Debates an Vroceerfings In Varliatitatt.

THE NEW FINANCE MEASURES.

Soon after the reassembling of the House on Monday, Mr. RAIKES CURIUE rose to put a question to Sir Robert Peel, on the answer to which would depend the vote be should give respecting the Income-tax— When the right honourable Baronet brought forward his financial plan, he stated explicitly that it was the intention of the Government to stand or fall by the measure they had proposed. Now Mr. Carrie wished to know whether that declaration of the right honourable Baronet applied to the main principles of the Tariff with the same force as the Income-tax ? He did not mean to call upon the right honourable Baronet to pledge himself to all the details of the Tariff; because it was evident that with respect to many of them the Govern- ment would be put in possession of information which would render alterations necessary ; but he was anxious to learn whether the right honourable Baronet would uphold the main principles of the Tariff,—namely, the reduction of the duties on articles of general consumption, and more especially upon provisions and cattle, with the same firmness and determination as the tax upon income. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that Mr. Currie had certainly not incorrectly stated what had fallen from him on a former occasion— He and his colleagues felt that, in so important a measure as an Income-tax with a view of extricating the country from the financial embarrassments in which it was placed—a measure which was to be the foundation of the whole financial and commercial policy of the Government—they ought to propose it on their responsibility as a Government, and that its failure must decide the fate of the Government. He was sure that no one would take advantage of that declaration in order to bind him with respect to details. He had spoken generally. In the details there must necessarily be alterations ; for instance, be had already stated that it was his intention to propose modifications as to the mode of collecting the tax. Reserving to himself the right to make alters- tionian detail, he had no hesitation in saying that he had brought forward his measures—financial and commercial—with the sincere desire and full intention to do justice, as far as possible, between the producing and consuming classes of the community; and subsequent reflection had confirmed the opinion he had all along entertained, that those measures, if adopted, would be productive of great good. It was his intention, therefore, to uphold the Tariff in all its leading principles.

Replying to Lord Jona RUSSELL, Sir ROBERT said that an amended copy of the Tariff, with some alterations, would most likely be laid on the table on Monday next : it would be found that the general principles of the Tariff had been adhered to.

Subsequently, Sir ROBERT PEEL moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, to consider the Income-tax re- solution. Mr. BLEwIrr declared that the tax had been received by the people with universal execration ; and he moved by way of amendment, a resolution, that the Income-tax is unnecessary, and the amount of taxes proposed to be raised greater than the necessities of the public service required; and that the House would not resolve itself into Com- mittee of Ways and Means until they had examined what amount of existing taxes they would reduce or repeal. Mr. MILNER Ginsom se- conded this.

Mr. &unmet CRAWFORD here put in a few observations. He ap- proved of the Income-tax in so far as it is an impost on property ; but he objected to laying a tax on the income of trades and professions, especially in time of distress ; and he particularly objected to the new taxes, that they were imposed to sustain monopolies, and to carry on sinful wars in China and India.

Mr. Thomas DUNCOMBE twitted Ministers with their silence ; and he asked Sir Robert Peel, whether it had ever crossed his mind to postpone the Tariff ?— He did not believe that Sir Robert had any such intention ; but it was right that individuals out of doors should not be misled by persons within; that per- sons should not be allowed, for the sake of bolstering up a vote, to say to the farmers, "Oh, do not take alarm at the Tariff; it may be postponed. The motion, in his opinion, directed itself to that point ; it asked the House, before agreeing to the income-tax, o take care and clearly to understand that the duties in the Tariff were totbe repealed to the extent proposed.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it had never crossed his mind to do any such thing : the amended Tariff, the same as the original in all its essen- tials, would be produced on Monday. It was quite clear that the House must be in possession of the amended Tariff before the bill imposing the Income-tax could pass ; and if it should be seen that the Tariff was not such as to justify them in voting for a new tax, it would be competent for them to reject the tax altogether. After the tremendous explosion of indignation with which he was threatened in the recess—and if those who threatened it were satisfied with the explosion, he for his part was perfectly satisfied—he thought they might now fairly meet the resolu- tion that was before the House.

Mr. EDWARD ELLICE agreed that Sir Robert Peel had no other course to take, than that of appealing to the property of the country to make good the deficiency : but he could not approve of the Income-tax, with all its inequality and unfair pressure upon the community ; he did not see any such overwhelming public exigency as to justify it. And he thought there were some errors in Sir Robert Peel's budget—some things which would increase the deficiency. He could not understand why they were to abandon the revenue from timber. He preferred the budget of last year ; though probably Mr. Baring over-estimated the productiveness of his measures. It was, however, beginning a new Lora in the endeavour to remove the shackles on the trade of the coun- try; and in so far as Sir Robert had imitated Mr. Baring, he gave him, on the part of the commercial community, his sincere thanks. As to timber, he would levy an additional duty on American timber at once, for the sake of the revenue ; and then, when they had more nearly equalized the duties between foreign and American timber, if the state of the finances admitted it, they might at a future day reduce the duty on both together. If compensation to the Canadians were considered necessary, let them take off the paltry duty of two or three shillings a quarter upon Canadian wheat. He did not at all regard property as so sacred that they could only approach a property-tax in war-time ; he could not conceive why property should not at all times be taxed : but let the tax be suited to the peculiar time at which it was imposed. Let Sir Robert Peel go to Coventry and witness the depression of trade in that city, and then say whether it was fair to tax the income derived from a declining trade. In France, one-third of the whole taxation is derived from a direct tax upon property ; but no one thought of tax- ing profits or income not derived from property. Mr. Ellice repeated his thanks to Sir Robert Peel for the great relief he had promised to afford by his new Tariff; and he placed such confidence in Sir Robert that he should not oppose the preliminary Income-tax resolution.

Mr. BLENvrrr withdrew his amendment ; and the House went into Committee ; Mr. Greene in the chair.

The first resolution, to impose a tax of sevenpence in the pound upon all incomes except the income of occupiers of land, was pat and carried without discussion.

The second resolution, imposing a tax on the occupation of land cal- culated at the rate of threepence-halfpenny in the pound on the yearly value, was then read.

