ping interest, and the Ordnance Estimates. When he found the

Government giving 40,0001. to the Duke of Portland for the advowson of the parish of Mary-la-bonne, he had a right to look for a 1. CROWN Lumps. Mr. D. W. HARVEY moved for a Select Corn- return of 2,0001. a-year. But by the returns made to that House, it seemed -1..- nittee to consider the state and management of theland revenues of tile that the repairs of the chapel purchased of the Duke of Portland amounted

. .

the history of the Crown lands Lord Lowsuza--- There War an Act of Parliament for it." from William the Conqueror down- Mr. D. W. H62vax-7." Oh yes, there is an Act of Parliament for every wards. On the accession of Queen Anne, a civil list was first granted tiling." (Lang Wel j Veit he found an improvident purchase of 4,6007. at .4, the..0mwn, in lieu of its estates, which then became the property Pimben : another ,.%-* fe of 7,5501. of the Honourable J. Coventry, which ‘ of the people. At that period the Crown lands were subjected to a was at, *tarts solo ii5il4er honourable gentleman for 6,1504 whilst tha , new system of management. No lease of the lands, it was provided, difference was set down to the public. . ... :iould last for a longer term than 'thirty-one years, nor of the houses In.Ireland the same system for longer than fifty years ; that the reserved rent should be always The revenues of Ireland amounted to 61,6401. a-year ; of which was sold 3,6801;leaving a total land revenue of 57,4531. Taking this at twenty-two ( me-third of the yearly value, and that the other two-thirds should be years' purchase, the produce would be 1,263,961/, There was also 83,8501. in , !,iald by fine. These regulations had, however, always been evaded, hand in the Bank of Ireland, for sales already made. The whole might be and the lands applied to the purposes of the Crown. They were let estimated at a million and a half, which gave the Government the command 7 at rents merely nominal ; in proof of which, property which should of property to a great extent in Ireland. The sums which ought to have been have yielded about a million a year, was let in 1760 for 482k 16s. 71d. obtained from the whole of the Crown property between 1793 and 1829, may The property under the control of the Commissioners of Woods and During the period from 1793 to 1804, the total amount available to the public Forests had been mismanaged in precisely a similar manner. it ap- revenue was 10,1201. ; from 1805 to 1815, it was 215,441/. • from 1816 to 1826, peared, by some of the reports, that 456 acres- had been apportioned it was 8,6241.; from 1826 to 1829, not one farthing was pai'd into the Treasury to to the maintenance of a single horse ; that the timber had produced He wished to state what appeared to be the actual value of the 15,4101. ; while the charge for management amounted to 24,000/.

In Whittlewood Forest, the profits of 5424 acres, for eighty-five years, amounted to 1451. In Lockwood Forest, 3031 acres were transferred at a were 130 manors worth 1,000/. each ; there were freehold estates producing farthing an acre. In Sherwood Forest, 96,000 acres were subjected, from the producing upwards of 50,000/. a-year, which, at forty years' purchase, would castle ; but 1801., the expense of getting it in, had been charged to the Crown. bring 2,000,0001.; the rents from houses he estimated at 20,000/. annually, The Commissioners of 1786 adOressecea circular to the receivers of Crown which, at eighteen years' purchase, would produce 360,0001.; the farms were worth 160,0001.; the waste lands in forests he estimated at 86,000 acres, Rents for returns of the description and amount of rentals of the property on which they were receivers. He held those returns in his hand, and it ap- peared from them that the annual value of the Crown lands, exclusive of the woods and forests, was 102,126/. But was that the real value? To ascertain that fact, he would refer to the actual survey of ten important estates, in purchase, would produce 2,000,0001. making a total

Worcestershire, Lancashire, Essex, Nottinghamshire, Wiltshire, and Lincoln- Sir E. KNATCHBULL defended; the arrangement which the Trustees shire. The return to the Commissioners of the annual value of those estates of the Crown lands had made with the Reverend Mr. Lonsdale.

in 1786, was 3,2121.; the amount, according to the actual survey, was 8,394/. The Marquis of T1TCHFIELD declared that his father disposed of the Calculating, as might 'fairly be calculated from this specimen, the real value living of Mary-la-bonne to Government for less than the marketable of the 102,000/. described by the Commissioners as the rental of the Crown price, rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the Dissenters. property in question, might be estimated at nearly treble that amount, or 300,0001. Lord LOWTHER maintained at great length that the Crown lands He had no hesitation in saying that from the property under the were not now mismanaged, whatever,might have been the case for- management of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, enough nierly. He had introduced, last year a bill relative to the duties of was reserved to corrupt, if necessary, all the members of both Houses the Board of Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and in that there of Parliament. was a clause directing the Board to lay their accounts annually before The official descriptions of the property afforded no guide to their real Parliament. For himself, he was ready to account for every sixpence value. Such was the case with the manor of Waplow, which was let in that had been expended since his connexion with the Board. 1784 to Sir Sampson Gideon. Such was the case with the manor of Newark. Colonel DAVIES enforced the arguments of Mr. Harvey. When advertised, it was described simply as the manor of Newark, and the Mr. ARBUTHNOT was ready to answer any charges that could be

