up in it in a period extending over more than fifty years; but since 1817 the amount of raw material had been trebled, leaving out of consideration the waste silk, and the " knubs and husks." In 1824, an impulse was given to the silk trade by taking off restrictions. In 1825, the number of mills and spindles were more than doubled; and since that tune the quantity of work which the spindles were ena- bled to accomplish was greatly increased.

Something had been said about wages: but upon no subject was it more die- en/6 to obtain accurate information. He believed that silk-weavers were paid for their work by the piece. The improvement in looms during the last twenty years made a great difference. The invention of the jacquard loom itself enabled the workmen to dispense altogether with the assistance of a boy, which was formerly necessary. In 1844, Mr. Saunders, one of the Inspectors of Factories, stated in his report, that the mill-owners complained that they could not get hands enough, and that children who worked only half time were making as much wages as men 'Ed formerly who worked for ten hours.

Mr. NEWDEGATE assured the House that mills had been erected on the faith of the protective principle being continued, not one stone of which would have been laid had the owners a year ago known what would be the policy of the Government.

Mr. HAWES entered into a variety of details to show that the progress of the silk manufacture clearly illustrated the soundness of the Free-trade principle— With regard to the Spitalfields weavers, the remark of the late Mr. Deacon Hume was, that their trade WU invaded by Manchester before it buffered from the

Ports.

London Liverpool Newcastle Dublin Dundee Glasgow competition of Lyons; in fact, that the free trade which prevailed amongst the Manchester manufacturers gave the first blow to the fettered and restricted trade of Spitalfields.

Mr. ADDERLEY and Mr. E. ELLICE supported the reduction.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK thought the true test of the prosperity of a trade was the general rate of wages in it—

It had been shown to demonstration that wages had been greatly reduced in every branch of the silk manufacture since the alteration of the law from protec- tion to free trade. The number of the Spitalfields weavers had also been reduced from 14,000 to 9,000: that fact was a pretty strong proof of the injury inflicted on the silk mannfactnre by free trade. He had lately conversed with three Coven- try i manufacturers, who told him that since free trade in silk only two milk had been erected n Coventry. In fact, that town had stood still, while St. Etienne, its rival in France, had flourished beyond all other towns in France. The same gentlemen told him that the rate of wages at Coventry had been re- duced twenty per cent: did the House expect to grind down these weavers any more ?

But in the amendment proposed to the House the silk manufacturers and riband-weavers were not the only persons concerned: it included milliners and dressmakers; and he told the House that the dressmakers amounted to no less a number than 106,000. The House was going to reduce the protection on silk dresses from 2/. 10s. to 1/. 10s., which affected 106,000 dressmakers in England —the number in London only, lie was informed, was 15,000; the persons affected were more than one-third of these engaged in the cotton trade. These helpless females could not make themselves heard in the House; and it was probable that dismissal from their employment would be the first notice they would receive of the existence of the measure. In 1831, many of them were thrown out of em- ployment; some of them were driven to the workhouse, and others to prostitution; and this they might depend upon it, would be the consequence of the proposed redaction.

Sir ROBERT PEEL asked the House to contrast even the present state of the silk trade with the aspect it presented under a state of perfect pro- hibition— He quoted evidence to show the miserable condition of the Spitalfields weavers in the years 1812 and 1816, when protection was complete. The local committee charged in 1816 with giving relief mentioned, that " they have witnessed an ex- tremity of suffering of which those who are not themselves accustomed to explore the abodes of poverty can form but an inadequate idea. They find numbers who had been accustomed to support their families respectably reduced from long want of employment to sell or pawn their furniture, which had been purchased with the savings of former years, to obtain food." Sir Fowell Buxton, who bore an active part in relieving this distress, spoke of the great anxiety displayed by the suf- ferers to get into a workhouse; and in one of his speeches he made an appeal to the ladies of England against giving an undue preference to the French silks, to the great discouragement of the home manufacture. This showed, that at that period of perfect protection French silks were largely imported in spite of the strict revenue-laws which existed. Let the House compare the state of matters in 1816 with what they were in 1845. Mr. Howell says—" Throughout the entire district a general scarcity of hands is noticed, and a wnethuent rise of wages. In the silk districts particularly hands are very scarce; and I have beau informed that instances are not wanting where children working half time have got as much wages, and in some cases it is said that they get more than they did when they worked ten hours. I am told that a rise has also taken place in the wages of those who work ten and twelve hours respectively." The best test of the prosperity of the trade was the importation of the raw materiaL From 1814 to 1823, the importation of raw silk averaged annually 1,521,000 pounds; but under the moderate duty substituted by Mr. Iluskiason the average consumption between the years 1834 and 1843 had risen to 3,742,000 pounds. "We see that the import of raw material has increased. Yes, you says but we include waste silks, knubs, and husks. If you want a conclusive proof of the beauty of your machinery, you will find it in the fabrics wrought from these very articles. The terms may be vulgar—they may not snit the refined lips of some honourable gentlemen; but, with your skill and capital, you have converted them into beautiful fabrics, and added greatly increased value to the raw material."

If the feeling of the trade was taken as a test, Sir Robert claimed it as fa.- vounible to his scheme. He had received no hostile representations; and he ventured to say, that had Coventry itself felt any alarm at the lowering of the protection from 30 to 15 per cent, silence would not have been maintained. Frorn Spitalfields the Government had not received many representations and altogether Ministers had a right to believe that the trade in general was satisfied with the

11182.511113.

