Ethutto null Vrurnhiugn in Varlimunt. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THB WEER.

House or Loans. Monday, May 23. Slave-trade ; Mr. Stewart's Petition—Com- mon Lodging houses Bill, committed pro forma. Thursday, May 26. Aggravated Assaults Bill, read a second time—County Polls (Scotland) Bill, committed—Common Lodging-houses Bill, reported—Hindoo Peti- tion respecting Law of Inheritance. Friday, May 27. Russia and Turkey ; Statement by Lord Clarendon—Succession- tax Lord Malmesbury's Motion for Committee negatived by 139 to 126. llorsa or Coarsens. Monday, May 23. Dockyard Committee ; Report read— Income-tax Bill; Colonel Dunne's Motion on Irish Taxation, rejected by 194 to 61; in Committee, Mr. Frewen's and Mr. Walpole's amendments negatived—Hackney Carriages Bill, considered as amended—Succession Bill, read first time. Thursday, May 26. Church-rates; Mr. B. Phillimore's Motion, negatived by 207 to 185; Sir William Clay's Amendment, negatived by 220 to 172—New Writ for Ply- mouth.

Friday, May 27. Russia and Turkey ; Statement by Lord John Russell—Income.. tax Bill; in Committee, amendments moved and negatived, progress reported—Re- gistration of Assurances Bill, read a second time and referred to a Select Committee —County Rates Bill, committed.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

The Commons.

Your of Hoar of

Hour of Hour of

Monday Meeting. Adjournment.

Oh 7h 30m Monday Meeting, Adjournment, th .(m) lh 30m Tuesday No sitting. Tuesday No sitting.

Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday No sitting.

Thursday 55 7h 45, Thursday 4h .(m) 2h Om Friday 5h . 105 45m Friday 4h .(m) lh 30in Sittings this Week, 3; Time, llh Out Sittings this Week, 3 ; Time, 29h Om this Session, 73; — 1635 44m — this Session, 93; — 627h Mito

THE INCOME-TAX.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Income-tax Bill, Colonel Durnfs moved the following resolution- " That it is expedient, before additional taxation be extended to Ireland, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and consider the fiscal and political relations and relative taxation of Great Britain and Ireland, and to report whether the latter kingdom does not bear her fair share of Imperial taxation."

In support of this course, Colonel Dunne revived the old Irish mode of stating the financial account between Great Britain and Ireland.

By the Act of Union, or " treaty between the two countries," it was pro- vided that the proportion of taxation to be borne by Ireland should be two- seventeenths of that of England ; and the mode of raising the revenue was specified. That treaty had been extremely injurious to Ireland ; for the burdens subsequently laid upon her were heavier than she could or ought to hear. At the time of the Union, her debt was 25,000,0001. ; but in 1815, when the two Exchequers were consolidated, it had risen to 125,000,0001. He asserted that Ireland had lost 33,000,0001. by the famine, and 6,000,0001. by the repeal of the Corn-laws; that she had lost her manufactures, and suffered from absenteeism ; and that within the last thirty-five years not less that 282,000,0001. had been transmitted from Ireland to England. He ob- jected to taking the remission of the Consolidated Annuities as an equivalent for the imposition of the Income-tax ; and contended that Ireland has the right of calling for a revision of taxation and revenue whenever she chooses; and the exercise of that right never could be more necessary than now, when she is threatened with a new tax.

Mr. Fromm, Mr. MACARTNET, and Mr. CONOLLY supported the resolu- tion. They complained that the occupantsof the Ministerial benches did not attend to the speech of Colonel Dunne; and that it was a personal indignity to the Irish Members to have their " ree.lamations listened to with silent contempt." Mr. Wrixxxson reminded the complainants, that Ireland could not complain of a want of attention on the part of the House, of whatever else she might have to complain: since he had been a Member of the House, half its time had been occupied with Irish af- fairs. Were they not humiliated in suing, as it were, in forma panperis for exemption from taxation ? Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON retorted, that but for the Union, Irish Members would not have had to trouble the House at all. He did not call doing his duty a suing in forma pauperis. Without entering at any length into the figures, he might say that the proposed re- mission of taxes for Great Britain amounts to 1,470,0001.; for Ireland, only to 250,000/. ; leaving a balance of 1,120,0001 in favour of Great Britain.

