Rebates anb Ijiroteebings in tiarliament.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

House or Loans. Monday, May 7. Navigation-laws: second reading debated— Adjourned at 12 h. 15 m. Tuesday, Slay 8. Navigation-laws : debate continued, and second reading carried by 173 to 163—Adjourned at 4 h. 48 m. (Wednesday morning.) 27usraday, May 10. Speech-reporting : Lord Beaumont's Motion for a Committee on Accommodation of Strangers, agreed to—Adjourned at 6 b. 52 m. Friday, May 11. Royal Assent—Errata in Reported Speeches—Rate-in-aid BM : second reading de- bated, and carried by one—Adjourned at I h. 35 m. (Saturday morning.)

[Time occupied in the four sittings, 29 h. 30m.

since the beginning of the Session, 102 h. 45 m.]

Holm or COMMONS. Monday, May 7. Parliamentary Oaths BM : second reading carried by 275 to 185—Adjourned at I h. (Tuesday morning.) Tuesday, May 8. Joint- stock Banks : Hated responsibility : Mr. Headlam's Motion for leave to bring In a Bill, debated and withdrawn—Counted out at 8 h. Wednesday, May 9; noon sitting. Employment of Labour (Ireland) nut: read a second time by accident : Motion for commitment opposed by Ministers, and negatives—Aajonw.nd at 5h. 30 m. Thursday, May 10. Coffee and Chicory : Sir. Ansters Motion, debated and negativea—ruonC-Ex- penditure and Taxation : Mr. Henry Drummond's Motion debated : " Previous ques- tion" carried—Parliamentary Expenses of Eastern Counties Railway : Mr. Charteris's Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, agreed to—Sunday Trading in'London: Mr. Hind- ley's Bill brought In—Public Health (Scotland) Bill, extending provisions of English Act to Scotland: weed reading- Adjourned at 12 b. 45 m. Friday, May 11. Ques- tions and Statements on Foreign Policy—Irish Measures : Land Improvement and Drainage Big, Encumbered Estates Bill, Estates Leasing Bill, read a second time: At- tachments, Courts of Record Bill, recommitment debated, but adjourned—Defects In Leases Bill, read a second time—.Accounts of Turnpike Trusts (Scotland) Bill, and Grants of Land (New South Wales) Bill, considered in Committee—Adjourned at 12 h. 45 m.

[Time occupied In the dye sittings, 36 h.

since the beginning of the Session, 477 h. 36 m.] THE NAVIGATION-LAWS.

The debate on the second reading of the Navigation Bill was opened on Monday, by the Marquis of. LANSDOWNE. He began with a sketch of the history of our restrictive legislation on the subject. That legislation com- menced in a feeling that still pervades the national mind of this country— the desire to grasp at everything that can be obtained in commerce; a de- sire which has never been indulged without superinducing again and again its own punishment: at its full strength it proved quite the contrary of successful in its object of increasing our naval power; and in modern times it has suffered such repeated relaxations, has been modified by so many and conflicting stipulations with foreign powers, that instead of being to com- merce a suit of impenetrable armour, it is a mere clothing of shreds and patches, forming the most imperfect and useless protection that could be manufactured out of the parchments of our statute-books. Conceding in one portion of his argument that foreign shipping has grown with propor- tionate rapidity to our own since the great relaxation of the Navigation- laws made at the close of the war, he welcomed the fact: he was glad that the prosperity of England has not been based on the ruin and misery of other nations. That the competition of foreigners is irrationally dreaded, he showed by statistics displaying the large share of the American direct and carrying trade which we already secure in open competition with American ships hence, and with foreign ships from their own ports to the American shores; and the preponderant share of the Russian trade which we bear off from the Baltic ships in the heart of their own country. He referred briefly to the Colonial bearing of the question. The West Indies are subjected to the greatest difficulties; and Canada, engaged in a difficult competition with the United States, says that the whole trade of the St. Lawrence depends upon the repeal of the remnant of the Navigation-laws now in force; nothing but the perfect opening of that river will enable her to retain her trade. If their Lord- ships did not pass the bill, the condition of the country would become in- comparably worse than at present: if they passed it, they bad the prospect of such an extension of commerce throughout the world as must immedi- ately, or at all events ultimately, be beneficial to the commerce of this country. In conclusion he observed, that as Lord Stanley had stated plainly and manfully that he was prepared for the consequences of the rejection of the bill, he hoped that he might be permitted to rejoin for himself and his col- leagues, that they also were prepared for such a result. (Load cheers from fAe Ministerial benches.) Lord Snot:Guam rose immediately after Lord Lansdowne, and made an unexpected speech in support of his vote against the second reading of the bill. He commenced with a personal exordium— Not many hours ago, be had been taunted, in quarters from which, wens_ tamed as his political experience had made him to thaextraordinary evolutions of statesaten—(iter)—sach taunts had come arm him with all the charm of novelty. and surprise—that be of all people, who had so lately signalized himself by joining in a great victory over the exploded policy of the olden times in that Reuse, did not oow join in placing the lavecrowo wporrthe column of Free Trade. Of all the incredible events in his political wat party experience, this was the most incredible, that from thatquarter he should be taunted with " inconsis- tency." He gloried in the subject matter of that taunt. If any passage in his life was dear to his remembrance—any one drop of the cup more peculiarly sweet to his palate—it was the recollection of those worthy distinguished individuals, eminent statesmen, whose support he obtained after a long life of political hos- tility to them, and who when they gave up their prejudices against free trade, joined him in helping to carry the Corn-law repeal.

