Dazzles anb Wrottebings in Varliament.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE or Loans. Monday, Feb. 26. Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, read a third time and passed—Adjourned at 5 h. 30 ro. Tuesday, Feb. 27. Irish Poor-law Explanations—Royal Assent to Ireland Revenue Bill, and Irish Habeas Corpus Suspen- sion Bill—Adjourned at 7 h. Thursday, March 1. Crown Tenants—Adjourned at 5 h. 55 ru. Friday, March 3. Tuscan Republic convereation—Adjourned at 5h. 90m.

[Time occupied in the four sittings, 4h. 5m.

from Die beginning of the Session, 28 b. 45m.] HOME or COMMONS. Monday, Feb. 26. Committee of Supply : Mr. Cobden's Bud- get amendment, negatived—Irish Relief and Vice-Guardians of Unions Bills, passed through Committee—Adjourned at one o'clock. (Tuesday morning.) Tuesday. Feb. 27. Colonial Despatches—Marriages B111, read a fIrsttlme—Ceylon and British Guiana Committee nominated—Adjourned at 7 h. 30 m. Wednesday, Feb. 28. (House met at noon.) Insolvent Members Bill, referred to a Select Committee—Public Roads Bill, withdrawn, and new bill ordered—Out-door Paupers Bill, considered in Committee— Adjourned at 5b. 45m. Thursday, March 1. Leave of absence to Sir Robert Harry Inglis till Easter ; for ill health—Division of Parishes : Lord Ashley's motion for a Com- mission, carried—Irish Poor-laws : Committee on Resolution for a Rate in aid—Irish Relief Bill, read third time and passed—Mr. Posey's Landlord and Tenant Bill (Eng- land and Wales), read a first time—Adjourned at 12 h. 30 m. Friday, March 2. Sup- ply of Water to Metropolis : Henley and London Waterworks Bill, second reading negatived—Committee of Supply: 200,0001. voted for Naval excess—Poor-law (Ireland): Lord John Russell's Rate-in-aid Resolution, in Committee—Out-door Pauper Bill, read a third time and passed—Adjourned at 12 h. 45 m.

[Time occupied in the five sittings, 35 h. 30m.

from the beginning of the Session, 147 h. 20 M.] FINANCIAL REFORM.

Mr. COBDEN introduced his financial amendment on the order of the day for going into Committee on Supply, by explaining that he by no means wished it inferred that what financial economies he proposed to effect could be effected instanter; he wished merely that the House should have an op- portunity of expressing its opinion of the desirableness and necessity of the great reductions he advocated. The amendment was a resolution in these terms— "That the net expenditure of the Government for the year 1835 (Parliamentary Paper, No.260,1847) amounted to 44,422,0001.; that the net expenditure for the year ended Janu.sry 5, 1849 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 1, 1849) amounted to 54,185,0001; the increase of nearly ten millions having been caused principally by successive augmentations of our warlike establishments, and outlays for de- fensive armaments.

" That no foreign danger, nor necessary cost of the civil government, nor indis- pensable disbursements for the services in our dependencies abroad, warrant the continuance of this increase of expenditure.

" That the taxes required to meet the present expenditure impede the opera- tions of agriculture and manufactures, and diminish the funds for the employment of labour in all branches of productive industry; thereby increasing pauperism and crime, and adding grievously to the local and general burdens of the people.

"That to diminish these evils, it is expedient that this House take steps to re- duce the annual expenditure, with all practicable speed, to an amount not exceed- ing the sum which, within the last fourteen years, has been proved to be sufficient for the maintenance of the security, honour, and dignity of the nation."

The sums mentioned in the resolution were but the nett expenses of the years 1835 and 1845. The French national accounts are in this respect superior to ours: they show gross receipts and gross expenditure, so that the expenses of collecting and drawbacks of all sorts are as openly shown as other matters. Our nett expenditure is 54,000,0001., and our cost of collection 7,000,0001: if we add the cost of our poor, 8,000,000/, county- rates 1,000,000/, highway-rates 1,000,0001, and religion 6,000,0001—all which items of local charge find place in the imperial accounts of Frames, —our gross total expenditure would be 77,000,0001. Now the gross total of French expenditure, even in the past exceptional year, was but 72,000,0001. Some additions might fairly be made to our total, which would raise it to 80,000,0001. in comparison with the French total of 72,000,0001. Here are reasons for entering with determination on the task of reducing the public expenditure.