Mr. Gkansrows disclaimed the charge of inattention; it appeared to him that a large share of the disturbance while Colonel Dunne was speak- ing came from the neighbourhood of the gallant Colonel himself.

Mr. Gladstone thought the motion was extremely unfortunate, both in respect to its form and the time at which it had been made. It was inter- posed as an absolute bar to the progress of the Income-tax Bill ; it was an amendment to prevent the Speaker's leaving the chair. The bill does some- thing more than apply the Income-tax to Ireland ; it is a measure for re- pairing a deficiency of 5,000,000/. in the national revenue ; and instead of bringing forward a separate motion, or moving to exempt Ireland from the operation of the tax, in Committee, it is proposed, after the question has been separately discussed and decided, to suspend the financial arrangements of the year until they have got the report of a Select Committee ! In taking these objections, however, Mr. Gladstone had not the slightest disposition to escape from the merits of the question itself. He admired the judgment of Lord Claude Hamilton, who would not go into the figures—of Colonel Dunne, and the gentlemen who gave an his- torical character to their speeches, who leaped over everything that has occurred between the Union and the present time. It was inconvenient to speak of what had taken place on the seventh article since the Union, while speaking as if that article had been departed from. They were told it was a very hard thing for Ireland to pay 4,000,0001. or 5,000,0001. towards the general revenue ; and that her financial condition would have been better had she kept separate from England. ("Hear, hear ! " front the Opposition benches.) " She would ? Well, I am glad now to have got a perfectly dis- tinct statement. Here is a fair challenge to me, and I accept it." This, then, is the statement, that it would have been better for Ireland if, instead of having her finances consolidated with those of England, she had been al- lowed to continue upon her own ground. At an early date, a Committee sat on the subject, and reported that the debts and finances of the two countries should be consolidated. Just before the subject was examined, the annual charge for the Irish debt, irrespective of one farthing of charges for military and civil government, was 5,900,000/. Such was the state of things put an end to in 1815 ; and after that it was that this motion was made for a Committee. ("Hear, hear !" from the Opposition.) Was not that demonstrative enough ? Honourable gentlemen appeared to believe that the payment of 6,000,000/., besides civil and mili- tary charges, before the financial union, was ample proof that, to expect them now to pay 4,000,0001. or 5,000,0001.—the total charges for debt and expenses of government—was gross injustice! That statement rested on papers before the House. There was also another return, obtained in 1849. showing the revenue and the expenditure of Ireland in every year from 1817 to 1848. The expenditure on account of Ireland in 1817, including civil and military charges, was 10,241,0001. ; and the total payments into the Irish Exchequer as against that expenditure were 4,384,W01. ; so that the amount provided from the British Exchequer to make good the deficiency was 5,856,0001. in that single year. This was one of the proofs which Colonel Dunne wanted a Committee to show. There was also a column in the re- turn showing the payments made by the Exchequer from 1817 to 1848, and the very lowest payment made in any one year for Irish expenditure and Irish debt out of the British Exchequer—that is to say, to make up the defi- ciency of Irish debt and expenditure—was 1,977,0001.; but., generally speak- ing, it was from 5,000,000/. to 6,000,0001. during the early part of the period, and from 2,000,0001. to 3,000,0001. during the latter part. If this was the case, no Committee is wanted to inquire whether Ireland is paying more than her fair proportion of taxation. The Act of Union provided, that when the debt of Ireland reached a cer- tain proportion of the debt of England, the finances and the debts should be consolidated. The debt of Ireland reached an annual charge of 6,000,0001.

before the debt of England reached that proportion. In 1815 the Committee reported in favour of consolidation, not for the oppression, but for the relief of Ireland from burdens too great for her to bear.

