Debates an Vroceellings in Iparlianunt.

THE limn Aairs Buz,.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, in moving the order of the day for going into Committee on Public Works in Ireland, Lord JOHN Rrs- sELL stated the course -which Ministers intended to pursue with the Irish Arms Bill; namely, to withdraw it. He explained. the reasons at some length—

In asking for a temporary renewal of the bill, the only object was to enable Ministers to consider the whole of its provisions with the view of determining whether the system should be altogether abandoned or modified. Lord John looked upon this as a reasonable proposition, seeing that Parliament had placed restrictions upon the possession of arms in Ireland for the past fifty years, nay, almost since the Revolution. In consequence, however, of the opposition which the proposal had met with, Ministers had agreed to withdraw the more objection- able provisions—the clauses which related to branding and domiciliary visits: but on withdrawing these, other questions occurred in reference to the remaining provisions of the measures, which presented much difficulty. On consultation with the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who is well acquainted with the usual course of proceedings in that country, and was willing to dispense with coercive power, Lord John was of opinion that it would be far better to dispense with the bill altogether than to continue it thus divested of some of its principal provisions. He would much rather have had longer time to consider the whole question; but on mature consideration, Ministers had resolved to drop the bill. In coming to this decision, they had been influenced by the absence of all impediments to the j administration of justice in Ireland, by the disposition displayed by juries to do their duty, and by the diminution which had taken place in crime.

Mr. ESCOTT and Mr. HUME offered their congratulations to Ministers on the retrograde movement thus announced.

DISTRESS Ile IRELAND.

Subsequently, the House being in Committee on the Public Works in Ireland, Lord Joan RUSSELL made a statement on the subject of the ex- isting distress, and submitted proposals for its relief. At the outset, he referred to the remedial measures carried into effect by the late Govern- ment— The first thing was to order a quantity of Indian corn, to the value of 100,0001., to be purchased by the house of Baring. By good fortune, this step for a long time remained a secret; so that the arrival of so large a supply of food bad a much less injurious effect in disturbing the regular trade of the country than might have been expected. Those contributions were also made in aid of local subscriptions, and from that other source 100,0001. was realized. Relief was also afforded through the instrumentality of public works. An account of the dis- bursements had appeared in a book recently presented to the House„ called " Cor- respondence relative to the Measures for the Relief of Distress arising from the Failure of the Potato Crop in Ireland." The whole amount of the expenditure is

i

852,4811.; of which there is repaid or to be repaid 494,8511. With regard to the evil which this large expenditure was intended to meet, its amount was differently calculated at different tunes, and in fact it has not yet been completely ascer- tained. The first estimate was, that on the average of the whole country the loss in the potato crop amounted to one-fourth. Colonel Macgregor afterwards re- duced the estimate to an eighth; but the Commissioners of Inquiry subsequently estimated the loss at one-half. The disease was not peculiar to the British Isles. It had appeared in America, in 1832, and has gone on increasing since: it has also committed its ravages on the Continent of Europe. He thought he might say upon the whole, that the measures adopted by the late Government had proved exceedingly beneficial to Ireland: they supplied food and employment, re- moved despair, preserved the peace, and infused a spirit of contentment into the people. In illustration, Lord John read a letter from Mr. E. Russell, describing the satisfactory results experienced in Clare from the measures adopted to give employment and relief. Mr. Russell stated that Indian corn had proved a most nutritious article of food; that it had been retailed at a penny the pound, and that a pound was enough for a day's subsistence for a strong-bodied labourer. Some injurious effects, however, had incidentally and unavoidably arisen from the relief thus afforded: persons had been employed on the public works who ought not to have been so employed; and many of those who have hitherto been in the habit of coming to England and Scotland to harvest, finding that they could get work near their own doors, remained at home; thus delaying the harvest in Eng- land and Scotland, and in this way causing the loss of much food. Lord John was sorry to say that this extraordinary remedy for an extraordi- nary evil had not been sufficient to meet it. On the contrary, the prospect of the potato crop now is more distressing than it was last year. the disease has ap- peared earlier, and it ravages are far more extensive. He quoted from a variety of private letters which had been forwarded on the subject to the Lord-Lieute- nant of Ireland; and mentioned that the statements had been confirmed by letters which he himself had received, and by reports in the public newspapers. Among the communications particularized, wereletters from Lord Shannon, Lord Ennis- killen, Lord Bernard, and Colonel Jones. Under the distressing circumstances which existed, it was the duty of the Government to consider the best mode of providing employment for the people; and he had now to state the result of their deliberations. " We propose to intro- duce a bill to this effect, that the Lord-Lieutenant shall have power, on recom- mendation made to him, to summon a barony sessions or a county sessions for works for relief of the poor. When those sessions shall have been assembled, they will be empowered and required to order such public works as may be necessary for the employment of thepeople and for their relief. I say, ' empowered and re- quired,' because it is intended that it shall be incumbent on them, on being sum- moned to those sessions, to order .those Works. The choice of the works will be left to them, and they will be put in execution by the officers of the Board of Works. When I say that the choice will be left to them, I mean that they will point out the works which they' consider necessary; but approbation of the ' Government will be necessary---that is to say, of the Board of Works—before those works can be finally adopted. It is further proposed, that advances shall be made "from the Treasury, for the purposes of those works, to be repaid in ten years, at 8 per cent interest, the lowest rate ever taken for works of this kind. The whole amount so advanced by the Government will, however, have to be repaid. I should also state, that in levying for the repayment of the money, and for the in- ' terest, those levies will not be made according to the assessment for the county- rate, but according to the assessment for the poor-rate. So that owners will be obliged to pay their proportion as under the poor-law assessment, and the poorer occupiers will be in a great measure relieved from the assessment. I should add also, that we propose to provide for another case—that of the very poor districts, where it would be impossible that the money should be repaid. We propose that there should be a grant, by act of Parliament, of 50,0001. for the purposes of such districts, where works should be provided by the Government, to be undertaken only on the ground of their being works of public utility, and of the districts being so poor as not to be able to undertake the expense of such works. In some such cases works of the kind have been undertaken. One case of the kind is stated in the correspondence, where, in consequence of the poverty of the district, a subscription to only a certain amount was taken, and a larger amount was given by the Government than the act of Parliament authorized. The bill to be intro- duced for the purpose will be similar to many other acts of the same kind. The 1st Victoria, c. 21, is that which we propose to follow. We also propose that there shall be Commissariat officers stationed in different parts of Ireland, who shall be in correspondence with Sir Randolph Routh, and shall from time to time commu- nicate with him on the state of distress in their several districts." As a general rule, care will be taken not to interfere with the regular operations of merchants tlir the supply of food. Relief Committees would again be constituted for a time, but means would be taken to avoid the repetition of previous errors.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, still more distinctly than Lord John Russell did, that Government had no intention of importing food for the use of the people of Ireland-

- In fact, many merchants had declared that they would not import food unless the Government gave an assurance that they would not interfere. On this subject he had received a letter from a merchant in Liverpool, stating that large orders had been sent out for Indian corn, and assuring him that the supply of food for Ireland may be safely left to the regular course of trade.

Mr. Dittos BROWNE expressed a warm approval— If anything could convince him that a local Parliament for Ireland would not be necessary, it would be the speech and proposition made by Lord John Russell, and the way in which both had been received by the House. In praising the present Government, however, he had no wish to make any invidious comparison with the late one: on the contrary, he had felt that they had acted with the -greatest alacrity and benevolence. Everything showed that a more exten- sive system of poor-laws must be established for the purpose of making the land- lords attend to the interests of their tenantry. Matters could not go on as at present.

Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAM; complained that the Irish landlords had not been called upon to do anything.