His choice of " the expenditure of 1835 " as a starting-point had been much cavilled at; but he cited precedents for selecting a particular year. Whig Administrations—and also [Mr. HUME suggested] Tory Adminis- trations—were in the habit, after the French Revolutionary war, of recur- ring to the year 1792 as a standard. Mr. Pitt did so; and his example was followed even by the Finance Committee of Lord Castlereagh in 1817. Indeed, every leading man who sat on the Opposition benches from 1816 to 1822 might be quoted as authority for choosing the actual experience of some past year, rather than any arbitrary sum, for a standard of comparison and limit. He took the expenditure of 1835 analytically. The interest of the Funded and Unfunded Debt amounted in 1835 to 28,514,0001.: the same item in 1848 was 28,563,0001.; and that item was by its nature incapable of diminution. The civil expenditure for 1835 was 4,251,0001.; for 1848 it was 6,598,0001. Now half of this stun is charged on the Consolidated Fund by permanent acts of Parliament, and ;will be the last fund to be touched in making any reductions. The remainder of this amount—some 3,000,0001 or 4,000,000E—comes under the annual revision of Parliament, and this alone offers itself for the operations of the pruning-knife; unless they adopt the plan which he unfeignedly recommended, of attacking and largely reducing the great military establishment charges. These were only 11,697,0001. in 1835; but in 1848 they had risen to the enormous sum—including the Caffre war expenses—of 18,745,0001. The gist of the case lies here; and Mr. Cobden therefore addressed himself to establish the points which he has before broached, that this great increase in the Army, Navy, and Ordnance expenses, has arisen from special augmenta- tions which have been made for particular purposes, and have never been relinquished after the particular purpose was served. Mr. Cobden went through the series of these augmentations,—the 5,000 seamen added in the Russian panic of 1836, the 8,000 soldiers called for by the Canadian rebellion in 1838, and 5,000 additional by the Monmouth riots in 1839; the 5,000 sailors added on the spur of the Chinese war, the Syrian war, and the M'Leod quarrel with America, in 1840- 1841, and 4,000 more during the Maine boundary- dispute in 1842; the large Navy increase in 1845, when the Oregon question threatened war —1,700,0001.; the differences with France about the Spanish succession in 1846-1,200,0001.; and last of all, the invasion panic raised by Mr. Pigott the gunpowder-maker, in 1847-1,000,0001. or 1,600,0001. The panics have proved visionary, the rebellions and riots have been suppressed, and the quarrels have been settled by treaty or by the rude interposing hand of dynastic revolution; but in no instance have the soldiers or sailors been disbanded, or the ships recalled. Yet if England took due advantage of her island position and did not run into needless interference with the affairs of other countries, there never was a time when she stood so free from war as at this present moment. It is alleged that we must maintain large armaments to protect our Colonial empire. It might be, when we restricted the Colonies to our own ports for markets, that they were en- titled to be protected at the Imperial cost; but if we give them the benefits of free trade, they should themselves bear the cost of those establishments necessary for their own defence and government. It is unjust to the people of this country, the great proportion of whom receive no advantage from our colonies, to tax them for the protection of colonists well able to defend themselves; and it is gross injustice to compel us to pay for military esta- blishments which the colonists would prefer being without if you would give them the control of their own affairs. "In New Zealand," said Mr. Cobden, " you have 2,000 rank and file, and not 20,000 European inhabitants; that is about one soldier for every ten colonists, that one soldier having been carried from England, at the expense of the people of this country, a distance of 12,000 or 15,000 miles, to be fed and clothed m the midst of a people every one of whom carries his own rifle and knows how to use it. In Australia yon are bound to send an armed force of 2,000 or 3,000 as a police to look after the convicts: but where there is no such dsner—where there are no aboriginal inhabitants, and not even a beast of prey to injure the colonists—I do believe that much of this force is kept up.to enable our Colonial Office to adminis- ter its affairs in the way it does; that it is kept up more to enable the Government to keep down the population, than for protecting that population against an enemy. It has been shown that only one-third of our troops are permanently em- ployed in this country, while two-thirds are maintained for the Colonies. That is a system which requires a total change; and if you do change it, you can no longer have any difficulty in making the reduction I call for.' He felt surprise, not unmixed with indignation, at the efforts made to prove that it has been our troops, and our artillery, and the hundreds and thousands of special constables, who prevented a large portion of the people of this country itself from risine•' in rebellion. Information he had from magistrates and others convinced him that there was no turbulence among the population of England; and that whatever disturbance arose here was of Hibernian origin. Both with regard to England and Ireland he thought that most exaggerated notions prevailed as to the needful force to be maintained. We were in another panic last year, and could not reason on the subject. The trials in the courts of law, however, have thrown great light on that which was dignified by the name of insurrection; and have clearly shown that neither in England nor Ireland have there been one hundred men confederated together with arms to war against the Crown and Government of the country; that the comedy of a revolution was never sustained by meetings of more than thirty men, and of these six or eight were spies.

Mr. Cobden threw in a pleading on behalf of the young men who might now be expiating their crimes or follies or both: he palliated the errors of vivid fancies and sanguine temperaments, exposed to that electric shock which had been felt throughout all Europe. It was natural to expect somewhat of the kind; it is fit now to congratulate ourselves that so little trace of it remains. In conclusion, Mr. Cobden said that if he had to make the reductions he advised, he would do it in this way. He would maintain the armaments in a state of efficiency, but he would not spend more than ten millions upon them; and, still preserving the total amount the same as that of 1835, he would allow 1,600,0001. for the civil expendi- ture, which was more than it reached in 1835. "And I venture to predict, having had some previous experience in watching the development of public opinion, that nothing less will satisfy the people of this country. The feeling in favour of economy has grown much within the last year. This House itself hears witness of it. I have seen such evidence of the progress of opinion on this subject, that I have not the least doubt, in a comparatively short time, the expenditure of this country may be brought back to the expenditure of 1835."

Mr. Hum seconded the amendment, and resumed his seat.