With this introduction Lord Brougham gave his express and most posi-

tive denial to the statement that this question is one of free trade, or has anything at all to do with free trade; citing Adam Smith, Presidents Wash- ington and Madison, and Mr. Huskisson—all Free-traders--in favour of the doctrine that opulence is less important than defence, and in support of the policy of encouraging our own shipping and discouraging foreign ship- ping in order to secure our maritime supremacy. He repeated those dis- sections already made familiar in Parliament and the press, of the Board of Trade statistics which profess to show that our marine has increased to such and such an amount, and that of America to such and such another amount, but which give the whole of the British shipping and only part of the American, and which swell the estimates of British tonnage by reckon- ing one vessel as 145 vessels because it had made 145 voyages. On the Colonial bearing of the question he observed, that as long ago as 1815, he had differed from his great master Adam Smith, and had shown that the Navigation-laws do not create a monopoly in favour of our Colonies. He commented on the inconsistency of the principle that free trade in naviga- tion is good with the protection which by the first clause of the bill is still strictly preserved to the whole coasting trade. What has Newcastle done, that she should be treated worse than foreigners?

Begging their Lordships to pause before they jeopardized so great an in- terest-4,000,000 tons of shipping navigated by 230,000 seamen, those sea- men the nursery and hotbed of a navy that rides triumphant on every sea on the globe—he glanced at the possible consequences of our meddling, despicable, and false foreign policy, and asked the Government if they were prepared for war under their present system? That man was bold who said there was no fear for the peace of Europe—who could look across the Channel, and see the character of the Republic there established, without fears. Looking at Italy—at Germany, from the Adriatic to the Baltic—at the march of the Russians, to save Hungary from its Magyars and Polish agitators—who can predict that in three months to come Europe will be in profound peace? Is such a year the one for making great sweeping and portentous alterations in a navy by which victories have been nobly won and immortal triumphs gained? Is such a time the one for reducing our thousand ships to a hundred, or for striking oif ten milliees sterling from

s? With an allusion to the slave- our Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estirv- de

trail., winch would be mdw.......sea by letting in Swedes, Danes, and Ame- ricans, to bring Brazil and Cuba sugar to Europe, he declared this was no question on which he could palter, compromise, or negotiate. As an honest man, an Englishman, and a Peer of Parliament, he opposed the further progress of this bill.

Earl GRANVILLE applied himself with considerable force to the refuta- tion of Lord Brougham's oratory and facts. He vindicated the accuracy and faithfulness of 51r. Porter's returns and tabular statements, and paid a high compliment to that gentleman's worth and superior ability. He ad- mitted that no great changes in commercial legislation can be made with- out temporary inconvenience to individuals; but, whatever be the ultimate result of the changes proposed by this bill, no country possesses capital, ships, or sailors, to enter at once on a serious competition with us: the struggle would therefore be gradual; and of the final result he entertained no doubt.

Lord COLCHESTER moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months; prefacing his motion by a speech of which the reporters only indicate the purport,—his voice being scarcely equal to the area of the House and the continuous buz of conversation.

The Duke of ARGYLL ably supported the bill, on the abstract grounds of free trade, and on his conviction that our shipping can well compete

with that of foreign countries. •

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, he had voted for the relaxation of our commercial code; but he should vote against this bill, because, though it might indirectly augment the-wealth of the country, it would go near to undermine its most important interest.