Mr. LABOUCHERE added some details to those adduced by Lord John Russell; beginning by an allusion to the poor-law suggestion of Mr. Browne, and the complaint of Mr. Williams about allowing the Irish landlords to escape— As to a poor-law of the kind indicated, any person who had paid the most cur- sory attention to the subject knew its difficulty. The Irish -landlords had not been exempted; for the relief proposed went upon the principle of compelling the " property" of Ireland to provide employment to pay the interest of the out- lay, and ultimately to make good the principal. Many advantages had already arisen from the assurance given that Government would not import food on their own account. He would give a remarkable instance. A few days ago, a large provision-merchant on the West coast of Ireland waited upon him to know the intentions of the Government; and no sooner was he made acquainted with them than he went and purchased two cargoes of Indian corn. He did not mean to say that the late Government had acted improperly in the course they had adopted; but the effect of it had been to paralyze the provision-trade in the first instance, and to derange the labour-market in the second; and from this latter cause the habits of the labouring classes had in many cases been much demoralized. These views had been strongly confirmed by a communication he had that morning received, setting forth that the Indian meal had been sold indiscriminately 20 per cent under prime cost, and that the greater part was bought up by the farmers, who fed their calves with it. [Mr. Labouchere was asked to state the place, but de- clined.] It also mentioned a case where persons were employed on public works who did not stand in need of it: they bullied the Inspector into letting them do as they pleased, and a scandalous exhibition of idleness was the consequence.

Lord LINCOLN was nettled at these statements, so disparaging to the policy of the late Government—

He regretted that Mr. Labouchere had not omitted the last portion of his speech, and allowed the case to stand on the statement made by Lord John Rus- sell. Mr. Labouchere ought to be careful in crediting such correspondence as he had quoted to the House. Could it for a moment be believed that Sir Randolph Routh would permit the Indian meal provided for the distresses of the people of Ireland to be used in fattening calves? Lord Lincoln did not mean to deny that there had been abuses; but that they existed to one-tenth or one-fiftieth part of the extent represented in those letters, he entirely disbelieved. What was the natural effect of relieving the distressed poor by finding them employment? Why, it induced them to look to their own exertions and to wages for support, and not to charity. This was one of the consequences of the plan begun by the late Government, and the value of it could not be easily overrated. Mr. Labou- chere had forgotten some of the caution he had formerly displayed when in office, otherwise he would not have communicated the intentions of the Government on the subject of importing food to a dealer at a private interview, thus enabling him to forestal his competitors. If Mr. Labouchere had recollected his former pru- dence, he would have told the person that his answer should be given in the House of Commons. Not long before leaving office, he himself had had an inter- view with a gentleman who represented himself as deeply connected with the provision-trade in Ireland; and who stated to him that the proceedings of the officers of the Commissariat would, if suffered to continue, cause his utter ruin, and that also of many other similarly situated. He instituted an immediate in- quiry; and the result was that, upon communicating with Sir Randolph Routh, the whole assertion was proved to be a total mistake. But circumstances had since that time totally altered. Lord Lincoln highly approved of the alterations proposed by the noble Lord; and if he had remained until the present time in office he should have approved of the adoption of such a plan. The circumstances of the present time were totally different from those of the period when the late Government had adopted their measures. Indian meal - was then altogether unknown in Ireland: it was then quite impossible that private individuals should speculate in that description of corn; it was necessary for the Government to introduce it.

Mr. LABOUCHERE explained— Nothing was further from his intention than to cast any blame upon the late Government, or to underrate the manner in which they had performed their duties. He did not charge all the Relief Committees with corruption, although he attached it to some.

Desultory suggestions were thrown out by subsequent speakers.

Mr. HENLEY" thought the proposal a wise one, but advised Ministers to "slept some permanent plan of relief. Sir D. J. NORREYS expressed a similar oprnten.

The vast natural resources of Ireland afforded ample means of placing her beyoad

the condition of a suppliant for relief. He hoped Lord John R. usmell would have the courage to attack the Grand Jury system of Ireland. Mr. HUMS spoke of

going to the root of the evil. England and Scotland could testify that Irish la-

bourers were hard-working and industrious: was it to be supposed that they would be less so in their own country, if they had the opportunity ? Sir Roaster FER- GUSON assorted that the Board of Works in Ireland had proved itself incompetent

to its duties. Mr. Esoorr remarked, that there were still heavy duties upon the importation of certain articles of food: it was the duty of Ministers to sweep all these restrictions from the statute-book. At this moment beaus and peas paid the

same duty as that until recently imposed upon Indian meal, but now happily re- pealed. The 'The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER complimented the late Govern-

ment on the success of their remedial measures. They bad introduced a new

trade into Ireland. Indian corn was not only a cheaper, but a more nutritious food than potatoes. Mr. MONTAGU GORE was desirous of mentioning one fact,

that an inferior description of potato had been cultivated there: this fact was pointed out as long since as 1828, and it was not possible to say how much of the prevailing calamity was owing to this circumstance. Three resolutions, embodying the scheme of relief submitted by Lord John Russell, were then agreed to.

Mr. ESCOTT gave notice, that he would, on the following day, ask the First Minister if he intended in the present condition of the empire to per- severe in the maintenance of any law imposing restrictions on the importa- tion of food?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was ready to reply to the question now, and to give the answer the honourable Member had himself supplied when he stated that the Corn-law had just been settled: it was not his intention to din turb that settlement.

IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL.

On Wednesday, Mr. LABOUCHERE moved the second reading of the Irish Constabulary Bill; and at the request of Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, who doubted its " constitutional " character, he gave a short explanation of its object— One object of the bill was to redeem the pledge given when the Corn Bill was introduced, that the expense of the Irish Constabulary force should be trans- ferred from the counties to the Consolidated Fund. The propriety of this ar- rangement had become still more obvious from the recent determination to place upon the counties the burden of providing employment for the people. The bill also added to the Lord-Lieutenant's powers of increasing the reserved tome of the Irish Constabulary; but whether that reserved force consisted of 200 men or of 400 men, involved no constitutional principle whatever. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE was still of opinion that the measure was un- constitutional-

It was not 200 additional men, but 2,000, or 50,000 men, that might be sent into any particular district by the Lord-Lieutenant. It was unconstitutional that the Lord-Lieutenant should have the power of increasing a part of the standing army to any extent he thought proper, and of putting his hand into the public purse to support it. After a short discussion, Mr. M‘Doisitnix moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. Dusicomon seconded the amendment; but no division took place, and the bill was read a second time.

APPOINTMENTS BY THE LATE GOVERNMENT: ME. GORTON'S CASE: Sin HENRY ROPER'S CAGE.

On Monday, Lord GEORGE BENTINCX asked whether the Mr. Gorton, of Tottington Park, who had been appointed by Lord Granville Somerset, the late Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster, to the office of Magistrate within the jurisdiction of that Dutchy, was Mr. Gorton the calico-printer, who in 1831 was convicted in the Court of Exchequer in the penalty of 8001. for defrauding the Excise? If such was the case, Lord George would regard the appointment as objectionable, tending as it did to lower the dig- nity and diminish the efficiency of the Magisterial bench. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET explained at some length the circumstances under which Mr. Gorton was appointed— Complaint had been made of the want of Magistrates for the district of Bury; and a gentleman of the highest respectability had mentioned Mr. Gorton and a number of other gentlemen as qualified for the office. Owing to Lord Granville's own illness, delay had occurred in nominating the persons; and before the nomi- nation was made, he had received a letter from the Chairman of the Excise want- ing him against two gentlemen whose names were on the list: by some oversight, he did not observe that Mr. Gorton was one of them, and his nomination had been made. Whether it would be just to deprive Mr. Gorton i the appointment, was a more difficult question. Lord Granville Somerset real a letter he had received from Mr. Gorton,. dated Tottington Hall, June 27, explaining that the charge of defrauding the Excise was groundless, and had arisen from the inaccuracy of a drunken exciseman: the penalty had been levied in consequence of his attorney having suffered himself to be overruled by the persuasion of counsel to submit to a verdict, just as the case was going to trial. Of these allegations Mr. Gorton offered proof. Lord Granville Somerset mentioned, that as he was about to leave office when he received this letter, he thought it advisable to leave the matter in the hands of his successor.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated that Lord Campbell's attention had been directed to the subject.

