Debates anb giroceebings in Iparliament.

PACIFICATION OF IRELAND.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Earl GREY, with a speech which occupied between two and three hours, submitted the following motion-

" That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, humbly to submit to her Ma- jesty, that this House, in compliance with the recommendation in her Majesty's most Various speech from the Throne, has taken into consideration the frequency with which the Crime of deliberate assassination has of late been committed in Ireland ; and that we hope that the adoption of measures calculated to give increased security to life, and to bring to justice the perpetrators of so dreadful a crime, may be the result of our labours. That we have also given our sanction to the measures proposed to us for re- lieving the distress occasioned in that part of the United Kingdom by the loss of a large part of the potato crop of last season. That, having thus attended to what appear to be the most pressing exigencies of the actual condition of Ireland, we think it right humbly to represent to her Majesty, that Parliament has repeatedly found it necessary temake provision, by temporary measures, for difficulties with reference to that country tlmnar in character to those which have now demanded our attention ; grants having on various occasions been made for the relief of the Irish people from the apprehended miseries of famine ; and the Executive Government in Ireland having also from time to time been armed with extraordinary powers for the repression of crime. That we observe with deep concern, that the necessity which has now again arisen for measures of this descrip- tion, proves that their adoption heretofore has failed in eradicating the evils against which they were directed, and that the progress which might reasonably have been hoped for has not yet been made in remedying the social disorders of Ireland. That we are im- pressed with the conviction, that under these circumstances, merely to grant pecuniary assistance for the relief of present distress, and to pass severe laws for the detection and punishment of crimes, cannot be considered as fulfilling the duties of the Imperial Parliament towards Ireland ; but thatmeasures ought withoutfurtherdelay to be adopted for the purpose of effecting a real and permanent Improvement in the condition of this part of her Majesty's dominions. That to this end, it should be the aim of her Majesty's Government and of Parliament, by giving to the Irish people confidence in the equal administration of justice, to obtain their cooperation in the enforcement of the law, and, by remedying real grievances, to allay the spirit of discontent to which the prevalence of outrages and violence is to be traced. That without the coOperation of the people the enforcement of the law must ever be uncertain and un- satisfactory; and while the spirit of discontent continues to prevail, no system of re- pression, however severe, can be expected to prevent its breaking out from time to time in acts of outrage. That a change in the temper and disposition of the people, brought about by an improvement in the laws, and in the mode in which they are administered, is therefore required for the establishment, upon a solid foundation, of the good order and security indispensably necessary for the development of the industry of the nation, and of the improvement of its great natural resources, whereby alone the periodical recurrence of insubordination and distress can effectually be guarded against. Humbly, therefore, to assure her Majesty, that we shall be ready to cooperate with her Majesty In the adoption of measures having for their object to allay the discontent and conciliate the affections of the Irish people ; in the earnest hope, that, by the blessing of Divine Providence, peace and prosperity may thus be established in Ireland."

In his introduction, Lord Grey said that their recent measures on the subject of Ireland were of such a character as to bind their Lordships to take the earliest opportunity of declaring, that those measures by themselves were totally inade- quate to cure the social evils of that country, and were only to be justified as affording time for the application of more effectual remedies. The disclosures made by Government in applying for those measures unfolded a state of society awful to contemplate,—no security for life or property, the extreme wretchedness of the population aggravated by the partial failure of the potato crop, with the certainty that death and pestilence must stalk through the land unless the pre- cautions adopted should arrest their progress. Unhappily, this is no accidental, no extraordinary, no unlooked-for calamity. It is but an aggravation, and per- haps no very great aggravation, of the habitual condition of Ireland. The evils of that unhappy country are not accidental, not temporary, but chronic and habit- ual. The state of Ireland is one which is notorious: we know the ordinary condition of that country to be one both of lawlessness and wretchedness. It is so described by every traveller, by every intelligent foreigner who directs his steps and consideration to that country. Ireland is the one weak place in the solid fabric of the British power; it is the one deep, he had almost said ineffaceable blot, in the shield of British honour. It is regarded as the reproach of England throughout the civilized world. They might palliate it to themselves as they pleased; but no foreigners, whether French, Americans, Russians, or Germans, whatever might be their peculiar forms of government, if they visited Ireland, returned without congratulating themselves that they could see nothing comparable to the condition of that country at home. The mere fact that Ireland is in such a condition supplies whole volumes of argot meat, and is of itsa a complete and irrefutable proof of misgovernment. Nor could they lay to their souls the flattering unction that this misgovernment was only of ancient date. No man could have a stronger opinion than he entertained of the iniquitous system of government that prevailed in Ireland before the Union;

but since the Union nearly half a century bad elapsed; for nearly fifty years Ire- land bad been under the immediate control of the haperial Government; a whole generation had groan up and passed away, and been replaced by another; and during that time what diminution had been made in the evils of Ireland? He acknowledged that many good and useful measures had been adopted; but in the worst and oldest symptoms of the condition of the people there had been no im- provement whatever. On that point he could quote the authority of the lath Royal Commission; whose report stated, that " some improvement had begun in agriculture, but there had been no corresponding advance in the condition and comfort of the people." In that report it was stated, that the agricultural la- bourer still suffered great privations, still continued to depend on casual employ- ment for subsistence, and was badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for his labour: it stated, too, that the Commission " could not forbear ex- pressing a strong sense of the patient endurance the labouring classes had exhi- bited under suffering greater than that which any other people of Europe had to endure." This was the authentic statement of a Commission appointed only the other day to inquire into the state of Ireland; and it was made before that condi lion was aggravated by the failure of the potato crop. It was a fearful statement: but there was another symptom of the condition of Ireland which he thought still

worse,—the alienation of the whole mass of the nation from the institutions by

which they are governed: a deep and strong hostility to the form of government under which they live is rather gaining strength than diminishing. Two years ago, in the House of Commons, he heard Sir James Graham, Secretary of State for the Home Department, declare , that Ireland was held by military occupation, and by no other means—that Ireland was occupied, not governed like England. This admission by a Minister of the Crown, together with the statements of other equally high and indisputable authorities, affords good ground for inferring that there is something wrong in the policy which has been pursued; and that mea- sures different in character, and more effectual than those we have been in the habit of trusting to, are necessary. That necessity did not appear to be recog- nized by her Majesty's Government; and for this reason he bad made the present

motion. The Government proposed only measures like those which had been tried over and over again; they proposed doggedly to pursue the old beaten track; what could they expect but that it would lead them to the old accustomed ter- mination? Money and coercion appeared to be the whole secret of thepolicy

pursued towards Ireland: they had never been sparing of either; both had been plentifully applied; and they saw the result. Was he to suppose improvement in

that country was impossible; that the causes of its unhappy condition were alto-

gether nndiscoverable, or of a nature beyond reach or removal ? Such an assertion, if there were any man prepared to make it, was a libel on Providence and on human

nature. Was there anything in the nature of the country or the people to account for such a state of things ? Undoubtedly there was not in the nature of the coun- try: Ireland had been gifted by Providence with a soil of surpassing fertility, a

