NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE Lord Chancellor moved in the House of Lords on Monday for leave to bring in a Law Reform Bill ; the affair of Terceira was dis- cussed on Tnesdae ; on Thursday and Friday various petitions were received, but they 'led to no debate. In the House of Commons, the Navy Estimates, and a petition for repealing the Irish Union, were discussed on Monday ; on Tuesday, the Distress of the Country seemed fairly disposed of,—but it rose again before the House on

Thursday, in the form of a debate upon the .cieles of Taxation ; and the Navy Estimates came again under consido '1st night.

' By the issue of the second debate on th: Na. y F.,timates, the pen- sion-list ba4 been lessened by 9001. Ministers have, for the first time, beesa fu:rly left in a minority—and that °p.a quetion of provi- sions for the sons of two of their number. On the Portuguese ques- tion. they were not left in a minority, but it was their fate to make a very poor appearance : their defence amounted but to special-pleading, —though, certainly, their general policy does not, as Lord HOLLAND will have it, show to disadvantage when compared with that of France, illustrated thcrugh French policy be "by profitable and glorious •' ex- peditions to Algiers and the Morea. The most interesting debate, however, of the session, if we look to the intelligence displayed by the speakers, was that on Mr. POULETT ThomsoN's motion ; and while Ministers, for reasons of which we are not much disposed to ques- tion the soundness, saw reason to refuse the Committee which Mr. TifotesoN required, it was gratifying to perceive that they ad- mitted, in their fullest extent, the force of the great principles of which he gave a luminous exposition. The close of the debate on the ge- neral distress was marked by some memorable absurdities on the part of Sir FRANCIS BURDETT' while a foolish petition for the repeal of the Irish Union gave Sir CHARLES WETHERELL an opportunity of unbottling his loyalty, and proving to the House that it had lost none of its effervescence.

1. PUBLIC DISTRESS. The debate on the distress of the country

having been resumed on Tuesday, Mr. O'CONNELL felt-himself called on to express his sentiments on the subject,—the more especially as, with one exception, the Irish members in the House had taken no part in the discussion. He contended, that the distress in every part of the empire was of awful magnitude ; and that in Ireland its influ- ence as felt by the higher classes, as well as by those whom, in for- mer periods of depression, they had been enabled to relieve. If the House did not inquire into the distress of the country, it acknow- ledged itself incompetent to the discharge of its duties.

Be was sure that no party in that House would abstain from affording re- lief to the people if they knew how to afford it. He was sure that neither those who delighted in the name of Whigs, nor those who thought theih- selves honoured by the apellation of Tories, nor the small and sacred band of Radical Reformers—(a laur,h)—to which he boasted of belonging, were defi- cient in inclination to relieve distress. But was it not proper Wet an inquiry should be entered into to ascertain how far that general inclination could he gratified? If it were impossible to relieve the people, at least let them not be disappointed of the hoped-for inquiry. Ile was grateful for tha proposed reduction of taxes, but he held it to be insufficient ; and it was besides calculated, bry means of the substituted stamp-duties and the increase of duty on spirits, to add to the miseries of Ireland. The subject of the general distress had been matter of merriment to many honourable members, but to him it was • a source of sorrow. The President of the Board of Trade had advo- cate the principles of Free Trade—why did he not put them in force in the Corn Trade ? A gallant officer, too, had talked of the ad- vantages of low wages—let him address his arguments to an illus- llus trious

trious Field Marshal on full pay ; let him address them to a regi- ment, and mark whether conviction or a mutiny would follow. He denied that the currency was settled. There was one currency in England, another in Scotland, a third in Ireland. It was incum-, bent on the House to inquire deliberately which was the best. The late Change in the currency was a violation of all existing contraCts.-- He thought an equitable adjustment advisable, and the difficulties attending it less formidable than they had been represented.

Lord F. L. GONVER adverted to the increase of Irish commerce within these few years, and denied that the distress had augmented of late. Quite the reverse. The Catholic Bill, he believed, would prove highly beneficial to the country ; and, in fact, English capital was rapidly finding its way to Ireland. Mr. BEAUMONT should vote for the Select Committee. He doubted the ability of the present Ministers to cope with their difficulties. He recommended severe economy, and further reductions ; and, lastly, an adjustment with the national creditor. Mk. W. PEEL doubted whether Otis country was losing, ah had been confidently said, in the estimation of foreign countries. He wished this were true, so far as to (hive back our absentees ; on whom he recommended the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose taxes to the amount of a million.

Sir T. Gooch thought a Committee unnecessary, because before the Committee could frame a report, $1itecountry must be ruined or eel ieved.