Mr. Gladstone trusted the House would not grant a Committee to inquire into a matter as clear as daylight. Free trade has been brought to bear on this question • but has nobody in England lost anything by free trade ? Then they had been told about the destruction of Irish manufactures. Now, what is gained by the use of language of hyperbole in these debates ? (" Hear !" from Colonel Dunne, and laughter.) The gallant Colonel cheered that sentiment; but there are manufactures at Belfast not exactly in a retrograde condition. Government are bound to be not only just but considerate to Ireland : this, however, was not a just proposition, for all the items on one side were struck out. The rich parts of Ireland could not ob- ject to pay the Income-tax ; and if Ireland were a poor country, as has been

i urged, then a man with an income of 150/. is richer in Ireland than in Eng- land. Extended to Ireland, the tax in Munster would yield from 85,0001. to 87,0001. from real property, and it would relieve that province from the pay- ment of about 90,0001. from Consolidated Annuities. It might be said that the two amounts are about equal; but that would be a fallacious method of looking at the question. Who pay the Consolidated Annuities ?—The land- lord and tenant. Who pay the Income-tax ?—The landlord and the mort- gagee. The gross amount might be the same, but while the landlord would still pay about half, the mortgagee would pay the other half, instead of the tenant. Did Irish Members really suppose that the people of England would abandon the Consolidated Annuities and forego the Income-tax too ? If, as practical men, they thought it possible to prevail upon Parliament to give op the Consolidated Annuities and not to impose the Income-tax, he could understand their conclusions ; but he admired the sanguine temperament which enabled them to come to such a conclusion.

Mr. Gladstone especially protested against the assumption that Ireland is aggrieved by the increase in the spirit-duties. If Ireland were aggrieved by an imposition of a duty of 190,000/. upon spirits, had not Scotland a right to complain that a duty of 270,0001. upon spirits was imposed upon her with- out any gift of Consolidated Annuities ? Yet, not a single voice from Scot- land had been heard, either in that House or out of it, saying, " Can't you give us something by way of compensation for the additional spirit-duties you are going to levy upon us ?" (Cheers.) The principle is to levy as large a duty upon spirits as you can collect. He had heard something about the rights of man, but he denied that it was one of the rights of man that

Irishmen should get intoxicated upon whisky at 2s. 4d. a gallon. laugh.) He thought it would be a gross wrong to levy three times as much duty upon spirits in England as in Ireland, and he protested against putting down this additional spirit-duty as a wrong and burden inflicted upon Ireland. For these reasons, he besought the House not to accede to the resolution.

Sir JOHN PexisroTow would not say the best course had been taken by Colonel Dunne, but he would vote for any form of proceeding by which he could express his opinion that the budget bears unfairly upon Ireland.

Government is mistaken in placing the Consolidated Annuities in the category of. taxation. The advances were made to the black counties of the South and West, and the white counties of the East and North ought not to be charged with Income-tax on that account. He did not see why the workhouse loans should be remitted at all ; loans which might have been re- covered, and which Government ought to recover. (Cheers from the Irish _Members.) Mr. Gladstone had stated that the remission of the Consolidated Annuities was an equivalent : but while he abandons 240,0001. a year from this source, he imposes an income-tax of 460,0001. ; he Imposes, secondly, spirit-duties, bringing in 198,0001. a year ; and in the third place, he im- poses a succession-tax, estimated variously between 60,0001. and 300,0001. Is that an equivalent ?

Mr. FRANCIS SCULLY was favourable to inquiry per se; but he feared the motion would be regarded as a factious one, and he had seen too much of factious opposition to any Government to approve of it. Mr. MA- ounee supported the motion with a display of figures; and characterized the proposition that the people of Ireland should pay 460,0001. a year in return for a gift of 240,000/. as "something more than a mere financial juggle; it was an Exchequer swindle."

Mr. EDWARD BALL made the House roar with laughter, by describing Ireland as one new-risen from the grave, reeling with weakness, her cere- clothes scarcely shaken off; and then asking whether Government ought not to give her strength?

"Instead of this, here is the Chancellor of the Exchequer diluting her, bleeding her, purging her; and, when she asks for bread, giving her a stone. Unhappy Ireland, barely recovering from one plague, the plague of famine, is now to be subjected to another plague, the plague of locusts."