Mr. MH.NER Grimm; was sorry that the House had not the oppor- tunity of ascertaining the feeling of the country on the Income-tax, because they could not receive petitions on the question. Sir Robert Peel had said that the tax should last only three years: Mr. Gibson could not conceive how it could be less necessary at the end of that time— What had the right honourable Baronet proposed that would enable them to dispense with this tax in three years time ? It was true he had brought for- ward a Tariff-reform, by which he said he would revive the trade of the coun- try, make the custom-duties more productive, and thus increase the revenue. No doubt, such a policy would in time have the effect the right honourable Baronet anticipated, but it must be by bolder and more comprehensive mea- sures than were now proposed. Talk of the visionary theorists of the Anti- Corn-law League! why the right honourable Baronet expected a larger result from his commercial reform than ever was expected by the most sanguine and visionary enthusiast. He could not conceive how the right honourable Baronet could suppose, that at the end of three years four millions could be derived from other sources than those now open to him, in consequence of his commer- cial reform. Therefore, knowing how much they had heard of the impropriety of holding forth expectations which could not be fulfilled, and of the impolicy of giving rise to hopes which would afterwards be disappointed, he concluded there must be other commercial reforms coming, but which for the present were postponed—perhaps an alteration in the duties on foreign sugar ; some treaty, perhaps, with Brazils, or some other ground, caused its postponement.

Seriously, he entertained no hope of such measures ; but he feared that if the Income-tax were once adopted, it would become a perma- nent part of our system. And why not, if the tax were so just, as Sir Robert said it was ?—

If every one would pay according to his means to support the state, and ac- cording to the degree of benefit he derived from the state, he would ask why should the right honourable Baronet hold out the hope that he would give up BO good a tax at the end of three years ? If the tax were so good and so just, why, when there should be surplus, instead of giving up this tax, should he not give up taxes on consumption, which the right honourable Baronet himself said were so injurious and unjust ? Thus, the argument of the right honour- able Baronet is not consistent : he says, "I will put on a good tax ; but I will give it up at the end of three years, and will maintain all those which are so injurious."

He did not deny that there were improvements in the Tariff ; for though trifling and insignificant, they would lead to great improvements in our commercial system. But he wished that Sir Robert Peel had made a bolder attack upon the system of protection—that he had thought of the saying of Mr. Deacon Hume, that "people cannot pay private taxes and public taxes too." Sir Robert Peel justified his In- come-tax by saying that financial science had failed to discover a mode of imposing taxes equally : when had the experiment been tried ?

Mr. RIGBY Wasom here rose to order, and pointed out that the first resolution had been put and carried although Mr. Rice had risen to speak upon it. Hereupon some conversation followed : the Opposition Members contended generally, that the question had been put in such a manner as to be inaudible ; while the Ministerial Members insisted that no question had ever been pat more distinctly. Sir ROBERT PEEL ob- served, that there clearly had been some inadvertence: he had no in- tention to take advantage of any accident; and the debate might pro- ceed on the second resolution, or the whole question might be discussed on the report.

Mr. RICE then took up the debate ; expressing a general approval of Sir Robert Peel's measure, but not approving of equally taxing income derived from fixed property and from fluctuating incomes.

Mr. Gummi here interposed the explanation, that he had understood Sir Robert Peel to say that he would not discriminate between the sources of income, but that he would rather abandon his measure than do so.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had been misunderstood— He had never said to the House, "I propose my plan, and you can make no alterations in it." He had merely stated that the tax ought to be in proportion to income, and that for that purpose he would take the principle of former acts. He had heard nothing in the slightest degree to shake his opinion that the tax should be imposed upon income, and not upon property ; nor was there any ground for saying that it was only a resource for time of war. A tax upon income was the basis of his financial policy, and he meant to defend that prin- ciple to the utmost ; but he had never said that he would abandon it because some alteration might be made in the details. He had never treated the House so disrespectfully as to say that he would abandon the tax altogether because the House might be against him on some particular point. Sir Robert added, that he did not recognize the justice of the discriminating principle; and that he would do all in his power to carry the bill upon the principle which he had stated in the outset.

Mr. Cann:awes thought the Income-tax justified by strict necessity ; but he objected to the permission which enabled vessels to be victualled with foreign provisions ; and he thought the duty should be greater on fat than on lean cattle.

Mr. WAKLEY deprecated this discussion on a minor proposition, and recommended Members to muster all their force for opposing the gene- ral measure at a future stage. His constituents asked him, why it was that a special provision was made to exempt the farmer from the oppressive and annoying scrutiny to which the tradesman was to be subjected? It was believed that this proposition was made to keep the 501, tenants in good humour—that it was a " sop to Cerberus," to satisfy the great land-monster of the country. He objected to the reduction which the Tariff would make in various articles of manufacture, ex- posing the workpeople to foreign competition, without any correspond- ing reduction in the price of food.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY observed that the rental of a tenant afforded a test as to his assessable property, which was the case with no other trade. He thought that the new Tariff and Corn-law taken together would have a material effect in reducing the prices of the food of the working-classes : in the case of corn alone, he thought the reduction would amount to 130 per cent. He hoped Sir Robert Peel would exert all his ingenuity to reduce the Income-tax in the case of persons en- gaged in trades and professions.

Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE denied that the profits of farmers equalled the amount of half their rent.

Sir ROBERT PEEL referred to the speeches of Mr. Wakley and Mr. Johnstone as a proof that Government was steering a middle course and attempting to do justice to all parties. He confessed that Mr. Wakley had relieved his mind; for the general tenour of communications which he received charged his whole measure, commercial and financial, with being intended for the exclusive benefit of the commercial interests of this country, the effect being to work injustice to the agriculturist. While Mr. Wakley was speaking, he had been reading a memorial from farmers in Scotland, which objected, not to the Income-tax itself, but to its being levied according to an arbitrary scale, different in their case from that of other classes. Alluding to the differences which were said to exist in the circumstances of tbe Scotch and English farmers, Sir Robert said, that what with the payment of tithes, which was di- rectly chargeable upon the tenant in England, and certain other local charges to which in England the tenant, in Scotland the landlord, was liable, the Scotch and English farmer might be considered to be on the same footing. There seems to prevail in the country a strong sense of the necessity of some such measure as the present; and all classes concurred in that general view ; although it would appear almost that every interest seemed inclined to remonstrate at the peculiar effects that would be produced on themselves individually. As to the duration of the measure, he had said that it would last for three years ; but he also said that he did not think a satisfactory trial of the alterations in the Tariff could be obtained in less than five years : it would remain with the Parliament to determine its duration for that time. He repeated his belief, that his measures would reduce the cost of living by more than the amount of the Income-tax, to the agricultural as well as to the manufacturing and trading classes ; and he concluded by cautioning the House against making exemptions for the possessors of life-interests and the holders of office, which if admitted during peace might be in- sisted on during war.