• The Marquess of BLANDFORD recommended reduction to the ex--. tent of ten or twelve millions and the substitution of a property-tax. The people however had nothing to expect from Parliament. Their petitions should in future be addressed to- the Throne. Mr. LENNARD thought. the proposed Committee unnecessary. He recommended a reduction of taxes and a diminution of the expenses

of Government. • General GASCOYNE supported the motion.

Sir F. BURDETT was under the necessity of voting for inquiry. If inquiry were, as it had been termed, a delusion, Parliament was a de- lusion. He could not concur in the commendations that had been lavished on low prices. He deemed it quite possible to ketain • foreign trade, and yet keep prices high. Let those who 'maintained we could not, prove their assertion ; he differed from theni, knd that difference of opinion was a good ground for inquiry. The currency he looked upon as the cause of our distress, and the statements of Mi- nisters in regard to it seemed to him at once inconclusive and alarming. Some gentlemen said that they had read a great number of works by very able writers ; and they referred to them to confirm their opinions ; but it was possible for gentlemen to read too much, and become confused rather than enlightened. If Mr. Tooke, for instance, were selected as a guide, he main- tai lied that money prices did not depend upon money, and he had collected a vast number of facts from which it was not only impossible to arrive at any conclusion, but to establish any principle. But let Mr. Peel only read one short essay, by David Hume, and he would find a bright star to guide him on his way, although he had confessed himself at present to be wandering, as it were, over a chart without a meridian.

The return to cash payments, and the currency bill, had deranged all the relations of the country.

The right honourable gentleman had asserted, that the system had been set- . tied for eleven years, but he (Sir P. Burdett) denied that it had been settled eleven-months ; and for the House under these circumstandes to reject inquiry would be a declaration of its incapacity. The right honourable gentleman had indeed, eleven years ago, set up this god of his idolatry—this golden idol—this calf in Horeb of the besotted Israelites ; and the effect, after various vacilla- tions, had been the present condition of the country. The currency that pre- viously prevailed was called fictitious wealth ; nay, it had been designated as rags, with he did not know how many dirty and . epithets ; but for his part he should like the country. to be restored to that state of fictitious wealth—of unreal prosperity, which it enjoyed in 1812, 1813, and 1814, and, in fact, until the conclusion of the late profligately expensive war. Was inquiry to be stifled because Ministers were afraid-to look danger in the face ? and when two evils were presented to their choice, were they to be allowed, by adhering to their system, to fix upon that which was infinitely the greater ? What was it they proposed to do ? Nothing more nor less than this—to sa- crifice the landed, the commercial, the shipping, and the manufacturing inte- rests to funded creditors, placemen, and pensioners. [Much cheering.] He was for sacrificing none, but saving all : there were still means of doing ample justice without being frightened and fooled by words, because it was main- tained by some that if debts were paid in the same coin in which they were contracted, those who paid them would be cheats and robbers. [Hear, hear

Mr. Peel's feeling seemed to be to destroy the landed interest ; but Sir Francis believed that no interest could flourish if that were de- pressed. Gentlemen of landed property were the natural defenders of the people of England ; and it was because such a class existed here and in no other country, that we had been able to maintain our high character in war and peace, and to resist with success the combined efforts of the civilized world. If the landed interest were to be sacri- ficed, he should be glad to hear how the manufacturing and shipping interests were to be maintained, and our merchants continued " in their pride of place ?" The change of the currency, and the conse- quent low prices, bade fair to lower England in the scale of riatiftiAkt Every country might have what prices it pleased, and to keeP high was to insure prosperity.

Aye, said the right honourable gentleman, but then you would not have had gold. True, but of what benefit was gold? It was at this moment the greatest evil of the nation: Mydas turned every thing he touched to gold, and the con- sequence was starvation. That starvation Great Britain now experienced, because she would have every thing gold. .

Foreign commerce had nothing to do with the question. Were trade really free, high prices might be maintained in peace as well as in war. Ministers had been praised for their disposition to relieve the country—for the taxes which they proposed to abolish—as though the fact that beer might in seven months be drunk cheaper by a penny a pot would relieve the country The distress was universal, except among placemen and fwadholders. Inquiry therefore seemed to him indispensable.

Mr. PEEL begged to correct the extravagant misconception that Government wished to depress the landed interest.

Mr. F. LEWIS was surprised at the opinions which Sir Francis Burdett had expressed, most particularly at his praises of the Bank Restriction Act. Hume's Essay, which Sir Francis had quoted with approbation, did not sanction his opinions about a depreciated cur- rency. Mr. Tooke's arguments he had utterly mistaken; and after all, what did he expect from his suggestions if they should be adopt- ed? Could he create a new demand, or a new rate of profits ? or would he merely transfer money from one class to another?