On Tuesday, the order of the day having been read for going into Com- mittee on the Small Debts Bill, Lord GEORGE BENTINCK called the atten- tion of the House to a job which had been committed in the appointment of Mr. David Pollock, brother of Chief Baron Pollock, to the office of Chief Justice of Bombay—

On the 29th June, Ministers announced their resignations; on the 30th, Mr. David Pollock, then a Commissioner for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, was ap- pointed Chief Justice of Bombay. Lord George's belief was, that at that time Sir Henry Roper, who held the office, had not tendered his resignation. That judge was in the seventh year of the performance of his duties; at the expiry of his seventh year he would be entitled to a retiring pension of 1,000/. a year, but a service of five years and less than seven would only entitle him to a pension of 700/. Sir Henry Roper's seventh year would have expired on the 2d November; but the appointment of Mr. Pollock had deprived him of the larger pension. As soon as Mr. Pollock's appointment was made, he became the actual Chief Justice of Bombay, and all the acts and decisions of Sir Henry Roper would be illegal and void. At that very moment, it had been necessary to introduce into the other House of Parliament a bill, which, under the title of the Patents and Commis- sion Bill, was, in point of fact., a bill for concealing this nefarious job, and at the same time for granting an indemnity to the perpetrators of it. The object of the appointment of Mr. David Pollock was to create a vacancy in the Commissioner- ship of Bankruptcy wherewith to reward the private secretary of my Lord Lynd- hurst; and the mode of proceeding was this: Sir Henry Roper was to be su seded by the appointment of Mr. David Pollock, who held the office of ief Commissioner in London for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors; Mr. David P lock was again in his tarn to be succeeded in his office by Mr. PhWips, the Commiel- sioner of the Court of Bankruptcy at Liverpool; thus to make a vacancy there, to which Mr. Perry, the private secretary of the late Lord Chancellor, had been since appointed. Lord George had nothing to say against the character of Mr. David Pollock: he believed that his legal attainments were great; and though he might be something out of practice as regarded that portion of the law which he would have to administer, Lord George did not mean to say that he was not fit to hold the office of Chief Justice of Bombay,—though his age, being sixty-five, was rather greater than those who were sent out to the East Indies to fill the situation of Chief Justice had generally attained. Then, with respect to Mr. Phillips, he had nothing to say against his character or against his legal attainments: he be- lieved that a more capable man for executing the duties of Chief Commissioner for the relief of Insolvent Debtors did not exist; and so far as he was con- cerned it could not be imputed to him that he had taken any part in this job. The office which he had vacated entitled him to a salary of 1,800k a year, and the office to which he had succeeded entitled him only to a salary of 1,5001. a year. Private reasons, and feelings to which he would not advert, founded upon a do- mestic calamity which he had met with, had made it desirable to him personally to leave Liverpool, the place where he had met with that affliction. If it should be that Mr. Phillips was indebted for his promotion to that office and for the ful- filment of his wishes to one Ex-Chancellor, to the patronage and friendship of another Ex-Chancellor, who was as it were a second honorary Chancellor during the existence of the late Government—performing the legislative duties in the other House of Parliament which were abandoned by Lord Lyndhurst—taking the part, the difficult part, of defending her Majesty's late Ministers against those attacks which were constantly made in that House, though not in this House, upon their honour and consistency in their late proceedings—that was no dis- paragement to Mr. Phillips; and Lord George rejoiced that Mr. Phillips, through the interference of Lord Brougham, had obtained the appointment, if it were through his interference that he had obtained the object of his wishes. He had no charge to make against Lord Brougham, if, as the reward of his fidelity and zeal in the defence of her Majesty's late Prime Minister, this sop was given to him to Booth and gratify his feelings. But when he came to another part of the case, and looked at the appointment of Mr. Perry, he was bound to say that this was a very great job. Mr. Perry, as he believed, had had no practice for many years in the courts of law; and, as he was informed, he was accompanied to Liverpool by Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, to dry-nurse him in the new duties he had to perform. He had treated of this matter as though it was an appointment made by the Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst. He was well aware that the appointment of Mr. David Pollock did not rest in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, but that it rested in the gift of the President of the Board of Control. He believed that the appointment was actually notified to Mr. Pollock unsought and unasked for by him; that, in

fact, it was notified to him by the late Lord r and pressed upon him. There was a rumour out of doors that there had been a barter of patronage in this instance, and that in exchange for the patronage of the Chief Justiceship of Bom- bay the patronage of the living of Nocton, which became vacant on the death of the Dean of Windsor four months ago, was given to my Lord Ripon: and he had yet to learn whether the living of Nocton had not been disposed of, as well as the patronage of the Chief Justiceship of Bombay. Well, he cared not whether the patronage was in the Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst or in the late President of the Board of Control, Lord Ripon. It was a matter altogether pertaining to the late Government, and in which the late Government only were concerned. But to whomsoever the job belonged, it was a job, and one of the most nefarious jobs that he recollected during the eighteen years that he had had a seat in Parliament. He must say. that it was one which came with peculiar ill grace from Lord Lynd- hurst, who in the year 1841 threw out the Charitable Trusts Bill, on the ground mainly that it was not fitting that a Government which was on the eve of a disso- lution should have the distribution of so much patronage. Now, as the Govern- ment in the present instance was not on the eve of dissolution, but was actually defunct when it made this appointment, he thought he wasjustified in saying that a more profligate avidity for patronage never was displayed by any Government. Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE would state the facts; leaving the House to come to its own conclusion— Shortly after his accession to office, his attention was called to the appointment of Mr. Pollock; and on looking at the correspondence, he found that certain ir- regularities had taken place. In a letter dated 14th February 1846, Sir Henry Roper wrote to Lord Ripon, expressing his wish to retire not immediately, but on the 2d of November, at which time he would be entitled to the pension of 1,000k a year. This letter was received on the 27th of March; and on the 4th of May Lord Ripon intimated to Sir Henry Roper that his resignation had been accepted, and that he would have the usual retiring pension, his resignation to take place on the 2d of November. On the 16th of June, Lord Ripon requested Mr. Glad- stoue, the Secretary for the Colonies, to make out a patent in the usual form, giving to Mr. Pollock the appointment of Chief Justice of Bombay, in the room of Sir Henry Roper, whose resignation had been accepted from the 2d of Novem- ber. Mr. Gladstone, however, on consulting with the proper officer, informed Lord Ripon that the appointment could not be made in that form, as it was illegal to appoint a judge in prospector. Lord Ripon then ordered letters-patent tote made out, appointing Mr. Pollock forthwith Chief Justice of Bombay; and this was done on the 1st of July. The patent contained a clause annulling the ap- pointment of Sir Henry Roper. On observing this, Sir John Hobhouse suspected that Sir Henry's functions ceased from that date; and being afraid that some- thing unpleasant might occur out of the trials, civil or criminal, that should take place under that judge, he consulted the Attorney-General; who advised the in- troduction of a bill to legalize all the proceedings which might take place between Mr. Pollock's appointment and the time of his commencing the duties of his office. Without doubt, an irregularity had been committed; but it was not the only one; similar "accidents " had occurred in former times. When the bill came before the House it would be the most fitting time for discussing the whole subject. Sir JAMES WEIR HOGG was of opinion that the appointment might have been made in the way originally proposed by Lord Ripon—

The late Sir William Follett, Mr. Frederick Pollock, and Mr. W. R. Spankie, were consulted by the East India Company as to the appointment of a successor to Sir Edward Ryan; and their opinion was that an appointment might be made to take effect at the departure of the judge holding office.

Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL upheld the opinion he had given—

Ile had not given that opinion till he had fortified it by the opinion of the pre- sent Lord Chief Baron. The present Lord Chancellor was also of the same

*Mon; and so was Lord Lyndhurst; and so, he believed, was the late Attorney- General.

A somewhat sharp discussion followed; the members of the late Govern- ment displaying considerable annoyance under the imputations of Lord George Bentinck.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY was glad that the error was about to be rectified. He was exceedingly sorry that the noble Lord should have again made one of these attacks, imputing improper motives. Mr. HUME thought the transaction was something like a job. He held in his baud a document which contained a downright lie. (A laugh.) Yes, in this do- cument William Ewart Gladstone certifies to a downright lie. (Laughter, and cries of " Hear! ") Well, an error, a mistake, if you like; but it is here certi- fied, that Sir Henry Roper having resigned his situation, and so on. Now that is a lie; or, if not a downright lie, it is a mistake, I suppose, for Sir Henry Roper bad not resigned when this document was written.