Sir Csaax.xa WOOD bore willing testimony to the fair and temperate manner in which Mr. Cobden had conducted the argument; and promised to meet him in the same manner—not even excepting to his reference to 1835. If the cost of the Caffre war and that of the Irish relief be added to an increase of 9,372,000/. which has taken place in the " Miscellaneous" expenditure since 1835—an item which Mr. Cobden is willing to increase, —the excess of 10,000,0001 in the last year over 1835 will be reduced to one of not more than 6,000,000/. Some important augmentations, which Mr. Cobden had enumerated as special, were not special but permanent in their beginning, and such as could not properly be reduced. It was wrong to say that the increase of the Navy in 1836 was caused by the Russian alarm; that alarm was not raised till 1838 or 1839. The next great error was respecting 1844: in the able statement of that year, Sir Robert Peel gave as the reason of the increase then obtained, no temporary emergency, but the permanent ground that the existing force was inadequate to the due protection of the country's interests. The reasons then existing are no has strong at this time; for the world is more and more occupied by Bri- tish industry, and demands larger and larger are yearly made by our ex- tending commerce for the protection of our naval force. The revolution in the character of our naval armament, by the introduction on a grand scale of the powers of steam, have been the source of immense expenditure —as well in the erection of suitable establishments for originating such developments, as in the cost of the steam-ships themselves, and the novel character of stores appropriate to their service. The same arguments which justified the increase of our naval strength are applicable in the case of our military armaments: these were not required to coerce the popula- tion of Canada, correctly described as the most contented population on the globe, or to keep down the population of New Zealand, or even repel the warlike attacks which have lately been made on them; but to carry out the system of military reliefs. Sir Charles entered into explanations of the ameliorations in the relief system which have followed the additions made to the force of the Army. Instead of regiments remaining abroad for from eighteen to twenty-five years, no more than one regiment is now in the Colonies, nor more than four are in India, that have been on service for more than ten years. Such was the defence offered of a large propor- tion of the increases which had been described as special and temporary.

But Sir Charles very much concurred in Mr. Cobden's opinion that there is nothing in the present state of the world which seems likely to disturb the peace now enjoyed. The conduct of his noble friend [Lord Palmer- ston] had contributed to the great change in our present position compared with our position when the votes of supply were proposed last year. The leaders of revolution abroad find it may be a losing concern, and danger has diminished at home; where the manufacturing population are again able to procure work and food. The powers given to the Irish Executive render the risk very little that rebellion will again break out there. Under these circumstances, Government propose to reduce the Army 10,000 men, and to make considerable reduction in the. Navy expenses. A retrench- ment was made last year during the session, by reductions of force and stores and by other means, of a total sum of 828,500/ ; further retrench- ments have now been made of 730,8561. on the Navy, 378,6241. on the Army, and 337,8731. on the Ordnance: a total saving has been made of 2,275,8531. Retrenchments are still going on: in addition to the suppres- sion of places and the consolidation of departments, the Government has appointed a Commission to inquire into the collection of the Customs; and their first report, just shown, to him in draft, recommends reductions of 50,0001. a year. Sir Charles here stated that the cost of collecting the whole revenue is lower than that of France in the proportion of 7 to 11. The cost of col- lection in England is 7 per cent, in France 111 per cent, in Belgium 43 per cent of the gross income.

Sir Charles stated some particulars of our financial condition for the year. He was happy to say that the hope be held out on asking for a re- imposition of the Income-tax for three years would be borne out: during those three years our income will have more than equalled our expendi- ture. In August last he anticipated a revenue of 52,130,0001.: the actual revenue has been 52,933,693/.—an excess of about 800,0001.: al- though the expenditure has somewhat exceeded the estimates, there is on the year a surplus of 370,000/. The sums of 780,0001. received last year on corn, of 500,0001. on sold stores, and of 80,0001. of China money— these sums, amounting to 1,360,0001., which would fail him next year— would be more than made good by the 1,447,0001. which have been re- trenched; so that our expenditure will be clearly within our income next year.

Mr. BERRIES noticed the apparent want of interest in the present de- bate, especially on the Liberal side; the slow despair with which Mr. Hume rose to second it; the extremely quiet language of Mr. Cobden—it were better, indeed, if Mr. Cobden had been violent in that House, and more decorous where inflammatory language might produce ill effects. Mr. Berries entered into some details to show that the Government expendi- ture in France seems to have advanced in proportion to the prevalence of Popular principles: the French expenses of 1848 were 72,000,0001—nearly double those of the Monarchy before the Revolution of 1830: our expenses are nearly the same sum now as they were twenty-eight years ago. Mr. lihr-wEit GIBSON defended the "more enthusiastic" language of Mr. Cobden at Manchester, where his spirit rose with the sympathy of an au- dience earnest and animated on the subject of public burdens; and he fol- lowed up Mr. Cobden's arguments with a rejoinder on points of Sir Charles Wood's speech; calling on Sir James Graham, however, to vindicate his reduced expenditure of 1835. Accumulated facts prove the excess of our naval armaments. In March 1848, we had 31 ships of war, and 8,337 men, on the Mediterranean station alone; 26 ships on the Pacific and South-eastern coast of America station. Compared with the French list, we have 31 full admirals to their 1, and 2,353 lieutenants to their 600. In all, our officers are 3,931 to France's 2,353: our list contains 150 admirals: the' United States navy contains not one admiral, no vice-admiral, no rear-admiral, only 67 captains, 47 commanders, and 327 lieutenants; but does one ship of their immense mercantile navy receive less protection iu the ports of all the world than any one of ours? It is a ruinous gain to have such enormous establishments at such enormous cost; for the war- Power of each nation is far more estimated by the wealth and tax-bearing Powers of its people, than by the empty parade of military and naval 41Maments.