Lord Jomv Russutz took the last argument to apply against the Ha position of the tax at all during peace. He pointed out the operation which the tax might have in inducing landlords to split their farms into small holdings, so as to make the rental of each below the amount liable to the tax. He twitted the Ministerial party with keeping their own counsel on the hustings and then suddenly turning round and abandoning the agriculturists; comparing it to the front rank of an army turning round and firing upon those who had taken shelter behind it. He recommended Sir Robert Peel seriously to consider whether he should not at once assimilate the Corn-law to the changes in the Tariff; and he gave notice, that on the report of the resolutions, he should move the following resolution as an amendment- " That it has been stated to this House, on official authority, that the de- ficiency of income to meet the expenditure of the country may be estimated, for the years ending the 5th day of April 1842, at 2,350,000L, and on the 5th day of April 1843 at 2,569,0001. That this House is fully sensible of the evil of a continued inadequacy of the public income to meet the public charges, and will take effectual measures for averting the same in future years. That, by a judicious alteration of the duties on corn, by &reduction of the prohibitory duty on foreign sugar, and an adjustment of the duties on timber and coffee, the advantage of a moderate price to the community may be combined with an in- creased revenue to the state. That in addition to those main articles of general consumption, the interests of trade will be promoted by the repeal or reduction of various prohibitory and differential duties, and that extended commerce will improve the revenue, while it gives employment to industry. That the amount of taxes taken off or reduced from the termination of the last war to the end of the year 1836, exclusive of the tax on income, may be stated in round numbers at 23,873,0001. That the Income-tax having been first imposed in a period of extreme emergency, and during a most perilous war, was repealed on the re6stablishment of peace ; and having been again imposed on the renewal of war, was again repealed in 1816, on the termination of hostilities. That, considering the various means of supplying the present deficiency, without enhancing the price of the necessaries of life or embarrassing trade, it is the opinion of this -House that the renewal of a tax inquisitorial in its character, unequal in its pressure, and which has hitherto been considered as the financial reserve of the nation in time of war, is not called for by public necessity, and iii therefore not advisable."

The second resolution was then put, and agreed to. The third reso- lution, equalizing certain stamp-duties in Ireland with those of Great Britain, was read, and agreed to without observations ; and the report was ordered to be received on Thursday,—on the understanding that, if it aydid not then come on at an early hoar, it should be taken on Friday. CORN-IMPORTATION Bum. On Tuesday, the House went into Committee on the Corn-Importa- tion Bill.

On the 9th clause, which relates to the mode of taking the averages, Mr. BARCLAY observed, that he believed the accounts of the frauds to have been much exaggerated, and that frauds in opposite directions had had a compensating effect ; while there is a general impression that the new towns are introduced into the list of those which are to return the averages for the purpose of lowering the amount returned ; and there- fore he moved an amendment, declaring it inexpedient to add any towns to the list. At the suggestion, however' of Mr. GREENE, the Chairman, Mr. Barclay reserved his amendment for a subsequent stage.

Mr. CHILDERS moved an amendment, the object of which was, that the towns introduced into the new schedule should remain there, and that the averages received from those towns should be taken and re- corded every week ; but he did not wish that those averages should be acted upon for the period of twelve months. In the mean time, the averages might be taken according to the old system, and then it would be seen whether the addition of the new towns would cause any sub- stantial difference.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that the towns in the new list had been se- lected because they were the chief of their class, agricultural and ma- nufacturing. So far as he could collect information, they would have no influence on the averages. But he particularly objected to the pro- posal, that it would lead to a renewal next year of the discussions which had already taken place. Mr. Hawaii maintained that the new list would have a strong effect on the averages— He had made inquiries among persons long and extensively engaged in the corn-trade, and the answers he had received convinced him of the fact. One gentleman had written to him that the average would be lowered by the addi- tion of these towns somewhere between two and four shillings a quarter. Another gentleman had told him, that the additional new towns were from districts where the growth of wheat, from the nature of soil and climate, was of an inferior kind; and that even in Essex only one town had been added

where the soil was of a fine quality. He found that fortrnine towns had been added from districts generally growing wheat of an inferior quality, while only

twenty towns had been taken from districts growing wheat of the best quality. The greatest number of towns had been selected from those districts where the growth of wheat was inferior, and the smallest number where the growth was the finest. The consequence of that would be, that a larger quantity of inferior wheat would be thrown into the market, and the averages would be lowered. Couple that fact with the more stringent mode about to be adopted of taking the averages. Mr. GLADSTONE, who insisted on the expediency of making what- ever alteration was needed once for all, strongly combated Mr. Hawes 's arguments. Persons of good authority said that, instead of the aver- ages being affected to the amount of 3s. or 4s., they would not be affected by so many pence. Mr. Hawes had not taken into account all the counties in which towns were to be added to the list. Mr. HAWES reasserted his charge ; Sir EDWARD Sicarcztneru, and

Mr. Gsausrostz denying it.

Mr. VILLIERS asked why then the towns were added to the list ? According to the right honourable Baronet when he brought in his bill, he considered there was little reason for suspecting fraud in taking of averages ; and according to Mr. Gladstone, their addition would be inoperative ; so that, on the one hand, we hear that there is no fraud to be prevented, and on the other no effect to be produced. Then, he said, why are they to be added? They were not indifferent in the opinion of many. His honourable friend who had brought this question forward stated what was generally known, that there was a belief among people of all kinds, especially among those persons in the trade most competent to judge, that they would have the effect of lowering .the average, and thereby raise the duty : then it was clear that with the opinions of the Government, there was a doubt on the matter. Now, one of the evils of the old law was the uncertainty that necessarily attended every transaction in the trade : why add a fresh circumstance of this kind to aggravate the evils of the past? In fact, the new law was an aggravation of the old one— It is not intended to meet the complaints of the people; it is not intended to increase the quantity of food, to lower the price of food, or to hold out to the foreign grower the hope of a better market. The old law is not admitted even as a cause of the present distress. He should have thought, then, that the policy that seems to have recommended the change might have preserved us from this addition to it. The purpose of this change seems to have been to remove all the odium that was unnecessary for effecting the original object of the Corn-law • which is, by raising the price of food, to secure to the landlord rent upon a class of soil which might otherwise not yield it, and which thereby influences the rent on all other land. It has been found that something more in the way of duty was imposed to effect this, and this has been reduced; but every man who votes for the bill on the other Bide has been assured, and be- lieves, that not one tittle of the protection which the old law gave him will be withdrawn by the present ; and he believed that they were quite right in so thinking. Why, then, attempt to do more? or, if they are not attempting to do more by adding these agricultural towns, why add them at all? The reasons adduced by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone against Mr. Childers's proposition were deserving of attention— The right honourable Baronet said that it would revive discussion on the bill next year ; and the Vice-President said that when they were making a great legislative settlement of a measure, it was better to complete it at once, so as to preclude future agitation. Now, really, to suppose that this new bill was a final settlement of the matter, argued a degree of simplicity, which, com- ing from those quarters, he did not expect. He did not expect it, after all that they heard said of the operation of the change in this House, and all that was known or was felt about the Corn-law out of this House, and after the new lights respecting free trade that seem to have shone lately on the opposite side. Did the Vice-President of the Board of Trade really believe that the people of this country were so imbecile, so slavish, so lost to every thing which they knew to be their due, as to accept this measure as a great legislative set- tlement of that claim which they put forth to have their trade in food free? Why, %dud did this bill really amount to, as regards the people, but an ac- knowledgment that they were right before in condemning the old bill, and that those who maintained that law were in error. And who can say, before another year is out, that they may not be able to convince the Government that the new law is as bad as the old one. What, in fact, bad they been hearing for the last month, but that after all, those principles of free trade which have been so long condemned are sound and ought to be acted upon? When the people have, by agitation, got their principles thus acknowledged, shall they shrink from agitating further to get them applied ? He could conceive nothing less likely than that this law should be a final settlement.