On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE, the debate was adjourned to the next day. .

The adjourned debate on Tuesday was opened by the Earl of CAR- LISLE; " who, spoke so low," says the Times report, " in some parts of his speech, that his sentences did of reach the reporters' gallery; whilst at others he spoke so loud, as touse that reverberation which is fatal to any distinct hearing of what i said within it." He was "understood" to la declare, that if the measure world, as was asserted, be detrimental to our maritime interests and destructive to our naval superiority, or if it even ran risks of such results, Ministers ought to encounter not only defeat but also ignominy for introducing it. " Such an assertion was an erroneous exaggeration, or an utterly baseless notion." His conviction was, that the measure would give increased activity to our commerce; which is the best nurse and support of our mercantile marine; which is the best pledge and guarantee of our naval and national greatness. It is all very well to assert satisfaction with the existing law; but can it be maintained in its present state of efficiency? The battle of Trafalgar more effectually cleared the ocean for our ships than any prohibitions or codes. It was long before the nations could create a marine for themselves, but it was not long before there arose reaction and resistance against monopoly. It is a puerile mode of treating this part of a great question, to characterize as threats and me- naces the replies of such nations as Austria, who gives all her carrying trade to us and is refused any portion of ours, or of Russia, "master of three- fourths of the globe," who is similarly treated, when they intimate that they can no longer carry on commerce with us on such unequal terms. He read extracts from statistical returns, and quoted the evidence of witnesses before the Committee, to bear out the proofs of a list which he bad pre- pared and read to the House, showing the various ways in which the importation of various important articles of traffic, is impeded: in fact, the Navigation-laws impede, obstruct, and " bother " every branch of our trade in every part of the world. In our efforts to secure the long voyage, we deprive ourselves of a number of short ones; and in our desire to grasp the profits of the shortbnes we have recourse to measures calculated to drive our Colonies into resistance and hostility. The first enactment of the laws, dictated by jealousy of the Dutch, resulted in two sanguinary wars with that nation; then extension to Ireland goaded that gallant nation into re- bellion; then extension to the Colonies drove them to conflict, secession, and independence, and laid the foundation of the present manufacturing, commercial, and maritime rivalry of the United States. The effects of the proposed measure will be beneficial in stimulating exertion. Without entering on an invidious task, it may be unwise to pride ourselves too much on the perfect efficiency of our mercantile marine. Lord Brougham had alluded to the valuable book Two Years Before the Mast. Lord Car- lisle had the pleasure to know Mr. Dana the author, and to have obtained his sincere and honest opinion on the points of the condition of our seamen, - and the qualifications of our ship-masters- His friend Mr. Dana, who had great experience and opportunities of observing the crews of vessels from all parts of the world, had told him that he thought

the British sailor was a more thorough sea-creature than the American sailor— that he was, in fact, the best seaman that could be found in the world; but that

with respect to the masters of merchant-vessels, he considered that the American masters were better educated, more generally accomplished, and better instructed in those branches of scientific knowledge which might be of service to them, than the same class in this country. If he set a just estimate upon the naval character of this country, upon the enterprise of its commercial marine, and upon the deathless glory of its national fleets, it was not in the year when " Rule Britannia" was first heard in the streets of Paris that we should have that strain unlearnt at home; on the contrary, he expected as a result of this measure, stimulated industry, trade, and commerce, developed agriculture, employed fleets, and a guaranteed permanence to those national defences which have hitherto made this country the mistress of the seas, and by the blessing of God will keep her in that proud position.

Lord BRUCE, Earl WALDEORAVE, and Lord WEARNCL1FFE, supported the bill; though the last-named Peer objected to the retaliation clause. Earl NELSON, the Earl of HARROWDY, Earl TALBOT, and the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, opposed the bill.

Earl Grey and the Bishop of Oxford rose together, at eleven o'clock; but the Bishop gave place to Lord Grey, on the general call of the House.