Mr. Hum acknowledged what had been affirmed in debate, that all

the augmentations had been made at the instance of Parliament itself. " Yes, it was the constitution of that House which lay at the bottom of all the mischief, occasioning the creation of a number of officers in the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, infinitely greater than the most efficient maintenance of those services could require." Every naval officer afloat now has five or six reliefs! Doss any man keeping a carriage provide five or six relief coachmen besides the one who drives?

Mr. BRIGHT and Mr. MACGREGOR followed on the same side.

Mr. BEERY DRUMMOND, Mr. URQUHART, Mr. ANSTEY, and Colonel SIBTRORP, opposed the amendment.

On a division, it was negatived, by 275 to 78; Ministerial majority, 197.

IRISH POOR-LAW: CABINET DISCREPANCIES.

Lord STANLEY called the attention of the House of Lords to an irre- concileable discrepancy between the language and conduct of the Govern- ment in that House and the language and conduct of the Government in " another place," upon a question in regard to which of all others there should be no manner of doubt or ambiguity. For form's sake, he moved that a message be sent to the other House of Parliament; requesting them to communicate the first report which had been laid upon their table by their Committee on the Irish Poor-law. At the commencement of the session, the Marquis of Lansdowne obtained a Select Committee on the working of the Irish Poor-law, to inquire whether that law ought to be amended, and what the amendment ought to be. It was objected by Lord Stanley at the time, that Government thereby placed themselves in a di- lemma: either they had made up their minds on the subject—in which case there was no use in the inquiry, or else they had not made up their minds— in which case they were attempting to throw upon a Committee a respon- sibility that ought only to belong to her Majesty's Government. But they have had the ingenuity to place themselves on both the horns of the dilemma at once. Lord Lansdowne very properly and fairly laid before the Committee certain resolutions, to which, however, he declined to pledge himself as measures on which the Government had positively concluded; but resolutions relating to a vast number of subjects connected with the Irish Poor-law, on all of which it was desirable that information should be received. In the other House also a Committee was appointed; but though it was appointed by, and was to a certain extent composed of, members of the Go- vernment, a most different course has been pursued. The same resolutions made in their Lordships' Committee were made in the Committee of the other House by the First Lord of the Treasury, but with explanations very different from those of Lord Lansdowne: these resolutions were advanced as the plan to which Government was pledged, and it was intimated that in fact if the Committee refused its sanction to them, the Government would propose them to Parliament on its own responsibility. A private Member proposed that evidence should be taken on the resolutions: this course, so proper in itself and so in harmony with that recommended by Lord Lansdowne in their Lordships' Committee, was opposed by the mem- bers of the Government—the First Lord of the Treasury declaring that no investigation should take place: the proposition was negatived; and then another proposition was negatived, that, in the absence of evidence, her Ma- jesty's Government should bring forward the resolutions on their own re- sponsibility! And not only that, but this resolution had been reported to the House of Commons, and formed the first report of the Select Com- mittee to the House; and the noble Lord had himself given notice that, on Thursday, he would move for a Committee of the whole House, with a view to found a legislative measure upon the resolution passed by the House of Commons, but which is a small part only of the question on which, at the invitation of her Majesty's Government, their Lordships' Committee were at that moment taking evidence and entering upon inquiry.

Lord Stanley thought it difficult to reconcile this with either the courtesy usually observed between the two Houses, or that delicacy of feeling which should prevent the leader of a party in one House from contradicting the language used by the leader in the other House. He expressed no opinion with regard to the proposition itself, but did trust that her Majesty's Go- vernment would reconsider the proposition which they were now disposed to make a separate question from the whole of the remainder of the ques- tions. It was not too much to ask, that either the Committee of that House should be discharged from their idle and useless investigation, or that the rate in aid should not be pressed in the other House till the evi- dence taken by their Lordships should show whether it would, alone or together with other provisions, sufficiently meet the case.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE admitted, that he had laid the resolutions before their Lordships in the shape of suggestions only, in order that the fullest opportunity should be given for examination. They embraced a vast variety of topics, and were not confined in such a manner as would make one of the Committees useless, because perhaps a hasty decision had been given by the other on one of the points. For himself, he wished that no separation had taken place between the first resolution and those which followed. He thought, if anything in the shape even of a temporary rate in aid were entertained by Parliament, the proposition ought to be enter- tained in conjunction with another, the effect of which would be to esta- blish a maximum poor-rate all over the country. But he could easily con- ceive how the immediate emergency might have impressed the other Com- mittee with the necessity of providing a remedy which would at once touch the existing evil, and of saying to the House, We report now upon what we think necessary to be done immediately; but with regard to the maxi- mum rate, we see no objection to our taking time to consider what that shall be, and to what conditions it shall be subject. It would be admitted, that the measure introduced in the other House was absolutely necessary if they wished to prevent actual starvation in Ireland.

Lord Lansdowne was perfectly willing to accede to Lord Stanley's mo- tion if it were pressed; but it was by leave withdrawn.