Mr. LABOUCHERE felt bound to observe, that when he had said the new mode of taking the averages would reduce them by 4s. or5s.' he bad overstated the effect, as be found by subsequent examination ; but still it would have a very material effect. The list of towns now pro- posed appeared to him free from many of the objections which the list originally suggested. He recommended that a separate account should be kept of the averages taken in the old and the new towns.

Lord WORSLEY thought the augmentation of the list would make frauds more difficult, and that it would lower the averages by about 2s. but he disliked effecting a change in the system by a side-wind.

in reply to Mr. AGLIONBY, Sir ROBERT PSEL said, that the apparent expense of collecting the averages at present is 7,0001.; but the cost will be lessened by transferring the duty to the Excise. He believed that the fraudulent combinations to influence the markets were in- creasing; and the adddition of one hundred and twenty towns would have a tendency to check them. The effect of the low-priced grain at Liverpool would be counterbalanced by the high-priced grain in the inland towns.

Mr. WAKLEY alluded to a sample of inferior wheat which he bad shown to Sir Robert Peel, which was sold at Mark Lane. for 36s.: it was quite unfit for human food, and it ought not to affect the averages. Mr. HAWES thought that Mr. Wakley should introduce a clause to meet the evil. Mr. GLADSTONE did not see how such a provision would be practicable; it would be impossible to discriminate between bad and good descriptions of wheat.

The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause was agreed to. Clause 18th having been proposed, Mr. AGLIONBY objected to the removal of thc present Inspectors. Lord WORSLEY thought they should all be removed. Sir ROBERT PEEL took a middle course, and would reappoint those who are competent ; giving compensation to the rest. On clause 27th, Lord WORSLEY proposed to calculate the averages on ten instead of five weeks. An amendment to that effect was negatived, by 242 to 37. On clause 29th, Mr. CHILDERS moved an amendment similar in purpose to the one which he moved earlier in the evening : it was rejected, by 202 to 69. The other clauses having been agreed to, Lord WORSLEY moved a declaration to be made by the seller ; but Sir ROBERT PEEL opposing, it vas withdrawn. A clause moved by Colonel SIIITHORP to make the duty payable on the importation of foreign corn instead of its release from bond, was negatived without a division. Mr. BARCLAY moved, and withdrew, a resolution that it was not expedient to add to the list of towns returning the averages. In the schedule of towns, Marlborough and Newbury were struck out; and Evesham, Market Drayton and Chippenham, were inserted. The schedule was agreed to ; and the House resumed.

When the third reading was moved on Thursday, Mr. COBDEN pro- posed an amendment, consisting of this resolution-

' That inasmuch as this House has repeatedly declared, by its votes and the reports of its Committees, that it is beyond the power of Parliament to regulate the wages of labour in this country, it is inexpedient and unjust to pass a law to regulate, with a view to raise unnaturally, the prices of food." Before the year 1823, Parliament had for several centuries passed measures to regulate the price of labour ; but in that year the last vestige of its legislation for that purpose disappeared with the repeal of the Spifalfields Weavers Act. In 1835, Mr. Maxwell brought forward a motion for the regulation of wages ; and in 1837 Mr. Fielden did so; and both motions were superciliously rejected by the House. A Com- mittee of the House in 1839, declared it impossible to fix a minimum for the price of labour in cotton-factories. Mr. Cobden adduced a va- riety of statistical details to show that the high price of food does not enhance wages ; and he alluded to the effect of changes in the Tariff, which admit articles of foreign manufacture at a low rate of duty : prices of the corresponding home manufactures would be reduced, anti wages would fall. Where was the protection to the home-manufac- turer from foreign competition ? The Legislature told him that he must grapple with the difficulty ; while the agriculturist's wheat, good, bad, or indifferent, is to be protected until it reaches the price of 54s. I Are the landlords still to feed the people on their own terms, support- ing large establishments and wide domains, while the people only ob- tain a modicum of food; the doctrine is revolutionary ; it awakens views and opinions—questions as to the titles of those who possess lands—which would a few years ago have shocked those who entertain them. The present state of things has already produced an unparal- leled destruction of capital: within five or six years there has been a sacrifice of one-half of the vested capital of Lancashire alone ; and that not from a few failures or from a temporary depression of trade, but from a gradual and general decay.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he had listened to Mr. Cobden, as he always did, with great attention ; but he drew very different conclusions. Mr. Cobden's argument implied that there should be no duty on corn, and therefore he could not have the support of those who advocate a fixed duty. However, Sir Robert hoped that he should not be thought guilty of disrespect either to Mr. Cobden or the House, if he did not enter at large into a topic already so fully debated.

Lord Jows RUSSELL made some general remarks against the bill, but intimated his intention not to oppose the third reading. He rejoiced in the passing of the measure, because, while it would shortly have itself to be altered, it would shake the authority of the existing law. He would still, however, retain a moderate protection to agriculture.

Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS thought that Lord John Russell would fail to conciliate his agricultural friends by admitting their title to "mode- rate protection " : they would tell him, that if he really wished to pro- tect them, he must leave them alone. The people are now suffering from a high price of food and a serious fall of wages; and as the bill went to continue that state of- things, he could not let it pass without his serious condemnation. He ridiculed the Agricultural Members for their subserviency to Sir Robert Peel ; and exhorted Sir Robert, if he thought the country required a better measure, to throw himself on the country for support. There was only one justification for the imperfect measure, that Mr. Villiers could think of— It was, that the constituency of this country, intrusted with the important privilege of returning Members to the House of Commons to legislate for the community at large, preferred to return men to serve their own interests. And if this is the case, it is a mast important matter for the community to con- sider; for that certainly was not the purpose for which the franchise was con- fided to them.

Sir JOHN TYRRELL rose to defend the Agricultural Members from the charge of sacrificing the agricultural interests at the shrine of political principle. He agreed with an honourable gentleman who was once the greatest ornament of the Radical bench, Mr. Harvey— That gentleman rejoiced that the Conservative party were in power. Why ? Because he believed the Whigs would now concede what they would never have granted before. That was the reason why he (Sir John Tyrrell) gave his vote against his conscientious conviction. (Great laughter.) It was all very well to say, "Turn out the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Go- vernment "; but he wished to know, if they should do so, who the persons were that would he likely to succeed him?

If the new Corn-bill, however, did not give so much protection as Sir Robert Peel promised, then would the agriculturists come forward and say that it should not be a final measure.

Mr. Wenn carried on the reprobation of the Agricultural Members ; defying each and all of the Ministerial Members to produce a single sentence which they had uttered on the hustings to intimate their in- tention of acquiescing in the measure which they now supported. He did not believe that the bill would be a permanent settlement of the measure ; but it would do good, as it might let a little more corn into the country.

Mr. DARBY denied that he had deceived his constituents. He felt that the time was come when somebody must deal with the question who was capable of handling it. He denied, too, that the County Members had said on the hustings that Government would not touch the Corn-laws: after Sir Robert Peel's avowal that he would abide by the principle of a sliding-scale, but not by the details of the law, nobody could believe that when he came into office he would not touch the Corn. law.

In some further debate, the amendment was supported by Mr. WAX. LEY, MY. FIELDEN, and Mr. BROTHERTON ; and opposed by Mr. BLACKSTONE and MY. ROBERT PALMER. Lord WORSLEY announced that he should vote against the third reading of the bill. Mr. EATON did the same ; though he had voted for the first and second reading in the hope that the bill would be amended in Committee.

On a division, the amendment was rejected, by 236 to 86.

Mr. HENLEY then moved that further proceedings be adjourned till Monday : that motion was negatived, by 247 to 68; and the bill was read a third time. On the motion that it do pass, Mr. FRENCH moved to postpone for six months its operation as to the importation of flour from abroad or from the Colonies into Ireland : but this also was nega- tived. Mr. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON next moved a clause to allow soar flour to be taken out of bond at a duty of Id. per hundredweight, for manufacturing purposes. Mr. GLADSTONE said that it would be im- possible to prevent other flour being taken out under colour of soar flour; and the clause was negatived, without a division. Mr. WAX- LET moved a clause to exclude from the averages all corn which did not obtain a price equal to one-third of the highest price reported with- in the week. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that such a clause would not exclude unsound corn ; for he had seen such corn which was sold at 36s. when the highest price was only 808.; again, dealers might pick a

single bushel of the very finest corn, so as to obtain an extravagantly high price, and thus procure all corn at less than one-third of that price to be excluded from the averages. The clause was negatived, without a division. Mr. Ettewerr moved that the debate be now adjourned ; but, not finding a seconder, the motion fell to the ground. The bill then passed. EXCHEQUER BILLS FRAUDS BILL.

The House went into Committee, on Monday, on the Exchequer Bills Frauds Bill. On clause 5th, describing the powers and duties of the Commissioners, (the Earl of Devon, Mr. Sergeant Stephen, and Mr. Mitford,) Sir Tstomas WILDE rose to suggest an alteration, at the same time explaining some other amendments which he had to propose. The construction to be put upon the clause was, he said, that the Commis- sioners should report their own conclusions on the evidence, and not the evidence itself ; but he would have the whole of the evidence re- ported. He would also alter the preamble so as to make the inquiry apply to the means whereby the bills had been made and issued, as well as to the way in which they reached the holders. He believed that the fraud had been occasioned by a defect in the system ; and if the holders bad acted fairly and honestly, and had given full value for the bills, the public ought not to sustain loss caused by the misconduct of a public officer. He would have all the holders set down in a schedule. He also proposed to add a clause giving the holders of bills power to attend before the Commissioners, and to be heard by themselves, the attornies, or their counsel; many persons interested being quite unused to legal pro- ceedings, and unversed in the mode of eliciting the truth by questioning. Another clause would require the Commissioners to make their r. part within a certain number of months after the passing of the act, or within a time to be appointed by the Treasury.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained, that the object of the bill was to ascertain the history of the fraudulent documents, from their issue until they reached the hands of the present holders. He reminded the House, that those holders were not enforcing any legal right which they would have against the parties from whom they had received them should the documents turn out to be forged, but they were coming to ask the Government for compensation. He agreed that no part of the evidence should be withheld, and it was not the intention of Govern- ment that it should; but he could Conceive special cases in which it might not be judicious to make evidence public. He objected to giving every holder the power to make the Commissioners hear his counsel and his witnesses : if some parties were interested in avoiding delay, might there not be others interested in keeping the truth back ? It must be recollected that the Commissioners would not have to decide upon the matter, but merely to inquire, in order to the future decision of the House. He had no objection to enumerating the holders of bills in a schedule.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that with respect to all but the absolute right of parties to be heard by counsel or attornies, they seemed to be fight- ing about shadows. It was never intended to withhold evidence • but, instead of making the publication imperative by law, it might be left to the discretion of the Commissioners ; or perhaps it might be safe to let the discretion rest with Government.

Lord Joust RUSSELL would leave the discretion to the Treasury rather than to the Commissioners.

In reply to Colonel SIBTHORP, Sir ROBERT Peer, said, that the Clerks to the Commission would receive due remuneration : the Commissioners had undertaken their duties without any stipulation as to reward ; but that question would be as well postponed until the nature and duration of their duties had been ascertained. He agreed that the Treasury, as the parties responsible for the public credit, were the best parties to exercise the discretion of publishing or withholding evidence.