mild and genial climate, and great mineral wealth; she had a large extent of coast, and numerous harbours, great natural facilities for internal navigation and command of water power, and every advantage necessary for commercial greatness. The natural resources of Ireland were not only great, but unusually great. Was the cause of her condition in the people? Removed from Ireland and taken away from the pernicious influences with which they seemed there surrounded, the men of Ireland were capable of everything good and generous: in the Colonies, in America, in various countries of Europe, they are seen distinguishing themselves in every branch of industry. In this country much of the severest kinds of toil

is performed by Irishmen. The great proportion of the reapers that come over

yearly are from Donegal and other counties equally deplorable in condition. What was the character of those men? They were always grateful beyond measure for good treatment; they were tractable, industrious, cheerful, and gay; they were sometimes and in some respects thoughtless and easily excited; but, on the other hand, they exhibited a degree of frugality and providence not very usual in men of their rank in life and amount of education. That was the character of the Irishmen in England; and with such a people in such circumstances, was it not the fault of the rulers if they were wretched and lawless? He was not so visionary as to expect that evils so inveterate could be removed in a moment; that

was impossible: but if they seriously and earnestly applied themselves to the great task, without regard to cherished prejudices—if they honestly and fairly set them-

selves to inquire what could be done for the benefit of Ireland, they would discover measures, the adoption of which would soon give evidence in their practical effects that they were in the right track, that they were on the road to improvement, and that in due time they would leave Ireland to the generations that might follow them in the prosperous and happy condition of a well-ordered community.

As to the measures adopted by her Majesty's Government, the fault lies much more in what they do not than in what they do. If he rightly understood their

policy, it was this—first to obtain security for life and irroperty; and next to en-

courage industry, so that a demand may exist for honest labour at adequate wages. " These are the objects which I understand Government to have in

view; and so far I think them perfectly right. I think also, that what they do

with a view to remedy the immediate and pressing want of em 'loyment is right in itself and sufficient. In that respect it might probably be • ]'cult to do more

than Government proposes. But when we are looking to the permanent improve- ment of the country, to that which is to be its habitual condition, then I say that employment directly afforded at the cost and under the superintendence of Go-

vernment is utterly and entirely inadequate." This had been proved by the result of the enormous grants which have been made since the Union. The reason of the failure is obvious: it is because the Government has not yet succeeded in establishing security together with the restriction of the Executive Government to the ordinary powers of the law. In the measures now proposed by the Go- vernment, he regretted to see nothing which gives even the faintest hope that when the temporary bill lately passed shall have run its term, in October 1849, we shall have greater peace and security than at present.

It could not be denied that the ordinary law is powerless in protecting the peaceable subject; and were the reason asked, every person who had attended to the facts would say that it arose from the aversion entertained by the bulk of the population to the administration of the law. This feeling is forcibly illustrated by the case of persons accused of heinous crimes. In England, if a murder has been committed and the culprit has escaped, everybody aids the law in capturing him; but in Ireland the case is reversed—everybody endeavours to shelter and pro- tect the murderer: a murderer is regarded as a privileged character; and well- authenticated instances are known of men wishing to find employment at a dis- tance from their native districts actually pretending to have committed a murder to facilitate the obtaining of employment. Coercion bills as a means of curing the admitted evils had proved a failure; and something else should be tried.

In the first place, an endeavour should be made to convince the people that the law really exists for their benefit. He was persuaded that the law is inadequate, especially as regards the tenure of property, to protect the rights of the poor man. The clearance of estates has taken place to a great extent, and in a manner utterly impossible to reconcile to our ideas of real justice and real humanity. It appeared f rom the recent report of the Commissioners, that by the law as it now stands, an industrious man who may have spent two or three years in improving a small allotment of ground, and thus given a new value to it, depending upon it for the subsistence of himself and family, can be, and at the pleasure of the land- lord sometimes is turned out to starve on the wide world. Another abuse was that of subletting, occasioning the cruelest and direst injustice. Under the ex- isting law, a man may pay his rent to his immediate superior, and should that superior fail to pay the rent to his superior, the poor man who farms the lot is liable to have his property seized and sold before his eyes.

Lord Grey thought that the difficulties in the way of correcting these abuses had been aggravated by the imprudent course adopted by the Government in sp- rinting the Commission over which Lord Devon presided: he believed that the increase of agrarian disturbances was in no slight degree traceable to the issuing of that Commission; for it created an impression in the minds of the peasantry that they were to be owners instead of occupiers of the land. The real state of the law and its workings might have been ascertained without flourish of trum- pets, by private consultation with persons of skill. He believed, in opposition to opinions which he had heard to the contrary, that there was a connexion between agrarian outrages and discontent and the agita- tion for Repeal of the Union; and he deduced from the readiness with which the Irish people obey the orders of unlawful or self-constituted authorities, that they would display equal fidelity to the laws of the land if they were brought to be- lieve that their rulers take an interest in their welfare and happiness.

He was apprehensive that part of the ill feeling towards the administration of the law has arisen from the Government having placed on the bench of justice eager and virulent partisans. He believed also that the practice of excluding men from juries on account of theit.religion has been to some extent revived. "I hope, if such is not the case, that the assertion will be denied, because anything more objectionable or more improper I cannot understand. I deliberately say, that, in my opinion, it would be less objectionable to suspend trial by jury alto- gether than to continue such a practice. I believe that it is better to have no jury at all than &partisanjury; and if the Government have revived that prac- tice, they have incurred a fearful responsibility."

Addressing himself to the consideration of remedial measures, Lord Grey de- clared, that in so far as the Repeal of the Union is concerned, he should firmly resist every such proposal. As a rule for guiding English legislation in matters relating to Ireland, he quoted an extract from a speech delivered last session by one of the Bishops—to the effect that we should extend to Ireland the same treatment that she would have received from an independent domestic Legisla- ture had she possessed one, with the single exception of anything tending to dis- ruption of the Union and dismemberment of the empire. Applying this test to the Irish Church, he showed the injustice and impru- dence of allowing so palpable an abuse to remain. He described the atrocities perpetrated under the former tithe-collecting system; and remarked, that it was no matter of surprise that a deep-rooted feeling of aversion should exist to the Irish Church in the minds of Irishmen; and his conviction was, that till the evil was corrected there would be neither peace nor contentment in Ireland, nor submis- sion to the Government