Earl GREY felt increased confidence in the cause which he defended, from the course of the debate; a very large proportion of it having been utterly irrelevant to the question, and that which was relevant having been singularly vague and wanting in clearness and distinctness: the rhe- torical display which the House had heard might excite admiration, but it was far from assisting the House in coming to a determination on the great question submitted to it—merely so much breath thrown away, so muoh powder firethit no enemy, -cud so much absolute waste of their Lordships' time. He adverted first to the difficulty of knowing what your antagonist considers as the real points of advantage in tno existing laws,—whetlase the prohibition to import the produce of Asia, Africa, and America, from Europe—which will allow an American ship to bring cotton from New Orleans but not an English one to bring it from Havre; or the prohibition to import certain enumerated European articles ifiany,but British ships ships or the country producing the'iuticles—a palladium which is sacred in the 'enumerated oases and is violated in every one besides—which ex-' eludes grain and lets in flow.-' or the prohibition to impart the general pro- duce of any country in any but British ships or ships of the country pro- ducing, which exposes us in every case to the competition of the nation whom we have most to fear. Much has been said of the American compe- tition. It might surprise some, but so it is, that the existing law causes the main difficulty under which we labour. By the United States law, nations who subject American ships to restrictions are prohibited from ex- porting to the States any but their own produce; so that we are shut out from the trade which would be the most advantageous of any from our shores to the Western Atlantic ports, that of assorted cargoes of European goods. One great advantage enjoyed by the newly-established American line of steamers is the monopoly of this lucrative trade, which we by our own act secure them: for the American act is so framed that by the simple repeal of our law, ipso facto their law becomes liberally relaxed. The strongest part of the case is its bearing on the Colonial interest. He would confine attention to one case—that of Canada; though some of the West Indies treat the relaxation of these laws as an important boon to them. Within a few years the intercommunication between the lower St. Lawrence and the furthest point of the Western Lakes has been so improved that ships of con- siderable burden can accomplish the whole route without once breaking their cargoes. The facilities created are an considerable, that, in comparison with the inland route from the same Western points to the United States at New York, the Canadian advantage is altogether on the side of Canada both in time and cost. But at the beginning of the sea voyage hitherwards, the advantage ceases to us, and is thrown on the side of the United States, by the great discrepancy of freight, which is 50 per cent lower from New York than from Quebec to Liver- pced. The rate of freight at a port depends on the amount of trade frequenting it: it is cheaper for Galway emigrants to come Eastward to Liverpool in going to America, than to start from their own coast. direct, though that coast is two days nearer to American ports. While, therefore, freights from Quebec are moderate in spring and autumn, they rise to an extravagant orprobibitive amount in winter and the height of summer, from the fewness of snipe. If these laws are repealed, American ships from the West Indies, which are now forced to adopt the New York route into the Western Lakes, would choose the better St. Lawrence route, and the Canadian export trade would re- ceive the benefit of the competition in ships. The claims of Canada for this change are grounded both on justice and policy. In 1843, we passed a law ad- mitting the flour of Canada at a nominal duty, on condition that Canada imposed a duty on flour the produce of the United States. We thus encouraged the em- barkation of all the disposable capital of Canada in canals, mills, warehouses, and shipping. But hardly were arrangements made under this law, when, in 1846, we abolished our restrictions on foreign corn, and admitted it direct to this country from the ports of America. The effect in Canada was to throw business ;Me great confusion; the canal revenues were lost to the colony, and ruin was fight on individuals. It would be said that the ruin was due to the act of 1846: but the shortsightedness of the measure of 1843 was shown at the time 11 was brought forward, and it was opposed on the very ground of those con- sequences; it was unwise to build upon the unstable foundation then already gliding from beneath the feet. But, admitting that it would be wise to _ restore protection, the opponents of this measure are in justice bound, .1.,T1 they give that protection, to grant Canada free trade in ships. Pokey urges the step equally with justice. The Canadians are fully conscious of the strength of their claim; the province is of one mind on the subject: in some cases they have asked for the two things, protection and repeal of the Navigation- laws; but upon this point they are unanimous—that their present situation is one of intolerable hardship. It is marvellous, considering bow much private interests were disturbed by the transition of 1846, that the desire to return to protection is not far more general. Lord Grey quoted the proceedings of the Canadian As- sembly, the despatches of Lord Elgin, and other documents, to show the painful feeling created in the colony by an uncertainty whether this measure would be- come law ; especially dwelling on Lord Elgin's strong language of anxiety, in a despatch dated 15th June 1848, that " the Liberal policy of her Majesty's Govern- ment on the subject of the Navigation-laws should receive the sanction of Parlia- ment" Lord Elgin enforced his views by quoting a letter from Messrs. Holmes, Knapp, and Young, Montreal merchants, which set forth in an interesting manner the mercantile disadvantages of the present law and vouched the warmth of Colo- nial opinion on the subject. Lord Grey had no doubt in his own mind, from a careful study of events, that the Canadian population, both of French and English origin, is cordially and sin- cerely attached to this country; but he was not prepared to say that that feeling would continue if so gross an act of injustice, as in their opinion it would be, should be committed as that of the rejection of this measure. He believed that if their Lordships should throw out this bill, they would part with the last secu- rity for the attachment of those Colonies to the British Crown. Sketching the history of the American rebellion, he showed from the authority of John Adams the second President, and of Mr. Bancroft the historian of America, (a note from whom be read to the House,) that " independence was born in the straggle in 1760 and 1761 against the enforcement of the Navigation-laws." John Adams said he never could read them, even when alone, without uttering a curse upon them. The Colonial history of those laws is, that Cromwell never extended them to the Colonies, and that the Colonies were wonderfully prosperous and were con- tented and loyal while free from them; that the attempt to extend them to the Colonies in 1679 was resolutely opposed by the New Yorkers, and was abandoned by the Government in England ; that the attempt to revive them in 1760 was also relinquished, but was the main cause of the struggle renewed in 1767 on the Stamp Act, which resulted in calamitous war and in the destruction of our empire in the New World.