Lord Luicotar—" It is the ordinary official form." Mr. Hum—" Why should official forms lie in this manner? " (Laughter.)

Mr. BERNAL regretted that such personalities should be indulged in. He de- fended the appointments.

Mr. GOULBuRN complained of the want of sufficient notice from Lord George Bentinck of his intentions. It was exceedingly unfair in him, without notice, to attribute to a man as honourable as himself nefarious corruption and flagitious

Pro Lord ffiffay. mcour complained also of the want of notice, and of gross mirepresent-

ation. Lord George Bentinck had not confined himself to the immediate question, but had accused members of the late Government of bartering church livings for other patronage.

Mr. DISRAELI defended Lord George Beranek, and inveighed against the "job- bing "; taking care to claim the absence of any guilty knowledge on the part of Lord Lyndhurst, whom he eulogized.

On Wednesday, Lord GEORGE BENTINCH availed himself of the oppor- tunity afforded by reading the order of the day for the second reading of the Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment Bill to make an amende honour- able to Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Ripon—

In connexion with the appointment of Mr. Pollock to the Chief Justiceship of Bombay, he had been guilty of insinuating that there had been a barter of pa- tronage between Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Ripon in reference to the living of Norton. He had made the assertion on the authority of a gentleman who occu- pied a high position in his profession, and who held a close connexion with the living in question. Last night, however, on looking over the Clergy List, he discovered, to his amazement and perfecehorror, that the living of Nocton was not in the gift of the Lord Chancellor at all. He thought it, therefore, his duty, in the face of the House and the country, to retract that charge as publicly as he had made it. He offered in the most full and ample manner the best amends in his power. If his statement had hurt the feelings of the noble Lords for four- and-twenty hours, he could assure them they had ample compensation in the deep humiliation he felt at having made an unjust accusation against them.*

On Thursday, in the House of Peers, Lord LYNDHURST gave Ms explit nation of all the circumstances—

He would not assume that the report which had appeared in the morning papers of Wednesday of a speech delivered in the other House by Lord George Bentauck was a correct report; and he made this qualification on account of the coarseness of the language imputed to the noble Lord, and the character and the nature of the imputations made. He would confine himself to a statement of the particu- lars of the transaction. "My noble friend the late President of the Board of Control applied to me early in the spring, asking me to recommend to him certain individuals whom I considered competent for the office of a judge in India. I un- derstand that the office had been previously offered to an individual of consider- able eminence at the bar, who declined to accept it. In consequence of the re- quest of my noble friend, I returned to him the names of six or seven gentlemen; among which was that of Mr. David Pollock, as a person whom I considered fully competent to discharge the duties of Chief Justice of Bombay, and who I under- stood was willing to accept the appointment. I believe that the noble Earl did not confine his application to myself, but that he also consulted a learned and eminent individual as to the qualifications of the gentleman to whom I have re- ferred. The result was, that he selected for the office Mr. David Pollock, brother of the Chief Baron of the Exchequer." In consequence of that selection, a vacancy was created in another office—that of Commissioner in the Insolvent Court. "Mr. Phillips applied to me to be ap- pointed to that vacant office. He had been appointed a Commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy three years ago; but he had met with a very severe domestic misfortune about a year since; and he had applied to me several times in conse- quence to remove him from the scene of his misfortune to some other part of the country, even at a considerable sacrifice of income; his wife and daughter having left Liverpool and gone to reside at Cheltenham. I replied, that I had no oppor- tunity of removing him. Mr. Phillips then, either by himself or through a noble and learned Lord who is not present, applied to the .§ecretary of State for the Home Department to place him in the vacant situation to which I have referred. I was not aware of that application, nor was it communicated to me until after- wards. Sir James Graham wrote to me, asking if I thought Mr. Phillips quali- fied for the situation of Commissioner of Insolvent Debtors? In answer to this, I replied, that I had appointed him a Commissioner of Bankruptcy three years before; that he had assiduously discharged his duties; that I was informed that in no one instance had there been an appeal from his decisions; and that I con- sidered hips qualified for an office analogous to that which he had so well dis- charged. I had nothing further to do with the appointment of Mr. Phillips."

" In consequence of the appointment of Mr. Phillips, a vacancy occurred in the office of Commissioner of the Bankruptcy Court at Liverpool; and I placed in that office Mr. Perry, my principal secretary. He had served me long in that capa- city; I had continual opportunities of observing his integrity, his great indus- try, and his talents; and I may any with confidence, that he is well versed in the laws of his country. No person who would have accepted that office could dis- charge its duties more faithfully and more completely than I am convinced Mr. Perry will do. If under such circumstances 1 had passed over that gentleman, I should have been guilty of an act of injustice. If, in consequence of any obser- vations that might be made, I had refrained from appointing him, I should have been guilty of an act of meanness and baseness. I placed Mr. Perry in that ap - pointment; and many Members of this House must have observed his acumen and qualifications for business." "The noble Lord is reported to have said that, as regarded the appointment of Mr. Perry, he was bound to say that it was a gross job: Mr. Perry, he believed, had had no practice in the courts of law connected with the description of business to which he was appointed; and he was informed that he had been accompanied to Liverpool by Commisioner Holroyd, as it were to dry-nurse him in those few duties he would have to perform.' The noble Lord casts out imputations with a libe- rality quite unexampled in a popular assembly. Mr. Pitt, speaking once of Napoleon, said that nothing was too great for his ambition or too small for the grasp of his rapacity. It appears that there is nothing the noble Lord will not descend to for the purpose of giving vent to his spleen and his animosity. The facts of the case are, that in consequence of Mr. Phillips coming up to London, it became necessary that some one should do duty in his absence, and I requested Mr. Holroyd to go down to Liverpool. He went down on the 23d of June. I forget the precise day when Mr. Perry was appointed, but the day after Mr. Holroyd returned to town. So much for the statement that Mr. Holroyd accom- panied Mr. Perry to Liverpool to give him instructions in the manner of dischar- ging his duties. These are the imputations thrown out, regardless of the character of the individuals against whom they are directed."

Lord Lyndhurst next came to a graver charge, perhaps the only part of the charge which deserves serious consideration; namely, that, in fact, the appoint- ment of Mr. Pollock was made in consequence of a bargain with Lord Ripon that a friend of that nobleman's should be presented by the Lord Chancellor to the living of Nocton. That charge had since been abandoned, but on false grounds.

* The Times corrects this Correction. "Lord George has unquestionably been mis- led; but it is in his retractation, not in his attack—In his eagerness to do justice, not in his anxiety to expose delinquency. The living of Ironton is a Chancellor's living, and it was presented to a friend of Lord Ripon's. The statement in the Clergy List of 1845 is an error, and, as such, is corrected in the number for the present year. * * * We suspect that the error in the Clergy List of preceding years may be traced to the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of 1831; which, by a strange blunder, repre- sents the living of Norton to be In the gift of a certain Honourable G. Hobart."—rinies, Thursday morning.