The House divided—For the amendment, 61; against it, 194 ; Govern- ment majority, 133.

In the Committee, on clause 1, Lord Creennz HAMILTON moved the omission of the words " United Kingdom," in order to substitute " Great Britain." Mr. GLADSTONE asked whether it was intended to renew the debate ? Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON said, Mr. Gladstone had not told the House how it was, it Sir Robert Peel was right in 1845 in stating that Ireland was not fit to have an Income-tax, that she was fit now ? And, to the manifest impatience of the House, he went into the question again. Mr. GLADSTONE said this was a most unusual course : he had trespassed on the House at great length, and given the best answer in his power. It was not for him to say that Sir Robert Peel was right : if they went back to Sir Robert Peel, they might go back to Mr. Pitt. The House had already seen the total failure of his arguments, and Lord Claude Hamilton had the whole advantage of it in the division ! Finally, the amendment was withdrawn.

Mr. FREWEN moved to limit the tax to two years.—Negatived by 223 to 82.

Dr. Mnaiesir., moved the substitution of the word "profits" for "pro- perty," and the word "receipts" for " value " in clause 2.—Withdrawn.

Mr. WALPOLB proposed to insert the word " net" in clause 2, before the words " annual value." At this stage Mr. Kwox moved that the Chairman report progress. Mr. GLADSTONE resisted this. Mr. Knox's motion was withdrawn; and a division on Mr. Walpole's amendment was taken—For the amendment, 72; against it, 164 ; Government ma- jority, 92.

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

CHURCH-RATES.

Mr. Ronsar PHILLIMORE moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the law respeoting Church-rates.

It is an incontrovertible principle in law, that every parishioner is bound to contribute to the repair of his parish-church; but Mr. Baron Parke, in a recent case, laid down the doctrine, that parishioners in vestry assembled could atone make an order for the rate intended for the repair of the church. This obligation extends over land, goods, and stock; and weed the nature of a poll-tax. This extensive obligation is traced to the fact, or assumption, that the Church and the State were identical. Before the Reformation, no legal difference of opinion was acknowledged, nor was Dissent contemplated in the eye of the law. After the Reformation, there were statutes enforcing the strictest uniformity, even so late as the Canons of 1603. The principle received a shock in the time of Charles the First; but was renewed again in all its vigour under Charles the Second. It was not until the time of Wil- liam and Mary that the Toleration Act was passed; but before the conclusion of the reign of George the Third, Dissent reached a degree of toleration which amounted to a legal recognition. There still remained some relics of a former state ; but under Queen Victoria marriages were allowed before the Registrar ; and lastly, there was the act of last year rendering no longer necessary the registration of meeting-houses in any Ecclesiastical Court. Now, whereas before 1830 no single instance existed of church-rates being resisted on the ground of principle, since that date contests have been nume- rous; one of which was the notorious Braintree case. The state of the law is found to be this. There are those who contend that when a rate is to be made for necessary repairs, and for supplying the ordinances of the Church, it can be enforced even by a minority of the ratepayers. That is the ques- tion upon which the Braintree case turned, and it is now pending before the House of Lords, who have not yet formally given judgment upon it.

Mr. Phillimore cited the evidence of Mr. Baines and Dr. Lushington to show that the great towns do not pay the rates, and that constant feuds arise in parishes, and are conducted with great bitterness. In 1834 the evil was admitted on both sides of the House. In April 1834, Lord Althorp pro- posed that a sum of 250,000/ should be secured on the Consolidated Fund, and 50,0001. more upon Church lands, in lieu of church-rates. That propo- sition was rejected, because manifestly it did not afford the relief which the Dissenter required ; for of course the injustice of which he complained would have been continued so long as he had to pay towards this sum, which was to have been taken out of the Consolidated. Fund. In the year 1835 Sir Robert Peel expressed in strong language his firm conviction that another year ought not to be allowed to go by without some adjustment of this much-vexed question. In March 1837, Mr. Spring Rice, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed the total abolition of church-rates ; looking to a better system of management and to pew-rents to give an increased value to Church property. In March 1841, Mr. Easthopc brought forward the case of Mr. Baines, condemning the state of the law by which he was imprisoned for non-payment of church-rates ; and subsequently the similar case of Mr. Thoroughgood, the Dissenter, was called to the attention of the House. In March 1845, Mr. Trclawney proposed a resolution recommending the adop- tion of effectual measures for the abolition of church-rates ; when an amend- ment was moved by Mr. Page Wood, for discharging persons who bad been incarcerated for non-payment of this impost. In April 1851, the House ordered a Select Committee to consider the law of church-rates, and the difference of practice which exists in different parts of the country in the assessment and levying of these rates. The report of that Committee con- tained no conclusion, but it set forth a very valuable body of evidence.