The test adopted by some of the Protectionist—the declared value of the ex- ports during the last five years—was altogether fallacious. "The cost of product- non has been diminished—during the last five years greatly diminished; the im- provements in machinery and the .greater skill of our workmen have caused a diminished cost of production; during the last five years also, the duty on the raw material has been much diminished: it would be strange indeed if the declared value of our exports had not diminished. During the last five years, therefore, my noble friend will find, that though the declared value of our exports may have decreased, that circumstance affords no proof of the trade being injured. Now, I can readily account for the increased quantity of the raw material cm- sinned. There is a growing taste for silk manufactures; it is a taste which we cannot do better than encourage. Cotton and wool have been heretofore formidable rivals with silk; and cotton and woollen goods have entered into great competi- tion with silk goods. But there is a .growing desire in this country for silk; and will it not be beer, by the low price of the article, to enable the people to consume it more lagely ; and shall we not be thereby doing the greatest possible advantage to the trade ?" Twenty-five years ago, the silk trade attracted the attention of the House of Lords. That very tribunal, referred to by Lord George Bentinck as being the body to do justice to those parties whose distresses he detailed—that very tribu- nal which he hoped would reject this measure if it should pass this House—that very House of Lords, came to a resolution in 1821, that if a small duty only were levied on organzine silk, our manufactures would have nothing to dread from the competition of French silk, and that if even the duty were reduced to 12 or 15 per cent, a considerable augmentation of exports might be reasonably expected. The pregent Government have taken the largest of these two sums: so that, 'after an interval of twenty-five years, having reduced the duty on organzine silk, and upon all the raw material,—and having given every advantage for the introduc- tion of the raw material as far as we can—we propose, not their fullest reduction of the duty on the article for the benefit ef the consumer, not their lowest amount of 12 per cent, but their highest ammuit of 15 per cent; and when the House of Lords shall refer to their own repo`rt of their own Committee, I shall be surprised indeed if they do reject the' present measure of her Majesty's Govern- ment."

The sympathies of the House had been excited in behalf of milliners and dress- makers; but Sir Robert thought that if one class more than another had injuries inflicted upon them by the illicit introduction of goods which ought to pay the duty, it was that very class. He believed that at any time, upon the payment of an insurance, silk goods and dresses to any amount may be delivered in a con- traband way, at a sum not exceeding the duty now proposed. One great object of the proposed measure was to do away with this illicit traffic, by the trubstaat- tion of moderate duties. From these changes the revenue would be improved, and the interests of all classes consulted and promoted. Mr. DISRAELI was anxious to say a few words on the reply of Sir Ro- bert Peel to Lord George Bentinek, in which he had endeavoured to make one more effort to induce honourable gentlemen to go into the same lobby with him-

Great stress had been laid upon the temptations which the present duties sup- plied to smugglers, and the difficulty of resisting their operations when the duties were 30 per cent: but what he was curious to learn from Sir Robert Peel was, how her Majesty's Government managed to battle with the smuggler, who in the case of tobacco had the inducement held out by a protection duty of 1,200 per cent, and in the case of tea by a duty of 250 per cent. Mr. Disraeli thought that the suf- ferings of the silk-weavers in 1812 were owing to other causes than that of pro- tection. It was a disastrous period of terrible war-a period when he believed wheat was at 120s. per quarter; it was a period almost as unfortunate for trade as the one to which Sir Robert Peel had referred-the period of 1816, which remained almost unprecedented for the general commercial depression of the country. Sir Robert Peel had asked why the manufacturers had not complained if the

E° as reduction w likely to tell against their interests? To this question re himself supplied the answer. The manufacturers had not complained,

just for the same reason that gentlemen opposite were equally indulgent-they wished the Corn Bill to pass. But the manufacturers of England, as well as honourable gentlemen opposite, would show to the right honourable Baronet that there was yet some sympathy with the working classes in this country, and that economical blunders would not pass without criticism where there was not a great object to prevent persons from being critical.

On a division, the numbers were-For the resolution, 220; against it, 114; majority, 106.

An adjournment was then agreed upon; Sir ROBERT PEEL stating that it would be of advantage to go on with tho discussion the following evening instead of with the Corn Bill; and as soon as the Tariff should be com- pleted, they would have the power to put an end to the present suspension and stagnation of trade.

• The Tariff discussion was resumed on Tuesday.

The Protectionists took their first stand on the department of Foreign Spirits; opposing the reduction of the duty from 22s. 6d. to 15s. the gallon.

Mr. W. THOMPSON opposed the reduction' on the ground of revenue: he did not think the French Government would lower their duties in re- turn: he thought it would be better to retain the existing duty, and abolish the duty on soap. Mr. EWART thought the reduction would lead to an extension of our trade with France. The Marquis of GRANBY spoke of the demoralizing effects of' cheap spirits. Mr. CARDWELL men- tioned, that the ordinary consumption of brandy in this country at the close of the last century was greater than at the present day; a circum- stance owing probably to the duty having been increased from 63. to 22s. 10d. In the case of Ireland and Scotland, it had been found that a judicious reduction of duty had improved the revenue and discouraged Illicit distillation. Our trade with France is not what it ought to be; but the seduction of duties has led to a large increase-from 602,000/. in 1831 to 2,600,0001. last year. A division took place, and the resolution was carried by 64 to 35.

The next was Seeds. Mr. Assist objected to the reduction of duty on clover-seed: the course now pursued would drive away the English gen- tlemen from their paternal mansions.

Sir ROBERT PEEL knew the sincerity of Mr. Allix's opinions; but he must say that he carried his attachment to clover-seed exceedingly far, when he made the maintenance of a duty of 10s. per hundredweight necessary to keep the gentry of England in their paternal houses. (A laugh.) That duty was one of the burdens upon agriculture; and it was highly important to reduce it.

Mr. Amax explained, that he meant the measures o her Majesty's Ministers, and not clover-seed, would drive away the gentry from their estates.

No vote took place, and the item was agreed to.

This closed that division of the Tariff which provided for reduction in duties. The part which related to the abolition of duties was then entered upon.

Mr. MisEs objected to the resolution abolishing the duty on the im- portation of living animals; viz, asses, goats, kids, oxen and bulls, cows, calves, horses, mares, geldings, colts, foals, mules, sheep, lambs, swine and hogs, pigs (sucking), and bacon, beef, meat, and pork-

Since 1842 the importation from abroad had been gradually increasing; and if a suspension had taken place, it was only with the view of inundating the market when the present duty of 11. should be taken off. He read an extract from a letter from the house of Messrs. Lawrie and Company of New York, dated Janu- ary 30th, to show the preparations in America to send food to this country- " Superior flour suitable for the English market, 51 dollars to 5 dollars 621 per barrel. Freight to Liverpool, 2s.; to London, 4s. Large quantities of the best beef are now being packed in this country in tierces, cut in the proper-sized pieces for the English market. This export is greatly on the increase. The farmers are finding out the mode of making such cheese as suits the English market, and the shipments will be very large this year. Notwithstanding all the noise which they make at Washington respecting Oregon, they have not the slightest inten- tion of going to war about it." Mr. Miles adduced some statements to show the increase in the importation of cattle from foreign countries and Ireland. He ex- pressed a hope that, looking to the interests of the home graziers, the House would retain the duty at least during the two years in which protection would be retained by other interests; and he concluded by moving that the items in ques- tion be struck out of the resolution.