a The presentation was in the Lord Chancellor. I presented to the living. I em ready to avow that I presented to the living; and I presume, therefore, that the noble Lord, who retracted that charge, will now retract his retractation, and will revert to his original accusation. Why do I mention these circumstances? To point out the levity of this man; that he makes charges without investigation, that he retracts them without investigation, and that he is indifferent to what he does. He utters these attacks without the least consideration how they may operate or whom they may injure." Lord Lyndhurst had already stated that he had no further concern with the appointment of Mr. Pollock than that of men- tioning his name in connexion with five or six others. Lord Ripon made his selection uninfluenced by Lord Lyndhurst in the least. But as to the living of Nocton, he would state the circumstances under which that presentation was made. "My noble friend wrote to me upon the sudden death of the late Dean of Windsor, who held the living, to mention the circumstance, and asking me to pre- sent a friend of his to the living. The reasons upon which be grounded his ap- plication were these: he said—' I hold the whole parish, except a small portion of the glebe-land which is in the centre: I have recently laid out a large sum of money in building a new house as my future place of residence in the country, my former house having been burnt down: I have endowed a large school, and paid the expense of a schoolmaster and schoolmistress: the church has been greatly enlarged for the purpose of accommodating a greater number of persons,

and I_paid two-thirds of the expense of that enlargement. It is most material to us to have a person in whom we may place the most implicit confidence as our

minister; the residence of the minister is within a few yards of my house; the church is close by. I am most desirous, therefore, under these circumstances, that you will consent to present the person whom I shall recommend.' " Subsequently, writing to the Lord Chancellor, on the 9th May, Lord Ripon says—"` It is of the utmost importance, not only to myself individually, but to the good of a very ex- tensive parish, that the Vicar should be a person with whom 1 could act in per- fect harmony for the benefit of the parishioners. This vicarage belonged for generations to the owners of the Nocton estate, and it was merely by an accident that the right of presentation lapsed '—I presume, by that, it became escheated— 'to the Crown; but it has invariably been given at the recommendation of the owner of Nocton.' " Two days afterwards, the following letter was received from Lady Ripon: it was through her that Lord Ripon succeeded to the estate-

" Carlton Gardens, May 11, 1846.

" My dear Lord Chancellor—I trust you will excuse my venturing to address you on the subject of the living of Nocton, lately become vacant by the sudden death of my dear uncle, the Dean of Windsor ; for I cannot help thinking, that when made fully aware of the peculiar circumstances of the case, you will be disposed to uc.cede to Lord Ripon's and my request on the subject. The circumstances of the case are indeed pe- culiar ; for the whole parish of Nocton has long been In the possession of my ancestors.

The glebe-land is in the centre of the estate, and the parsonage within one hundred yards of the house, and close to the church, where my dear father and all my family

for some generations have been buried. LTntil the tinteof my grandfather, the churchyard

extended to the house itself. With all these circumstances before you, you will not, I am sure, be surprised to learn that the living has been always given on the recom-

mendation of the proprietor of the estate ; so much so, that my father entertained the

impression that the living was in the actual gift of the proprietor. It is our only place of residence in the country. The old house having been burnt down a few years back,

We have built a new one, which we have just completed. You will therefore, I think, concur with me that our comfort must greatly depend upon the clergyman continuing to be, not upon merely good, but upon absolutely intimate and agreeable terms. Mr.

Wilson is a well-known clergyman, of the age of forty ; married to a particular friend Of mine ; and both husband and wife are most conscientious and active persons. Mr. Wilson is devoted to his duties, an upright, singleminded man, who must be a blessing to any pariah of which he is the pastor."

[" I must," said Lord Lyndhurst, "mention, that Mr. Wilson was in possession of a living in Dorsetshire of equal value to the living of Nocton; and it was Merely for the purpose elf-friendly communication with my noble friend Lord Ripon and his family that he gave up that living, to which he was appointed by the Bishop of Bath and Well; in order to remove to Nocton.]

•

"I can only throw myself upon your kindly feelings, and express my earnest hope that you will transfer to Mr. Wilson the favourable intention winch you this morning entertained towards Mr. Bayley ; as Lord Brownlow, well awure of the peculiar cir- cumstances of the ease, has withdrawn his recommendation of Mr. Bayley. I will add, that I shall feel truly obliged to you if you will accede to my request, and thereby enable us to reside with comfort on my old hereditary property.

"Believe me, my dear Lord Chancellor, very sincerely yours, " S. A. L. limos."

Lord Lyndhurst went on to state, that he had been extremely anxious to pro- vide for Mr. Bayley, who was one of the Professors of Oxford, and the son of a gentleman with whom he was intimately acquainted at college. But on the lath of May, another letter from Lord Ripon corrected an omission in his former letter, and stated that the school is maintained entirely at his expense; that he had provided a school-room of adequate dimensions, an excellent house for the school- master and mistress; that he had spared no expense to promote the comfort and wellbeing of the people there, every one of whom—farmers, shopkeepers, artisans, and labourers—are his tenants. Mr. Wilson was appointed. "Now, what is the charge against me and my noble friend? It is the most ex- traordinary charge ever preferred against a public man, without evidence upon which to rest it. The noble Lord does not state it upon his own knowledge, but says it was communicated to him by some individual. He does not even name the individuaL That individual conjectures or concludes the fact is so; but he does not state the grounds upon which he comes to that conclusion. Is it possible that any man filling a public situation—pretending to direct the councils of a country or a party—(Laughter)—could bring forward an accusation of this grave character against a public man, founded upon such evidence or such surmises as these? It is condemnatory of the individual—it shows him to be utterly unfit to hold office—it utterly destroys his character. It is not only silly, weak, and low, but its silliness, weakness, and lowness, are equalled by its folly and baseness." Lord Lyndhurst next referred to the circumstances under which " the Patent Commission Bill" was introduced by the present Ministers. " Sir Henry Roper sent in his resignation, to take place on the 2d of November. My noble friend sent to the Colonial Office after he had fixed upon Mr. David Pollock as the successor of Sir Henry Roper, and requested a patent to be made out as from the 2d of November. My noble friend is no lawyer, and he was told by the Colonial Office that it was irregular; that a prospective appointment could not be made out; that it was, in fact, the grant of an office in reversion. The answer of my noble friend was, They must make out the patent according to the usual form'; and the patent was made out according to the usual form. I admit it was incorrect, because by the grant of the office to Mr. David Pollock the office of Sir Henry Roper in India was at an end, and he would be discharging the duties of a judge when he was no longer a judge. Nothing could be more irregular than that: but that is not peculiar to the Colonial Office as it at present subsists; it is not peculiar to my noble friend. It has been the constant practice. The same circumstances occur- red on the appointment of Sir Henry Roper himself; the same circumstances occurred on the appointment of Sir Richard Comyn; the same circumstances occurred on the appointment of Sir Charles Grey; the same circumstances occur- red, I believe, in every instance where an appointment has been made on the sur- render of a judge in India. And the consequence would be that all intermediate acts done by that judge in India would be invalid, his power as a judge being at an end. The bill, then, brought in by my noble and learned friend, does not refer to this peculiar case only; it refers to every one of those instances to which I have alluded. It is necessary for the purpose of making valid those acts which are performed by a judge after that judge has been superseded." Referring again to Lord George Bentinck, Lord Lyndhurst asked if it accorded with his sense of justice to bring forward the charge he had done without in the first instance requesting some explanation from the parties against whom it is directed, or without giving them some notice of his intention to prefer it ? "Per- haps the noble Lord thinks everything fair in party politics—that to blacken and traduce the character of a political opponent, by means however base and foul, is perfectly justifiable. Perhaps the noble Lord may have acted upon that prin- ciple. Or perhaps, from his early associations and early habits—(A laugh)—he may have been led to form so low an opinion of the principles upon which mankind acts, as to suppose that every man in the transactions of public life must be di- rected by the same base, selfish, and sordid motives. I cannot ascribe it to any other principle than one of those to which I have referred. It has been said, and well said, that to be praised by a person who himself is the subject of praise adds tenfold to the value of the acknowledgment: the same is applicable to calumny— the best antidote against calumny will often be found in the character of the calumniator. I do not know with respect to the noble Lord's slander that it is as the poet says, 'sharp as the point of a sword': if it is not, it is from want of power, and not of inclination. If his tongue does not outvenom all the worms of the Nile, it is not from the want of will, but from the want of power to instil the poison. A distinguished writer has this allusion with regard to persons who have unjustly assailed him= the sting of the wasp may fester and inflame long after the venomous insect has left its life and sting in the wound.' Venomous ! I should have said vexatious. Yes, my Lords, although refuted, these attacks are not harmless; they have a public effect—sometimes a hating effect. Persons remember the attack—they do not always remember the defence. To me, my Lords, it is most humiliating, at the close of my public life, and at the dose, may say, almost of my natural life, to be called upon to repel accusations of this kind. 1 know your Lordships will hear with me upon an occasion like the pre- sent. I rely upon your Lordships to come to a correct judgment; and I throw myself upon your Lordships' consideration, and the consideration of the country."' [Lord Lyndhurst sat down amidst cordial cheering.]