When the subject came regularly before the House of Commons on Thursday, Sir Lucrus O'BarEir stated, that in Committee he had voted for the first of the resolutions proposed by Lord John Russell, as part of a series; but the Committee refused to entertain the rest; which placed him in a difficulty as to supporting the resolution again. Lord Join; Manta, observed, that the Committee had not decided against the other resolutions, but only deferred their consideration; and he proceeded with the measure based on the first resolution, because it was of a temporary and urgent cha- racter.

On the reading of the order of the day for going into Committee on the Irish Poor-law, Lord Joan RUSSELL briefly said, that he had at that mo- ment only to ask the House to go into Committee on the report of the Se-

lect Committee [simply embodying his resolution]; and that he should then have an opportunity of explaining his views.

Op the question that the Speaker do leave the chair, Mr. Sn.uawe CRAWFORD moved as an amendment, a resolution declaring it unconsti- tutional and unjust to impose on Ireland separate national taxation for the wants of particular localities, so long as the revenues of Ireland are paid into the Imperial exchequer. He insisted that industrious Ulster should not be taxed any more than the industry of England; and he would not advance a farthing from any source without making the lands of particular districts answerable for the repayment.

Members from the South of Ireland evinced some dislike to this amend- ment; and on a division it was negatived, by 139 to 15.

Sir JOHN WALSH then declared, that he should divide the House on the original motion; because he objected to the rate in principle, and because he objected to the plan of first resolving and then inquiring, like the gal- lant Irish general, who told his sons always to fight first and explain after- wards. The resolution was only the record of the balance of opinion among a knot of twenty-six private Members: for anything that the House knew, it might be but a fractional part of a scheme, about the rest of which they were kept in the dark. And the proposed sixpenny rate in aid would be inadequate to its object. The property in Ireland rateable to the poor-law is valued at 13,330,0001.; sixpence on that would give 325,0001.: it was stated the other night„that a grant of 50,0001. would be consumed in a fortnight; whence they !fright judge bow long the produce of the sixpenny rate would last. These 'wretched doles of three-farthings a a day do not really "prevent misery " and "rescue life "; though a sound-. er line of policy might indeed regenerate the country.

A pause of two or three minutes followed without any Member's rising; and the galleries were about to be cleared for a division, when Mr. NAPIER stood up, and vigorously enforced Sir John Walsh's arguments. He called upon Lord John Russell to explain what modification Ministers were pre- pared to introduce into the Irish poor-law; reproached them with imitating the policy of Mehemet Ali, who, when told of short crops in one wretched district in Egypt, levied a " rate in aid" on another district, which reduced that also to destitution. So Lord John was about to reduce the good and bad districts of Ireland to one common level of degradation. There was nothing statesmanlike in the plan. It was not governing Ireland, but trifling with the interests of the people. Were Ministers ashamed of their proposition, that they asked the House to vote for it first, without stating the grounds or reasons that induced them to bring it forward?

Sir GEORGE GREY deprecated this waste of time; and reproached Sir John Walsh—he excused Mr. Napier, who probably did not know what he was doing—with occupying the House for fifty long minutes in prevent- ing what be wanted, Lord John Russell's statement, which would be made in Committee.

Mr. DISRAELI pointed out, that the usual and respectful course would have been to explain the objects for which Lord John invited the House to go into Committee. He showed how suspicious were the circumstances which accompanied Lord John's call for the sanction of a measure un- explained; and declared that, although opposed to the rate in aid, he was not opposed to any satisfactory system which might afford an auxiliary as- sistance to Ireland. To yield to Sir George Grey's appeal, would be to stifle the right of public discussion. After Ministers had so trifled, if not with the House at least with their own reputation, he urged Sir John Walsh to divide.

Lord Jon RUSSELL regretted that Mr. Disraeli should think a case of this kind a fitting occasion for a "party" attack. To interpose at this stage—to refuse to go into Committee, on Mr. Disraeli's ground that longer deliberation was necessary—would be to trifle with the welfare and even the lives of those whose destitution they were called upon to alleviate. The rest of Lord John's speech consisted of a critical dissent from a plan pro- posed by Sir John Walsh, strictly to limit the area of taxation and to aid emigration.

Mr. HENRY HERBERT declared that he had entered in House without party ties, and prepared to support the authority of Government; but he now feared that4he existence of property in Ireland was incompatible with the existence of her Majesty's Ministers. He repelled Lord John's appeal ad misericordiam, and demanded a statesmanlike grappling with the subject of the poor-law. Sir HENRI. Beartow declared that the rate would stop improvement and cause the discharge of labourers. Viscount CASTLE- REAGH pronounced the measure dangerous to the Union. Mr. GROGAN, Mr. KER, and Sir WILLIAM VERNER, spoke on the same side.

Mr. PRYSE PYSE (with an enormous leek in his button-hole) com- plained that there was no Welshman on the Committee. (Roars of laughter.) Mr. JOHN O'CoNNELL and Mr. REYNOLDS demanded an opportunity for Lord John Russell to make his statement.

On a division, at a late hour, the motion was carried, by 195 to 96.

In Committee, Lord Joust RUSSELL moved the following resolution- " That in each of the next two years there shall be paid by every union in Ire- land a sum equal to the rate of 6d. in the pound on each electoral division in such union, towards a general fund for the relief of the poor in Ireland. That the said sum shall be paid to a separate account at the Bank of Ireland, in the name of the Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland, and shall be applied in such manner as Parliament shall direct."