As to specific remedies, Lord Grey was not prepared to name them. What he insisted for was a perfect equality of treatment between Protestants and Catholics. " What you do for one, you should do for the rival Church. There are various modes of arriving at this result. Some propose that the whole endowment should be taken away from the ems' ting foundations as existing interests fall in, and should be applied to what is called secular education. I confess I should greatly grieve if any such measure were adopted. I for one am no admirer of the Volun- tary system: I believe it to be a bad one. I believe it to be of great importance that a fund should be set apart for the maintenance of the ministers of that religion whose province it is to teach thepeople, in such forms as they will accept, the great truths of Christianity. Therefore, I should deeply grieve if the whole endowment were taken away for secular education. But I should think even that better than the present system. The present system combines all the de- fects and disadvantages of the Voluntary system and of a State Church. You have a Voluntary system for the great body of the people, and the invidiousness Of a State Church for a small class. Therefore, rather than that such a system should continue, I should prefer to see the whole funds applied to secular par- Bat I hope we are not driven to that. Another coarse is, that as the tent is the religion established in England, the Presbyterian in Scotland, the Catholic should be established precisely on the sameprinciple, as the church of the greater part of the people. This view has in its favour the opinion of one whom I reverence more than any one of our time—I mean Dr. Arnold. I have no hesitation in saying that I deeply regret the Roman Catholic is not the reli- gion now established. I regret that the Protestant was ever made an Established Church. It was a great and fatal mistake, which I wish had never been com- mitted. But I own I have some doubt, if in the actual state of things, we should remedy the evil by a Catholic establishment Another proposal is to tax the landed property for the payment of the Catholic clergy. I think that proposi- tion perfectly just and reasonable, and I hope some day to see it confirmed. But I think it of itself insufficient, and that you must take away part of what is now held by the Established Church. I remember a noble Lord, then in her Majesty's Household, asked whether it was not true that in 160 parishes in Ireland the rent-charge amounted to 58,0001. for the support of the Church, where there was no Protestant. I believe the answer he received confirmed substantially the ac- curacy of that statement Now I have no hesitation in saying, that this state of things ought not to continue. I have no hesitation in saying that a portion of the superfluous property of the Protestant Church ought to be diverted to such an estab- lishment as the Catholics would be willing to receive instruction from. I know the objection has often been made—' The Catholics now claim no assistance: the time is gone by for such a course: some years ago they would have accepted our bounty, but they will do so no longer. I confess 1 am very incredulous as to these assertions. I believe that, if given in a proper manner, the boon will be ac- oepted readily enough. You cannot now obtain the advantages you might have done had it been given sooner. You cannot attempt the establishment, directly or indirectly, of the remotest interference with or control over the Catholic clergy. Formerly such a power would have been granted to you; but you, unluckily, lost the opportunity, and I believe it would be the height of madness in the present state of things to attempt such a control. I believe also the clergy would receive no direct payment from any salaried officers of the Government. In 1825 they were ready to do so: but the unhappy error was committed by the right honour- Baronet, who resisted the wise proposal of a noble friend of mine. I believe, had his influence been thrown into the other scale, into the scale of justice instead of resistance, that at that time Catholic Emancipation would have been granted; and that he more than any one man is responsible for the delay. It is now too late, however: the blunder has been committed, and we can't repair it. But I still think the Catholics would take a grant if administered by Catholic authority, for the building of glebe-houses and chapels, and also by way of stipend. I believe if a measure were passed of large and generous disinterestedness, not excluding stipends to the clergy, it would soon come into operation. I shall not go further into

details which it is unnecessary now to discuss. All I ask is, that if you endow one church you endow both. But you are called on to go further: you must give the Catholic clergy an equality also in social rank and position. You must re- cognize the Catholic hierarchy even more distinctly than in the Catholic Bequests BilL Let them take their proper place and station in society—that station to which, as the chief of the pastors and clergy, who as a body are distinguished for their piety and earnest promotion of the welfare of the people, they are justly entitled. I carry this view so far as to think they should take their place on the bench of Bishops; and most earnestly do I wish that we had now an opportunity of obtaining the advice and assistance of those who are united to the Catholic population by such intimate ties, who could explain their feelings and their

wants, and the best mode of conciliating them. And as to any danger arising from having as many Catholic as Protestant Bishops admitted from Ireland, I do not think your Lordships are so easily led away, as that four Catholic Bishops could persuade a majority to take a course which they did not approve of." In conclusion, Lord Grey said that he was prepared to see his motion rejected

by an overwhelming majonty; but he should nevertheless entertain an en confidence that before many years the policy he recommended would be

in its substantial features by Parliament. Catholic Emancipation, and the trines of Free Trade, not many years ago appeared to be as hopeless. " I am convinced that a great crisis is at hand in the history of this country and Ireland. I believe now there is one way, and one only, of appeasing the Repeal agitation, of allaying discontent, of gradually restoring order and tranquillity to a most dis- organized and unhappy state of society, and at the same time insuring the security of the British empire. There is one, and but one way of doing this; and that is by not granting the Repeal of the Union, but by following the advice of the right reverend Prelate whom I have already quoted, that you should legislate for Ire- land, as an Irish Parliament, fairly representing the wants and wishes of the country, would be expected to legislate.'

The Duke of WELLINGTON, admitting many of Lord Grey's facts, could not agree to the address, as in the latter part of his speech ho had shown that his ultimate intention was to destroy the Irish Church—

He could not agree to any such thing; for if ever there was a point which was made a subject of compact by act of Parliament, it was the maintenance of the Church of England in Ireland. The Duke took great pains to elaborate this point of the compact. "My Lords, I say this—you have not a case before you on this subject; you cannot make the arrangement proposed; and I therefore recommend to your Lordships not to agree to the address proposed by the noble Earl. Un- doubtedly, measures must be adopted calculated to benefit Ireland. This and the other House of Parliament ought in any case to adopt measures of legislation for the benefit of Ireland whenever the interests of that country come under their consideration; and I must say that Parliament has done its duty on that subject. There never was a country which has so advanced in improvements of all descrip- tions as Ireland has done since the Union. I will not stay to describe what others are more capable of doing than I am; but it is quite remarkable, that in every way, in trade, in commerce, in shipping, in revenue, in Customs, in Excise—in every-

thing, in short, the increase has been enormous. The noble Earl has said that foreigners going to Ireland are in the habit of expatiating on the misery that pre- vails there. True, there is great poverty and misery in Ireland, as there is in other countries; but yet in Ireland there is vast capital and great riches, and Ireland is at this moment setting an example to the world which could be imi- tated by very few countries in Europe—I mean, laying out millions at this moment in the construction of railroads at the private expense of individuals." Next to the Church-compact, the Duke's strongest point was the history of concession. With the view of showing that concessions could not put down agitation in Ireland, he referred to what had taken place since 1829; tracing O'Connell's progress up to the monster meetings of 1843. " My Lords, during all this time there was no want of measures of conciliation. The Tithe arrangement was brought to a complete conclusion. The Tithe Bill was passed, and every measure adopted which could tend to the prosperity of Ireland; Parliament acting on all those occasions as though it were an Irish Parliament legislating only for the benefit of the Irish people. But, my Lords, this system of agitation still continued, and monster meetings were assembled which could be got the better of at last only by military force. Such, my Lords, is the history of the effects of concession. I do not mean to say that it was not right to concede on all these points. I only ask you whether you choose to concede on this occasion, in the face of facts which no man can deny—in the face of the compact which binds you to preserve the United Church of England and Ireland in the latter country?"

Earl FontEscun expressed a general and cordial concurrence with Lord Grey; and especially on the subject of the Church Establishment. He hoped to see the day when the heads of the Irish Church would take their seats in the House of Lords.