Mr. Phillimore dissented by anticipation from the amendment about to be moved by Sir William Clay , because the funds saved by the better manage- ment of Church property ought to be applied to remove spiritual destitution ; and the purchase of seats in a church, he rejoiced to say, is illegal. His own proposition was, that all Dissenters should be exempted from the payment of church-rates, by the simple process of stating in writing that they are Dissenters from the Church of England, and handing that state- ment to the Churchwardens. The copy of these written statements would be kept by the Churchwardens, and their production in any court of justice would be held to be evidence to exempt any Dissenter. He further proposed that all persons exempted on this ground should cease to have any right whatever to any Church rite, privilege, or ceremony, that is to say, he should not have any right to compel any clergyman to perform any religious ser- vice over him or in his behalf. But if they withdrew their statements, they should, on complying with the obligations of Churchmen, be restored to the Church. He proposed that persons signifying their Dissent should cease to have any right to appear at the Church vestries, or to vote upon any ques- tion of a church-rate, or upon any question relating to the ecclesiastical ma- nagement of Church property. He also proposed some slight modifications in the law as it affects Churchmen. He believed it would not have any tendency to effect a separation of Church and State, but on the contrary, tend to promote that incalculable blessing Christian peace.

Sir WILLIAM CLAY, speaking much to the same effect, pointed out that the bill Mr. Phillimore proposed to bring in was in reality the same as what Mr. Duncombe and Mr. Page Wood had already, on two occa- sions, submitted to the House.

Sir William contended that the loss occasioned by the abolition of church- rates might be made up by " pew-rents," and a better system of managing Church property. The church-rates amount to about 400,000/. ; he believed 500,0001. might be obtained from Church property ; and if as pew-rents would not be required. He moved as an amendment, " That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider whether church-rates should not be abolished, and provision made for the charges to which such rates are at present applicable—from pew-rents, and from the increased value which in- quiries instituted by authority of the Crown have shown may be derived, under better management, from Church lands and property."

The amendment was seconded by Mr. PETO ; supported by Mr. Coe- 1.1118, Mr. EDWARD BALL, Mr. HOME, Mr. APSLEY PF.LLATT, and Mr. BRIGHT. But the arguments urged and the facts brought forward were mainly those adduced by Sir William Clay and Mr. Phillimore, adapted to the views of the speakers. Mr. COLLIER, however, pointed out that Mr. Phillimore's proposal would leave all persons who do not choose to sign a paper that they are Dissenters, liable to pay church-rates, and subject to all the difficulties and doubts of the law of church-rates ; and Mr. APSLEY PELearr showed that it would produce deceit and scandal in religion. Against both propositions appeared Sir ROBERT INGLIS ; contending that without church-rates the great principle of a religious establish- ment could not be maintained ; that it would denationalize the Church ; and that to give them up would degrade the Church to the level of any sect. Mr. Wresetet followed this lead. Sir GEORGE GREY noticed as a striking fact, that although they had been debating the question for more than six hours, not a single Member had risen to support Mr. Phillimore's proposition. He considered both plans objectionable ; Mr. Phillimore's, because it injuriously drew a line between Dissenter and Churchman, and went very near to a proposition that for the payment of a sum of money the former might be admitted' to the privileges of the Church ; and Sir William Clay's, because it hied to pew-rents, and did not promise a distinct scheme to provide for &web- rates out of Church property. r, Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not agree that church-rates are absolutely necessary to the Established Church. Still, 300,0001. is a large suns to be raised at once. The Dissenters object to these rates not only as odious and oppressive in themselves, but as part of an odious system. If church-rates were taken away, that would not secure peace, but open the ground for a fresh attack. Pew-rents would be injurious to the Church ; and any of her surplus funds ought to be applied to the re- moving of spiritual destitution. Criticizing both plans, Lord John strongly objected to both. What, then, were they to do with the ques- tion ? It would be better to wait for the decision of the House of Lords in the Braintree case, than adopt either of the remedies proposed. Refer- ring to a pamphlet on the question by Lord Stanley, just published, Lord John remarked that it contains a principle—that it is wrong to call on men to pay for the propagation of opinions which they do not share— which goes to the very foundation of the Church establishment.