Sir THOMAS WILDE left that point to the Government. Several verbal amendments were made in various clauses ; and then Sir Thomas moved his clause empowering the holders of bills to be heard by themselves, their attornies, and counsel, and to produce evidence. In the short de- bate which followed, Sir ROBERT PEEL contended that it was better to leave to the Commissioners the hearing of counsel or not ; and ulti- mately the clause was rejected, by 77 to 64. The remainder of the clauses were disposed of; and the House resumed.

RIGHT OF PETITION.

On Thursday, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved a resolution, "That the practice of this House, which precludes the presentation of petitions upon the subject of any tax or duty under its consideration, be discon- tinued." He was surprised that the Members of a Reformed Parlia- ment should shelter themselves under an inconsistent and almost obso- lete practice. It was to be observed that there was no standing rule or order for rejecting the petitions of the people. The absolute right was questioned soon after the Revolution of 1688; when, on a petition pre- sented from Protestant ministers praying relief out of a particular re- venue, it was pronounced "irregular and disagreeable" for the House to prescribe how relief should be given ; and the petition was with- drawn. Since that, other petitions were received—as one in 1696 against a resolution before the House for a tax on woollens, when the tax was abandoned : but in 1698, a petition against a pending tax on coal and calm was rejected. In 1704, a petition against a duty on cali- coes was ordered to be laid on the table ; though its prayer, to be heard by counsel, was refused. In 1711, a petition against a duty on vellum, parchment, and cards, was referred to a Committee. But petitions against the Sugar Colony Bill, and an Excise Bill, in 1732 and 1733, were rejected, on the ground that the practice of receiving such peti- tions had never been sanctioned except on extraordinary occasions, and that the time of the House would be absorbed in their discussion. A petition against the Property-tax, in 1815, was rejected, not only on the ground that it related to a pending tax, but also because its language was disrespectful and libellous. The Speaker had said, on the 22d of last month, that a petition against the Income-tax could not be received, because it referred to a simply to be granted to the Crown for the ser- vice of the year: but the Income-tax is to be levied not merely for the service of the year, but for three, four, or five years. Sir Robert Peel laid his Budget before the House on the 11th of March : on the follow- ing Friday, no sooner had the House got into Committee of Ways and Means, than the doors were closed against the petitions of the people. ' Sir GEORGE CLERK said, that the great increase which had taken place in the number of petitions soon after the Revolution of 1688,J:tad caused the discovery that a very great inconvenience arose from receiv- ing petitions against money-bills for the current year: and in 1693, the House came to a resolution that no such petitions should be received. The apparent deviations from that rule had arisen in each case from the. doubt whether the bill petitioned against was a money-bill or only a bill for the regulation of trade. The reason for the rule was plain : every fresh tax would be regarded by some class of the community as a bur- den or a grievance, and the House did not require to be informed of the fact ; and it was for the House to judge whether they would desist from a tax merely on account of complaints from individuals interested. In 1733, an attempt was made to reverse the rule on a petition from the City of London against an additional duty on receipt-stamps ; and then Mr. Fox declared, that if they permitted every man to petition against every new tax, it would be impossible for the House to go on with the business. Mr. Fox went even further, and said, that the more universally a tax should be petitioned against, the greater argument,in his mind, did that constitute in its favour, because it proved that the tax acted impttr- tially—that it was an equal tax, pressing equally upon all classes. The existing practice could not be attended by any inconvenience, became if a tax were proposed, those who were affected by it had an ample oppor- tunity of making their Representatives aware of their feelings on the subject.

Mr. MACAULAY observed, that the last argument, if good at all, was good against all petitions. But if the people were to petition, what should it be about if not about what they felt to be a grievance? He could conceive only two reasons that ought to lead this House to refuse to receive a petition,—if the petition was worded in indecent or unbe- coming language ; or if the petition asked the House to do what it was not in its province to do. What is the consequence of the present prac- tice? Why, that the people, shut out from the House of Commons, flock with their petitions to the House of Lords ; which might indeed reject, but could not amend the bill against which the petitions were directed. If Sir George Clerk's respect for old precedents was so great, why not revert to the old practice of debating on petitions ?—not that Mr. Macaulay himself approved of it. And indeed the refusal to re- ceive petitions in the ordinary way would drive the people to instruct their Representatives to place their remonstrances before the House, and to incorporate their petitions in their speeches. The country was indebted to Mr. Duncombe, whether his motion were carried or not : if carried, it would secure to them a privilege—if rejected, it would be a warning.

Captain HAMILTON observed, that the great body of the people could have no interest in petitioning against the Income-tax, since it did not affect them.

Sir ROBERT PEEL would meet the motion with a direct negative ; and he hoped that the House would stick to a salutary rule, which had been discussed again and again, and invariably affirmed. If the motion had been made when Mr. Baring proposed his additional taxes of 10 per cent, he doubted whether Mr. Macaulay would have abandoned his colleague to support it.

Sir GEORGE GREY rebuked Sir Robert Peel's unworthy party taunt ; and threatened that if petitions were rejected, it might become necessary indefinitely to protract debates because the only other legitimate avenue to the House had been sit against the people.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER contrasted the conduct of Sir Robert Peel with that of the "great constitutional Minister" Lord Castlereagh, who deferred to the popular feeling in 1816, and permitted a tax to be re- moved by a vote of the House, which it was then proposed to renew. Sir George Clerk's sole argument was, that if the people were allowed to petition on a subject which they felt so acutely, they might petition too much.

Mr. WALLACE followed up similar arguments with the declaration, that if the people had been allowed to petition, Sir Robert Peel would not have passed his Income-tax : the table would have been loaded with petitions against it. Sir Joust HASHER had no respect for a rule passed by the corrupt Parliaments of William the Third. Mr. WAHLEY said, that those who voted against the motion ought to follow up their vote with another, that the right of petitioning was useless, and ought to be discontinued.

The motion was rejected, by 167 to 136.

COPYRIGHT.

The Copyright Bill was considered in Committee on Wednesday ; and, according to the understanding at the second reading, the discus- sion was now taken on the principle of the bill.