Sir ROBERT PEEL was surprised at the amendment; because some of Mr. Miles's statements were calculated to diminish the alarm which might be felt among the agriculturists from the proposed changes- He had stated this remarkable fact, that in a single quarter of• a year there had been no fewer than 171,000 animals, including oxen, bulls, cows, and sheep, imported from Ireland into this country. Now, if it be borne in mind, that during the whole of the last three years not more than 14,000 head of cattle had been imported from abroad, surely competition from Ireland was much more to be apprehended than competition from foreign countries. "Why should there be all this alarm at the introduction of foreign cattle, and none at the importation of Irish cattle? Ireland is a country more fertile than this. Wages are lower than th ere: the wages of the Irish agricultural labourer are not more than 8d. Per e best parts of Ireland. They have no assessed taxes in Ireland, no land-tax; and how, then, can the English grazier

coin- h cattle-breeder? But if he does compete with the Irish fully too,-and if, with a more fertile soil, lower wages of s, and in the face of the import of 171,000 animals, he not th ,his Irish rival, but an increase takes place, such as I have tract prices of beef and pork,-what pretence is there for saying grazier cannot also compete with the foreign breeder ?5

I I

Sir Robert referred to the public contracts for beef and pork, from 1836 to 1845, to show the rise which had taken place in prices. In 1843, the average contract price of fresh beef .per hundredweight was 11. 18s. 4d.; in 1845 it was 21. 2s. 6sL The contract pnce of salt beef per tierce of 304 pounds was in 1843 3/. 18s. 5d.; in 1845 it was 61. 8s. 8d. The contract price of salt pork per tierce of 320 pounds was in 1843 31. 15s. 10d.; in 184.5 it was 61. 12s. 11d. This was in the face of the Irish imports, and of the imports from the Mississippi, where we were told 100 sows would produce 230,000,000 of young in a very short time. (A laugh.) "I remember it was proved in 1842, greatly to the alarm of every owner of a pig in this country, that by the rules of geometrical progression, in nine or ten years 100 sows on the banks of the Mississippi would produce 230,000,000 of progeny, to the rain of the breeders in this country. Against that prediction I place the fact, that while the contract price of salt pork per fierce of 320 pounds was 31. 163. 10d. in 1843, it was in 1845, I am sorry to say, not less than 61. 12s. 11d."

The annual consumption of oxen in this country is 300,000; of which 200,000 are consumed in London alone. In spite of the removal of the prohibitory duty, the price of meat continues extravagantly high; and did it not occur to the Pro- tectionists that the increased price might be occasioned by increased consumption, arising from the increased resources of the labouring classes ? He did not think that the continuance of such high prices was beneficial to the agriculturists them- selves; and if nothing more were effected by the abolition of the duty than to check the present extravagant prices, some advantage to the public would be gained.

Mr. Fisica considered that if ever there was a period when the British farmers ought to obtain a high price for their cattle, it was now, when they were suffering severe losses from murrain- He would not object to something like a sliding scale for the importation of foreign cattle; or, if the Government would remit the Malt-tax, or adopt such regulations as would enable the farmer to malt their barley as food for their cat- tle, he would not object to the abolition of the duty.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reference to the relative merits of malt and barley for feeding cattle, referred to the results of an ex- periment-

•

During the last session, Mr. Stafford O'Brien brought in a bill to enable farmers to use malt for fattening cattle. Doubts were then expressed whether malt was preferable to barley for such a purpose; and Mr. Goulburn thought there was reason to believe that cattle were fattened more rapidly, and yielded 'a larger sup- ply of milk, by feeding on raw barley than on malt. He then entered into an en- gagement with Mr. O'Brien that the experiment should be fairly tried: and, having had cattle and cows fed, some on barley and others on malt, a daily ac- count being kept of their food, the result proved that the animals fed upon barley gave more milk, and arrived at maturity in a much shorter time, than those fed upon malt. He held in his hand the particulars of that experiment: it was made near Glasgow.

A good deal of speaking followed; in the course of which, opinions were expressed as to the cause of the high prices of meat. Sir JOHN TYRELL thought that Sir Robert Peel was answerable for the diminu- tion of the supply of cattle in this country; for, by allowing the importation of foreign cattle, he had introduced the disease. (Laughter.) Sir John asserted most confidently that the importation of foreign cattle had introduced the disease into this country, and particularly the complaint called the lungs disease, which was the most fatal among cattle. The prevalence of these diseases had tended in a great measure to produce the increased price of meat.

Sir JOHN WA.LSH attributed the high prices to the murrain; and Mr. E. T. YORKE to the failure Of certain crops. Sir CHARLES lirmatrimy spoke of the loss which farmers sustained in 1844 from disease and drought. Mr. Vsmazas cautioned the agriculturists against renewing thi panic of 1844; spoke of the measure as certain to pass; and referred to what had been stated by some agricultural labourers, that they had not tasted meat for forty years. Lord GEORGE BENTLECK took up the latter points- The people of England eat more meat than any people in Europe; upon an average they consume 92 pounds of meat per head per annum, while the average in no other country in Europe is above 50 pounds. As to the measure being sure to pass, Lord George did not know that: according to his own information, there was just ground for hoping, that whatever might be the conduct of honour- able Members on the Ministerial side of the House, however much they might abandon their principles and desert their party, there was another House of Par- liament which would not so disgrace itself. (deers from the Protection benches.) If the other House should reject this measure, and there should be an appeal to the country, then, judging from the results in Gloucestershire and Northampton- shire, and above all, in his own native county, the party that had honestly stood by its pledges, and not broken faith with the constituency, nor taken part in breaking the faith of Parliament. would come back to the House greatly strength- ened by that constituency, which had been so betrayed in the present session.

The House divided-For the resolution, 72; against it, II I ; majority, 39. Hides led to another division; but the resolution was carried by 130 to 74.