The House resumed, and the Chairman reported progress; Lord John Russell to make his statement on Friday.

PARTITION OF PARISHES.

Lord ASHLEY moved a resolution in these terms- " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the practicability and modes of subdividing into distinct and independent parishes, for all ecclesiastical purposes, all the densely-peopled parishes in England and Wales, in such manner that the popu- lation of' each, except in particular cases at the discretion of the Commissioners, than not exceed 4,000 souls."

He began his explanation by saying that his proposition involved no de- mand for public money; indeed, a large body whose feeling he expressed would resist any demand of that kind until the whole resources of the Church should have been exhausted. But the present arrangement and distribution of densely-peopled parishes render it utterly impossible to carry out the parochial system. With the same machinery that the Church possessed forty or fifty years ago, many parishes have enormously increased in size. Stockport possesses a population of 84,000, Sheffield 111,000, Marylebone 138,000, St. Pancras 140,000, Bradford 200,000, Liverpool 223,000, Manchester 353,000. These numbers exceed the population of many counties: Hereford, for example, has 114,000, Bedford 109,000, Westmoreland 56,000. In St. Pancras, if church-accommodation were af- forded for one-third of the parish, it should provide for 47,000; whereas the provision was but for 17,000, until Mr. Dale became the Vicar. He has overcome great difficulties in dividing the parish into five new districts; but the division still leaves great inequalities; one of the districts including nearly 20,000 souls. In consequence of the present state of things, pro. prietary chapels are scattered over various parts of London; but they are dependent on their pew-rents, and seven-tenths of the attendants are per- sons in easy circumstances. Lord Ashley read various communications from clergymen, to their Bishops and to himself, showing how the present system throws an excess of duty upon many, and keeps many working clergymen attached to new churches in a position of inferiority, restricted in their powers of ministration, and obliged to send the produce of fees, &c., to the Rectors or Vicars in distant parishes. To show the effect of subdi- vision, Lord Ashley cited the present state of St. Matthias, one of the pa- rishes into which Bethnal Green was divided in 1844— It had been assigned to the Reverend Joseph Brown, before and after the sub- division. In 1844, it contained school accommodation for 120 children; in 1849, between National, Infant, Sunday night, and Ragged Schools, there were 1,100 scholars. In 1844, there were 14 communicants ; in 1849, 160. In the former year, the attendants at church were about 40; in the latter, the large church was quite full at night, and was well attended in the morning. Between 1844 and the present year, 1,003 persons of all ages, from infancy to seventy-five, had been baptized. That alone was a proof how much the ordinance must have been neglected; and was in keeping with what Mr. Homer stated in one of the Factory Reports with respect to Ashton-under-Line, where, on the arrival of an active and zealous curate, upwards of 800 persons had been baptized within three weeks, every one of whom walked to church. The change in their social condition was no less remarkable. In 1844, there was no provident fund whatever. In 1849,3,064 persons, acting under the advice and care of theirexcellent pastor, had saved a sum which would surprise those acquainted with the destitution of the district-5131.; while self-supporting soup-kitchens had been established, and reading-rooms had been set on foot to induce the working classes to abandon the gin-shop and pub- lic-houses, with the success which always attended such efforts when accompanied with facilities for procuring such refreshments as tea and coffee. With respect to funds, he expected great good from the Commission lately appointed to inquire into the management of Church lands; but the liberality of the Church of England has never been fully tested, and proofs had been given of what might be done if that liberality were duly stimulated. The wretched state of Bethnal Green had excited the zeal and energy of that admirable man Mr. Cotton; who had been able to col- lect money enough to build and endow no fewer than ten new churches. Alarm had been caused by immense demands: one eminent gentleman had called for 200 churches and 5,000 clergymen; the Reverend Baptist Noel, for 2,000 churches and 8,000,0001. of money. Now, the number of parishes in England with a population exceeding 4,000 is not more than 279; and it has been calculated that 500 additional clergymen, with 3001. a year each, or 150,0001. in all, would suffice for the exigency of the case; and that is not too large a sum to ask from the opulent, pions, and patriotic members of the Church of England. Lord Joint RUSSELL signified that Government had no objection to the appointment of the Commission: and he believed every member of the Church of England was extremely indebted to Lord Ashley; who had added another to the many efforts he had made to promote the religious and moral wellbeing of the people. The motion received very general suPpoit. Mr. PAGE WOOD adduced further proof of what might be expected, from what had been done in the united parishes of St. Margaret's and St. John's since he came to reside in it twenty-two years ago. The difficulties encountered by Dr. Hook in dividing the vicarage of Leeds showed how necessary it was to have some general measure— Dr. Hook possesses the affection of the mass of people in that town: a meeting of many thousand Chartists separated with three cheers for the Vicar. Hie bill was not opposed; the officers of the House of Lords remitted half their fees (Mr. Wood did not remember whether that example had teen followed in this House); two of the counsel employed for the bill had refused to accept their fees; and yet Dr. Hook's town agent's bill came to 7001., and that of his country agents to a like sum; so that it cost Dr. Hook 1,4001. before he could obtain a bill the ob- ject of which was to deprive himself of half his income. As a proof of his asser- tion that the resources of the Church only required to be called out, he might state that daring the ten years of his incumbency, Dr. Hook had levied the sum of 100,0001. in voluntary contributions in that town for various religions and cha- ritable purposes. Exception was taken to Lord Ashley's proposition, by Mr. Hume and Mr. BRIGHT, who suggested amendments. Mr. HUME objected, that the measure did not touch the subject of church-rates; that it treated the whole population of all parishes as members of the Church of England, though but a fraction might belong to it, and the rest be provided for as Dissenters; and that it made no provision for the spiritual destitution in small parishes. Mr. BRIGHT denied the spiritual destitution in Manches- ter, and foresaw a demand for money. Mr. Hunan moved two amend- ments: one, limiting the term "population" by the words " belonging to the Church of England," was negatived without division; the other, ex- tending the inquiry to the practicability of uniting small parishes, was ne- gatived by 111 to 18.