The Bank Restriction Act had failed from the failure of the Country Banks in 1816: and it would fail again if it were tried under similar circumstances. Without legislative interference—without that House expressing any wish or any opinion on the subject—the currency was restored to par in the year 1816; it Occasioned a convulsion of distress that had nearly rent the country from end to end. Sir Francis had said they might have what prices they liked. In one respect that was true : they might have what money prices they liked; they might call a halfpenny a guinea if they pleased ; but when that misera- ble expedient had been a short time adopted, bee-eery and ruin would go through the country, and the end of it all would be, that equal quantities of given commodities would he. of the same value, or, in other words, would command the same quantities of labour or of other commodities just as before.

Mr. STANLEY believed the distress throughout the country to be great, but he could not understand how a Committee might relieve it. Mr. WESTERN dilated on the mischiefs of the Currency Bill. Colonel WILSON assured the House that lie was not sneaking over to Ministers.

He wanted no place. He began the world at the age of fifteen. He had served as a common saldier, with a brown Bess at his back. What did they think of that ? lie began as a common soldier, and lie had the honour to feed himself and to clothe himself, and to pay for his brown Bess, too. Could he then feel any desire to look for loaves and fishes, or to ask for pensions ? He was not disposed to gallop to the moon for information by an inquiry of the kind proposed.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY enlarged upon the absurdities that had fallen from Sir Francis Burdett.

Mr. THANT and Mr. BENNETT would Support the motion. Alderman THOMPSON declared the distress in the city of London to be greater than it had ever been before. He did not altogether approve of the banking system. If we had 26,000,0001. of gold in the country, he believed we had paid 40,000,0001. for it.

Mr. WARBURTON did not, as a commercial man, believe that the manufacturing classes held an inquiry like the one proposed, to be at all necessary. Mr. E. DAVENPORT consented to withdraw his motion in favour Of the amendment suggested. by Sir C. Burrell—for a select Committee instead of a general one. The House divided upon this amendment ; which was defeated by 225 votes to 87; and the original motion was then negatived without a division.

2. TAXATION. Mr. POITLETT THOMSON moved . . . . " for a select committee to inquire into the expediency of making a revision of the taxes, so that the means of paying tee sums voted by the House, and all other charges for the public service, may be provided with as little injury as practicable to the industry and improvement of the country."

He divided the taxes into two classes,—those which raised the price of the raw material and injured our manufactures, and which ought therefore to undergo revision ; and those taxes which were too high in amount, and of which a great reduction would, lie was con- vinced, be followed by no diminution whatever in their produce. Till very lately, the Legislature, in imposing taxes, had shuffled them about as a juggler might shuffle cards. The duty on tobacco had within forty years been changed three times—had been advanced from 350 to 1200 per cent., and afterwards brought down to 200 per cent. On British spirits eleven such changes had taken place. On sugar, seventeen—on tea, seven—on glass, five. The mode of col- lecting many of these taxes, particularly the taxes on soap, glass, and paper, was most vexatious to the producer and most expensive to Government. The tax upon printed calicoes was unequal and op- pressive; it amounted to 34d. the square yard, and was levied upon cloths that cost 3d.; while those that cost 5s. paid no more. This was most unjust to the poor. Mr. Thomson proposed the remis- sion of the following taxes, all of which depressed the industry of the country without adding much to the revenue. He would abolish 70,000/. upon hemp, by which the public would (by get- ting rid of a number of harassing and expensive minor restrictions) gain to an amount of 100,0001.; on barila, 79,0001., gain, 100,0001.; coals, 800,0001., gain, 900,0001.; glass, 513,0001., e 86L0001. - paper, 665,0001., gain, 806,0001.; printed calicoes, 499,001., gain, 799,0001.: total reductions, 2,626,0001.; actual benefit, 3,556,0001. As to the substitutes to be devised, he conceived that a Committee might be well employed in considering them. By subjecting bequests of landed property to the duties paid upon legacies of personal pro- perty, a revenue of 1,500,0001. might be raised. The second dais consisted of those indirect taxes which had a ten- dency to become More productive by being lowered.

The taxes to which he was now referring, amounted altogether to the sum of 12,994,0001., and consisted of duties levied upon the following articles: tea, 3,179,0001.; tobacco, 2,850,0001.; foreign spirits 1,800,000/.; French wines, 152,0001.; and sugar, 5,0000001. It was plain, that if we could, in any way diminish the rates of duties on those articles, and at the same time actually increase the revenue raised upon articles in such general consumption, and so essential to the comforts of all classes of society, that we should be effect- ing a most important service, and conferring a vast benefit upon the country. It was the axiom of Dean Swift that, in the calculations of financiers, two and, two do not always make four, but much more frequently make one. That axiom, be thought, was sufficiently well established by the fallacious hopes which financiers in this country had from time to time held out, that an in- Grease of duties would be followed by an increase in the revenue.