Lord BROUGKAM thought the ills of Ireland had far deeper root than any misgovernment of the present day; and he thought that their Lord- ships in passing a measure to put down outrages had begun at the right end— The first lesson to be taught the deluded people of Ireland was, that they Mist submit themselves to the law; and that all their evil counsellors, be they laymen or priests, would in vain encourage them to resist the law and to persist in out- rage, and that if they did so resist and persist in outrage, they mast meet the condign punishment of their criminal acts. With regard to remedial measures, Lord Grey had alluded to them in so ge- neral a manner that their Lordships were left as far away as ever from the consideration of any practical means of applying them. The abuse of tithe-; collection had no existence now; and it ought to be struck at one dash of the pen from the list of grievances. As to the other more specific grievances, the blame could not be laid upon this or that Administration, but rather more pro- perly to the state of society in Ireland. One of those had reference to the admi- nistration of justice, and the other to the balance of the churches and sects. With respect to the administration of justice in Ireland, it was a subject to which he had given much consideration, and which he had carefully examined. In 1823' he presented a petition to the Mouse of Commons complaining of the maleadmi- nistration of justice in that country; a complaint founded on actual abuses, and not got up to serve a purpose. low he had read over the statement which be made in connexion with that petition, and he could assure their Lordships that every single ground of complaint which he then urged bad ceased to exist. Their Lordships had heard it alleged that certain political partisans had been se- lected for promotion. The question, however, was, not whether the judge who- had been selected had been a political partisan when at the bar—not whether he was a political partisan before he was elevated to the bench—not whether he was given to factious courses before his elevation to the bench—the question was, what had he done since hls elevation ? If they waited till all the people in Ire- land approved of judicial appointments, there would be no use in coercion bills; for there would be no judges to administer the law. Lord Brougham mentioned the names of the recently-appointed Judges, and spoke of them as able, learned, and upright. The fault was not in any particular Administration, but in the social state of Ireland; where there were seven millions of Catholics and only one million of Pro-, testauts. By an act of violence the Legislature took away from the Catholics the property of the Catholic Church, and gave it to the Protestant Church. That the anomalous state of things in ecclesiastical matters— the greatest anomaly ever known—was an evil, he fully admitted. Nay, he would go the length of saying that it was the monster evil to which many minor evils were related and had reference.

It gave him great pain at all times to vote in favour of coercion, and to state, as he felt obliged to state, that for existing evils in Ireland there was no legis- lative remedy except those which were distant and indirect. If they went on ad- ding delusion to delusion, and giving their high countenance to claims out of doors with regard to the administration of justice—if they bound themselves to the job- bing arts of one side, or adopted the policy of another—they should become ac- complices in half the mischiefs that might arise. He, for one, could not acquit political agitators of all participation in agrarian outrages in Ireland. He had lately seen speeches which had been delivered in that country by priests and agitators which went directly to attacks on the landed interest. It was not that it was said merely in these speeches that property had its duties as well as its

rights; for it might be very proper to preach ibis doctrine to landlords, yet it might be dangerous to adopt that style of oratory to the population under them. He believed that property had its duties; and he believed also that the landlords of Ireland faithfully and honestly discharged them: but their right was a right of perfect obligation and a legal one, whilst their duty was one of imperfect obli- gation, as moralists call it If he saw a poor woman starving with a baby in her arms, and refused to give her a shilling to relieve her distress, he should deserve to be called a hard-hearted man; but the law said that she should not take the shilling from him, as he had a legal right to keep it. That was the case of the Irish landlords; and he hoped that they would always continue to discharge, as he believed they now discharged, not only their perfect duties, but those of im- perfect obligation, charitably, kindly, and affectionately.

Earl FITZWILLIAM gave the motion his hearty and eloquent support. He advised the House to deal with the great questions relating to Ireland which came before them in the spirit of love and justice. The revenues of the Irish Church should be applied, in the true spirit of charity, to pur- poses calculated to benefit all the people.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE would not consent to the destruction of the Irish Church; but he thought Parliament should look to the tem- poralities, and lop off such proportion of its extra wealth and useless re- venue as should appear offensive to the great body of the people.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH opposed the motion; denying that the Irish people were so discontented at heart as had been represented. The Duke of RICHMOND would also oppose the motion; but in so doing he did not mean to express any confidence in the Government, for he felt none. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would not consent to an overthrow of the Irish Church: if that were accomplished, there would no longer be any security for the estates of the landed proprietors.

The Earl of St. GERMANS vindicated the appointment of the Devon Commission; and mentioned that a measure was in preparation for the ad- justment of the landlord and tenant question.

Earl GREY, in his reply, said it was amistake to suppose that he recom- mended the overthrow of the Irish Church: so far as it was useful for teach- ing the Protestant religion, it ought to be maintained.

The House divided—Contents, 17; not content, 61; majority against the motion, 44.

THE NEW CORN BILL.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the debate on the second reading of the Corn Bill commenced.

At the outset, Sir ROBERT PEEL presented two petitions, one from Li- verpool and the other from Manchester, stating that the commercial inter- ests of the country are materially prejudiced by the delay which has taken place, and praying that the measures which have been introduced by the Government, might be passed 23 speedily as possible into law—

Sir Robert had been assured that no petition ever left Liverpool more respect- ably signed. In the course of a few hours 414 signatures were attached, includ- ing the representatives of every banking-house in the town except three. Men of all parties are included; some of them previously opposed to the measures, but who had now given in their adherence. The Manchester petition received 1,122 signatures in twenty-four hours: it is signed by all the bankers in Manchester, and by 55 members of the Town-Council; by most of the large houses engaged i in the manufacturing and spinning trade, in the machine-making, in the country trade, and in the East and West Indian, Canadian, United States, German, Rus- sian, and Mediterranean trades. "I am informed that the amount of capital re- pt seared by the houses who have signed this petition is 30,000,0001.; and that tle n ember of persons employed by them is 120,000."

Mr. ETWALL presented a petition from nearly 700 Hampshire agricul- tural labourers, men and women, resident in the unions of Droxford and Stoneham, and other parishes between Southampton and Winchester, stating that they had been struggling on from year to year, with wages barely sufficient for subsistence under Corn-law protection, until they de- spair of any amendment of their condition under these restrictive laws, and therefore earnestly entreat an immediate and total repeal of the Corn- laws.