messuages thereunto belonging- Now, he would ask Lord Lowther, if he

were called upon to bid for such a lot so described at the Auction Mart, if he brought against the department. would know for what he was bidding? That description afforded no idea Mr. HUME supported the motion. whatever of its real value. The consequence was that an estate containing The importance of the measure was indisputable, and yet the benches of 900 acres of land and fifty houses, was, in 1730, let on a lease of thirty-one the House showed how little attention was paid to it. The other night, when years to the Prime Minister of the day, for 1441. These facts proved how in- the question was only about 9001-, the House was crowded; but now, when it adequate the terms of the original letting. of those estates were. He had amounted to nearly 19,000,0001., no one thought it worth his while to attend, reason to believe that that property was now worth 200,0001. a-year ; al- The answer of Lord Lowther went but a very little way with him. In his °pi- llow, it ynni held by the Duke of Newcastle at a rental of 2,0001. The Won, the most economical course would, be to sell every thing of, and with the NEWS OF THE WEEK— Philanthropists . • . 212 next propertyito which he7,would call the attention of the noble Lord in illus. Credit tration of his position, was that which was known by the name of Sunken Corn Laws—Ellenborough Divorce Campbell versus Moore • . 213 Island, situated at the mouth of the Humber. It had been rescued within Bill—Punishment of Forgery — New Fashions • . . . 213 the last few years from the sea. It was laughable to see the loose and vague Scotch Law Courts . . 205 _ The Last of the Botha . . 214 description of this fine property in the book laid before the House by the Money Market . . . 208 The Last March . . 214 noble Lord. This land, which let for 10,0001. a-year, was described as a parcel East India Shipping . . . 211 The Army . . . . . sis Mr. D. W. HARV&Y—" Where l—why, in page 86." It was stated to be TOPICS OF THE DAY— Births, Marriages, and Deaths . 215 granted to the Reverend John Lonsdale, and described as " a parcel of sandy To Members of Parliament, Payers Gazettes and Markets . . 215 land, called Sunken Island, in the river Humber, of which a great part was of Poor Rates, Capitalists, and Advertisements . . . . 216 embanked, and with several chapels and houses erected on it.' This was all APPENDIX that was said of it in 1790. This land was first let in 1771 for thirty years, at The Cure and Prevention of Pau. Microscopical Discoveries . . 14 a rent of 60/. per annum, and a fine of 15501. The estimated value in 1796 perism, by means of Systematic A Visit to the Mint—Pistrucci's Work- was 900/. a-year ; and thus 8401. were not accounted for, except by the fine of NEW BOOKS— MUSIC— 15501. Taking the 8401. at only ten years' purchase, the public had got only Thoresby's Diary . . . . 8 Lindsay on Flute-Playing . . 15 1550/. for 8400/. This lease, however, expired in 1802, when the island was - FINE -RTS— very considerably augmented by the accumulation from the sea, which was Field Sports of the North of Europe 11 Exhibition at the Society of British ealled Wharf Lot. The new lease of the whole for thirty-one years expired Cloudesley . . . . . 12 Artists . . . . . 16 in 1834 ; and the terms of it were for the first year 7001., for the second 20001.,

neighbourhood informed him, that within one year after the land was so let for the thirty-one years, the lessees expended on it 10,0001., and within the

day • the leaseand sale of Crswn Lands on Tuesday ; Lord Elienbo- The Wheatsbeaf, a public-house on Virginia Water, had been bought up by , force. obtained in full . _.,

be taken at 5,883,5411. Instead of which, only 234,0001. had been received.

During the period from 1793 to 1804, the total amount available to the public Forests had been mismanaged in precisely a similar manner. it ap- revenue was 10,1201. ; from 1805 to 1815, it was 215,441/. • from 1816 to 1826, peared, by some of the reports, that 456 acres- had been apportioned it was 8,6241.; from 1826 to 1829, not one farthing was pai'd into the Treasury

the Crown lands, independently of the Woods and Forests, and that portion which might be considered to belong exclusively to the Royal person. There amounted to 1451. In Lockwood Forest, 3031 acres were transferred at a were 130 manors worth 1,000/. each ; there were freehold estates producing

an annual rental of 500,0001., which, at twenty:five years' purchase, would

year 1760 to the year 1786, to a disbursement exceeding the receipts by 9,0371. produce 12,500,000/.- there were ground-rents in various parts of London,. In Birkenhead Wood, 1500 acres of timber had been given to the Duke of New- producing upwards of 50,000/. a-year, which, at forty years' purchase, would castle ; but 1801., the expense of getting it in, had been charged to the Crown. bring 2,000,0001.; the rents from houses he estimated at 20,000/. annually, The Commissioners of 1786 adOressecea circular to the receivers of Crown which, at eighteen years' purchase, would produce 360,0001.; the farms were worth 160,0001.; the waste lands in forests he estimated at 86,000 acres, Rents for returns of the description and amount of rentals of the property which, at 51. an acre, would produce 430,0001.; the allotments under 488 en-

closure acts, passed within the last forty years, he estimated at 225,0001.; the Church livings he.considered to be worth 100,0001., which, at twenty years' .

of 17,805,0001.