When the Timber-duties came on, Mr. Mitchell moved that "the duty on foreign hewn timber be reduced 10s. per load on the 5th day of April 1846, and other kinds of wood in proportion." Mr. CARDWELL replied; and the motion was withdrawn.

Arrangements for the continuance and close of these discussions then took place.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK stated, that as the debate on the Timber-duties would not conclude within six hours he would suggest a postponement till Thursday; the debate on the second reading of the Corn Bill to take place on Friday, and to terminate on Friday week. Sir ROBERT PEEL 01011&11t the best plan would be not to interfere with the important discussion on Railways fixed for Thursday, but to take the debate on the Timber-duties on Friday. He would then move the second reading of the Corn Importation Bill on Monday; with the general understanding that the speeches should be so shortened as to allow the debate to be concluded an Friday next week. ("Hear, hear! "from Lord George Bentinck.) With this agreement the House adjourned.

FAMINE AND FEVER IN IRELAND

On Saturday morning, an official paper relating to the progress of dis- ease in Ireland was circulated among the Members of the House of Com- mons, under the following title- ' " Abstracts of the most serious Representations made by the several Medical Superintendents of Public Institutions (Fever Hospitals, Intinnaries Dispensaries, &c.) the Provinces of Ulster, Munster, Leinster, and Connaught!'

At an early period of Monday's sitting, this paper was alluded to by several Members in connexion with the -Fever Bill.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN inquired whether it was intended to read the Fever Bill a second time that evening? Sir JAMES GRAHAM intimated that such was his intention. Mr. O'Banns proceeded: his object was not so much to dis- cuss the provisions of the bill, Ireland,

as to impress upon the House the necessity of adopting the measures imperatively called for by the present state of eland, as depicted in the document placed in the hands of Members. Something must be done immediately and decisively; and it appeared to him that the obvious remedy had been pointed out by Mr. Wakley when he said that food, not physic, was required. Mr. P. SCROPE described the paper as a frightful document; and drew two inferences from it One was that food, and not physic, was what was wanted to avert famine and its consequence, pesti- lence;. and the second was, that not a moment ought to be lost. When the House went into Committee, he should move an instruction to enlarge the provisions of the Irish Poor-law. Sir James GRAHAM hoped that the House would not press too closely into the precautions adopted by the Government. Mr. Scrope's propo- sition ought to be made the subject of a substantive motion. Mr. HOME hoped that Government would not think of pauperizing all Ireland by distributing food; what was wanted was employment. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—" What we are anx- ious to do is, to enable the people of Ireland, through the medium of employment, to earn wages. Facilities will also be given to purchase food with those wages." Mr. O'CONNELL—" That is exactly what the 'Irish Members want: but I rise to remind the right honourable Baronet, that not a single shilling has yet been laid out for the purpose." Mr. WARLEY enforced his food-prescription; and !poke of the anomaly in the Irish Poor-law, which made no such provision for the relief of the destitute as was provided for in the English Poor-Taw. He was astonished that Irish Members should sit quietly under such a state of things. Mr. Smith O'Brien was blamed the other night fcr his warmth; but Mr. Wakley was happy to hear him give vent to his honest indignation. The Poor-law ought at once to be altered.

Sir ROBERT PEEL reminded Mr. Wakley, that the Tariff provided for the re- peal of the duty on many articles of food; and if no delay was thrown in the way of the discussion of the resolutions' an opportunity would be afforded to the Go- vermnent on the report being adopted to remit the duties immediately. As to a change in the Irish Poor-law, he begged to remind the House of the difficulty with which Lord John Russell passed the measure in its present shape. If the House resolved to give an absolute right to reliefon the ground of destitution, the whole question of the social condition of Ireland would be opened up; and this might be of the most serious consequence. "It is better, I think, to trust to Government, and not to ask of them even the principles on which they mean to act. Let us do our best on the one hand to encourage private charity, and to yield to the dictates of humanity on the other. Hereafter we shall come down to Parliament, and, laying the whole case before it, ask for that indemnity which it will not willingly withhold."

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN could not see how butter from Holland, or bacon from America, under the Tariff was to afford relief to those at this moment suffering the pangs of famine. He did not believe that the measures of Government were sufficient for the purpose intended; and protested against any measure being thoueht more important, or more urgent, than relieving the people of Ireland from famine.

'In a subsequent part of the evening the Fever Bill was read a second time.

On Wednesday, Mr. PottsETT &nom moved that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Fever Bill, that the Guardians of the several Poor-law Unions in Ireland should be required to relieve with food all such destitute persons within their unions as might be in danger of perishing from want, or from disease the consequence of want.

" In England, the Poor-law Guardians are compelled to administer relief in all cases of destitution; but in Ireland there is no sueh compulsion. The failure even of the potato crop has not induced the Irish Poor-law Guardians to greatly extend the amount of relief. Mr. Scrope thought a bill to rectify, this state of Matters, by casting upon the local Board the burden of providing for the desti- tute, ought to have been brought in on the assembling of Parliament. He ap- proved of what the Government had done to guard against the actual starvation of the people; but he thought it would have been better to render the relief of distress compulsory on the Poor-law Guardians. Corn to the value of about a million had been exported from Ireland since the failure of the potato crop! He treated the Government would endeavour to store up a quantity of oats, a kind of food much relished in Ireland.

• Mr. Scrope complained of the wholesale ejectments which were taking place in some parts of Ireland, attended with circumstances of peculiar hardship; and showed the working of the Poor-law system in the case of a man who was refused relief by the Guardians, and who died on the road from sheer starvation. As to the expense of rendering relief compulsory, he did not think it could throw any difficulty in the way of alteration of the law. The rental of Ireland had been calculated at 11,000,0001. If 500,0001. were raised on that rental, it would not exceed is. 6d. in the pound; but if' that should not be found sufficient, even Million might be raised, if necessary. At present the rate varied from 2d to 6d. He would not trust to private benevolence to meet the evil; the only efficient mode of proceeding was to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England. Mr. &unman CRAWFORD seconded the motion: for enough had not yet been done to meet the exigencies of the case—

He did not think that much reliance could be placed on the generosity of Irish landlords; as was proved by what had occurred on previous occasions. Much good would arise from the measures already introduced; but much more would arise from altering the law of entail, arranging for the improvement of waste lands, and passing a landlord and tenant bill.