A division was taken on Sir William Clay's amendment ; the question being that the words proposed to be left out (in the original motion) stand part of the question—Ayes, 185 ; Noes, 207; majority against the original motion, 22. The words were therefore omitted ; and a second division was taken on the original motion as amended by the insertion of Sir William Clay's amendment after the word " That." For the mo- tion, 172; against it, 220 ; majority against Sir William Clay's amend- ment, 48.

AN INDIAN GRIEVANCE.

Lord MONTEADLE presented a petition, signed by 8401 inhabitants of

Bengal, Berar, and Orissa, against act 21 of 1850 of the Indian Go- vernment. He stated as a guarantee of the genuineness of the petition, that it had been placed in his hands by Sir Herbert Maddock, lately a most meritorious civil servant of the East India Company. The act referred to secured to a Hindoo converted to Christianity all the property he possessed as a follower of the Hindoo religion. By the terms of that act, any Hindoo, who would have lost caste, and consequently property, by acts of immorality or the violation of the laws, would be enabled to re- tain his property. But by the ancient Hindoo law, any person entitled to what was considered to be ancestral property held it subject to a religious trust, in respect to certain observances of a religious character: if he lost caste or quitted his religion he became incapable of performing those religious trusts, and, by the ancient Hindoo law, became incapable of holding the estate ho had received. In 1832, an act was passed providing that in Bengal a con- vert to Christianity should not lose his property : but that act had remained dormant until 1845, when the Law Commissioners extended it to all India ; and the East India Company sanctioned the act in 1850. The petitioners contend that this act was a violation of the compact into which we had so- lemnly entered in the earliest times—a compact confirmed by the Imperial Act of 1781—binding us to respect the laws of inheritance, the laws of mar- riage, and the laws of religion.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, following out Lord Monteagle's remarks, with which he concurred, nevertheless thought the grievance, great as it was, would practically produce little evil.

Converts to Christianity are not common. He had asked one of the clergy in Calcutta, why Hindoo candle-snuffers were employed in the churches—why were not converts employed ? The reply was—" We have not got enough of them." He recollected having a visit from an American missionary on one occasion, when he put to him the question, "Do you ever make any converts? " His reply was, " Never, except when we have an office to bestow." (Laughter.) Lord Ellenborough dwelt upon the immoral motives held out by the act of 1850 to the Hindoo, who could commit any immoralities against Hindoo law, yet if the culprits declared themselves Christians their property would be secured to them. Was this the com- mencement of an interference with native customs ?

Earl GRANVILLE spoke, because, if some member of the Government did not speak, it might be supposed that they had no sympathy with the natives of India and their laws and customs. He' would say that the principle of the law is a just one, although he had not enough local know- ledge to state whether it was carefully worded. It was not the beginning of an interference with native customs ; for we had interfered against the

suttees and infanticide. f • The petition was referred to the Indian Committee.

SLAVE-TRADE.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr. Alexander Stewart, a West India planter, merchant, and proprietor in the city of London, com- plaining of the loss he had sustained by the abolition of the differential duty on sugar, a measure which had largely increased the slave-trade in Cuba; and praying that the abolition of that infamous traffic might be

effected. - .