Mr. SHAR3LtN CRAWFORD presented a petition from Rochdale in favour of the bill; and Mr. RASHLEIGH petitions from twenty places in Cornwall against it. Mr. E. YORKE opened the debate on the bill, and moved as an amend- ment that it be read a second time that day six months— If gentlemen around him felt as he did, they would not be deterred from using every form that the House allowed, and adopting every rule that the usages of Parliament suggested, to defeat the measure. He spoke of the Ministerial scheme as a breach of faith, calculated to diminish the value of property and reduce the profits of farmers and the wages of labourers. With the view of showing the feeling which existed among the agricultural labourers, he mentioned that he had received a communication from a poor but intelligent man, who said that in the neighbourhood from which he wrote there was not a village in which the people were not ready to assert, by brute force if necessary, their right to taste of the fruits of their own labour; and he added, that every village in the vicinity wag ripe for outrage at the first reduction of wages. Sir J. Y. BULLER seconded the amendment ; and in so doing, declared that he had not yet recovered from his deep disappointment on first hear- ing that further change was intended. The other speakers this evening were—Mr. NFGEACHY for the bill, Mr. PACKE against it, Mr. Fox MAULE for, Mr. CHOLMONDELY against, Mr. H. VERNON for, Captain BERKELEY for, Sir ROBERT INGLIS against, Mr. CHILDERS for.

Mr. M`Gzecnv would not join in the outcry raised against Sir Robert Peel; whose procedure he regarded as honest and open: he had resigned office to afford an opportunity to others to carry out the new policy, and when the chance was not embraced he was under the necessity of undertaking the task himself. He viewed the conduct of the Whigs with suspicion: that party ought to have re- membered that they had been in past times Protectionists as much as gentlemen at Mr. M`Geachy's side of the House, and that if commercial interests were at present suffering from the unsettled state of the Corn-law it arose in a great measure from their non-acceptance of office when it had been frankly tendered to them. He thought a noble opportunity now afforded for the investment of that great fund rais.d by the Anti-Corn-law League in the erection of some peaceable trophy commemorative of its victory; not an evanescent or a temporary monu- ment, but the establishment of some permanent institution directed to the accom- plishment of some great national and philanthropic purpose.

Mr. PACKE denied that the three-years prosperity had arisen from the law of 1842; it had arisen from the abundant harvest and the prosperity of agriculture. Lord John Russell at Glasgow told his auditory that Sir Robert Peel had treated the agricultural party with great unkindness, for he had left them to speak for themselves: but he thought when that noble Lord went back to Glasgow he would be able to tell them that the agricultural party, both by the number and the ex- cellence of their speeches, had defended themselves pretty well. Mr. Fox Marmx would have been better pleased had the abolition been immediate, but as it was he accepted the measure with gratitude. He had taken care to ascertain the feelings and opinions of landowners and tenants on the other side of the Tweed, and he had no hesitation in stating publicly the result of his investiga- tion to be this—that not only was there no panic among the landowners or farmers of that country, but, in spite of all that had been said in reference to those mea- sures, agricultural arrangements proceeded with increased alacrity from day to day. He believed that the interests of the landowners would be as safe after the measure was passed as they were now. He was surprised at the groundless nature of their apprehensions. He would hive an instance. A noble Lord connected with Perthshire had recently withdrawn his proxy from the Government and given it to the noble Duke who led the Opposition to the measure in another place: ten days after Sir Robert Peel made his proposition to the House, that noble Lord had two farms to let on his property; one of these farms was let at a renewed lease of nineteen years—the former rent was 4801., the new rent was 5701., being an increase of 90L a year; at present the rent was paid part in grain rent and part in money, but in the new lease the whole of the increased rent was conditioned to be paid exclu- sively in money. The other farm also was let at an increase in the rent of twenty per cent. He had consulted all the land-agents in the; large county of Perth, and all of them without exception, since these measures were propounded, stated that where a farm was out of lease an increased offer of rent had been made for it, and that such increased offer had not been accepted. A friend of his who took a leading part at the Haddington Protection meeting, so far from suffering loss, had actually refused an increased offer of rent for a farm, and he was still open to increased offers. A farm in the neighbourhood of Dunbar had been let within the past few days at the enormous rent of 51. Ss. per acre. Many of the farmers of Scotland had complained to him that the result of protection was to breed ill-will between them and the manufactnrers; and Mr. Maule thought the present measure, among its other good effects, would tend to smooth down at heartburnings between the two classes. Mr. CHOLMONDELY objected to the removal of a temporary evil by a permanent enactment: he did not think the measure justified by the present emergency, in Ireland, and it was unworthy of the Government of a great country to bring for- ward a measure of this sort by a side-wind. The relaxation of duties as far as it had gone had been attended with beneficial results; and the present proposal might be good for the country, though he could not but see that there was a doubt., and though Sir Robert Peel might be right he might also be wrong. (Laughter.) He had abstained from all personalities, which had unfortunately been too much mixed up in this debate; but he must say, that there were cries got up out of that House against the Minister in which he could not join; for, if any man had given unequivocal proofs of his sincerity in the belief that this great measure would be for the good of the country, it was Sir Robert. He could not himself approve of the measure, and he would not give it his support; but he could bear his testimony as to the conduct of the Minister who had brought it forward. He could understand a change of opinion, and the open avowal of that change; but what he did regret was the instances he saw of men thinking one way and voting another.

Mr. H. VERNON had always considered that a moderate fixed duty was the best for the agriculturists; but he had been compelled, like all public men, to act with a great body; it was of no use to take up an "insulated" position—(Zaughter and Opposition cheers)—when there were a vast number of important questions which attached a man to his party. Undoubtedly, in early lite, he had never attached himself to the party of the First Lord of the Treasury, and he had not become his supporter till in 1836 he had seen the necessity of jominghis standard; and ever since he had admired the wisdom and integrity of his course. He would lose by the measure as a landlord; but he consoled himself with the re- flection, that the crumbs which fell from their table- would fall into the mouths of those who had hitherto enjoyed only the proverbial consolation that half a loaf was better than no bread.

Captain BERKELEY thought the plain common sense question now was, joined seeing that the only two statesmen who could govern the country had oined to pass thismeaaure, there was any wisdom in longer resisting it? He thought, there was not; and although his opinion in favour of protection had remained, unchanged, the considerationlie mentioned would have induced him to vote for the Ministerial measure.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed the bill on three grounds: first, the immense cost to the country [he estimated the annual loss at 1,500,0001.] at which these ex- periments were to be made; second, the great injustice that would be done to the tithe-holder; third, the injustice to the agnculturists in not bringing forward the compensation bills simultaneously with this measure, so that it was just possible this measure might pass and not those containing the compensation. Mr. CHILDERS, as an agriculturist, felt no hesitation in supporting the second reading of the bill. He believed that our adoption of the principle of free trade would lead to an amelioration of the tariffs of all other nations; for he was con- vinced they would be induced to imitate the example we thus set them. The adjournment was moved by Lord POLLINGTON.

Tuesday's debate was carried on by Lord POLLINGTON in a speech against the bill, Mr. PLuairrnE against, Mr. HAWES for, Sir J. Tnor.LorE against, Sir J. HANKER for, Lord EBRINGTON for and against, Mr. RASH- LEIGH against,. Mr. F. BARING for, Mr. SHAW against, Mr. Gotriarinzat (Chancellor of the Exchequer) for, the Earl of MARCH against.

Lord Por.usroros thought that when every protection was withdrawn from agriculture, every restriction upon it ought to be withdrawn too. The pro- prietors and cultivators of the soil of England ought to be permitted to cultivate their lands in any way they thought fit. They should be allowed to grow hops and tobacco, and to malt the barley they grew, turning it either into food for cattle or into wholesome beverage for labourers.