After establishing his position by a great many official returns, Mr. Thomson begged the House to mark, that he did not propose any specific alteration of taxes—all he moved for was a Committee of inquiry. He thought, moreover, that most advantageous reductions might be made on stamps generally,—on sea policies, on fire insu- rance, on newspaper stamps, and on advertisement duties. The high duties on sea policies were driving our insurers to foreign countries ; and those on fire insurances prevented to a great extent such insu- rances from being made.

With regard to newspapers, he would reduce • the stamp-duty of 4:1. per sheet to ha, and he was sure the revenue would benefit by the reduction.

They could only judge of the effect of these stamp.duties by comparing the state of our newspapers and their circulation with those of other countries. He held in his hand a return made to Parliament in 1e21 with regard to the newspapers in Great Britain and Ireland. It appeared from-that return that there were thirteen daily papers in London, with an average circulation of 2200 each. By this return it further appeared that there, were 334 news-

papers altogether in Great Britain and Ireland, of which twenty were daily papers, to wit—sixteen in London, and three or four in Dublin. Strange to say, Scotland, with all its wealth and intelligence, had not a single daily paper. The total amount of the circulation of these papers was 27,827,000, with a population of 23,000,000. Now if we look to the United States, we shall find that, with a population of 10,000,000, the number of papers was infinitely greater. It was stated by Cooper that there were SOO newspapers in the United States, that of these fifty were published daily, and that the total circulation of them amounted to 64,000,000 ; thus establishing the fact, that the United States had five newspapers for its population in proporti en to one in the British Isles. He might quote France to show the bed (elect of our stamp-duties in preventing the circulation of newspapers. There were four daily newspapers in Paris, the circulation of which amounted to 1;0,00o or 80,000, while the circulation of papers in London averaged only 30,000. It would be also most desirable that the duty upon advertisements should be reduced—that was at present a most unequal tax; for the same duty, namely, 3.3. (W., was charged on an advertisement of one line or fifty lines. This tax was agreat obstruction in the way of advertising. Honourable members who had a double number of The Times- laid upon their table in the morning, might be led to imagine, from seeing the crowd of advertisements in that im- mense sheet, that no such obstruction existed, but he would merely refer them to the United States, to show how much more advertising was resorted to, where no duty upon advertisements existed. It appeared, from a state- ment upon which he placed the fullest reliance, that the number of adver- tisements in the United States amounted to 10,000,000, while the total num- ber of advertisements in the United Kingdom only amounted to 903,000, or about one-tenth of the number that was published in the Unitc.d States. They had but to look to the walls of this metropolis to be convinced that no indisposition existed on the part of the people to advertise, and to perceive that the check upon their doing so consisted in this duty. He would there- fore be for reducing that duty, as he was sure its reduction would encourage advertising and increase the revenue. He thought a Committee better fitted for collecting information than Government was ; and should a deficiency in the revenue occur, his Majesty's Ministers, supported by a Committee fairly and impartially selected, might confidently ask of Parliament a vote of credit for all that would be necessary to fill up that deficiency. He called upon every member of the House who was anxious to remove vexatious burdens from the industry of the people to support him. Colonel DAVIES seconded the motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed, that while he fully concurred, as every one must do, in the general expediency of pressing, by means of taxes, as lightly as possible upon productive industry, he felt bound to oppose the motion. Many of the taxes which Mr. Thomson recommended should be abolished, had been at first im- posed from the necessity of supporting the revenue, but they are now mortgaged to the public creditor, and great caution must be used in tampering with them. Government, besides, could never consent to delegate its peculiar and imperative duties to a Committee. What, moreover, would follow from the deliberations of a Committee on such matters ? Nothing less than a general stagnation of trade in some quarters, and wild and ruinous speculations in others. To trust to the increased Imoductiveness of taxes that were lowered, was rather a hazardous experiment upon an income of 16,000,0001.

" We have heard from the honourable gentleman that he proposes that a portion of the deficiency shall be made up by a tax on the conveyance of pro- perty; but according to his own showing, this is not to produce a million and a half, while the repeal is to extend to 2,626,000/. Certainly 1 must say that I am not very much enamoured of this mode of proceeding. But in another part of his proposal, I find a Vet more objectionable course. He proposes the repeal of a large and substantial portion of the revenue of the country, which is specifically applied to a fund from which the debt of the country is to be paid, and to supply the deficiency (till it shall cease) by an annual vote of credit. To this proposition I must say that I listened with surprise, astonishment, and deep regret, after the declaration that has been made, that money ought not to be borrowed in a time of peace, so as to augment the debt. The honourable gentleman, however, recommends that we should resort to this proceeding, and for a temporary object only add to the debt which already burthens the country. But if the Committee is ap- pointed, will the honourable gentleman guarantee that this is the only one that shall be held to be temporary ? Will he guarantee that others shall not appear to be equally, capable of reduction? For I fear that if we once give our consent to the principle of affording present relief from an immediate pressure by a vote of credit, we shall find that that mode will not be confined to the present period, but become the habitual resource of the country."