Sir JAMES Gramasi followed Mr. Poulett Scrope into a number of topics not immediately connected with the main question; but, returning to it, he stated his reasons for objecting to infraction of the principle of the Irish Poor-law- When concocting a poor-law for Ireland, it was the bounden with duty of Parlia- ment, not to legislate th a regard to English feeling, English prejudices, or English laws, however long they may have been sanctioned in this country. In England, a law existed for three centuries under which able-bodied persons could demand work and wages; and in Scotland, for a period of two centuries, the im- potent poor could demand relief; but no law whatever for the relief of the poor had a place in the statute-book of Ireland. He would call the attention of the House to a peculiarity which existed in that country as regarded the relief of the poor. "In the first place, even under the Poor-law limited as it is, charitable ex- ertions prevail to a greater extent than perhaps in any other country. The Roman Catholic religion is very prevalent in Ireland, and the priesthood of that church are an unmarried priesthood. They devote their time, their substance, and every- thing they have, in a most peculiar degree, to the visiting of the sick and to the relieving of the poor and the destitute. It must also be remembered that a pecu- liar tenet in the Roman Catholic Church is to attach immense importance to the practice of almsgiving: so that the religion introduces a social scheme having no resemblance to that in this country, and decidedly in favour of the poor." Circumstances of this kind could not be overlooked: hence in 1837, the Irish Poor-law was formed upon the fixed and established usage of the country, and in reference to the ideas existing as to the maintenance of the_poor. Mr. Scrope's proposition was neither more nor less than to introduce into Ireland that labour- rate which at one time existed in England, and which demoralized the working classes to a frightful extent.

Sir James showed that the present Poor-law is not so inoperative in the case of disease as Mr. Scrope imagined; and, generally speaking, the Government find no unwillingness on the part of the Guardians to act upon the powers they possess. Such, however, was the extent of the evil apprehended from the prevalence of scarcity, that the Government, with the view of extending the existing provisions, had Introduced the Fever Bill. As to the expense, the public will pay the extra medical attendance, and the local rate-payers will defray the rest. Sir James went on to say—" I repeat my belief that this evil ma only temporary: if tempo-

ntry, it ought to be met by a temporary remedy. And what is that remedy ? I say it is to be obtained by aid from the general taxation; and, when 1 say that, I mean, aid to be given by Great Britain. It is not aid from England, it is not gene- rosity ; I deny that altogether. Ireland contributes to the general taxation ; and when the peculiar circumstances of Ireland are considered, it will be allowed that she con- tributes her fair and just quota: at all events, 1 would not put that question before a very jealous and scrutinizing eye. Then, as Ireland takes her share in the i general taxation, her misfortune s to be alleviated by assistance from the general taxation It is not a dole given by England to Ireland; it is from the resources of the United Kingdom, of which she is an integral part, that aid is to come. I do also most certainly hope, and I may say. I believe, that the sympathy and kindness which the British Legislature has evinced towards Ireland in her hour of need will produce a favourable impression on the hearts and minds of the people of that country. I trust it will prove to them that British connexion is not onerous, but advantageous. I am happy to see that that effect has already been produced. I am ready to admit that England's infirmity is Ireland's oppor- tunity; but it will not be denied that Irelands infirmity has also been England's opportunity—that we have shown an eager sympathy for her sufferings and an earnest desire to allay them." Mr. WARLEY thought it disgraceful that England, Scotland, and Ireland, should have different laws for their poor; and entered into an elaborate ar- gument to show the positive insufficiency of the existing Poor-law in Ire- land to accomplish the purpose for which alone it is needed, and the hard- ships also which its imperfections are the means of inflicting upon English rate-payers and English labourers— A better absentee tax could not be devised than that which a good sound sys- tem of poor-rates afforded. The English people had a right to be protected from the competition of Irish labourers. The Irish proprietors thought that they main- tained their own poor; but what sort of maintenance was it? The best way of answering that question was to see from the returns before the House what was the dietary. In value, the dietary amounted to a sum less than 28. per week; for that was the maximum cost of diet and of clothing taken together. In many of the unions the charges for diet, necessaries, and clothing, were ls. 44., Is. 5d., Is. 8d., and Is. ed. per week. They clothed the poor for Id a week. He con- fessed that he knew not how poor people could be clothed at so small an expense, —unless, indeed they were coveredT with the skins of potatoes. (A laugh.) With such clothing and diet, it was no wonder that the people kept out of the work- house. In England, the expense of criminals was from 28. 6d to 48. a week; and pauper lunatics cost as much as 9s. 6d. Mr. Wakley quoted from a pamphlet by Dr. Corrigan' proving how uniformly istarvation was followed by pestilence; and showing, by reference to previous periods of scarcity, the extent of the evil to be apprehended and guarded against at the present moment.

Several Irish Members took part in the discussion; and opposite views were expressed as to the propriety of adopting the motion.

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH O'BRIEN spoke of the precedence which ought to be given to food over physic— The Protectionists ought to have allowed the ports to be opened for oatmeal, oats' and other things, in November. He advocated an absentee-tax of 10 per cent; but did not approve of the proposal to introduce a labour-rate under the Irish Poor-law. He complained that Government had not brought forward all the measures of relief that they ought to have done. They had brought forward a Coercion Bill, which would occupy some months in the discussion, and would probably not pass before Christmas. He entreated Ministers to devote their at- tention to remedial measures.

Mr. SHAW agreed with Sir James Graham: the present Irish Poor-law was an experiment, and he could conceive nothing worse than to engraft upon it the evils of the old English system. Mr. F. FRENCH spoke against the Poor-law' and characterized the Government measures for Ireland as infelicitous. Mr. OSBORNE said, it would never do to engender a system of eleemosynary relief in Ireland. Sir WILLIAM SOMRRYILLE said, if relief could be demanded in the way proposed, the workhouse test could never again be resorted to. Mr. FITZGERALD thanked Sir James Graham for his conciliatory speech; but as to the Irish workhouses, he could call them nothing but hostiles. Mr. Joust O'CoNNELL said, that out-door relief would amount to a confiscation of property in Irelaud. Mr. PIERCE Bitrum opposed the motion: the Poor-law Guardians do not possess funds to enable them to carry it out.