If the decision that night were the reverse of what he anticipated, he must be permitted to say, that the statesman would be a bold man who should venture to make himself responsible for the administration of the Colonial Office under any Government resolved upon the maintenance of the Navigation-laws. Lord Stanley, the other night, told theMto look at none of the risks, but to look only at the measure before them, and to throw it out without fear or scruple. Characteristic advice! He was indeed a daring pilot in extremity—when the waves ran high, he sought the storm: but Lord Grey trusted that their Lordships were not prepared to follow his example. He was convinced that public affairs are not with their Lordships merely a sort of intellectual game, carried on in the spirit of a horse-race or prize-fight, but are regarded as imposing on them the highest and most solemn responsibility. In this confidence, he felt no doubt what would be their decision.

Lord STANLEY said, he was not surprised at the attempts to divert at- tention from the real question in hand, and to connect this question with the question of free trade; from which, with great good taste and judg- ment, every speaker in the discussion before Lord Grey had deemed it ad- visable to abstain. The course of judiciously and wisely, because con- siderately and not blindly, adapting from time to time the provisions of the law to the circumstances of the times in which they lived, he approved of for the past, and did not deprecate for the future; but he did deprecate a hasty, precipitate, and ill-considered advance, which would be, as they were told on the other side, an irrevocable step: and he submitted it to their Lordships to decide whether minor inconveniences connected with those laws might not be removed either by the exercise of the authority of the Crown or by the intervention of the Legislature, without at the same time departing from the main and fundamental principle of these laws. The onus probandi is upon her Majesty's Ministers to show a weight of overwhelming and indisputable compulsion which can be met by nothing short of the repeal of these laws, Lord Stanley insisted on the total ab- sence of proof that such compulsion exists—the few and unimportant peti- tions for the measure, and the number and importance of those against it; the feebleness of the Colonial case; and the not exceedingly favourable, in- deed the sometimes rather sharp, replies to the irregular and undiplomatic circular letter which was sent round to the Foreign States, as if to start fresh difficulties and provoke fresh restrictions on British commerce. With respect at once to the case which Earl Grey bad specified—the case of Ca- nada—he did not hesitate to say that, if he were to look at this question with re- gard to Canada alone, he did think that Canada is an exceptional casein favour of a relaxation of this law, in the circumstances in which it has now been placed. But the case of the Canadians is a peculiar one. They have, as the noble Earl stated, laid out large sums of money, in which they have been assisted by this country, in completing their important line of water communication; they were there- fore interested in two ways,—first as producers, in bringing their produce to the sea-port at the cheapest rate; and next as carriers, in conveying it through the route of the St. Lawrence rather than through the American territory to New York.