He concluded by asking whether Government had evinced any such indisposition to relieve the country as to warrant this call.for a committee ? Mr. BANBES thought that the whole system of taxation should be revised, and the public burdens shifted from the poor to the rich by means of a property-tax. (Cheers.) Mr. ROBINSON could not agree to put French wines on a level with those of Portugal, because France did not encourage our industry as Portugal Mr.-MinEaLy thought, the Knisters' objections to the proposed committee very strange, more particularly when the services of the Finance Committee were adverted to. He objected, however, to the proposed vote of credit ; and he objected also to a property-tax, be- cause the effect of such a tax would be to drive property out of the country. Mr. BARING objected at groat length to a property-tax, as unequal and oppressive. General G-AscovNE thought the proposal of a property-tax, by those who had formerly clamoured tbr its abolition, the greatest incon- sistency of this age of inconsistencies. Mr. WARBIlwroN observed that the Committee would only be called on to weigh the expediency of a property-tax. Among other means of saving, he would recommend the lowering of the duties on Baltic timber to a level with those on Canada timber. By this reduction, 1,500,000/. might be saved. If similar savings could be made in other quarters, there might be no occasion for a property-tax. Lord ALTHORP supported the motion. He had formerly been op- posed to a property-tax; but he believed it to be necessaiy in the pre- sent state of the country. Mr. HF.RRIES declared that the proposed Committee would para- lyse trade in all its branches, by the uncertainty to which it would give rise. , Sir HENRY PARNELL observed that the state of manufactures abroad should suffice to show the necessity of removing the burdens which pressed upon our productive industry. Our career in repealing taxes since 1 815 had been one series of errors.

Mr. Secretary PEEL could not approve of the House devolvingtheir powers upon twenty-one of their number. As to a property-tax, be offered no opinion ; but he advised the landed interest in particular to reserve their declarations in favour of a property-tax—to throw on Government the responsibility of proposing it, and not to allow Mi- nisters to come down to the douse sheltered under the recommenda- tions of a Select Committee.

It hail been said by Mr. Thomson, and he believed him, that the motion was not intended to be hostile to the Government ; but, he would ask, if that gen- tleman would not be degraded who might be compelled to accept the condi- tions offered by such a Committee, and abandon the power reposed in him I If the honourable member or others had a distrust of the ability of the Minis- ter, or the intentions of the Government, then it might be fair to bring for- ward such a motion, and, if that distrust proved well founded, to displace them; but be was prepared to contend that it was not consulting the interests of the country to leave Ministers in their places discredited and disgraced in the eyes of the people.

Mr. Bur6nr opposed the motion. Mr. Husxissox agreed with Mr. Thomson in all but his proposition about a vote of credit. He could not enter into the feelings of Mr. Peel, that to support such motions implied hostility to Government. He denied that the effect of committees to consider the expediency of repealing taxes was to injure trade in any way. If they were to be told that no Committees could be appointed to inquire into that taxation which affected peculiar interests, he would say, that it would lie better for the House to abandon at once all deliberation on the sub- ject of these interests. (Cheers.) When the right honourable gentleman talked of all interests being confided to a responsible Minister of the Crown, did he recollect the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of foreign trade ? Had that Committee no taxation to consider, the repeal of which was an object of interest and conjecture to every witness examined before it ? The salt-tax was the subject of examination before a Committee. There was It Committee on the Silk Trade, which recommended that all propibitions should be done away with, and a duty imposed. That recommendation came from a Committee ; and after being allowed to lie dormant for years, it was carried into effect. Did the manufacturers of silk carry on less trade, or were the operations of all merchants and manufacturers affected by that report, or by the evidence before the Committee ? Quite the reverse. There had been Committees, too, on the timber and the corn trades ; and did not Government, by repealing three millions of taxes, and by talking of the restrictions in trade that had been removed, as affording relief to the extent of five millions, open a door for such inquiries as they now condemned? He. believed that no effectual relief could be afforded but by a property-tax. Lord PALMERSTON and Sir C. BURRELL supported the motion. MT. WESTERN opposed it. In the end, the motion was negatived by 167 to S.