Mr. SCROPE, after explaining that his object was merely to enable the poor to obtain relief either in food or work at the workhouse, and not at their own houses, yielded to the feeling that the subject would be better discussed on another occasion, and withdrew his motion.

The Fever Bill then went through the Committee; and on Thursday it was read a third time, and passed.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.

On Thursday, Mr. lifonnison moved for the appointment of a Special Committee, to inquire whether, without discouraging legitimate enterprise, conditions might not be embodied in Railway Acts better fitted than those hitherto inserted in them to promote and secure the interests of the public—

On the subject of railways a large amount of experience had been acquired within the last few years; and his object was to ascertain how far that expe- rience could be turned to practical account. At home and abroad, an increase of traffic had taken place on railways, far beyond the most sanguine expectation; and results had shown that cheap fares yielded the best profits. He propm.. that the Committee should inquire into that point; also, whether or not the weight of business upon Committees up-stairs might not be lightened; and lastly, he desired that an investigation should be set on foot, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it would be expedient to grant railways upon termi- nable leases instead of perpetuity. Mr. Morrison enforced his views by several considerations. The recently-established railways had progressed at a rate so rapid, that it was difficult to set limits to their probable increase: upon ten or fifteen of the greater lines the traffic had already doubled. The bill of last ses- sion respecting rates had proved a failure: the greatest variations existed at the present moment in the charges for passengers and goods. On some rail- ways, the rates for passengers varied from lid. to 4d. and 6d. per mile; and as to coals, he had been told that on two lines which led into Manchester there was as much as a difference of 250 per cent in the rate of charge. It was also most desirable that there should be a uniform system of Standing Orders.

As to leasing the lines, it was a matter for the House and the country, and not for the shareholders; because if any arrangement of that sort were adopted, their capital would be returned to them out of a sinking-fund. To create that fund, in forty years' one per cent would be sufficient. He was not so sanguine as to sup-. pose that the National Debt could be paid by means of railways; but this he thought, that Parliament ought deliberately to consider whether or not it was expedient to allow railways to become the property of individuals. In fact, there was very little doubt that a forty-years lease would be as readily accepted by the companies as that which they now received, provided they saw any prospect of having their capital returned to them. That plan had succeeded in France, and people in London as readily engaged in French lines as they did in English; yet the foreign lines were upon leases varying from twenty-five to forty-one years. If Ii. could show that by altering and modifying the system they would be able without difficulty to have the roads made, as in the countries on the Continent, by

a grant, say for forty years, there could not be a doubt of the course the House ought to take. He believed also that an amendment was most desirable for the railway companies themselves. He weuld never advise the House to give up the principle of competition—it had its value, and ought to be retained; but he had always stated that competitiofl was not enough. England possessed many capabilities for making and working railways more cheaply than other countries. In the case of France, the population was less for every square mile than in this country; the numbers being 167 to 297. If ten of the principal towns in France were taken and compared with ten of the principal towns in England, a great preponderance would be found in favour of the latter. Thai population of London was 1,873,600, whilst the population of Paris was only 875,495. The population of blanchester was 296,000, that of Marseilles was only 147,000; the population of Liverpool was 187,000, that of Lyons was 147,000; Birmingham was 182,000, Rouen was not nearly so much; Sheffield was 68,000, and Amiens only 44,000. Or, in the whole of ten towns in England, there WIIS a population of 3,400,000 ;and of ten towns in France 1,679,280. The returns from

the principal ports showed just the same relative proportions. In the port of Lon- don the number of vessels was 2,792, and the tonnage 573,000; in Liverpool, the number of vessels was 1,282, and the tonnage 242,000. If he compared these with Havre and Bordeaux, lie found that the number of vessels at Havre was 342, and the tonnage 64,000; at Bordeaux the number of vessels was 365, and the ton- nage 61,000. He could compare also Newcastle with Nantes, and Sunderland with Marseilles, and so on; but the result was, that in the ten principal eorts, there were in England 8,688 vessels, with a tonnage of 1,766,000; while in } ranee there were 2,991 vessels, with a tonnage of 336,000. Still it was well known that the French lines were very prosperous, and bore a high premium. The opinion heard on all sides was, that their prosperity was because their fares were lower than our own; and the only defence was, that the French and Belgians were too poor to pay our rates. If these facts were made out, as he believed he could make them out, they showed the necessity of reconsidering the subject. The present time was very favourable for such a reconsideration, and the state of things up-stairs rendered it most desirable. They ought to benefit by the experience here and elsewhere; and though he would not state the other advantages to the public under the French system, which would be more fitly detailed in the Committee, yet he must say that just and reasonable complaints were made of our system. Mr. MANGLES disapproved of the motion, as involving a departure from the principle hitherto acted upon of allowing the freest scope to individual enterprise—

Investments in railways had not proved so profitable as was alleged. He be leaved that on the whole number the average was 5i per cent; and if the whole capital WAS paid up, the average profits would not exceed 3i per cent. To en- courage this enterprise there should be prizes, for there were many blanks. He did not approve of the French system it had operated against the construction of railways. In England the best results had arisen from the non-interference policy; one instance of which was to be found in the fact that in England 3,051 miles of railway were actually opened, and 2,840 in progress, while in France only 276 miles were opened. He ventured to predict, that before the terms of the French leases were out the English fares would be lower than the French. As a step towards that result, he was authorized to stale, that in the bill for amalga-

mating the London and Birmingham Railroad Company with other companies, companies had voluntarily reduced their fares to the following maximum rates for all ordinary trains,—first class, 2d. per mile; second class, lid. per mile; third class, id. per mile' as fixed by act of Parliament; and there would be a proportionate reduction on goods. Mr. PARKER mentioned, that although he had a motion that evening for a Committee to consider whether precautions could not be devised by which the effects of the railway legislation now pending on the labour and money markets of the country may be provided against, stated that it was not his intention to oppose Mr. Morrison's motion—

As to the amount of railway business in the Committees of the House, the number of schemes which had passed the Standing Orders Committee and were now pressing to a decision, amounted, up to the 17th March, to 302; the num- ber still before the Standing Orders Committee was 140. The number rejected was only eleven; and in the case of two of them the Committee had afterwards reversed their decision. He thought the best plan would have been to diminish at the commencement of the session the number of schemes to be dealt with by Parliament. Even now it might be worth consideration whether a clause should not be introduced, putting off for six, twelve, or eighteen months, the execution of the schemes; or whether the House might not depart from its usual control by vesting in the Treasury the power of withholding or giving its assent to any commencement of a scheme.