Even in this very case, though it be true that Canada, with something like unanimity, asks a relaxation of these laws, he did not find the same deference to another prayer urged with the same unanimity, with the im- portunity of a far greater number of petitions, and with the feeling that without it that relaxation will be ineffectual for her relief—the prayer for such a differential duty as may have the effect of transferring the stream of produce from the great countries of the West to the route of the St. Lawrence instead of that by New York. Nor, on the other hand, did he find any deference paid to New Brunswick opposing, or Jamaica, Deme- rara, and Trinidad, little desiring the change, and adding their cry V a restoration of protective duties on their produce. He made an effective point, in parenthesis, by producing a letter from the merchants whom Lord Elgin had made his confidential advisers—Messrs. Holmes, Young, and Knapp—to their agent in this country; in which'they enlarge without circumlocution on the feeling for annexation to the United States that prevails in, Canada; declare that f' no country can eitiiisst to retain colonies under the free-trade system"; say, " our people being dis- appointed in the results of free trade, will not rest till they have brought it (annexation] about "; and conclude with these words, underlined, "There is but one certain way to do it." This was the letter of the loyal merchants and respectable advisers of her Majesty's Government in Canada! He contended that one effect of the measure would be to place foreign dockyards on an equality with our own, and so to discourage and diminish the 80,000' shipwrights which the latter employ; and another effect will he to force English shipbuilders and owners to relinquish the building and sail- ing of ships under the British flag, to buy Norwegian and other foreign ships, and sail them with foreign crews under foreign colours. He con- cluded with a political reference, a personal apostrophe, and a solemn ap- l—

Pea " Yen much mistake if you think this is to be the end-all and the be-all—that the British merchant, the British shipowner, the British seaman, the British me- chanic, will be satisfied with this bill being passed by a bare majority of this House, under a menace such as I heard, and which I wonder the noble Marquis opposite should have thought becoming in him to throw out. It was the complaint of the greatest General, except one, of modern times, the greatest opponent this country ever had, that British troops could not know when tbey were beaten. The practical result, in the long run, we all know: and rely upon it, that on this question the people of this maritime country will not know when they are beaten, although they have a Government ready to sacrifice their best interests. They will renew the straggle again and again—not for pro- tection, but for the maintenance of the naval power, of the commercial and mer- cantile interests of this country. And, my Lords, the mention of that great Gene- ral, that illustrious man, makes it impossible for me to forbear on this occasion from expressing the deep regret which I feel that one who has had attached to him men stanch, with hearts devoted as ever bled under his command, who died to raise his glory in the field, should now, while they are straggling for the maintenance of the honour, the glory, and the exist- ence of the country—should now, while they are fighting for the principles which I will not but believe the noble and gallant Duke in his own heart ap- proves, should still find him, to whom they look up with admiration and re- spect, standing aloof from the great battle they are fighting, and throwing the weight of his influence into the ranks of their opponents. Whatever course the noble and gallant Dake should take no man may presume to say; but, my Lords, I may be allowed deeply to deplore what I conceive to be an error. And, my Lords, let not my noble and gallant friend or any noble Lordpersuade himself that this question once disposed of, that war of parties which a few years ago un- happily split warm political friends will at once be removed and leave no trace behind, and that there will be no obstacle to the renewal of those political friend- ships. My Lords, this cannot be.

" I cannot but express the deep anxiety and the deep alarm which I feel at the possible result of your Lordships' legislation on this subject. I look with anxiety, for I think the fate of the country rests upon it: and I can only pray that that Almighty Providence which has hitherto raised this nation to its proud state of eminence and prosperity, and which has blessed it with unnumbered blessings, that He who, we are taught, rules the hearts of kings, and directs the councils of legislators very often for far different ends and far different con- clusions to those contemplated by those legislators themselves—that He may in this awful hour raise the country—directyour Lordships' judgment and decision to that course which may be most conducive to the safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and her dominions—the maintenance of the great fabric of our mercantile commercial system, most essential as it is in itself for supplying the many wants and many comforts of this great people, and yet more important still, in directing, in supporting, and in upholding that maritime navy, that great force of this country in which, under God, not the wealth alone, not the greatness, not the glory, but the very independence and the very existence of this country among nations depends." The Marquis of LANSDOWNE briefly replied. He defied Lord Stanley to prove those unconstitutional " menaces" which he had alluded to: the menace " was only a reply to the manly but somewhat ostentatious de- claration of the noble Lord himself of his disregard for the consequences that might follow from the rejection of this measure. The House came to a division soon after four o'clock on Wednesday morning; and the result was— Contents—

' Present 105 )

Proxies 681115 Not Content— Present "91 163

Proxies 44 • Majority for the second reading 10 On Thursday, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE notified his intention to pro- pose that the House should go into Committee on the Navigation Bill on Monday week: be wished to forward the Rate-in-aid Bill through all its stages as quickly as possible. If the House went into Committee on Mon- day week, he should propose a very early day for the third reading of the Navigation Bill.