- 3. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. In a Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, Sir GEORGE CLERK having moved, among other sums, 52,216/. for the salaries and contingencies of the Admiralty Office, Mr. HUME objected to the continuance of the office of Paymaster of Marines. The Paymaster of the Navy might easily discharge the d ity. In that opinion, Sir II. PARNELL, Mr. MABERLY, Lord HOWICK, Mr. PORTMAN, and Lord ALTHORP concurred ; while Mr. CROKER and Sir GEORGE CLERK maintained the necessity of conti- nuing the office. The original motion was carried. Mr. PORTMAN intimated an intention of taking the sense of the House as to the propriety of reducins, the salaries of officers in the Admiralty. His plan would be to reduce the salaries of the highest Class 15 per cent.—of the second class 10 per cent.—of the lowest 5 pm cent. The next vote of 32,033/. Is. 6d. for the salaries of officers and con- tingent expenses of the Navy Pay-Office, gave rise to another dis- cussion about the Treasurership of the Navy. Mr. VERNON SMITH thought that the salary of the Treasurer of the Navy should be lowered to the extent of 1200/. - the amount of the Paymaster's salary, as his office had been declared a useless one. The alleged responsibility that attached to the office was a mere farce. He knew that I he reduction which he proposed would not do much good to the country, but it was due to the country to lose no oppor- tunity of enforcing economy. As an amendment he moved that " the vote be 30,8331."

Sir GEORGE WARRENDER held that the office of Paymaster-Gene- ral ought to have been united with that of the Vice-President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. BANKES observed, that as Government had admitted the office of Paymaster-General to be useless, he wished to know Whether they would consent to its abolition ? He hoped the honourable member who had moved the amendinent would wit hdraw it, and allow him to move a resolution, that the Paymaster's salary be voted only for half a year. Mr. LABOIJCHERE concurred in the proposition. Sir GEORGE CLERK declared it to be the intention of Government to provide for the Paymaster-General as soon as a vacant situation could be found. He hoped that such a situation would present itself in twelve months, but he could not specify the prece period. Mr. BANKES called the attention of the Committee to the altered tone of Government. Formerly, Ministers stated unreservedly that the office was to be abolished, now they only thought that it might be in twelve months.

Sir G. CLERK denied that Ministers were disposed to swerve from their promise. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN would never agree to keep up a useless office until the holder of it could be provided for.

Mr. F. BARING observed, that seventy seamen had been lately dis- missed .froin trifling situations about Portsmouth, and he was not aware that they had been provided for before they were sent adrift. Sir GEORGE CLERK stated, that a liberal provision had been made for all of them who deserved it.

Mr. MABERLY objected to the principle of providing for a sineemist before his sinecure was abolished.

Mr. PEEL declared, that it would be unjust to dismiss a. distin- guished officer without providing for him. Ministers hoped to do so in six months • and he would assure the House that the office of Pay- master of the Navy should never appear in an estimate again.

Mr. W. D. HARVEY said the question might be at once settled, if the member for Radnorshire would say whether he would undertake the duties of the two offices, until the Paymaster was provided for— he receiving only the emoluments of one office. Mr. F. LEWIS observed, that he had no wish to accept of the office as a sinecure. He would rather have an office full of business. For the amendment there appeared. 60, against it 155. These proceedings took place on Monday ; and the Navy Estimates were resumed in the Committee of Supply last night.

Sir GEORGE CLERK having moved, as one of the items; that the sum of 174,584/. be granted for superammations and pensions in the Civil Department of the Navy, Sir ROBERT HERON moved, as an amendment, that the vote should be diminished by the amount of 9001.—being the pensions paid to two persons, the Honourable Robert Dundas and the Honourable W. L. Bathurst. These gentlemen had been appointed, the one a Com- missioner of the Navy, the other a Commissioner in the Victualling Office. Their services, in the estimate before the House, were left blank ; that, he therefore concluded, was their .proper description. Shortly after their appointment, their offices had been abolished, and these gentlemen had got pensioned. The pensions might seem small in amount, but they were monstrous in principle. To these young gentlemen—(Laughter)—well, then; to these gentlemen, he imputed no Maine whatever ; the blame rested on two Ministers, the fathers of these persons. The noblemen in question had for a vast number of years held some of the most important places in the country. Lord Melville was First Lord of the Admiralty, and Keeper or the Privy Seal for Scotland. Earl Bathurst was President of the Council. The grandfather of one of these gentlemen had been Lord High Chan- cellor of England ; the other a sort of Viceroy of Scotland, occupying many places with large salaries, for services that were but equivocal. That noblemen, thus gorged with the public money, should, in a time of Public distress, require or accept such miserable pensions, did to him seem strange and pitiful. Sir Robert then proceeded to contrast the claims of the gentlemen in question with the claims of many gallant officers, who had spent their lives in the public service with- out gaining remuneration so ample. Mr. C. WOOD, Colonel SIBTF/ORPE, Mr. HOSHOuSE, MT. MA- BERLY, and Lord ALTHORP concurred most strongly in these sen- timents.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Sir GEORGE CLERK attempted to defend the pensions, on the ground that the holders had respectively given up professions in order to engage in the service of their country, and that the circumstance of their being connected with noble families did not disqualify them from rendering such services. Mr. Secretary PEEL added, that it Was for the House to decide as to the propriety of the grant : it was the part of Ministers merely to submit it to their consideration.