Mr. PLUMPTRE demanded an alteration of the Tithe Commutation Act..

Mr. HAWES must tell the obstructors of the measure that their opposition had met with no sympathy from the public. Where was the expression of sympathy as regarded the silk-trade or the timber-trade?

He referred to the many Parliamentary inquiries which had taken place since 1815 on the subject of agricultural distress, to show that the Corn-law had failed to accomplish its ostensible object. But had there been no experience of the con- dition of the country under the law of free intercourse? The House knew full well that the law of 1773 very nearly established free trade in corn. Some remark- able circumstances accompanied that law during the eighteen or nineteen years that it existed. During the period from 1773 to 1792, we imported 4,100,000 quarters of corn, and exported 2,400,000; the balance of the imports over the ex- ports being 1,700,000 quarters. The population increased from 7,100,000 to 8,100,000; and 460 enclosure acts were passed. At that time the average price of wheat was 46s., being 10s. under the average which it was understood to be the object of Sir Robert Peel in 1842 to uphold; and during that period trade increased, agriculture was thriving, and no Agricultural Committees were heard of Under a system of free trade, he did expect a considerable fall in the average price of corn; but then, the English agriculturist, in the diminished cost of pro- duction and the increased amount of produce, could afford to grow wheat to a profit at a much lower price. From 1742 to 1748 there was not a single year in which the price was more than 30s.; and that was a period of war: yet it was re- corded by historians, and stated by Adam Smith, that never was there a period when the labouring population of this country was in so thriving and good a con- dition. The agriculturists, too, shared in the general prosperity: Sir J. TROLLOPS reiterated the usual arguments derived from pressure of tithes, poor-rates, highway rates, the malt tax, &c. Sir J. HANKER defied the Agricultural Members to show that protection was an appreciable quantity, or was of any real value. In the prosperity of manu- factures they had a security for their own success which no corn-laws could ever give them. Lord EBR1NGTON thought it unwise to preserve the vestige of athpernicious system by retaining the sliding scale for three years. He thought the present tune was peculiarly favourable for total repeal, on the ground that there were no great accumulations abroad. The measure had been called a "comprehensive scheme " of adjustment: but, without speaking of tithes and other imposts, he thought it did not deserve the name, seeing that it did not deal with the state of the law of real property. Free trade in land ought to be coincident with free trade in corn; and we ought to be able to sell our land in the dearest and buy it in the cheapest market. Some of the reforms recommended by the Real Property Commissioners must be for some years a positive hinderance to sales or mortgages, and a source of expense; and the efforts of volunteer legislators had often ren- dered the law yet more complicated. So serious was the evil, that while in France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and parts of Germany and of Italy, land was selling at thirty, thirty-five, and as high as forty-five years' purchase very com- monly, in England it would bring little more than twenty-seven or thirty. Small properties were almost unsaleable, owing to the expense of stamps and of ex- amunhg into the history of the former possessors: this expense averaged ten or twelve per cent on the price. The same facility to the transfer of landed property should exist in England as on the Continent.

Mr. F. BARING (Ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer) would give the measure his cordial support, as good in itself and containing the seeds of future good. One thing had been developed in the course of the debate—the determination of a large body of Members to form a party acting independently of the Government, and

i

independently of the parties into which the House was usually divided. He wished to know what course these gentlemen intended to pursue? It was no surprise to him to see—and he had seen with pleasure—the spirit and talent with which they had fought the battle in the disadvantageous circumstances into which they had been east; but he asked of them, as a party formed with a leader already chosen, what they proposed to do with the present Corn-law ? What was the measure they were prepared as a party to lay before the country ? During the debate various propositions had been made by individuals of the party. Some had ad- mitted an inclination to a fixed duty; but Mr. Miles asserted that the battle was for the existing law, and that nothing else was worth fighting for. Other opinions had been expressed. One admission, however, had pretty generally been made that Sir Robert Peel ought to have taken some measure in November for the suspension of the Corn-law. Nay, several of the party had made it a matter of accusation against the Premier that he had not then suspended the Corn- laws by an order in Council. After this plain admission, he would ask them to state their scheme. Was it a sliding scale? Why, the great argument used to be, that the sliding scale adapted itself to any emergency—that it opened its month, as it were, when it was hungry, and shut it when it was satisfied. But after having admitted the necessity for opening the ports in November last, how could they any longer use the argument that the sliding scale had such a power of application that in no case could they be called upon to suspend it? Nay more, in 1841, when Lord John Russell proposed, in connexion with his fixed-duty scheme, to invest the Crown with power to suspend the law in the case of an emergency, the reply of the agricultural party was that it was improper to invest any Government with such a power. Would they propose a fixed duty, then? He was himself in favour of such an arrangement in 1841; but he was afraid the time had gone past for making it. It was clear that the opinion of the House was in favour of the measure submitted by the Government; but he be- lieved that an expectation existed among the Protectionists that the bill would be thrown out in another place. In connexion with the rejection of the measure a general election had been spoken of: but did the Protectionists consider it a lig-ht thing to have a general election in which the agricultural and mannEsctur- mg interests would be banded against each other, upon one of the most exciting questions that could be agitated—that of food? Even if successful, were they sure of retaining protection? He doubted if they would; for if they looked at the course of every. Government since 1815, it would be found that the principle of relaxation had been acted on; and he thought the Protectionists would soon find themselves compelled to follow the principles of their predecessors. Agitation was not the true cause of the defeat of those who advocated the principle of pro- tection; it was reason, justice, truth, by which they were betrayed. They were silently undermined by the stream of time, because their castle was built upon the sand.

Mr. SHAW defended his previous assertion that the apprehension of famine and scarcity in Ireland had been exaggerated. He admitted a failure to some extent in the potato crop; and he had given his ready assent to the precautionary mea- sures which had been introduced; but he could prove from official documents on the table of the House that the evil had been greatly exaggerated. Mr. Shaw's first proof was this. Professor Playfair and Mr. Lindley, in their report dated the 15th November, stated that one half of the potato crop was useless: but the Commission which sat at Dublin Castle, in their report made at the end of January, gave it as their opinion that about a fifth of the crop was deficient. In the one case, then, the loss of a half was spoken of, in the other only a fifth. Mr. Shaw next adverted to the official papers about the price of potatoes, and the state of disease; arriving at the conclusion thatpotatoes did not average above 4d. the stone at the latter end of January,—no famine price: and as to disease, he did not recollect a year in which at the same season the same things might not be said about the sanatory condition of the people. To this sort of matter Mr. Shaw added a bitter attack on Ministers for making a casual occurrence the pretence for changing the commercial policy of the country; and charged them with having convulsed all the arrangements of social, domestic, and political life. Mr. GOULBURN referred to the same official documents to prove that no ex- aggeration of Irish distress had been made. He quoted from the Fever Report, to show that Mr. Shaw was wrong in asserting that the sanatory condition of the people did not differ from that of other years; and as to potatoes, he showed that they had risen to a degree that must cause the greatest possible suffering. The adjournment was moved by Mr. FINCH.