Lord Brougham said he had read with horror that a vessel recently landed six hundred slaves in Cuba. [The Earl of CLARENDON—" Eleven hundred. "1 Eleven hundred !—that only aggravated his horror. Three years ago,' he' rejoiced to find that the United States had done its duty with respect to the " Cuban expedition." That was a breach of the law of nations. But might we not now say that there wasa worse piracy in operation—a grosser breach of the law of nations ; and that there had been a crime and a piracy committed against that law still worse in its nature and effects than the Cuban expe- dition ? He meant, that piracy whereby that vessel was loaded on the coast of Africa, partly with unhappy Africans seized by main force, and partly with those miserable creatures trepanned by mere fraud—whereby that Spanish slaver was leaded, and carried across the Atlantic, through all the horrors of the middle passage; thrit'eirgo 6f human beings ? He wished to ask Whether any steps had been taken lately by means of our Consuls to.aseertain with whom rests the blame of these recent transactions ? The Earl of cLATIENDON wished he could give a satisfactory answer.

He was sorry:to say,that the case mentioned by Lord Brougham was not the only casg of . the kind which has come to the knowledge of Government. The slave-trade is now carried on to a considerable extent with Cuba ; and our Consul-Gelieral at Havannah is exercising the most energetic zeal to cheek the koryible traffic. But from his report in relation to the case re- ferred to, it appears that, under the penal laws of the island, when once im- ported Negroes arc transported across the limits of any estate, they are se- cure from being rescued, ' although their lauding might have been under the very eyes of the authorities." But Ministers have received the most so- lemn assurances from the Spanish Government, that henceforth the treaty shall be Observed; and private letters from General Caiiedo had been shown to Lord Howden, in which General Cailedo gave his word of honour that he would act in a manner satisfactory to the British Government. Lord Cla- rendon believed that our own efforts would be more effectual than the treaty-; and he stated that already the naval force at Havannah had, within the pre- sent year, captured six slavers returning home with their cargoes. In the case mentioned by Lord Brougham, the slave-ship started with 1300 slavei on board ; 200 had been killed in a revolt on the passage; and out of the 1100 landed the British Consul had rescued 300.

REPORT ON ADMIRALTY PATRONAGE.

The Dockyard Commit-4V presented their report to the House of Com- mons on Monday. It codatits of a-recapitulation, in a neat array, and under four heads, of the facts of.the wlIole case, which we have from time o tinie brought under the notice, of Ottr'ieaders. ' The first head recounts the evidence as to the circumstances under which the circular of the 26th September 1849 was cancelled without the knowledge of the Board ; the second sums up the facts respecting the withholding of Sir Baldwin Wal- ker's letter of resignation from the Board of Admiralty ; the thirdstated the case of Wells and Cotsell ; and the fourth, on Admiralty pa. image generally, is limited by the consideration that the Committee could not get information as to the present state of the Dockyards of a character so satisfactory as that obtained from the inquiries of the Election Com- mittees, and that if they went into past transactions they would be be- wildered with contradictory statements impossible to verify. Although the report is nearly without inferences drawn from tho evi- dence, yet some points are brought out with considerable distinctness. Thus, with reference to the cancelling of the circular, the report sums up"— u

The authority, therefore, under which the circular of 1849 was cancelled

on the 19th April 1852, was undoubtedly the consent of the.Firin Lord; a consent given under the assurance conveyed to him that the power of can-

celling that document belonged properly to the Secretary. . The sanction, therefore, of the First Lord, was given in ignorance of all the facti which were essential to be known, before a correct opinion could be forined upon the propriety of maintaining or rescinding the order issued by Sir Francis Baring.