The amendment was carried by 139 against 121; and the announce- ment of the vote was received with loud cheers.

4. REPEAL OF THE IRISH UNION. MT. O'CONNELL presented, on Monday, a petition from certain inhabitants of Drogheda, praying for a repeal of the Act of Union, through which, they alleged, Ireland was suffering incalculable injury. Sir C. WETHERELL thought the prayer of the petition little short of treason, and moved that it be rejected.

Mr. Secretary PEEL did not believe it to be necessary to reject the petition; but he could not find terms strong enough to express the disgust with which he viewed the attempts to persuade the lower classes of the Irish, that their interest demanded a separation from England. Mr. O'CONNELL defended the prayer of the petition ; and he hoped the day was not far distant when the 'friends of England as well as of Ireland would unite in favour of a repeal of the Union. Why should not Ireland have a separate Legislature as well as Canada, Halifax, or Jamaica ? From the moment Ireland obtained a separate legislature, its agricultural and cothmercial prosperity increased. If England want:d consumers for her productions, let her give Ireland a separate legislature. Mr. TRANT thought the people of Ireland should be cautious how they presented sectarian petitions of this kind, because it might so happen that such petitions would show the necessity of once more excluding Catholics from the House. Mr. HUME thought the member for Clare had been harshly judged of. He disapproved of the proposed disunion ; but the right of the people to petition was another matter. Mr. PEEL explained; and added, that the petition seemed to have been signed in a moment of conviviality rather than at a serious meet- ing of freeholders. For instance, there was the name of "Paddy Bray" followed by that of "Billy Powder Bray." Mr. O'CONNELL explained that those were the bona fide names of two freeholders.

The petition was brought up, read, and ordered to lie on the table.

5. Law REFORM. The LORD CHANCELLOR stated to the House of Lords, the various improvements in progress and in contemplation in the Courts of Law and Equity,. and the Ecclesiastical Courts. Four hundred criminal statutes have been consolidated into five or six acts ; and the punishment of death has been taken away from nearly three hundred offences. It is contemplated to simplify the practice of the Courts of King's Bench, of Common Pleas, and the Exchequer ; and as far as possible to assimilate them to each other. Such changes would be of vast utility to the public, and an infinite relief to students of law. It is proposed, moreover, to divest special pleading of some of the forms which encumber it, and as far as possible to equalize the amount of business transacted in each of the Superior Courts. It is deemed advisable, at the same time, to assimilate the Welch jurisdic- tion to that of England, and to engraft the system of' trial by jury on the Law Courts of Scotland. Such had been the suggestions of Commissioners who had been engaged for some time in investigating the state of the law in its various branches. Other Commissioners were busy in considering the law of real property. and, in particular, the subject of Conveyancing. The state of the Ecclesiastical Courts was also under consideration. Above all, the attention of Govern- ment had been directed to the Court of Chancery. Of the import- ance of shortening the system of procedure in that Court, their Lord- ships might judge, when they were informed that there were forty millions sterling, the property of the subject, locked up in it. After enlarging on the defects of the present system, and on certain altera- tions which it was in contemplation to introduce, his Lordship moved the first reading of a Bill to facilitate the Administration of Justice in the Superior Courts of Westminster. The Bill was accordingly read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time.

On a subsequent evening, the Earl of ELDON presented two peti- tions from Wales against the proposed alterations in the judicature of that country. Of many of the proposed alterations he approved ; of others he was somewhat doubtful ; but he should make it a point to collect all the information on the subject which he could.

6. THE PORTUGUESE REFUGEES. Time Marquis Of CLANRICARDE moved in the House of Lords a resolution- condemnatory of the in- structions which Government had issued to prevent the subjects of Donna Maria from landing at Terceira; such orders not being justi- fied by necessity, nor sanctioned by the law of nations. He did not mean to question the expediency of observing neutrality towards Por- tugal—his complaint was that neutrality had been violated in favour of Don Miguel. Terceira had declared in favour of Donna Maria, and Ministers had no right to prevent her subjects from repairing to it. Even if the Portuguese had infringed our municipal law we had no right to enforce our statute-book on the high seas. Lord Clanricarde having enlarged on these points, concluded by declaring, that for the honour of the country it was incumbent on Parliament not to pass over such a transaction in silence ; and if we would maintain our just influence in Portugal, or with Foreign Powers, he held it to be neces- sary to adopt his resolution. The Earl oi ABERDEEN observed, that though this was the third or fourth time on which the matter had been discussed, he had no objection that the conduct of Government should be again canvassed. He then proceeded at great length to argue, that ours was a position of strict neutrality ; that we had gone farther than we ought to have done in receivinc, the Portuguese refugees, without insisting on their dispersing when they arrived in this country; that Terceira acknow- ledged Don Miguel ; that we had guaranteed the integrity of Por- tugal, and could not sanction an attack upon Terceira; that a fraud had been committed by the Portuguese leaders ; that they had been warned not to land at Terceira, and for the issue of their attempt to land, the British Government was not to blame.