Mr. HUDSON deprecated farther meddling with railway enterprise-

Out-of the 800 schemes which had been projected not more than 440 had been eabiaitted to Parliament; and if all of them obtained bills the cost of construct- ing the works would be only about 100,000,000/. He denied that the large sums employed in railways drained the surplus capital of the country: the money was merely transferred from the capitalists to the landlords; who applied it either to the improvement of the land or lent it in turn to some railways. Out of 100,000,000/. invested in railways, he estimated that not less than 20,000,0001.

went to the landlords. Another sum of 5,000,000/. went to the landowners in payment of the royalties, ballast, timber, &c. Then the contractor's profit was 10 per cent. The decrease in the poor-rates through the construction of railways WAS not less than from 2,000,000/. to 3,000,000/. From 7,000,000/. to 9,000,0001. was paid to the labourers employed in the construction of the different railways. The drain upon the surplus capital of the country altogether was not more than. 50,000,0001. sterling; and that he could not consider a large amount. A few years ago, towards the close of the last war, we raised from 80,000,0001. to 90,000,0001. in taxation: we only raise 50,000,0001. at present, although the country is much better able to bear the larger sum now than it was then. The railway bills passed in 1844 empowered the expenditure of 14,000,000/. iv. railways. Sir Robert eel had calculated the sum to be raised under bills passed in 1845 at 50,000,0001.; and he from his acquaintance with the railways under his own direction' could state, that from 200 to 300 miles would be in active operation by August or the autumn of next year. He thought there was no occasion for alarm. No serious inconvenience could be sustained from the railway projects; the danger to be ap- prehended was from the draining of the country by other means. The income from railways he estimated at 7,000,000/. a year; the weekly returns, he saw by the railway papers, were 120,0001., and they would soon be 140,000/.: taking that average, and making allowance for the new lines about to be opened, the receipts from railways would amount to from 8,000,0001. to 9,000,0001. for the present year. Mr. Hudson differed from Mr. Morrison as to the great advantages of low rates, and the large profits realized by railway shareholders. If Mr. Morrison could specify a single case where very low fares had been tried, and where the proprietors had not been disappointed in their dividends, it would have more weight than half-a- dozen of Committees. As to the actual profits of railway investments, he could state, that out of thirty-nine railways, in which 69,000,0001. were embarked, only twelve paid 5 per cent, and only fourteen from 5 to 6 per cent. There were six railways which paid 8 per cent, and the remaining seven paid from 9 to 10. Mr. Hudson thought there was no necessity for appointing a Committee; and he would have moved a direct negative to the pro_position if he had. thought he could have carried hie point. The appointment of a Committee would only create a

restless feeling, and persons would think that their property was never safe while the House was sitting.

Mr. LABOUCHERE would address himself to the proposition before the House, in the first instance, and then advert to the notice given by Mr. Parker—

He did not participate in the opinion that the profits from railway enterprise had been enormous or excessive. Still less was he disposed to grudge the profits of those who had successfully speculated in railways; among whom, notwith- standing his lugubrious tone on some _points, he presumed he might class the honourable Member for Sunderland. Still he thought there were circumstances in the present position of the question which deserved the serious attention of the Legislature. Some honourable gentleman had said, " Don't interfere with the good old English principle of allowing capital to take its own course." But he would ask, was nothing beyond the mere employment of capital to be considered with reference to this railway system? Why, if care was not taken the whole passenger and traffic trade of the country would speedily be thrown into the hands of three, four, or five great companies. This fact removed the question entirely from those commonplaces as to commercial policy which had been brought to bear upon it. In no country in the world, he believed, was such a power intrusted to private bodies; and it was for the House to consider whether means might not be - devised to check and limit powers so extraordinary and unprecedented. He would cordially support the motion; and hoped the Government, and especially those departments connected with the trade of the country, would give their best atten- tion to a question of the gravest importance that could be brought under the notice of the Legislature. Mr. Hudson had advised the House not to interfere in such matters: but he could not act upon thatadvice when he found that the dis- cussion on the motion had already produced such an admirable result as that to which Mr. Mangles had just referred. [Mr. Mangles assured the House that the reduction of fares alluded to, was not in consequence of the present motion.] As to Mr. Parker's motion, which involved the limitation of the employment of capital, Mr. Laboucbere thought that any step so unusual should be brought for- ward on the responsibility of Government. Surprise had been expressed that the Committee appointed at the commencement of the session on the recommendation of Sir Robert Peel had not taken up the question and reported upon it: but he would tell what took place in that Committee, of which be was a member. The Government submitted a sort of classification of the Railway Bills; but he must say for himself, that when he came to examine that classification, he thought it would have been very difficult for the Committee, without considerable investaga.. tion, even if they had been disposed to adopt the principle of mitigation of capital, to have applied it to that list without the risk of injurious consequences. He was justified in stating that the Government took no step whatever to induce the Com- mittee to express an opinion on that subject. They told the members of the Go- vernment who were on the Committee, that if they thought fit to bring the ques- tion before the Committee, and to state those reasons and produce that evidence upon which so grave a proposition could alone be justified, they were perfectly willing to consider the subject; but that they thought it did not become them as a Committee to originate such a proposition unless it was formally brought before

them by the Government. After that Committee had sat for a month, the mem- bers of the Government who were on the Committee told them fairly that they had no intention of raising the question. This statement, he thought, would ac- quit the Committee of having in any degree abandoned the duty imposed upon them, as some gentlemen seemed to think they had done.

Mr. Labouchere did not entertain the apprehension expressed by some gentle- men as to the effect of railway enterprise on the money-market; he felt more anx- ious as to the effect such an employment of capital might produce upon the labour-market He was inclined to think that in that direction there was some cause for fear. Bat the whole question was one of such nicety and importance, that if undertaken at all he considered it ought to be undertaken by the Govern- ment.