Worcestershire, Lancashire, Essex, Nottinghamshire, Wiltshire, and Lincoln- Sir E. KNATCHBULL defended; the arrangement which the Trustees shire. The return to the Commissioners of the annual value of those estates of the Crown lands had made with the Reverend Mr. Lonsdale.

proceeds to lay the foundation for a sinking-fund. At all events, whether this was done or not, he objected to any body or set of men having the con- trol of so large a portion of the public money without being answerable to Parliament.

Mr. HusiossoN denied the right of Parliament to dispose of the Crown revenues withotit its consent. He also denied that [here had been any jobbing whatever in the department since 1794.

He contended, in opposition to Mr. Hume, that there were no jobs at the Office of Woods and Forests, and he was hound to sa this out of regard to the gentlemen who were at the office with him, and were there now. If the honourable member would call for information on any particular transaction which he called a job, he would entreat his honourable friends to give the honourable member- every paper he could ask for. It was not fair in the ho- nourable member to deal out general aspersions against gentlemen. For his part, he desired a full investigation of every case which had been called a job,

and ht was sure that, when investigated, it would be proved that there were no jobs. The motion was negatived by 98 to 46.

2. THE ORDNANCE. When, in a Committee of Supply, Mr. PER- CIVAL moved " That a sum of S5,025/. he granted for the paeanent of the salaries of the Master-General of the Ordnance, of the Lieu- tenant-General of the Ordnance, and the Clerks of the Ordnance, at the offices of the Tower and Pall-mall," Sir JAMES GamtAm proposed an Amendment, that a sum of 83,8251. be substituted for that originally moved. The distress of the country demanded every possible reduction, and the office of Lieu- tenant-General of the Ordnance was wholly unnecessary. When he was absent, the Master-General did his duties; when the Master-Ge- neral was absent, the Lieutenant-General did the duties of both. This was proved by the evidence of the Duke of Wellington before the Finance Committee, The Finance Committee, after due deliberation, had pronounced the office unnecessary. and the Government was pledged to effect all possible reductions. The whole of the Ordnance department was made use of to swell the Parliamentary influence of Government.

There was, first, the Master-General, a Peer of Parliament, and a person of considerable importance ; then there was the Lieutenant-General, Mem- ber for the county of Gloucester • then the Surveyor-General was the Mem- ber for Sandwich, and the Clerk of the Ordnance for Newport, and another important officer for Cambridge, and the Clerk of the Deliveries for Scar-

e borough ; finally, there was the Treasurer of the Ordnance, a most important -personage, of whom he knew not in what terms suitably to speak, so varied and so valuable were his services—he knew not whether to regard him as a civil or a military functionary—in that House he was looked upon as the Muster-Master General, and, he might add, the Ajax flagelliftr of the Com- mons House : he could mean none but the honourable member for Bishop's Castle. (A laugh ) Let him then hear no more of East Rettbrd, when Sand- wich and Queenborough were overawed by the Admiralty, Newport by the Treasury, and other boroughs by the Ordnance. Let them hear no more, then, of the great borough-holders ; let them not be told of the Duke of Newcastle and of other Noblemen in the same circum- stances, when such doings as those of the Ordnance and the Trea- sury and the Admiralty were before their eyes. Could it be that his Majesty's present Government were incapable of understanding the signs of the times ? If they possessed but the most limited capacity for reading those signs, they would perceive that the time was fast ap- proaching when the people would no longer endure the prodigious establish- ments with which it was loaded, and their inevitable consequence—a weight of debt and of taxation of which the history of mankind afforded no parallel. They might rest assured that the weight of that taxation would speedily make the people cry aloud in a voice that would be heard—cry aloud for a stilt further reduction of all public establishments, with a view to the removal of public burdens. Now, after having voted, in time of peace, a military force of 82,000 men, it would be little matter of surprise that the people should begin to demand of the Parliament, in no very measured terms, that it should stop the bleeding artery through which the wealth and the resources of the nation were flowing. Let them but repeat their vote of Friday last, and they would answer the just expectations of the people ; let them but repeat that vote, and, though the Minister might dissolve them, yet they would stand erect On the face of their constituents, with the ennobling consciousness of having deserved well at their hands—for the time had arrived, when, if the Parliament did not practically admit that the people were something, the people would show them, in a manner the least agreeable, that they, in fact, were every thing. Mr. PERCIVAL, General GORDON, the Earl of UXBRIDGE, and Sir H. HARDINGE, contended that the office could not be dispensed with.