The Earl of RADNOR thought that this was no answer to the mo- tion. As to the neutrality of which Ministers talked, was receiving and accommodating the Portuguese troops at Plymouth a breach of it ? Did that afterwards justify us in pursuing them on the high seas,—unless, indeed, on the principle, that as we had committed a breach of neutrality on one side, we must be guilty of one on the other: As to the fraud alleged to have been committed about the arms, that might have justified a remonstrance to the Court of Brazil,. but nothing more ; and as to the alleged false clearances, Govern- ment might have stopped them at Plymouth, but had no right to pursue them across the Atlantic. Lord HOLLAND did not know by what magic Lord Aberdeen had taken the poll of the people of Portugal and ascertained that they were unanimous in favour of Miguel. Neither could he compliment the Duke of Wellington upon his prodigious anxiety for the will of the people : he knew not where the noble Duke had learnt it—whether in India or on the plains of Waterloo. Our treatment of the Portu- guese refugees was harsh and ungenerous while they remained in England, and illegal after they had left it.

It was true that this Government might give or refuse its permission to arms being taken from this country ; but if it did not exercise that right equally on both sides, there was an end of its neutrality ; and if it did not exer- cise the right at all, it was no breach of neutrality. Even if the Brazilian Government had been a belligerent, instead of a neutral, it would have been no breach of neutrality. There were fifty instanced of it, but one was enough for his purpose; that was the case of the Russians, who, in 1770 or 1771, when making war on the Turks, were permitted to arm and victual their ships in our ports, without our being considered as guilty of a breach of neu- trality. * * The Duke of Wellington had observed, that he could not be supposed to know much of the law of nations ; but why was this ? He had been the Commander-in-Chief of confederated armies ; he had been an Ambassador to France ; he had been a Plenipotentiary at the Congress of Verona ; and he was then Prime Minister of England; and it certainly would not be preposterous to suppose that he should know something of the laws which regulated the intercourse between crown and crown, between people and people, and determined the principles of war itself. Lord Holland could not, however, undertake to say, in opposition to the noble Duke, that he pos. sessed this knowledge; and if he were disposed to defend him he must allow that he had been furnished with a very miserable brief in his correspondence. (Laughter.) The argument which the noble Duke seemed anxious to address to Don Pedro was to this effect—" It is very true, you accuse your brother of being a murderer, and what not besides ; but if you are.not quiet we shall open our budget, and prove that you yourself are little better." This was indeed a strange manner of reconciling two parties—to displease both—to lower both, and then say, you must make friends, for fear of worse consequences. (Laughter.) Lord Holland conjured their Lordships to adopt a contrary line of policy. He saw in other countries a strong disposition to support the cause of liberty and legitimacy throuehout Europe; and in the great struggle which was now going forward in France, whichever party might prevail, he thought a considerable influence would be exercised on our connexion with Portugal. He was not disposed to throw out any insinuations against France, but he decidedly was enough of a John Bull to assert that we should carefully refrain from the adoption of any course which would have the effect of giving that country a chance of acquiring an ascendancy over Portugal, which, if the opportunity were afforded, he would not say that it was not their duty. to secure. He saw that in Greece, the Mediterranean, and the coast of Africa, the French were likely to reap an abundant harvest of profit and of glory, while Eagland was fast sinking into a secondary power.

The Duke of WELLINGTON delnded the conduct of Government on the same grounds as the Earl of Aberdeen had done.

Viscount GODERICH believed the conduct of Government to be al- together indefensible in the matter in question. The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the conduct of Government as having been entirely in accordance with the law of nations. The re- fugees positively pledged themselves to go to Rio Janeiro, and we had a right to hold them to that engagement, and to compel them to keep to it, even if they were found on the high seas.

The Earl ol' CARNARVON observed, that the real question had been always blinked by Ministers ; for that question was not what you had a right to do generally, but what you had a right to do when the Re- fugees were in your own country. While here, Ministers might have a right to control their proceedings and motions; but what had that to do with the act of driving them, by a hostile attack, from their own shores? That was the point in which the Ministers had violated the law of nations. He was one of those who thought at one time that this question of neutrality had been sufficiently discussed, but he thanked Lord Clanricarde for bringing it forward again ; for it was now so manifest that the neutrality had not been preserved, that the question might be considered as at rest for ever.

The motion was negatived by 125 to 30.