CARRYING-TRADE TO CUBA.

On Monday, Lord GEORGE BENTINCK brought under notice of the House of Commons, a grievance connected with the British carrying-trade to Cuba— Within the last few days the merchants of Liverpool had solicited his interpo- sition on the subject; hut, from the shortness of the notice, he had been unable to obtain the statistics requisite for the full development of his case. The griev- ance complained of had existed for twelve years, and consisted in the Spanish. Government levying excessive dues on British vessels which conveyed goods to the island of Cuba. He gave an instance. In the case of a cargo of manufac- tured goods carried in a British vessel to Havanna, the duty was 31*; while by a Spanish vessel it would have been 21*. In the former case the duty amounted to 8261. fa., in the latter case it would have been 5821. Ils. There was also dis- crimination in the tolls, the port-dues, the wharfage-dues, and the health-duties. The effect was to render it much more advantageous for our merchants to employ Spanish than British shipping. Spain endeavoured to " run her rigs" upon the United States as she had done upon Great Britain; but the Americans retaliated„ and the result was that Spain abandoned her restrictions. He had in his pos- session a statement showing the effect of this policy on British shipping at the port of Liverpool for the years 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841; but he had not been able to bring it down to a later date. In 1838, the declared value of the exports to Cuba was 472,8021. Of this amount, Great Britain carried 61,4871., America 92,7811., Spain 318,534/. In 1841, matters stood thus—carried by British shipping 33,0381., American 49,4461., Spanish 428,2541. Lord George thought that at a thne when the sugar-duties were to be relaxed in favour of Spain, an effort should be made by the British Government to remove these discriminating duties. Experience had shown that there was no generosity in nations: England had been giving everything she could spare, and had received nothing in return. Sir Robert Peel had objected to the "haggling" system; but Lord George did not: if it was a vulgar mode of proceeding, it was at least a beneficial and effectual one. Ile did not offer his suggestions with any hostile intentions towards the Government.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON pointed to a recent improvement— A_ change in the tariff at Cuba, which came into operation on the 1st of March, had in some respects mitigated the grievance. There had been a favour- able change in the tonnage-dues. In the case of quarantine-dues, however, British and other foreign ships had to pay double what was charged on Spanish vessels. Lord George Bentinck need not feel surprise at the apparent indisposition of Spain to remove the discriminating duty complained of, when lie recollected the re- sistance which was made not long ago to the claim urged by Spain to have her produce introduced into this country on the footing of " the most favoured na- tion." Had a juster construction been put upon the treaty upon which the claim was founded, Spain might have been induced to remove her differential duties. He hoped the Government would not pursue the course recommended, that of re- taliation. England's commercial policy had till recently been one of general re- striction, and under it the hostile tariffs had grown up. As Lord George Bentinck had eloqueinly denounced monopoly in the Spanish colonies, it was to be hoped he would be found equally energetic in protesting against it whenever he found it to prevail nearer home.

Lord PALMERSTON thought the circumstances favourable for remonstrat- ing with Spain against the system in question— The admission of Spanish sugars into the English markets presented an oppor- tunity of putting the shipping-dues on a more satisfactory footing. Government would avail themselves of every opportunity to bring about a satisfactory adjust- ment of such matters. He agreed with Mr. Gibson in thinking that the policy re- commended by Lord George Bentinck would be most unwise and inexpedient. Lord Palmerston was sorry to say that the treaties between England and Spain, obscure at best, had been rendered still more uncertain by the interpretation which of late was put upon them.

Mr. DISRAELI reiterated Lord George Bentiuck's view; and, inter alia, he spoke to the question of " retaliation "— " The noble Lord [Palmerston] has confounded—perhaps not unintentionally, for the purposes of debate—the noble Lord has confounded retaliatory duties upon artich a of commere ial exchange with retaliatory duties upon the means of con- veying those articles of commerce from another country—the retaliation to which my noble friend the Member for Lynn has referred; and the fact is, that there is not the slightest analogy or similarity between the two circumstances. Undoubt- edly, if we retaliate on a foreign country by laying an excessive duty on articles of which we are in want, our retaliation produces no effect on the policy of that foreign country, while we are suffering by depriving ourselves of articles of neces- sity; but that does not refer to a retaliatory policy with respect to navigation. The Americans have pursued a retaliatory policy; and the result is, that at this moment there are loading in the harbours of Havanna five times as many Ame- rican ships as British ships. This points to the remedy."

Mr. Hums accounted for the favouritism of the Spanish Government—

America supplied the Spanish colonies with stores and provision; and took in return the sugar it produced. What did we do?—we sent no stores or pro- visions, but manufactures, which were of small bulk, and we rejected their sugar. Could any one be surprised that there should be more American than British ships at the Havanna? The moment we take the produce of that colony, Eng- lish ships would be employed in bringing it; it was their own fault that they had been excluded.

THE OCC1JFATION OF CRACOW.

On Monday, Mr. HnME brought on a discussion on the military occupa- tion of Cracow, by moving for copies or extracts of any correspondence between the Government of her Majesty and the Governments of Cracow, Russia, Prussia, or Austria, relative to the appointment of a British Consular Agent at Cracow, since the declaration made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons, in the year 1836, of Ins intention of sending a Consul to reside at Cracow. The treaty of Vienna was a treaty of which he had always ccmplained, inas- much as England had become bound by it to maintain the Continental system. He regretted that the late Earl Grey, in conjunction with France, had not demanded the restoration of the nationality of Poland in 1830, when that country was in amass in assertion of its own rights. England had engaged to maintain the inde- pendence of Cracow, but she had not the courage to do so. He should be sorry to do anything calculated to lead to a breach of the peace between England and any other country; but it behoved the British nation to renounce the treaties to which she is a party, or to demand their fulfilment. By the general treaty of Vienna the Poles were to have national institutions; but this had been denied them, and England was cow-hearted enough not to insist upon the stipulation being carried into effect. England sent fleets and armies to coerce inferior powers; but when she had to deal with Austria, Russia, and Prussia, she shrunk into her shell. By the sixth article of the additional treaty entered into by the Three Protecting Powers, they engaged to respect the neutrality of the free city of Cra- cow, and undertook that no armed force should enter it under any pretence what- ever. Under another treaty, of the 3d May 1815, a constitution to Cracow is guaranteed. It would be better for the honour of this country for it to be no longer a party to the Holy Alliance, if it took no steps to insure the fulfilment of the pledges and engagements entered into with regard to Poland. Mr. Hume gave it as his opinion that Austria was privy to the atrocities which had occurred in Gallicia.

Mr. MONCKTON M1LNES adverted to those atrocities—

The facts were taken from documents which could not be contradicted. The circumstances were these. The mass of the nobility represented not only the large proprietors and gentry, but all freeholders, while the people were in almost a ser- vile state. When the refugees came over into Gallicia, the whole of the local au- thorities there seemed to have been—to say the least of them—struck with a moat extraordinary terror. They seemed to have imagined that the entire of the proprietors of that country were about to rise in rebellion—to rise in arms; and they considered themselves authorized to issue an order to the peasantry of that country to possess themselves of the persons of the proprietors in any way they could. On the 26th of February this order was issued by the Prefect of the pro- eince—" I call upon the inhabitants of Tarnow that they shall take possession of the turbulent spirits [meaning the proprietors]. To do this, they may arm them- selves with their scithes and their hatchets. They shall deliver them up to the Government; and I am autl far this immediately to give to those persons who shall so deliver them up a sufficient recompense in money." That proclama- tion was followed by the massacre of 1,478 of the proprietors. Did the Austrian Government come in and repress those disorders? No. The men who committed the mast frightful of these atrocities were assembled together when an order came out, on the 12th of March, in these words—" Faithful Gallicians, you have aroused yourselves for the maintenance of order and law; • .you have fought for the law, and you have destroyed the enemies of order." And again, when one man who escaped demanded justice, justice was promised to him, but accompa- nied with this remark—" You have come dressed in mourning, but you have no right to mourn for the victims who have fallen "; and this was the only survivor of a family, of which sixteen members had before been murdered. Austria had given no explanation, although she knew that her conduct had been strongly pro- tested against in the French Chambers. On the contrary, there was published in the Government Gazette of the 28th April 1846, a statement from Prince Fre- derick of Schwartzenberg, in which the acts that had taken place were declared to have been authorized by the Austrian Government.