On Thursday the discussion was resumed by Mr. FINCH. who spoke against the bill. He was followed on the same side by Lord RENDLE- SHAM, Mr. FELLOWES, Mr. FULLER, and Mr. BORTHWICK, all against the bill, in succession. Mr. CHARLES BILLER was then heard in support of the bill; and Lord GEORGE BENTINCK in opposition. Mr. Ftsren displayed great fertility of mind in conjuring up evils to result from the measure. There would be a fivefold revolution—a social revolution, a commercial, a financial, a political, and a poor-law revolution. Preeminence would be extended to the manufacturing classes, and Democracy would by this means be encouraged. If free trade reduced the value of agricultural property 20 per cent, the loss to the agriculturists would be 50,000,0001. According to a report in the Times, " Mr. Finch proceeded for more than two hours to utter `prophetic sounds so full of wo' that every Member fled in alarm from the Oppo- sition benches, and only 29 Members on the Government and Protection benches had fortitude enough to bear them." The desertion seemed to afford a melan- choly pleasure to the desponding orator. " From the state of the benches oppo- site, he remarked, "it appeared that they (the Protectionists) had silenced their enemies—they had driven them from the field. The had dismounted their brass ordnance. (A laugh.) One honourable gentleman [understood to be Mr. Hume, who went over to the Treasury benches] for some time maintained his post; but he found that it was at last too hot for him, and he too retreated." (Laughter.) He assured the House, that nothing would be gained by the manoeuvre. There were Members on his side of the question prepared to speak for five hours rather than that the bill should be harried through. Mr. BORTHWICK disputed the validity of evidence taken from figures. Mr. Canning once said sarcastically, that nothing was so deceitful as figures, except facts; but had he lived now he would have found one thing more slippery still— the public principles of public men. The Westminster election showed that if the count!), was to have a Free-trader, it would have a full-grown man, not a baby of three months old. Mr. Borthwick did not approve of those who sneered at the wisdom of their ancestors.

Mr. CHARLES Bera.En had always thought there was one got* feature in the wisdom of our ancestors in comparison with ours, and that was the comparative brevity of their debates. He did not believe that in the Parliamentary history of this or any other country there could be found an instance of a three-weeks de- bate on any single question whatever. He thought the agriculturists had them- selves to blame for not perceiving what every other body saw, that Sir Robert Peel's opinions had for some years past been undergoing a change. The agricul- turists blamed him for this change; but he thought they should be thankful to Sir Robert for having continued their protection so long—longer than any other Minister could have done. The fact is, the Corn-laws stood upon nothing for the past few years but the annual promise which the Duke of Richmond extorted from Ministers that they would not be altered that year. As to dissolving Parliament, some reason might exist for such a step if the Corn-laws were about to be re- pealed in opposition to the will of the country. This, however, was not the case; and he warned the Protectionists, that if an appeal were now made to the coun- try, questions more formidable than they thought of would be raised. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK spoke of the Irish scarcity as groundless; and quoted figures to show the low price at which foreign corn could be introduced into this country, &c. As to opening the ports, he and his party only meant to apply it to Ireland. With respect to the question put on the previous evening by Mr. b. Baring, asto the policy the Protectionists would recommend, he would give a comprehensive answer: in the words of Dr. Baillie, he would advise his friends to take no more of the remedies compounded by the opposite party. This advice he gave deliberately, because he felt and knew that, placed as he and his friends were, they ought to be cautious as to what principles they committed themselves to They ought to remember that a question respecting the supply of cheap bread and the protection of native industry was a question of the most exciting nature: they should recol- lect the description given of their opponents on the other side when they dissolved the Parliament upon this questioa in the year 1841, when they were spoken of as desperate tenants under notice to quit. But what did the gentlemen who sat on the Treasury bench think of themselves now? They had pirated the doctrines, the measures, and even the old speeches, of the Anti-Corn-law League. Un fortunately, with many of the qualities of the pirate, they did not possess the daring spirit which characterized that class. They had steered the ship among the breakers, and whilst the men were asleep had scuttled her; the officers skulk- ing away, and leaving the gallant crew an easy prey. They judged of the mettle of the crew by their own craven hearts: but, though that crew might for the mo- ment be in confusion, they were still not discouraged; the crew had rallied from the temporary shock; they still hoped to steer away from the lee-shore, and eventually to bring the ship into port. The adjournment of the debate was moved by Sir JAMES GRAHAM.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

At the close of Thursday's debate on the Corn-law, the order of the day for going into Committee upon the Indemnity Bill was read; and Lord GEORGE BENTINCK moved that the House do adjourn. No division took place; but Lord George Bentinck made a statement which led to a length- ened conversation, parts of which are not very intelligible.

According to Lord George Bentinck's account, Mr. Young, the Secretary of the Treasury, waited upon him, at the request of Sir Robert Peel, to ascertain the in- tentions of his friends as to opposing the Corn Bill; and on being told that several divisions were contemplated, it was submitted on the part of Sir Robert Peel, that if Lord George Bentinck would support the Irish Coercion Bill, and allow Lord John Russell's expected question as to the business of the House, on Friday last, to be answered without remark by the Protectionists, the Corn Bill would not be read a third time till after Easter. Several interviews took place on the subject; and it was much to his surprise that he received a letter on Saturday last from Mr. Young, stating that he had exceeded his authority, and requesting that that letter and the previous conversations might be considered Private.

Mr. YOUNG denied that he had made any stipulation of the kind. At the re- quest of Sir Robert Peel, he waited upon Lord George Bentinck to ascertain his intentions; but he made no stipulation or agreement. At their second interview, he certainly did say, that, looking at the opposition to be given by the Irish Mem- bers to the Protection of Life Bill, and to the pledge that the bill was to be read a first time before Easter, he did not think the Corn Bill could be read a third time before Easter. He might have appeared to overstate his authority; but he had no authority from Sir Robert Peel to conclude any agreement with Lord George Bentinck. On the following morning, Mr. Young told Lord George that he was not acting with the authority of the Government. He made no reference to the Irish bill at all.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it was necessary for the public business that he should know what Lord George Bentinck's intentions were; but he told Mr. Young to let Lord George understand that he was not authorized to enter into any arrangement. He took every precaution to guard against any such misap- prehension. He never understood that Lord George Bentinck was not at perfect liberty to oppose the Irish bill if he thought proper. Mr. HUDSON thought, that if the Secretary of the Treasury had committed himself the Government ought to be bound by his engagement. Mr. 0. GORE, as an independent Member, should not be guided by such private arrangements. Mr. DISRAELI said, it. would be very satisfactory to the House to know whe- ther the Government could inform them as to there being a fair probability of the third reading of the Corn Bill before Easter? Sir ROBERT PEEL said, it was, of course, quite impossible for him to answer that question. But he would say that he thought it ought to pass before Easter. He could not say it should; but no effort on his part should be wanting to carry the measure with as little delay as possible. The motion for adjournment was withdrawn.