Lord 3IalioN statei, that he had undertaken the conduct of the measure at the request of Sergeant Talfourd; for whose absence from the House he expressed much regret. He traced the history of the law of copyright down to the act of 1814, which gives a copyright of twenty-eight years, or for the life of the author should he survive that pet iod. He replied to some of the arguments used by Mr. Macaulay against Sergeant Talfourd's bill last session ; and especially to the argu- ment that a copyright descending to heirs would endanger the sup- pression of works. In support of that, it was alleged that Mr. Crowther, the grandson and heir of Richardson, had never read his grandfather's works ; but it was not from that to be assumed that he had any hostile feeling towards those writings ; and besides, he was not the only repre- sentative of Richardson. Again, though Sir Alexander Boswell might not like to hear references to his father's life of Johnson, there was not the least evidence that he desired to suppress the book. Those who employed the argument, indeed, confounded the case of works already published, which could not be suppressed, and of manuscripts in pos- session, which could always be suppressed. But to guard against the possibility of that danger, Lord Mahon's bill would include a clause, giving to the Privy Council Judicial Committee power to licence works for publication, provided suppression were attempted. Instead of a pe- riod of sixty years, as Sergeant Talfourd proposed, he would give a copyright of twenty-five years' duration after the death of the author, providing that the whole term khould never be less than twenty-eight years ; or of thirty years, if the work were published after the author's death. Lord Mahon argued to show that such a measure would give no monopoly to publishers ; for the increasing demand for books and the great supply, had taught publishers the advantage of publishing at

cheap rates. And, emulating M. de Lamartine, who called on France to take the lead in rescuing genius from spoliation, Lord Mahon called on England to take the lead.

Mr. M.ACAULAY explained that he had intended to have voted for Ser- geant Talfourd's bill, but he could not agree to the long term of posthu- 1110118 copyright, and Sergeant Talfonrd desired him not to vote for the bill at all unless be could do so for the whole of it. Instead of the term recommended by Lord Mahon, Mr. Macaulay proposed that a copyright should be given for the absolute term of forty-two years from the date of publication. He contended that authors would derive more imme- diate benefit from such a provision ; and in the case of authors who died soon after the date of publication, it would actually give a more

extended term of protection than Lord Mahon's proposition. That proposition, indeed, would go to protect most the crudest works of writers, and to give to their maturer productions less protection : it would give greater protection to Dryden's bad verses to Cromwell and to his Fables than to his master-works; it would protect Pope's Pas- torals, written at sixteen, more than his great productions ; Johnson's first work, a translation of Travels in Abyssinia, more than his Lives of the Poets; Fielding's plays more than Tom Jones. Sir ROBERT &cam said, that Mr. Macaulay omitted one prominent object of Lord Mahon's bill, the provision which dying authors would make for their children. From his enumeration of writers, Mr. Mac- aulay had omitted all the living authors except Sir Walter Scott— The great poems of Southey, some of the greatest of Wordsworth; all Campbell's greatest works, and with equal confidence Rogers's great works; to all of these his noble friend's bill would give a protection, which would be denied them by that of his right honourable friend. The Pleasures of Memory was published in 1796, but by the proposition of his right honourable friend the copyright of that excellent poem would cease on the day they had the misfortune to lose Mr. Rogers. Again, in the case of the copyright of Sir Walter Scott's poems, the copyright, supposing he were still alive, would cease in ten years; but, if his noble friend's proposition were agreed to, they would remain in the possession of his family for an entire generation.

Referring to foreign countries, in some of which copyright is perpetual (Spain, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway,) Sir Robert said that It was disgraceful to an enlightened nation to deny a protection which even Russia extended to literature.

Mr. WAELEY had heard no ease made out for altering the present law. He bad heard indeed that certain authors had petitioned for an alteration of the law of copyright ; but were they underpaid ? Within the last forty years, authors had received sums unexampled in the history of literature : Sir Walter Scott alone had received 250,003/. for his literary labours. And where would authors have been without the invention of printing ?—but in all the arguments they bad heard nothing in respect of the labours of men of science. Let them recollect too that there were millions of people to be instructed, amused, and enlightened, and the influence which reading had upon the mind. Authors now worship the molten calf, and seek to gratify feelings of avarice ; for why could they not be content with the rewards received by such men as Milton, Shakspere, Bacon, and Locke ? He knew of no circumstance so much calculated to lower the character of literary men in the estimation of the country as the attempt they were now making to obtain an ex- tension of copyright for their own aggrandizement. There were some authors indeed who thought the public stupid and unjust because their books were not bought ; and he pitied such suffering writers, for having so far miscalculated their own powers or the public taste ; but that could not be remedied by act of Parliament. And why, he asked, should a book be protected more than any other invention ?—

A poet, according to the origin of the word, was a maker—a manufacturer. He would like to know why a distinction was made between the more book-

wright and the producer of other inventions ? Look at Jenner, the discoverer of vaccination. Could they compare any thing modern authors had done with that discovery ? It bad rescued hundreds of thousands of human beings from

death, it had saved millions from distortion. But did the descendants of Jen- ner come to that House petitioning for reward in consequence of the discovery of their ancestor ? Suppose that Jenner, after his discovery of vaccination, had operated, but had published no account of the discovery ; suppose that another individual had printed in a book a description of that science, and had published it to the world: they would give to the publisher of that work an exclusive right to the advantages accruing from its sale for forty-two years, while to Dr. Jenner, the inventor, no protection was extended. He would di- rect their attention to the discovery of the circulation of the blood by Harvey : what had any authors done that could be compared with that discovery ? If he were disposed to go into this subject, he might call upon the House to con- template the discoveries of Hippocrates, Hunter, Sydenham, and many others, whose names had shed a lustre on their profession. The House was now called upon to legislate for the mere writer, the thrower together of letters, the re- corder of facts ; they were called upon to do honour to such a MD, to grant him exclusive advantages; while such men as he had named received no pro- tection for their discoveries.

Medical men carried on their labours, even in the charnel-house, without demanding the protection of the House. If indeed a man dis- covered a remedy for the cure of a disease which he refused to disclose, be was set down as a quack, and the members of the profession refused to associate with him. But what was done with the quack in literature, with the man who had one idea and worked it through five hundred pages ?—

Such a man said, "lam a poet ; I have published a book ; I think it such an admirable production, that I consider the world should give a guinea for every copy ; and I will apply to my friend Sergeant Talfourd to protect my publication by statute." (. Oh ") This was the fact—be could prove it if ne- cessary. He had in his hand a specimen of poetry which it was his intention to read to the House : it was called exquisite poetry. A work had lately been published called the Book of Poets : it contained one thousand pages, compris- ing selections from the most celebrated living poets ; consequently the speci- mens it contained were gems. It was a curious fact, that so favourable was the existing law to the interests of authors, that one individual, twenty-eight pages of whose productions were copied into this book of one thousand pages, had ap- plied to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain the sale of the volume, and had made a solemn affidavit that he believed the circumstance of twenty-eight pages of his poems having been printed in this book would injure the sale of his extended works.