"Your Committee repeatedly asked Mr. Stafford to state any facts which had made him desirous of cancelling the circular of September 1849. Mr. Stafford did not state to your Committee the source from which he derived his impressions, nor did he furnish any facts enabling your Conimittee in- stitute a more searching inquiry. Under the authority. of that Order the

Surveyor of the Navy had acted for two years and a half; and during that period, it had been shown that any promotions had been unfairly sub- mitted, or any names unjustly withheld by the Surveyor or by the Survey- or's department, your Committee would have deemed it their duty 'to report facts so injurious to the interests of the public service." •

_ The report acquits the Surveyor and the Superintendents of being actuated by political motives in their recommendations ; and goes on to say- " Your Committee consider that if the Secretary. of the Admiralty enter- tained such suspicions, and was from this motive induced to cancel the cir- cular of 1849, he would have done no more than his public duty in endea- vouring, by every means in his power, to expose such dishonesty and fraud. Mr. Stafford, however, thought it useless to inquire further : and probably in his case he judged wisely, for when the Secretary of the Admiralty necom- panies political candidates through the dockyards and invites the officers of the department to meet electioneering, agents on the eve of an election, it becomes obvious that he cannot consistently take any steps for the purpose of repressing favouritism and party preferences. Before any useful inquiry into such rumours can be instituted, it is essential that all the men in the Dockyards should be convinced that the authorities at head-quarters are sin- cere in their intentions."

" We have been unable to discover any facts which justify the issue of the circular of 19th April 1852, cancelling the order of September 1849 ; and the evidence proves that this proceeding was adopted by Mr. Stafford to satis- fy his political friends. The circular of September 1849 has since been restored, and its provisions rendered more secure by being embodied in an Or- der in Council.

" In concluding their observations on this head of their inquiry, your Committee feel it due to the Surveyor of the Navy to declare their opinion that they have heard nothing which casts the least shadow of suspicion upon the integrity of his conduct in the performance of his official duties. Sir Baldwin Walker asserts that he never allowed any one hi his department to interfere with these duties, and that the responsibility of the submissions rests solely on himself."

Recording the visit of Mr. Stafford to the Dockyards during the election, in company with the Government candidates, and the dinners given at Devonport, the Committee say- " In regard to these proceedings Mr. Stafford has admitted that his con- duct was wrong, and not consistent with his duty. Your Committee asked Mr. H. Hay;:who has been at the Admiralty during forty-seven years, -whe- ther he ever knew any occasion upon which a Secretary of the Admiralty had gone round without the Board in the way in which the late Secretary

did ' • and Mr. Hay said, do not think I can instance a ease.' - Mr. Staf- ford that he was not then aware of the stringent obligations under which the Superintendents of the Dockyards, as men of honour, . were re- quired to abstain from all political interference. Thus, in ignorance-Of much that he should have known, seeking counsel from none, and rejecting- such counsel as had:been tendered, he acted in disregard of precedents, and pur- sued a course which rendered the circulars of the Admiralty and the condi- tions imposed on the Superintendents equally nugatory and valueless.? --The closing paragraph of the report touches genlly on the state of the Admiralty 'records-

- " Before closing this report, your Committee wish to direct attention to some matters of detail which appear to them susceptible of- improvement. The minute:Verdes of-the Admiralty do not afford all the information in're- gird -to past transactions which is desirable for reference. The 7efidenee here annexed shows that the important documents have been either; with-. drawn or lost ; and the lees of papers is, it is stated, not an unfrequent oc currence at the Admiralty. In order to obviate tho inconvenience of such loss,. an improved arrangement might perhaps be made, so that orders entered in the general minute-book may not long remain without the cognizance of the Board, lusd SO that in after years a reference to the general minute-book may sliCw not only the purport of the minute but the authority for its

ELECTION COMMrrrzrs. .

The Committee on-the ;Cork 'election petition have decided that Mr. Fagan and Mr. Sergeant Murphy were duly elected. The report states that. serious- outrages and assaults "occurred during the election, and also treating.; but the Coininittee Conte& themselves with affirming the former, and-they cannot connect the latter with the sitting Meiiibens.. The Committee on the late .Plymouth election assembled agabfen Mon- day, as theY hsie power to do under a recent act, to prosecute the in- quiry further. But the counsel, appearing on -behalf of the-agent ap- pointed by the Speakeitto Make inquiries, on the spot, reported-that parties were on their guard ai to what they should say, in consequence 'of went. investigations, the anxiety with referenda to the then expeoted.reporf- of the Dockyard Committee, and. the Active canvass` ter 'the vacant seat ; thus rendering the preliminary incLuiries very. difficult. The Committee therefore adjourned to the 14th June.