Lord Ashley's motion was then carried.

PUBLIC ROADS BiTh.

In moving the second reading of the Public Roads Bill, Mr. CORNEWILL LEWIS stated, that the measure introduced by Sir James Graham for the six counties of South Wales had been taken as a model, with one import- ant difference: that measure did not give any equivalent to the county,- rates for the burden thrown upon them, but this measure would give an equi- valent of 1,500,0001. of highway-rates. The measure had the twofold aim of new-modelling the management of the roads, and of providing means for extinguishing the turnpike trust debt—which amounts to 6,609,0001. It was proposed to give debentures for this debt, which would bear interest at four per cent, and to provide for its extinction by a sinking-fund of 2 per cent which should be paid to commissioners for that purpose. The present repairs and improvements would take 673,0001. a year, and 4 per cent with 2 per cent on the debt would take 396,5401. a year—in round numbers, 1,130,0001- a year. Now, the present income of the trusts is 1,300,0001.—more than those charges by 170,0001. There is no doubt that, taken as a whole, the turnpike trusts are perfectly solvent. The re- demption-fund would be applied first in paying off the bonds of alresdY, solvent trusts which return more than 4 per cent, and then in payment of the other bonds in order of precedence as may be determined by lot: in this way, the whete debt would be paid off in twenty-eight years at the furthest. The existing law would give the preference in payment to arrears of interest; but it was intended that arrears of longer date than ten years should be irrecoverable altogether. Mr. Lewis relin- quished his proposal to extinguish the highway-rate, and levy an equi- valent county-rate under the name of a road-rate; and was willing to retain the present highway-rate and appropriate its produce. The change would have been but nominal, and the abandonment of the change would not interfere with the working of the bill. He proposed to carry the second reading, and then go into Committee pro forma to amend clauses. Two hours of discussion followed; and showed that the most various opinions prevailed in the House as to what concessions Mr. Lewis had really made, and as to what the shape of his bill was really intended to be. Some leading Members, as Mr. ReaeLEY and Mr. NEWDEGATE, contended that the effect of the bill would still be to throw the burden of insolvent trusts on the county-rates; and they opposed the principle of a uniform county-rate, as unjust to districts now lightly burdened. Others, as Mr. WILLIAM MILES and Mr. ROBERT PALMER, thought that Mr. Lewis's concessions removed the ground of these objections; some, as Sir JOHN Trams., could not understand it; Mr. SPOONER declared it a job. The great majority approved of the prinoiple of the bill, but many asked for time to master the alterations.

Ultimately, Mr. LEWIS withdrew the bill; on the understanding that he should immediately bring in a fresh bill, drawn to meet the altered objects be had explained, and be allowed to proceed through the first stages with abridged delay.

OUT-DOOR PAUPERS BILL.

On the motion that the Out-door Paupers Bill be committed, Mr. RAINES gave some explanations with regard to establishments similar to that of Mr. Drouet at Tooting. Such establishments did not originate with the new Poor-law Amendment Act—they had been authorized by statute upwards of a hundred years ago; and Jonas Hanway's Act ren- dered it compulsory on the Overseers of the Metropolitan parishes to send children out from their parishes. The Act of 1844 repealed the compul- sory operation of Hanway's Act, but left the legality of those establish- ments unquestionable. There is not any establishment of the kind in connexion with the provinces, and there are but seven connected with the Metropolitan parishes—two at Stepney and Peckham, one at Norwood, two at Margate, one at Welling in Kent, and one at Brixton. The bill now under consideration gives ample powers for the most sudden visitation by Magistrates, and full powers of regulation to the Poor-law authorities. But it is probable that before long the necessity for such establishments will be displaced by the formation of district union schools under the pro- visions of the law of 1844. Mr. HENLEY and Mr. POULETT SCROPE com- plimented Mr. Baines on the useful character of the bill; which then passed through Committee.

FACTORY RELAYS.

Replying to Mr. HINDLEY, Sir GEORGE GREY stated that Government intended to bring in a bill to authorize the working of men, women, and young persons in factories, by relays: the matter was now under con- sideration.

COLONIAL DESPATCHES.

Mr. PHILIP MILES inquired whether Government had received any despatch from Jamaica concerning the clerical error made in the bill granting supplies to the Governor? Mr. HAWES stated the facts. A wrong date had been inserted in the bill, by mistake, at the time of its engrossment. The bill contained a clause enabling the correction of errors; and the Governor being asked, made no objection to the cor- rection: he certainly had no intention to avail himself of the inaccuracy. The despatch would shortly be laid before the House.