Mr. Wukley then read, amid the laughter of the House, specimens of those extracts, which consisted of poems by Mr. Wordsworth : those which he read were entitled "Louisa," "To a Butterfly," and "The Stockdove "- If they gave a poet an evening sky, dew, daises, roses, and a rivulet, be might make a very respectable poem. (Loud laughter.) Why, anybody might do I it. (Renewed laughter; and a Member exclaimed, " Try it.") Try it ! he had tried it. (Great laughter.) And there (pointing to the Ministerial benches) sat an honourable gentleman who was a poet of the first water. (Mr. rfrakleg was understood to allude to Mr. Monckton Milnes.) He thought, however, a member of society might employ his talents to much better advantage than in the composition of such productions as he had quoted. Who could not string such lines together by the bushel ? (Loud laughter.) He could write them by the mile. (Renewed laughter.)

With respect to inventions, a patent is taken out for fourteen years ; and if the inventor thought that his invention was one of great advan- tage to the public, be could apply to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who could give an extension of seven years to his patent right. Mr. Wakley assured the House that he had not read the extracts from Mr. Wordsworth's writing to give pain to the author ; and he de- clared that he should be the first to advocate the reward of meritorious authors out of the public funds.

Mr. MONCICTON Mmrss protested against the manner in which the works of a great poet had been brought before the House—a manner in which the Bible itself might be made equally the subject of ridicule : it had no more bearing on the question than if Mr. Wakley had read that with which he might be more familiar—" Billy Taylor," or "The Ratcatcher's Daughter." He had adduced not a single argument to show that the public would be injured by the copyright. Indeed there never was a greater absurdity than to suppose that books would be in- creased in price ; for all the cheap editions are copyright editions. The works of Bacon and Hobbes it is difficult to get, because it is nobody's interest to publish them. And as to men of science, many, as Sir David Brewster, Professor Hope, Mr. Christison, and Mr. Trail, Pro- fessor Hume, Professor Anderson, Professor Abercromby, and many professors of the Scottish Universities, are favourable to Lord Mahon's measure. Mr. Wakley talked of Lord Mahon being led away by sen- timental tales— When the honourable Member talked of sentimental tales, he must have heard the tale of a man of the purest and highest life, who was distinguished in many walks of literature—who was not only a poet, but a distinguished historian and a distinguished critic—and who had received from his country a great literary honour, such as literary honours were in this country,—the honourable Member must have heard that this man was at present bereft of his great mind, and that his family were almost wholly dependent on the event of the debate of that night. Clauses 1st and 2d were then agreed to. On clause 3d, Mr. MACAULAY proposed his amendment, to fix an absolute term of copy- right for forty-two years. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he had been impressed with the arguments both of Mr. Macaulay and Sir Robert Inglis; and he proposed to take the term of forty-two years or the life of the author, with an additional seven years in case the author died after that period. The House, however, divided, first on the motion of Mr. MACAULAY, against the allowance of twenty-five years' copyright after the author's death; and the proposition was negatived, by 68 to 56. Lord Marlow then moved an amendment giving the additional seven years after the author's death ; and it was carried, by 91 to 33. Mr. AGLIONBY next divided the House against the proposition to substitute forty-two for twenty-eight years as the original term of copyright; but the larger term was adopted, by 101 to 22. Lastly, Mr. WARLEY divided the House against the clause altogether : it was affirmed, by 96 to 17.

Clause 4th provides, that in cases of subsisting copyright, the ex- tended term is to be enjoyed, except when it shall belong to an assignee for other consideration than natural love and affection ; in which ease it shall cease at the expiration of the present term, unless its extension shall be agreed to between the proprietor and author. Against this clause Mr. WARLEY divided the House: but the clause was affirmed, by 69 to 26. Several other clauses were passed; and then the House resumed ; the Committee to sit again on the 20th instant.

MISCELLANEOUS.

TURNPIKE Tem.& Mr. MANNERS Sorrow moved, on Tuesday, for leave to bring in a bill to continue, for a limited term, local turnpike acts, and to provide for the better regulation of turnpike-trusts in Eng- land and Wales.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

AFRICAN EMIGRATION. On the motion of Lord STANLEY, On Wed- nesday, the following were appointed to be the Select Committee on the West Coast of Africa : Lord Stanley, Viscount Sandon, Lord John Russell, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. E. Denison, Mr. Forster, Sir T. Acland, Mr. Milnes, Mr. C. Buller, Mr. Hutt, Captain Fitzroy, Earl of March, Viscount Ebrington, Viscount Courtenay, and Mr. G. W. Wood.

STATE OF THE WEST IsnmEs. The following were appointed the Select Committee on West India Colonies : Lord Stanley, Mr. Peking ' - ton Viscount Howick, Mr. Godson, Sir E. Wilmot, Mr. C. Howard, Sir C. Douglas, Mr. V. Smith, Mr. E. Tennent, Mr. G. Berkeley, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Bankes, Mr. V. Stuart, Mr. Barclay, and Viscount Chelsea.

SAFETY OF Trausza-Snros. On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, a resolution was agreed to in Committee preparatory to a bill for prevent- ing ships clearing out at any port in British North America, or in the settlement of Honduras, from loading any part of their cargo of timber upon deck.

DUTY ON FOREIGN SALMON. Mr. WARD asked, on Thursday, whether a report VMS true that Government intended to impose a duty of 150 per cent on foreign salmon ? Sir ROBERT PEEL had not heard of the report ; but it was altogether without foundation.

Csruncn OF SCOTLAND. Mr. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL gave notice, that on the 14th he should move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate patronage in the Church of Scotland. In the House of Lords, the Duke of ARGYLL withdrew a notice which be had given of a measure for the adjustment of the disputes in the Church of Scotland, until after some discussion which he expected to take place in the House of Commons.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

The report of the Weymouth Election Committee was brought up on Monday. The Committee bad resolved, that Viscount Villiers and Mr. C. H. Hope were not duly elected, and ought not to have been returned as Members in the present Parliament for the boroughs of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis ; but that Mr. Ralph Bernal and Mr. W. D.

Christie had been duly elected, and ought to have been returned. Thus two Tory Members are replaced by two Liberals?

The Sudbury Committee assembled yesterday. The allegations are, that the sitting Members, Mr. F. Villiers and Mr. D. 0. Sombre, were elected by gross bribery ; and that they are not qualified. Their oppo- nents were Mr. C. Taylor and Mr. D. Jones.

The Committee appointed to try the petition of Mr. Lefroy against the return of Mr. Luke White for Longford also opened the inquiry yesterday : it turns mainly upon a scrutiny of the votes.