Lord Jon g RUSSELL, Lord .ALTHORP, Mr. MABERLY, and Lord MORPETH, gave their cordial support to the Amendment. - Mr. PEEL declared, that reductions to the extent of 27,8301. per annum had already been effected in the Ordnance; and further re- ductions to the extent of 4,5001. were in contemplation. Ministers had not proposed the renewal of the Finance Committee, because Government could effect more in the way of-saving than the Com- mittee could. It had been said that the office of Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance should be abolished, because the nation was dis- tressed ;—were the office a useless one, it ought to be abolished whe- ther the nation was distressed or not ;—but in point of fact, the duties of that office were of very great importance.

When a vacancy occurred in the office in 1822, on the death of Sir Hilde- brand Oakes,the first offer of it was made to Lord Hopetoun,with the drawback of this statement—that it was an office accompanied by incessant labour,which required almost perpetual residence in London. So little did Lord Hopetoun consider the office to be a sinecure, that he declined it. It was next offered to Lord Hill, and refused by him. It was then accepted by Lord Beresford. On his resignation, it was filled for a short time by Sir George Murray, to whose .4xertions the Duke of Wellington had been so deeply indebted in his Penin- traular campaigns, 'When Sir George Murray resigned, the office was filled by ;Sir William Clinton. On Sir William Clinton's quitting the office—(Hear, , hear !)—he was surprised at the sneer which followed his mentioning e retirement of Sir William Clinton : he was surprised at it coming from part of the House which it came from, and from which he should least of ati have expected any condemnation of the determination of Government to bi unanimous on the question to which that retirement referred : he had t ught the House had heard enough of imputation on Mr. Pitt in former es, with reference to the slave-trade, and on other Governments engaged !in important measdres, for allowing themselves to be defeated by the votes of persons connected with them in office. Of this he was sure, that if Go- vernment had been defeated in their proposition last year by the votes of persons holding office under them, he should have received a lesson on the ' subject in terms of no very mild nature. Mr. CHARLES GRANT supported the Amendment. He denied that the office was of any public benefit. During the last four years, the holder of it had been absent in Portugal for fourteen months as com- mander of the English army. Colonel WOOD thought Sir James Graham was poaching on the manor of the member for Montrose. He should vote against his Amendment.

Mr. WYNN supported it. Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied to Mr. Peel. In reference to the dig- missal of Sir William Clinton, he begged to say, that Government had not on that occasion acted with boldness and impartiality. They had cashiered that officer and the Attorney-Genes-al, for voting against them on the Catholic Bill, while they had allowed others in a similar situation to escape unpithished. He alluded to the Chief Commis- sioners of Woods and Forests, the Judge-Advocate, and the Secretary

to the Board of Control. All these had been more active than Gene- ral Clinton, but they had been spared on account of their powerful connexions.

For the Amendment, 124 ; against it, 200.

3. CORN LAWS.—Lord ICING moved, in the House of Lords, a series of resolutions condemnatmy of the Corn Laws. If the House wished to relieve the people as t.ar as they could, let the pressure upon productive industry be lightened.

lie could not imagine any thing more monstrous than to hear it asserted that the people of this country should not get their corn from Poland,

from Russia, or from any other place, wherever it could be found cheapest, rather than from Hampshire or from other places in which its quality might be inferior and its price higher. Ile knew it might be said that we ought to render ourselves independent of the .support of other countries : that was a convenient cry to raise—it would form an imposing inscription upon a harm- lice; hut what compensation would it prove to a population half fed? But it was said if we depended on other countries, they might tax the article when we wanted it. So might we put a tax on the goods we exported to foreign countries, but was it likely that we should do so ? But suppose Prussia, which he took to lie one of the most enlightened states of Europe, was to put a tax on even an occasional demand, the effect would be that she would be undersold in our market by Russia. The Duke of Wellington had told them on a former evening of the increase of business on canals, but he left out of consideration whether that increase had been accompanied by increase of profits. He would now show to their Lordships, how, with avast increase of transactions, profits might become less_ At one time the price of the cotton which would