Lord STANLEY gave notice, that it was his intention to propose several -very important alterations in the bill with respect to the Navigation-laws when their Lordships should go into Committee thereon. Iltsdid not think their Lordships would be able to dispose of them in one night.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND TAXATION.

Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND moved the following resolution-

" That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Public Expenditure and the existing system of Taxation, and how far both may be re- vised with a view to relieve the pressure upon the industry of the country." This motion he supported in a very discursive speech, diversified with pleasantry. He expressed surprise that Ministers, after their speeches in Opposition, had brought forward no plan for the revision of taxation. Op- pressive taxation of the lower classes by the higher has been the cause of every systematic and successful rebellion: Louis the Fourteenth's extra- vagant wars and the puerilities of Versailles caused the distress and misery which broke out in the days of his grandson and swept everything away.

If they shut their ears to the voice of history—if they shut their eyes to the events that had passed around them during the last fifty years—if they would suppose that we had a charter from Heaven to preserve us from the fate which had attended every other nation, while we were pursuing the same course—if they deferred taking those steps which alone could avert the evil, there was no help for it. If they would sit with selfish and listless indifference, in the hope that things would last out the term of their official existence, there was no course left fbr those whose boast it was to be British statesmen, but who appeared to have all their faculties obscured by official routine—who seemed to be bound hand and foot by red tape—but to wait till another wave came of that deluge of De- mocraoy which had already overwhelmed every Government of Europe, and which bad, more than we were inclined to admit, come upon ourselves. He did not say that any measures which could he recommended by others could save them. but if they would part with their selfishness—if they would "be just and fear not"—if they would be determined to relieve the poor—if they would so feel for them as to resolve that they should be relieved—that might, under God'a blessing, be the means of lengthening their tranquillity. But if they did grapple with this question, they must lay bold of it honestly; they must not take it up merely for the purpose of amusing the people with delusive hopes, leaving them afterwards to writhe with mortifiesition at the delusion which had been practised upon them. They must endeavour to be honest, and to be honest they must revise every part of our taxation system; they most be Pre-

to part with many favourite associations, with many prejudices, and many long-oherished habits.

Mr. Drummond contended that from taxation the lowest class should be altogether exempted, and that on the other classes its incidence should be apportioned to the means of each and the amount of protection derived from the state for person or property. Every tax indirectly presses on labour, and therefore their systematic object should be to relieve the la- bouring classes. In Committee, he should propose a resolution to levy all taxes, stamps, and other duties, on the same principle as the Assessed Taxes. Having maintained the peace for so long, we should obtain the benefit of what we have done, and bring back the whole expenses of Go- vernment to what they were in 1794—reduce salaries, and abolish the whole civil department of the Army and Navy. He glanced at preparing for the abandonment of the Colonies when they have outgrown pupillage; at the same time that he advocated encouragement for emigration, grants of land, and passages in idle ships—especially for those unhappy young persons who are educated in unions. He criticized the political conduct of other parties. It would be impossible to restore a bread-tax again. (Cheers.) He had no patience with the cruel heartlessness of those impostors who, taking advantage of the distress of the tenant.farmers at the present time, ran about the country try_ ing to persuade them that their prosperity, would be restored by a fixed duty of 5s. He had never taken any part in that bread-tax agitation. He saw, or thought he saw, it was nothing but a contest between two egoisms, two selfish- nesses—between the selfishness of the landlord and the selfishness of the cotton- lord. (Laughter.) He had no sympathy with either. Not that he was against all selfishness. If a man had gout in the stomach, he would wish to get it rather in his toe: the toe said it was very selfish in the stomach to wish the gout so transferred. These were contending selfishnesses, but the one was a destructive and the other a conservative selfishness. It was much better to have the goat in one's toe than in his stomach. (Laughter.) There were measures which the Government would not have adopted except to please the people. Why did Parliament abandon the Postage-duty? To please the bankers and merchants of the country. Then large sums were thrown away on building palaces for thieves, because, instead of flogging thieves, people would teach them to spell; and, instead of banging murderers, people would put masks upon them, and set them to read the Whole Duty of Man. The admirers of the fine arts were gratified by the purchase of statues and pictures. He would not say one word against all those things, if we were overflowing with wealth; but when the question really at stake is the public peace, he mast say, that as it would be improper, nay, immoral, for any individual to waste his money on those things; it is equally so in a nation. (Cheers.) Enlarging on the burden of the Public Debt, he insisted that its re- duction must be gradual, in order to save the commercial disorder which would be caused by a sudden payment. He would propose that the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer be empowered to buy up public annuities as they might be offered in the market; funds to be provided partly by a tax upon property and partly by an equalization of the Land-tax. .