Sir GEORGE CLERK expressed his readiness to assent to the motion—

Mr. Laboachere had told correctly what took place in the Committee. Had the railway schemes continued at the original number of 800, the Govern- ment would have submitted to Parliament a plan by which a selection might have been made. The number, however, having been reduced to nearly one half, no necessity existed for the adoption oisuch a course. He would oppose Mr. Parker's motion if he submitted it. [Mr. Parker intimated that he did not intend to press the motion.] In assenting to Mr. Morrison's, he must not be understood as throwing any blame or discredit on those enterprising individuals to whom the country was indebted for the advantages of railway communication which it now possessed; nor must he be regarded as pledging himself to all the views enter- tained by Mr. Morrison.

Mr. HATTER adduced some calculations to show that the country was deriving a greater yearly revenue from railways, in the shape of taxes, than it would derive under the French system— On the French system, the Great Western in thirty-seven years would have become the property of the State: on the English system, it paid to the State a continually-increasing tax; and, taking it at the present sum of 30,0001. a year, that sum laid by at 4 per cent interest for thirty-seven years would amount to 3,201,2851.; the local taxation added would make the total taxation above 6,000,0004 Was the reversion at the end of thirty-seven years worth any such sum?

Lord EBRINGTON reminded Mr. Hayter, that in France the railway com- panies transmit the mails gratuitously. Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. ENTWISLE, Mr. HUME, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Lord WORSLEY, supported the motion. Mr. P. M. STEWART spoke in opposition. SIR ROBERT PEEL inferred, that the Course Which Mr. Morrison Would take as Chaiman of the Committee, would be in conformity with the ge- neral principles laid down in his pamphlet; which displayed great research, and had been useful in directing public attention to many points in rail- way legislation— Mr. Morrison had urged particular attention to two points,—first, whether it was not desirable to establish some tariff of prices for the conveyance of passengers

and goods, to which all railroads hereafter making application to Parliament should be required to conform; and secondly, whether it was not desirable to adopt the French system, and give to future railway companies only a qualified and temporary interest in the railroad. But what is to be done with the railway bills now in progress? To that question the Committee should at once direct its attention. Supposing that errors in railway legislation had been comrnitted, it

was quite clear that Parliament had power to correct those errors; and that, in the bills of new companies, they could insert a clause subjecting them to the operation of such rules as Parliament might be led to adopt, on maturer delibera non. It was possible also, that where existing companies apply for powers of amalgamation, Parliament might reserve to itself the power of placing them under the new system, so as to prevent monopoly. The position, however, of a company acting under a bill containing such reservations, would be exceedingly precarious. He thought the Committee should make some preliminary reyort offering advice to the House on this point. He hoped that good would arise trom the labours of the Committee. The subject had outgrown all previous anticipa

tion, and baffled all calculation. It is quite obvious, in the present altered state of matters that the House is called upon to institute new inquiries, with the view

of ascertaining what improvements can be introduced; and that if improvements can be made, Parliament, as the guardian of the rights of all her Majesty's sub-

jade, will have a perfect right, in reference to railway bills, to insist on such conditions as the public interests require.

Lord Joint Rosssia, thought that some delay had been caused by the statements made by Sir Robert Peel himself, when moving at the com- mencement of the session the appointment of a Committee to inquire as to the large amount of capital proposed to be expended in the railway schemes of the current year— Lord John's impression was, that Government had in view some farther pro- ; but this did not seem to have been the case. He thought it would have been better if these matters had been inquired into at the commencement of the session, than that they should now be left to devolve on a Committee. He did not understand from the present statement of Sir Robert Peel that the Govern- ment had in view any general plan on the subject; nor did he collect from him whether he thought it dangerous that so large an amount of capital should be devoted to railways. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to serve on the Committee, he hoped he would state his views with regard to these rail- ways generally, and what in his opinion would be the best course the Legislature could take with regard to them.

The CHANCELLOR OF xisie Excel:Ewalt reminded Lord John Russell, that when Sir Robert Peel made the statement referred to, no fewer than 800 Railway schemes, involving an expenditure of 779,000,0001., were in existence; but the number had since been reduced to less than a half; which materially altered the case—

For himself, he should attend the Committee with every disposition to adopt that coarse which would be best calculated to give the public a proper guard against the undue effects of monopoly, and at the same time to do justice to the parties who had embarked in the speculation.

Mr. F. BARING, Mr. Hoasmass and Mr. WA.WN supported the motion. Mr. Illosamos stated, in reply, that he had no intention to interfere with the rights of the present lines—.

It was only new lines he proposed to deal with; and these parties had no rea- son to complain, as they were little scrupulous about interfering with the rights of others. He had no particular regard for the French system : all he wished to show was, that low fares were beneficial to the proprietors as well as to the public.

The motion was then agreed to.

STATE OF IRELAND. On Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed his mo lion on the state of Ireland till after Easter.

Test "COERCION" Bier. On Tuesday, Mr. O'Cosarete gave notice, that on the second reading of the" Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill, No 2," he would move the following resolution—" That while this House deplore the existence of outrage in Ireland, and is sincerely anxious for its repression, it is of opinion that such outrage will be aggravated, not removed, by the arbitrary-, unjust, and unconstitutional enactments of this bill; and that it is the duty of Parliament to adopt such measures as will tend to eradicate the causes which produce these crimes, instead of resorting to laws which will harass and oppress the innocent without restraining the guilty, and which, being restrictive of public liberty, can- not fail to augment national discontent."

ENLISTMENTS. On Thursday, in Committee on the Mutiny Bill, Mr. &tomer HERBERT introduced, and the House agreed to, a dense to correct a flaw which had occurred in the enlistments of a considerabte number of soldiers, originating in their having been enlisted in one county and attested in another. In conse- quence of this diecovery, a great many applications had been made for discharges. The new clause provided, that unless a claim for discharge on the ground of ille- gal enlistment were made on or before the 17th March 1846, the soldier should not be entitled to his discharge. To prevent the like irregularity in future, another clause was moved directing the Magistrate to state in his certificate that the man had been enlisted within the Magistrate's jurisdiction. Mr. Herbert mentioned that a great proportion of those who had claimed their discharge from the Grenadier Guards had expressed a wish to reenlist; but he found that there were flaws of the same description in the Artillery and Cavalry; and it cense quently became necessary to guard against the consequences.

Clauses to the same effect were agreed to in reference to the Marines.