Lord PALMERSTON objected to a motion which went so far back— It would not do to go further back than to the treaty of Vienna. He would deem it very inconvenient and injurious to the public service if after an interval of ten years Parliament should rake up differences belonging to that period, and not bearing precisely on the question at issue. The object which Mr. Hume had at heart would not be promoted by the success of the motion. Lord Palmerston never could admit the importance which some persons attached to the establish- ment of a Consular Agent at Cracow. Under present circumstances, no one could gay that information from such an authority was required to furnish grounds for staking a communication to Austria on the subject of the occupation of Cracow. He was quite ready to give to the House the papers which explain the present position of matters, and which had been moved for in the other House. It is im- possible to deny that the treaty of Vienna has been violated. Cracow was not placed under the protection of any one of the three Powers, but of all three, in order that their conflicting interests might strengthen the security for her inde- pendence. At the same time it must be admitted, that if the rights of an inde- pendent state were guaranteed to Cracow, the duties of an independent state had to be performed by her. One of her obligations was to withhold harbour from persons dangerous to the peace of the neighbouring states. The violation of that tad other obligations involved the consequence of war. It was known to Austria, Russia, and Prussia, that plots and conspiracies were going on, having for their object an outbreak in the Polish provinces of each of the three Powers. The Go- vernment of Cracow became alarmed; and the consequence was, the entrance of foreign troops into the city. It would be difficult to say that this was an in- fraction of the treaty; because the article which prohibits the introduction of *OOPS must mean that they shall not be sent in without the consent of the au- thorities, and could not be understood as precluding the authorities from applying for aid. He believed that the entrance ot the Austrian troops into Cracow was in consequence of an application from the Government. But those Austrian troops

• and the early consequence of that retirement was the inroad of troops from Cracow into the Austrian Government. That was undoubtedly an act of hostility. The insurgents seized the salt-mines of Wieliczka and some of the treasure there in store. He maintained, that when the emergency ceased it was the duty of the three Powers to replace the republic of Cracow on the footing of complete independence. He Loped that that was the intention of the three Powers: he had no knowledge to the contrary. As to the treaty of Vienna, he would say that of all the Powers who are parties to that settlement, the powers of Germany arc the most interested in maintaining it. These Powers must have the sagacity to see, that if the treaty of Vienna be not good on the Vistula, it may beequally bad on the Rhine and on the Po. With regard to the atrocities which had been committed in Gallicia, he did not believe that they were sanctioned or known by the Austrian Government. He was afraid that there was too much Lesson to believe the statement made by Mr. Milnes as to the extent of the butchery; but Lord Palmerston was convinced that those occurrences must have been learnt with great grief and affliction at Vienna.

Dr. BOWR1NG remarked, that whilst Poland remained what Poland is, she would still be the subject of disquietude—

The question in its entirety must be returned to again and again; and if he lived till next session he should himself attempt to bring it before the House, in order to show that the state of Poland requires the attentive consideration of this country.

Mr. Hutu said, that after the expression of sentiment just given by Lord Palmerston, he should readily withdraw his motion.

RAILWAY BOARD.

On Tuesday, Mr. Mortursox submitted ten resolutions for the future regulation of railway business in Parliament, and for the supervision of existing railways—

The first resolution related to the establishment of a Railway Board; and the eight following ones specified the functions it should discharge. These related to the examination of all proposals for railway bills; tasting plans by competent per- sons; inquiring into compliance with standing orders; considering the representa- tions which may be made against any line; suggesting a tariff of fares and charges, &c. On all these points the Board to report to Parliament. The ninth resolution invested the Board with the supervision of all railways and canals in any way connected with railways; and the tenth related to the calling for returns.

The proposal to establish a Railway Board was favourably received; but not the remainder of the scheme. Ultimately, the first resolution was carried; the rest were withdrawn.

On Wednesday, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for leave to introduce a bill for the appointment of a Railway Board. He stated the main provisions of the measure— The Board would consist of not more than five Commissioners, one of whom should be the President. The President of the Board would be paid for his ser- vices, and would be a Member of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and con- nected with the Government so far as to make him removable if any change of Administration took place. The other Commissioners were to be made up of two paid members and two unpaid members of the Board. The two paid Commis- sioners would not have seats in Parliament; and the object in appointing them- was, that there should be at least one Commissioner in either House of Parlia- ment, to answer any questions that might be put with respect to the acts of the- Board. The two unpaid members would also be members of the Government; of course receiving emolument in that capacity, but not as members of the Railway. Board. The result, therefore, would be, that in both Houses of Parliament there would be a member of the Board competent to answer questions, and to take upon him the conduct of railway business in either House. It was eirther proposed by the bill, to enable the Commissioners, with the sanction of the Treasury, to trans- fer to their own office the clerks and other subordinate officers at present em- ployed in the department of the Board of Trade; also to transfer to them the whole of the powers and duties which now devolve upon the Rail- way department of the Board of Trade. It was intended to give the new Railway Board what the Beard of Trade had not at present—the power of enforcing the execution of the terms upon which bills were granted to railway companies. Upon the new Board would be im- posed the duty of seeing that all existing railway companies strictly comply with the provisions of the act under which they are incorporated. It was further proposed to enable the Board to carry on any inquiry which might be referred to them by either House of Parhament. There was one subject which, though not part of this bill, he thought it would be desirable to revise during the recess—he meant the Standing Orders of that House relating to rail- ways. One thing in particular he thought should be considered—whether a longer time should not be allowed to elapse between the first proposal to construct a railway and the bringing the bill before the consideration of Parliament, so as to afford time to make such inquiries as might be deemed necessary during the interval In reply to a question from Mr. Mouuison as to whether the Board would have power to send for papers and records, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that an answer would be given at the next stage of the bill.

Leave was given, and the bill was read a first tithe.

SMALL DEBTS BILL.

On Thursday, when the House was about to go into Committee on the Small Debts Bill,

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK desired more information than had yet been given as to the amount of patronage the bill would place in the hands of the Government, and the expense it would entail on the country— The measure did not originate with the present Government; it fell into their hands by inheritance. Since entering the House, he had been told by the Soli- citor-General that the number of new courts would not exceed sixty-five: well, sixty-five judges, at 1,2001. each, would amount to no less than 78,0001. a year; sixty-five clerks to these judges, at 6001. a year each, would be 39,0001.; making between them 117,0001. Many. of the officers were to receive fees in addition to their salaries; and a large portion of these fees would have to be paid to the pre- judice of fees which at present go into the Consolidated Fund. For anything which he could discover to the contrary, these judges would have the power of acting as Masters in Chancery and Masters in Lunacy, and would be paid for their services by fees in addition to their salaries, to the detriment of the Fee Fund in Chancery. There were at this moment, he believed, four hundred and fifty courts•' and if these were abolished, he should like to know what the compensa- tion to be paid to the parties der rived of office would amount to? He did not hesitate to say that the patronage which this bill would throw into the hands of Government would be sufficient to purchase one-half of the boroughs of England. Sir GEORGE GREY corrected some of Lord George Bentinck's assump- tions— The bill had undergone several corrections since it reached the hands of the present Government. The principles and details were substantially the same as the bill introduced in 1841 by the Government of which Sir George Grey was a member. The present bill had received careful consideration both from the Go- vernment and the country; it having been largely circulated in those districts which were likely to be most affected by it. A strong opinion had been expressed, both in and out of the House, in favour of proceeding with the measure. It should also be remembered, that several local bills had been stopped on the dis- tinct assurance that the present bill was to be proceeded with. It was quite im- possible to say what the charge on the Consolidated Fend would be, because it was proposed that moderate fees should be paid in all proceedings. It was pro- vided that after a time the Queen in Council should have power to change pay- ment by fees into payment by salary. The assumption that each judge was to have 1,2001. a year was a misapprehension. If the amount received in fees was found to be excessive, the scale would be changed. A maximum of salary was fixed, namely 1,2001.; but it by no means followed, as the noble Lord seemed to suppose, that all the judges would receive that amount. It would be unfair to deprive the public of the benefit of a measure of admitted utility simply because it put patronage in the hands of the Government. That patronage would be ex- ercised by a Minister who was responsible to Parliament. Mr. Mammas SUTTON did not approve of some of the changes intro- duced into the bill by the present Government—