make one piece of calico was 2.s. 6,1. ; that one piece of calico sold on the Con- tinent for los., and thus the profit was 7.8. At present the price of the same quantity of cotton had fallen to Is. 6d. ; and the price of two pieces of calico on the Continent was los.. Thus, the profit now was 38. Gcl. where it used to be 7s. This statement clearly showed that there had been an increase of trade while the profits were less. Profits were the criterion of prosperity, and how were they affected by the corn-laws ?—In several ways. 1. By the cessation of that demand for manufactures and produce, which would exist if the corn- laws did not exist. 2. By the different level of prices occasioned by the corn-laws making corn dear in this country, and cheap abroad. Rival ma- nufacturers were thus created in foreign countries, who availed themselves of the low rate of wages the:re, and were enabled to enter into successful com- petition. 3. By employinglabour on the cultivation of poor land, on which the return for capital was of course much less than on good land. The level of profit on all capital was determined by the return for capital employed in a the cultivation of the least productive soils : if, therefore, bad soils were cul- tivated, the profit on capital was reduced. In Great Britain, coals, machi- nery, and capital, gave great advantages ; and the produce of four Englishmen might be said to be equal to the labour of eight Russians ? Why not, then, exchange the produce of the labour of the four Englishmen for the produce of the labour of the eight Russians ? If, on the other hand, English labour were exhausted upon the cultivation of bad soil, the result must be less beneficial in proportion to the badness of the soil and the quantity of labour. Lord King was satisfied that if English landlords knew their true interests, they would admit foreign corn without restriction, and allow every thing fair play. It was said, indeed, that the corn-laws were established for the pro- tection of the landed interest ; but if that word " protection " were followed through the history of this and other nations, it would be found that it meant only oppression and checks to industry. He might be asked whether it would be possible to admit the principle of free trade ? He begged to inquire whether it was possible for the country to go on without it ? He was persuaded that the prosperity of this country depended upon unrestricted commerce. , What was free trade but a saving of labour? and what was restriction but a I waste of it? The principle of the prosperity of a country was the perfection of the economy of labour—producing the greatest quantity of goods with the least amount of labour. Those who denied the dJetrines of free trade must mean, if they meant any thing, that every country could do every thing for itself. Thus, that America, instead of cultivating its soil, should betake itself to the manufacture of hardware and cottons ; that France, instead of raising oil and wine, should betake itself to the iron trade ; and that England, aban- doning all its peculiar advantages, should waste its labour and capital upon the cultivation of its worst soils. If such doctrines were pursued to their fiill extent, they must lead not only to the prevention of the division of labour, but even to an artificial obstruction of the divisions of nature in re- spect to climates. Foolish, then, very foolish, were these doctrines; and they were to be likened only to the conduct of a young statesman of three- score—he meant his Holiness the Pope. His Holiness issued a decree, pro- hibiting the importation of all iron instruments into his dominions. His Holi- ness would doubtless say, that by this prohibition he was enabled to give full employment to his labourers ; but he forgot that this was the waste of labour, because it did not produce labour's worth. It was like the notable expedient of digging holes and filling them up again. He should perhaps be asked, then, if he would withdraw the capital employed in the cultivation of the worst soils? Let him, however, ask in return, of what use was agriculture ? If an intelligible answer to this question were given, it would be this—that the use of agriculture was to have corn. But the effect of the present system was, that we should not have corn ; and he thought it would be wise, there- fore, to withdraw this capital. He might, too, perhaps, be told that it would have been better to have let this question alone, as it was now at rest. Sat he denied that the question was at rest, or that it ever could be at rest while it effected so much injury, and while it was so well understood out of doors. The Earl of Mmatassuny denied that the importation of corn was prohibited. Within the last eighteen months, no less than 2,200,000 quarters of foreign wheat had been imported, besides importation of a. new description—importation from Ireland, in that time, to the amount of 4,000,000 of quarters. To him it seemed that our present distresses had no more to do with the corn-laws than with the man in the moon. If Lord KING would have us take corn from foreigners, he should ask them at the same time to pay our poor-rates and land- tax. If we should, after drawing our supplies from foreign countries, se) to war with them, they might refuse to give us corn. He did not recommend absolute prohibition, however. He thought something between that and absolute freedom of trade in corn advisable. Noble Lords seemed generally agreed that 60s. was the proper point of re- muneration. As to free trade, it was ridiculous to talk about it, when there was no such thing as free labour. In the City of London no one but a freeman was allowed to work. Any noble Lord might learn from his tailor or shoemaker, that the workmen would neither work themselves, nor allow others to work, for less than a certain rate of wages ; yet the City of London had lately sent up ngpetition clamour- i M W i Mr free trade. Why was the manufacturing interest distressed ? Because the agricultural interest, who were their best customers, were distressed.

The manufacturing interest had not to bear the same burdens as the agri- cultural interest, who paid eight-tenths of the poor-rates, and were subjected to all the vicissitudes of bad seasons. When their Lordships could reduce to nothing 800,000,0001. of debt—when they could take off the poor-rates, they might talk of free trade in corn ; but till that time they must adapt themselves to the circumstances of the day. He thought it cruel to impute the present distress to the landlords.