Mr. BeiLLIE expressed a hope that the despatches to be presented would not be mutilated, as other despatches from the Colonies had been. (Cries of "Hear! " and " Order! ") Mr. Husiz—" Ask the question, whether they will be mutilated." Mr. H. RAILLIE asked, then, whether these despatches would suffer any mutilation ? He held despatches in his hand which showed that a considerable wrtion of the information had been expunged. He again asked her Majesty's Government whether any future despatches would be mutilated as previous ones bad been?

Mr. HAWES protested that the charge of mutilating despatches for pur- poses of concealment was utterly unfounded.

Despatches had been moved for by the late Lord George Bentinck, which re- lated entirely to some apprehended disturbances in Jamaica, in consequence of exciting language used by disappointed monopolists after the passing of the Sugar Hill here. The language was to the effect that the proprietors were disposed to transfer their allegiance to the United States of America, and that language had excited the fears of the Negro population. Now, the despatches bore upon those disturbances, and they referred to individuals by name. They contained deposi- tions to charges against individuals which were afterwards disproved, and those charges were struck out from the despatches. He approved of the course which had been taken, and, if necessity demanded it, should recommend the same course again. When the Committee for which Mr. Baillie had moved should meet, he should not have the slightest objection to place the whole of the despatches before the Committee—not for the use of the House or the public, but for the purpose of showing that there was nothing in them to justify the term "mutilation " against them, or the imputation thrown out against his noble friend at the head of the Colonial department. But he would not consent to lay them before the House; and if Mr. Baillie liked, let him move for them, and take the sense of the House on the question.

Here the matter dropped. CROWN TENANTS.

The Earl of CARLISLE, at the request of the Marquis of SALISBURY, gave explanations in correction of a statement in a public journal respect- ing a lease of property in the Green Park.

The paragraph in question implied that a certain amount of rent was raised for the ground on which stood the row of houses in the Green Park, with their offices and other appurtenances; whereas it is raised for nine slips of ground in front of the houses, mostly converted into gardens. It appeared that the Marquis of Salisbury Was charged 101. 7s. 7d. for a piece of ground which he held under a lease for ninety-nine years from the Crown, which had a frontage of 36 feet 9 inches in length, and which was of the average depth of 48 feet. Lord Vernon, Lord Yar- borough, Lord Romney, Mr. Morton Pitt, Lord Dundee Lord Moira, Lord Spen- cer, the Mike of Bridgewater, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Eardley, all paid rents for similar pieces of ground; which rents were only required for the slips of garden- gronnd between their mansions and the walk in the Green Park to which the public was admitted. Not one of the houses belonging to these lords and gentle- men stood upon Crown property. In short, these rents, which varied from 41. to 1151. a year, were only raised from these slips of garden-ground, on which those flowers and lilac-trees were planted which added so much to the beauty and fra- grance of the Park. There was even a covenant in all the leases of these slips of ground that no buildings should on any account be erected upon them. Thus, while the beauty and fragrance of the Park were secured, the public received a rent of 3001. a year.

Lord Carlisle also explained the effect of contracts which the Crown had entered into with Mr. Nash and Mr. James Burton, who had taken build- ing-leases of ground in the Regent's Park; bargains which proved to be very profitable to the Crown. He admitted that the Crown property gene- rally, like private property, is capable of improvement; and the feasibility of such improvement is the subject of an inquiry actually proceeding. The Earl of ELLESMERE complained, that in the paragraph he was re- presented as building "a palazzo" on ground for which he paid 691. a year, though it would be worth 6001. a year if he were treated like a tradesman in the Strand; with other erroneous particulars.

It was hardly necessary for him to say, that he paid no rent to the Crown far- the site of his house, which happened to be his own property in fee. If it should, be thought that he paid an insufficient rent for the small piece of ground which he held of the Crown, he was very willing to leave that question to the considera- tion of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, to stand by any decision to which they might come, and to pay more rent, if more were required.

AGRICULTURAL BURDENS.

Mr. DISRAELI has laid on the table of the House of Commons the following resolutions, which it is his intention to move next Thursday- " That the whole of the local taxation of the country, for national purposes, falls mainly, if not exclusively, on real property, and bears with undue seventy upon the occupiers of land, in a manner injurious to the agricultural interests of the country, and otherwise highly impolitic and unjust-

" That the hardship of this apportionment is greatly. aggravated by the fact, that more than one-third of the revenue from excise is levied on agricultural produce, which is exposed, by recent changes in the law, to direct competition with the untaxed produce of foreign countries; the home producer being thus subjected to a burden of taxation which, by greatly enhancing the price, limits the demand for British produce; and to restrictions which injuriously interfere with the conduct of his trade and industry. "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee to take into its serious: consideration such measures as may remove the grievances of which the owners and occupiers of real property thus justly complain 4 and which may establish a more equitable apportionment of the public burdens.

THE COLONIAL OFFICE COMMITTEE.

After some private higgling on the part of the Government, the Ceylon and British Guiana Committee was nominated as follows— Mr. Hume, Sir Joshua Walmsley, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Hogg, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Charles Villiers, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Adderley, Mr. James Wilson, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Lord Hotham, Mr. Baillie, Mr. IIPCullaght Major Blackan.