The late Government proposed to give the first nomination to the Lord-Lieu- tenants; reserving, however, to itself the power of filling up the subsequent va- cancies. The judges of the existing courts were to be the first judges ot the new courts. He deemed this a better arrangement than placing all the power in

the hands of the Lord Chancellor, n curring the expense of compensation by appointing new judges.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that so far as the existing judges were found qualified, the Lord Chancellor had stated that they should be con- sidered as having a paramount claim. It was supposed that the busineas before the new courts would be so large as to afford ample compensation for judges and clerks.

The House went into Committee; and various alterations were proposed.

-Mr. ROM:ILLY was of opinion that the judges under this bill ought not to be allowed.to practise at all as barristers. Lord Joux RUSSELL assented to this opinion, to the extent that the barrister ought not to be allowed to practise in the district for which he was judge: words to that effect should be introduced. -An amendment proposed by Mr. Weireur, that attornies be eligible for judges, was negatived by 53 to 16; and Colonel THOMAS WOOD'S, that the judges should not practise as barristers at all, was negatived by 57 to 12.

Fifteen clauses were agreed to, and the Chairman reported progress.

RETIRING ALLOWANCE TO NAVAL OFEICERS.

On Monday, the House being in a Committee of Supply, Mr. WILLIAM COWPER explained the new arrangement for retiring allowances to naval officers— Government contemplated a retirement of 200 Captains. They proposed that the vacancies should be filled up by officers of twenty years' standing, who had passed fifty-five years of age, and that the 200 vacancies should be given to the applicants by seniority from the list of Captains; those in the first 100 receiving 14s. 6d. a day to have the rank and pay of Rear-Admirals, with the usual pen- sion to widows. They proposed an addition of 7s. 6d. a day to the two lower classes of the Captains' list, making up their pay to 11. and 183. respectively. They contemplate a reduction in the number of officers, but could scarcely ascertain what, wauld be the definite number. It was felt that it would act with severe harshness on junior Captains and Lieutenants if their promotion were restricted; and accordingly, good service pensions might be retained by those till they reached the rank of Rear-Admirals. They proposed to fix an amount which would not be overstepped; for the great advantage to the public was that the extent of the list was to be fixed. The immediate vote would amount to 30,0001. for the year; but if the whole plan were carried out, they hoped there would be an actual dininu- tion of annual expenditure in consequence.

On a vote for 7,5001. being asked on account of retiring allowance to Captains, commencing in October 1845, Sir CHARLES NAPIER complained of the want of sufficient information as to the details of the plan—

The oldest Captains at the top of the list, who might have asked for employ- ment till they were black in the face, were obliged to take the allowance. He knew a case in point: Captain Gordon, who was senior Captain, would have to go on the retired list in spite of his teeth. 'The motion was agreed to.

Romer, Assurer. On Tuesday, the Royal assent was given by commission to as:Lumber of public and private bills. Among the former were the Sugar-duties Bill, the Highway Rates Bill, the Religions Opinions Relief Bill, the Deodands Abolition Bill.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE. . On Monday, Lord REDESDALE complained of the imperfect manner in which the official report of the first visitation to the College of Maynooth had been drawn up: it was not only deficient in quantity but con- tradictory in matter. The President stated that there were 512 resident students: but there was nothing to show how many resident and non-resident students there were. It was intended in the vote of last year that 6,0001. should be allotted to superiors and professors in the College: but it appeared that only 4,5001. had been actually expended, leaving an ample margin for additional professors. The num- ber of students in each class was ordered to be 250: whereas it appeared that there were 262 in one and 241 in another class. After mentioning some other particulars, Lord Redesdale remarked, that unless some improvement were made, much public disappointment would be felt at the result of the grant. He hoped that a special visitation would be ordered. Lord LANSDOWNE was unable to afford any explanation on the points of the complaint, because two Visiters who were members of their Lordships' House were absent from town. The atten- tion of the Visiters, however, world no doubt be attracted to the state of the in- stitution at Maynooth at no distant period; and another and fuller report would be prepared.

FLOGGING IN THE ARmY. In reply to a question from Dr. BOIVILLNG, on Monday, as to the regulations under which the punishment of flogging is in future to be practised in the Army, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, that the fifty lashes when ordered would be inflicted by the same functionaries as at present; that medical advice would in each case be followed; and that no unapplied portion of the punishment would be reserved for a future infliction. As to the British Army in the East Indies, it is regulated by rules of its own; but he had no doubt that when the sentiments of the Duke of Wellington were known with respect to the British Army the same rule would be adopted in the East Indies. The measure must not be regarded as final or complete: certain changes would be introduced, all tending to render the punishment less frequent; and next session, when the Mutiny Bill is brought in, he should take the opportunity of stating what had been done in the matter.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE. On Monday, in reply to a question from Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY, who has vigorously resisted the proposal to place the new :nestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington on the arch at the top of Constitution Hill, Lord Monerm stated the result of the correspondence which had taken place on the subject between the Government and the Sub-Committee of subscri- bers. Finding that the Sub-Committee would not accept of any other site, the Government had consented to a proposal that the statue should be placed on the arch and allowed to remain for three weeks to enable a judgment to be formed of its effect. If not approved by her Majesty's Government, who would be guided by the opinion of competent persons, the statue will be removed. Sir FREDE- RICK TRICICH remarked that all sorts of proposals had been made on the subject of a site; the heights of Dover and the Metropolitan Railway terminus being among the number. Notwithstanding the efforts of Punch and of Mr. Ewart- who had set himself up as an oracle of taste—he was convinced that the statue on the arch would be the finest object that ever was exhibited. It was only jus- tice to the Sub-Committee to allow the question to undergo the test of public opinion. Lord Luecome thought that three weeks was too short a period for ar- rivmg at a decision, as "all London would are long be out of town.' Ho hoped the scaffolding would be allowed to remain, lest the opinion of London, when it returned to town, should prove contrary to the decision of Ministers. Mr. Pao- THEROE asked, if an opinion could not be formed from the erection of a wooden model? Lord MORPETH said, that a model was placed on the arch some years ago; but the Sub-Committee were not satisfied with the correctness of the im- pression it conveyed.

PROVISION FOR TILE FAMILIES OF DISTINGUISHED MEN. On Monday, in reply to a question from Sir DE LACY EVANS, as to what provision had been made for the widow and family of the late Sir Robert Sale, Lord Jolts RUSSELL made a general statement. It did appear to him to be matter for serious con- sideration, whether her Majesty should not be advised to ask Parliament for such sums as, with certain proper rules and restrictions, would enable her Majesty to provide for the families of distinguished men who had died in the service of the country. Of course, he could not propose any such plan in the present session; because it would be necessary not only to ask for the money, but also to take care to bind the Crown with restrictions, so as to prevent the disposal of the money on undeserving persons. He would take the subject into consideration. [Lady Sale is in the receipt of 5001. a year, but the intention is to increase it] THE ANDOVER UNION heormay. On the occasion of Lord Cistruntesier'si moving, on Thursday, that the report of the Andover Union Committee be brought up, Captain PECHELL, Mr. WAKLEY, Mr. ETWALL, Mr. STUART' WORTLEY, and Mr. Cultism; who were members of that Committee, vied with each other in anxiety to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which Lord Courtenay had discharged the difficult and delicate duties which devolved upon him as the Chairman. [The Times had attacked himfor a seeming wish to suppress certain parts of the case.]