Lord AIOUNTCASHEL did not agree with the noble Baron as to the waste of labour in the cultivation of poor lands ; for he had seen such lands in Ireland maintain thousands of persons who could not other- wise have found the means of subsistence. Other countries cultivated their lands to the fullest extent. In China he had heard that the highest tops of the • mountains were cultivated, and why should not our waste lands be cultivated in like manner ?

The Earl of ROSEBERRY agreed with the preceding speakers in condemning Lord King's resolutions. Were free trade in corn esta- blished, prices would fall, and with them wages. The labourer would gain nothing. An ascending and descending duty on corn was more beneficial to the country than a fixed one; indeed a fixed duty would prove the most variable, for Parliament must always reduce it. The Earl of CARNARVON thought that though the corn-laws were a deeply interesting question, the present was not, perhaps, the best time for discussing it. The Duke of WELLINGTON admitted the beneficial effects of cheap corn ; but he wished cons to be cheapened by the prosperity of the ag,riculturists, and by the improvement of agriculture in Ireland. He denied that his bill had raised the price of corn. If high prices, how- ever, were to be paid, let them be paid to the English and Irish agri- culturist. It was most important to give him protection.

The noble Baron ridiculed the idea of a duty being levied abroad on fo- reign corn about to be shipped to this country. But there was nothing ridi- culous in the matter ; for the noble Baron would find, that a duty of 20. a quarter had been levied on corn about to be exported to this country ; and, therefore, it was not wise that we should place ourselves so much in the power of foreigners. Buonaparte had levied a duty. on corn, the growth of France, as well as of Austria and of Prussia, when he was in possession of the capitals of those countries, which was intended for exportation to England. If Buona- parte did so, what was to prevent the monarchs of Austria,Prussia, or Russia, from taking the same step ? And it ought not to be overlooked, that a great portion of the corn intended for this market must come through the territory of Russia. Were they, then, to rely on the forbearance of these foreign sove- reigns to give the necessary supply of corn to England ? He said, certainly not : and therefore he would contend that this country could not wisely do otherwise than secure the interest of the agriculturist, who ought to be en- couraged to raise a sufficient supply of corn to meet the wants of the country, either in time of war or at any other period of distress.

The noble Baron had argued, that if we allowed foreign corn to be imported at a small nominal duty, profits would be vastly increased. But the noble Baron had forgotten one great cause of the small profits that were realized on our goods when sent to foreign parts—namely, the great increase of manu- factures abroad. The greatest difficulty was experienced in exporting our manufactures. In some countries there was a total prohibition of them, in others there was an extremely high duty, and in all there was much com- petition and jealousy. The Government in every one of those foreign coon- tries,did every thing in their power to prevent the sale of British manufac- tures. He was convinced that if they went tothe Continent, and purchased all the corn in Poland, not an additional article would they be enabled to force into France, Germany, Prussia, or Russia. If the merchants of this country were allowed freely to purchase grain, foreign subjects would get as much for their corn as they possibly could ; but their rulers would not allow a single article of our manufactures to be imported in consequence of our being obliged to buy the grain of those countries. There was undoubtedly a certain quantity of manufactures in this country more than the population itself could consume, which it would be very desirable to get rid of. But was it exactly true that taking foreign corn would have the effect of enabling other countries to purchase our manufactures ? And, even if such were the case, what were we to do with our own corn ? If those countries wished for our manufactures, why, when Russia and Prussia disposed of their corn to other states, did they not come and purchase goods from us ? (Hear, hear!) For his own part, he believed, after all, that the home market was our best resource, and that there we disposed of the greatest number of our manufac- tured articles.

The resohitions svere negatived without a division.

4. PUNISHMENT OF FORGERY. Mr. Secretary PEEL moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relative to forgery. He stated that the most severe laws on the subject of forgery had been enacted in the reign of George the Second, in consequence of certain forgeries by a person named Hale upon a member of the House named Gibson. At that time, it was the practice of Members, in franking letters, to write their names with the word "Free" in the corner, leaving the superscription to be filled up by the writer of the letter. Hale had procured several of Mr. Gibson's franks, had con- verted " Free" into " For H. Gibson,"—and filled up the blanks with large sums of money. Mr. Peel proposed that the innumerable sta- states on the subject of forgery should be consolidated ; and that the punishment of death should be abolished in Certain cases. The great principle to which he adhered was to confine that punishment to the forgery of negotiable and transferable securities, and to every thing which represented money. He might add to them the forgery of the Great Seal, the Privy Seal, and the Sign Manual. He should also add the forgery of wills of personal property. In documents of that kind, no witnesses were necessary ; and as they were generally not produced till the death of the par- ties, and might therefore be made the instruments of great deception, and cause great injury to families' he had thought it right with regard to them to retain the capital punishment. He added to these, all false entries relative to Public Stocks, all forgeries of- promissory notes, all fraudulent attempts to procure money, all forgeries of the notes of the Bank of England—in fact, all documents representing money, or which came under the denomination of negociable or transferable securities. In the cases where he remitted the punishment of death, he was confident there would be much difference of opinion as to their propriety, and that some persons would be inclined to suppose he had not gone far enough, and others much too far ; but he was of opinion that there would be more security in that course, and that a great deal of good might be done by the increased caution which these exceptions would introduce. Ile proposed, therefore, to except from the punishment of death, all forgeries of receipts for money and goods—all issuing of forged stamps, or forgeries of stamps—all attempts to defraud by forgdorders—ball fabrications of bank paper, that is, the paper on which notes are stamped— all forgeries of deeds and bonds, and every document which did not come under the class he had named, and which were not negociable or trans- ferable securities. For these offences death was now very rarely in- flicted, and he was ready to admit that it ought not to be inflicted. There was one peculiar reason for being cautious in their advances towards the mitigation of the punishment of formery. It was an offence chiefly com- mitted by persons of ability and information, and whose ability and informa- tion frequently alive them the means of committing it to a great extent. For instance, in the case of Fauntleroy, the forgeries which he committed amounted to above 400,0001. If the capital punishment were entirely re-