THE POOR-LAWS.

On Thursday, Mr. GEORGE BANKES moved for " Meet Committee to take into consideration the Laws relating to the Settlement and Removal of the Poor."

Sir Robert Peel had promised, in connexion with his Free-trade measure, to in- troduce a bill on the law of settlement, which would prove a boon to the agricul- twists as well as a boon to the poor man. The one measure was to accompany the other; and as the Settlement Bill placed upon the table was very different from the one promised, he hoped the House would not object to the appoint- ment of the Committee. Not much time would be occupied, and the result might be the constructing of a large and acceptable measure. He thought that a right to settlement should be secured by a five-years residence, or even by a shorter period.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM showed that Mr. Bankes had mistaken Sir Robert Peel's intentions— Nothing but a removal bill was meant; and as to the compact about the Corn- laws, the word "compensation " was not used—it was disclaimed. It was never intended to mix up the Removal Bill with the Corn-laws: the two measures were

dietinct and independent, and a support of the one by no means implied a support of the other. He thought the measure would prove useful to the landed interest as well as to the pauper. He opposed the motion, as irregular in the present stage of the bill, and otherwise uncalled for.

Mr. SPOONER supported the motion—

To him it appeared that there could not be a greater hardship than to deprive a poor man of the right to return to his own parish. He understood the plan of the Government to be, not that a man by a certain number of years of industrial residence should acquire a settlement, but that he should not be removeable. Mr. Spooner did not approve of too great facilities being given to obtain settlements.

Sir Rousse' PEEL said that the principle of the bill had been correctly stated by Mr. Spooner—

The object was not to create settlement, but irremoveability; that a man, his wife, and their children, should in right of residence for a certain time be irre- moveable; but that that right should not impart to them all the privileges which constituted a settlement. The measure had been introduced by the Government under the impression that it was calculated to be useful to the landed interest and to the country generally. He should do all he could in this respect to pro- mote the interests of the land and those of the poor; but he certainly could not allow such a measure to interfere with the progress of the proposed alterations in the Corn-laws. He would do all he could to pass the bill at the proper time; but he did not see any necessity for. the appointment of the Committee moved for. The motion was withdrawn.

BUENOS AYRES AND MONTEVIDEO.

In the earlier part of Monday's sittting, Lord PALMERSTON put questions as to the state of our relations with Buenos Ayres; after adverting to the obstructions to commerce from the hostilities in the river Plate, and to the recent engagement between the combined fleets of England and France and the forces of General Roses— He asked whether England was at war with Buenos Ayres? and whether the belligerent acts committed in the river Plate by the British authorities were the results of instructions from the British Government at home; or, if not sanctioned beforehand, whether they have been approved by the British Government since the Government became acquainted with them? If England was not at war with Buenos Ayres, there had certainly been acts of war. In addition to the engage- ment, a blockade bad been established; Argentine vessels had been captured, and effered for sale as prizes of war; and he believed that an advertisement had appeared to remove at the public expense, from Buenos Ayres to the Cape of Good Hope, British subjects who had settled at. Buenos Ayres relying on the faith of the existing treaties between the two countries.

Sir ROBERT PEEL gave an explanation and a reply- , The interference of France and England had arisen altogether from a feeling of humanity—for the purpose of protecting Montevideo, and of restoring that tran- quillity which, greatly to the prejudice of peaceful commerce, had been inter- rupted for a period of six or seven years. Sir Robert had presented at an early period of the session the only instructions which had been forwarded to Mr. Ouseley, the representative of the British Government in that quarter. There were no other instructions given having reference to the course of the negotia- tion, or that forcible interference which was then contemplated as possibly neces- sary in the event of the failure of amicable intercession.

Sir Robert did not consider that England was at war with Buenos Ayres. There bad been a blockade of certain ports, but he did not think that that implied a state of war. As to the engagement in the river Parana, all the instructions forwarded to Mr. Ouseley were in possession of the House; and, strange as it may seem, up to the present time no very full or satisfactory explanation of the motives that led to the expedition sent up the river Parana has been given. The prizes consisted of certain vessels which had broken the blockade; and their cargoes being perishable, and the Admiral not able to spare men to take charge of them, he thought it as well to dispose of them, and place the proceeds at the command of the British Government. As to the alleged emigration, it was entirely volun- tary on the part of certain of the Queen's subjects, who had taken alarm at the existence of hostilities.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that additional information was wanted— he should like to know the terms which Mr. Ouseley had finally proposed, and which had been refused by Buenos Ayres.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS was at a loss to know what war was if this was not war.

Sir ROBERT PEEL replied ; and the discussion dropped.

RAntwav Luciu/aims.

On Monday also, Mr. W. PATTEN moved the appointment of' a Select Committee, " to consider how far, and under what regulations, the further amalgamation of railways would be consistent with a due regard to the commercial and general interests of the country."

The extent to which it was proposed to carry amalgamation rendered it neces- sary that Parliament should maturely consider'the probable consequences. There were at present before the House thirty-three amalgamation bills; and if they passed, competition would be at an end. There were also various bills for amal- gamating canals with railways; the manifest object being to nullify water com- petition.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, Sir GEORGE CLERK, Mr. LABOUCHERE, and others, expressed their approval of the motion; regretting at the same time that the House had rejected last year the recommendations of the Board of Trade on the subject of railway amalgamation,—which was, that unless public inconvenience was likely to arise, rather to postpone amalgamation than to consent to what, if once done, could never be got rid of.

It was ultimately agreed that the original motion should be withdrawn, and another substituted, directing the attention of the Committee to the consideration of the amalgamation bills now before Parliament.

BRIDroRT ELECTION. A petition against the return of Mr. Baillie Cochrane, on the ground of bribery, has been presented: a scrutiny is prayed for.

TCR.SPIKE TOLLS IN SCOTLAND. A bill, the object of which was to place restrictions on the licensing of toll-bar houses, was withdrawn on Wednesday, by Mr. Fox DLauuu, its promoter; the House, in Committee, having by a majority of 1 rejected the restrictive clause.

RAILWAY TERMINI LS THE METROPOLIS. The Royal sanction has been given to the appointment of a Commission to report on the various railway pro- jects having termini in the Metropolis.

AMA.LGASAATION OF RAILWAYS COMMITTEE—Mr. Wilson Patten, Sir George Clerk, Sir George Grey, Mr. Pakington, Mr. Evelyn Denison, Mr. George Hope, Mr. Gibson Craig.

Roams RECESS. The Duke of WELLINGTON intimated on Thursday, that he should move the adjournment of the Lords for the Easter recess from Tues- day the 7th April to Tuesday the 21st. In the Commons, in reference to the same subject, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that for many years past the shortest period of adjournment at Easter had been for eleven days; in some cases the period had been twenty-two days; but, in the present state of public business, he did not conceive himself justified in proposing any but an adjournment for the shortest time. He, however, would leave it to the lipase to say if it were advisable to shorten the period of eleven days.