mitted, some secondary punishment must be substituted. Now, however extensive the crime of such a man as Fauntleroy, Mr. Peel was quite sure that if such a person had been sentenced to such a punishment as two years' hard labour on the public roads, the sympathy of the public would soon have been excited at seeing him degraded to the condition of associating with the commonest and vulgarest criminals. If he had been sent to New South Wales, such a man in that colony would have found that transportation was

the slightest punishment that could have been inflicted on him. Looking at

these and other considerations, he must deprecate the sudden and entire cessation of the punishment of death for for-cry. There were offences con-

nected with forgery which the existing law did not touch. One, and that a

very great one, was the forging of acceptances of individuals on foreign bills of exchange. He doubted if any penalty whatever attached at present to such a crime. It was his intention, however, to remove that doubt, by compre- hending the offence in the provisions of his Bill. There were several other offences, the punishment of which was at least doubtful. an English per- son dying at Paris made a wiil, and another will was forged, that offence ought to be subjected to the same punishment as the forging of a will in this country. Ile meant, therefore, to propose that it be enacted, that whenever

a document of that nature was executed, the punishment of forging it should be the same as if it had been executed in this country. He proposed also to remove a great imperfection in the law, by proposing to alter the law of venue ; and to dispense with the necessity of proving the place where the forgery was committed, provided the fact itself were proved. Mr. F. BUXTON, Mr. LENNARD, and Mr. SPRING IticE, were wil- ling to give Mr. PEEL the highest credit for what he had done, but they wished he had gone a 'little further. Mr. BUXTON stated that Mr. Brougham had it in contemplation to move for the abrogation of the punishment of death in all cases but murder and attempts to murder.

The Bill was then reada first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the 26th of April.

5. SCOTCH LA'W COURTS.—The LORD ADVOCATE moved on Thursday night for leave to bring in "a Bill fir uniting the benefits of jury trial in civil causes with the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and for making certain other alterations and reductions in the judicial establishments in Scotland." The Scotch Bar, and the country- generally, were reconciled to Jury trial ; and it was proposed to bring it into operation from the 5th of October next. The sepa- rate existence of a Jury Court would cease from that time, and a con- siderable saving be effected in consequence. It was proposed to abolish the Court of Admiralty, and to substitute the jurisdiction of the Courts of Common Law. The Consistorial Court—originally an ecclesiastical court—was to merge, likewise, in the Court of Session. While he proposed thus to increase the duties of the Scotch Judges, he proposed at the same time to reduce their number by two, and to shorten their vacations by a month. The office of Lord Justice General, which was merely an expensive sinecure, was td be done away with. As to the Scotch Court of Exchequer, it had at present four judges ; formerly it had five ; he intended now to reduce the number to two. The saving of public money which would result from these reforms, would amount to 23,000/. per annum; while Ministers would, at the same time, sacrifice patronage to a great extent. For himself, he believed that the measures which he recommended would not be popular in Scotland, but he trusted that the purity of his motives would be admitted.

A conversation followed, in which Sir M. S. STEWART, Mr, FERGUSSON, Mr. HOME DRUMMOND, Colonel LINDSEY, Mr. HUME, Mr. MAXWELL, Sir C. Eons es, Mr. PEEL, and the Solicitor-General took part. Mr. HUME commented on the comparatively small amount of the labour which the Scotch Judges devoted to the public service ; and he, along with Sir M. S. STEWART and Mr. GORDON, expressed a determination to oppose any attempt that might be made to raise their salaries.

5. LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DIVORCE. The Ellenborough Divorce Bill was under discussion in the House of Commons on Wednesday and Thursday. The House resolved itself into a Committee, and Messrs. Adam and Wigram appeared 'on the part of Lord Ellen- borough. No counsel appeared for Lady Ellenborough. The evi- dence on the act of adultery at Brighton was to the following effect. litobert Hepple, a waiter, stated, that on the 6th of February, Lady Ellen- borough arrived at the Norfolk Hotel, Brighton; a foreign gentleman arrived there on the same evening, and drank tea with her ladyship ; and about ten o'clock, the gentleman retired to his bedroom. The witness had occasion to sit up for another party till three in the morning.

"Did any thing occur while you remained up which you noticed particu. larly t"—" Yes; about twelve o'clock this gentleman came down the front stairs, and crossed the front hall leading to the staircase which led to Lady Ellenborough's apartments."

"What did you do ?" " Hearingthe noise, I went to see the occasion of it, and on seeing me he went back again up the stairs."

"What did you do then ?"—" I kept out of sight. He shortly came down again, and crossed the hall."

"Why did you watch him ?"—" I wished to know what he was about." "Where did he then go?"—" He went up the passage leading to the east

wing of the house, and up the stairs to Lady Ellenborough's room." "You saw him go into Lady Ellenborough's,bedroom —" I did."

"Did he close the door after him ?"—" Yes, he closed the door and locked

It."

"Did you remain near the door ?"—" I did."

"How long did you remain there ?"—" I remained about a quarter of an hour the first time, for I returned again." "Did you hear any thing inside in the room I"—"! heard a man and a woman talking in a foreign language."

"Did you hear any thing more ?"—" I heard him get into bed." "Where did you go then ?"—" I went down into the pantry again." "How long did you remain there ?"—" Nearly an hour." "Did the gentleman return while you remained there ?"—" No, he did not while I was up : that is, till three o'clock." "In about an hour you went up again to the door of Lady Ellenborough's bedroom ?"—" Yes."

"Did you hear any thing more then ?"—" I could hear them in the bed." "Did you hear them talking ?"—" I could hear them kissing."

Walton, the principal waiter at the hotel, stated, that he mentioned to Lady Ellenborough next day, that he was aware of her misconduct, and that she gave him 201. to induce him to conceal it.

Miss Margaret Steele, Lady Ellenborough's governess, stated that Lady El- lenborough had confessed to her that shelwas with child by Prince Schwartz- enberg. She had before that period remonstrated with Lady Ellenborough on some imputed levities in her conduct.

"Did you ever speakwith Lord Ellenborough respecting his wife ?"—" Yes ; I told him she had some associates which I thought bad."

"Do you recollect who these objectionable associates were ?"—(Loud cries Of " No, No.")

"Were these associates gentlemen or ladies ?"—" Both." "Were these associates introduced into the house by Lord Ellenborough ?" " They were of course introduced by Lord Ellenborough."

",Were they rejected in society by persons of rank ?"—" On the con- trary."

"Were they usually admitted in society at other respectable houses ?"— " At houses called respectable." (Laughter.) "Am I to understand that those ladies and gentlemen, to whom you ob- jected, were afterwards visited by Lady Ellenborough at their houses ?"—" I know one individual was, to whom I have particularly alluded."

"You considered that Lady Ellenborough, being a young person, had better avoid these persons ?"—" 1 considered thern-bad associates for Lady . Ellenborough, or any one else."

"They were received in the best society in England ?"—" In fashionable society." (Laughter.) "Were they such as were received in the society in which Lord and Lady Ellenborough moved ?"—" They were, but I warned Lord Ellenborough against them."

" Will you try- to recollect what warning you gave Lord Ellenborough ? " - I warned him particularly against one lady ; but I cannot mention names."

" Were these objectionable associates unknown to Lady Ellenborough before her marriage ?"—" Certainly." "What were your objections to the male associates ? "—"I merely knew them by reputation to be profligate men." "Did the witness l warn Lord Ellenborough on more than one occasion against them ?"—" I did not." Can you recollect what answer he made to your warning? "—" He laughed."

Examined by Sir H. HARDINGE.—" Were those persons who visited at Lord Ellenborough's and whom you thought objectionable, persons of rank in England ? "—" They were."

"Were they persons who are usually seen at places of public amusement ?" —" They were.'

. A discussion ensued as to whether the evidence should be printed. Mr. Matz contended for the necessity of having it printed, in order that members might weigh its value. Sir HENRY HARDINGE ex- pressed himself indignant that delay should be called for in a case which had been so closely sifted, and which bore so hard upon the feelings of noble families. Mr. HUME denied that he was actuated by any thing but a sense of duty ; while Sir CHARLES WETHERELL reminded the House, that it rested on them to undertake the duty which in this case no jury had been called on to discharge—to silt the facts, and discover whether there was any thing like collusion be- tween the parties, or misconduct on the part of the husband. It was finally agreed that the evidence should be printed, and the bill is to be read a third time on Tuesday.