Sir CHARLES WOOD observed, that if Mr. Drummond merely intended to deliver an amusing speech on opinions of every shade, from Jacobitism to Socialism, he had attained his object; but he would scarcely induce the House to enter upon an inquiry which would °palmy two oe three sessions. Sir Charles proceeded, without any labodous minuteness, to expose weak- nesses in Mr. Drummond's speech. The scale of 1794 would raise many salaries: the salary of the Secretary of State was then 6,0001., instead of 5,0001.; that of the President of the Council, 4,000L, instead of. 2,0001. Under the Penny Postage system, the number of letters transmitted by the post has quadrupled, increasing from .-4,500,000 weekly, in ,1839 to ;$,000,000 weekly in 1848. Mr. Drummond would find few Members to agree with him in his regrets foi'llse days of hanging and !skipping. There has been as continued-revision of taxation; since 1815 mbre than 30,000,0001. taxes has been remitted. As to speeches in Opposition, Sir Charles Wood had never said anything which could lead to the expecta- tion of great reductions; but in the last year the present Government had effected reductions to the extent of 2,500,0001. Believing that it would be a mere waste of time to go into Committee, Sir Charles called upon the House to resist the motion.

The debate which ensued was as desultory as Mr. Drummond's speech. Several Members who approved of Mr. Drummond's general objects ob- jected to his speech and motion; and some who found nothing objections- able in his motion could not accept it conjointly With his explanation. Mr. Mums Garton was of the last section, and, as an amendment, he moved "the previous question." This was seconded and supported by Mr. COB- DEN; who complained that Mr. Drummond had said nothing of reduced expenditure—the only true basis of reduced taxation. Mr. DISRAELI very heartily supported Mr. Drummond's general view, that a revision of taxa- tion is urgently necessary and cannot long be deferred; yet advised bin' not to press a division, in a House which was certainly not so full as the subject demanded.

Ultimately, however, the House divided on Mr. Gibson's amendment; which was carried by 151 to 100.

RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. CHARTER'S introduced to the notice of the House of Commons the report of a Committee of Shareholders of the Eastern Counties Railway, (recently published in the newspapers,) and quoted from it a passage which stated that sums amounting to 7,6061. had been disbursed in Parliamentary expenses, which Mr. Waddington and Mr. Duncan, officers of the com- pany, refused to explain for fear of "implicating other parties." It is commonly reported that these." parties" belong to the Legislature,. and the plain English of this expression is that the money had been disbursed in bribes to Members. Mr. Charteris inquired of the head of the Government, whether his attention had beep drawn to this printed report as affecting the character of that House?

Lord Joust RUSSELL agreed that the words of the report did tend to excite suspicions affecting the character of the House. Without himself giving the least credit to the rumours which still more deeply affected the character of the House, he thought these words in the report, by men of known name and character, ought not to pass by without inquiry. If the House wished, be should not refuse to request some member of Government to undertake the inquiry • but he thought it would be better done by Mr- Charteris himself, assisted as he would be by all the leading persons; on both sides of the House. He hoped he would take care of the inquirit and not let it rest till the whole truth was discovered. Mr. WADDINGTON begged to state as a gentleman, that no Member of that House benefited, either directly or indirectly, to the extent of one shilling in reference to that sum of 7,6001. Mr. CHARTER'S gathered from the general feeling—(Cries of "

from all parts)—that it would be satisfactory if inquiry were made; thengu he believed Mr. Waddington's declaration to be true. He gave notice that he should move for a Committee of inquiry, on Thursday.

On Thursday, Mss CHARTERIS moved as follows—.

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the expenditure of certain sums which appear as unaccounted for, under the head of parliamentary expenses, in the report which was recently published by a cent- mittee appointed to inquire into the management of the affairs of the Eastern Counties Railway Company."

In the course of a short debate, Sir ROBERT INGLIS stated that he had received a letter from Yorkshire, expressing an earnest hope that no mea- sures would be taken by the House until an individual on whom all men's eyes were directed, and whose character appeared to be so deeply im- plicated, had an opportunity of attending in his place. Colonel SIBTHORP made a speech which caused a good deal of laughter. Mr. ROEBUCK followed; recalling the House to the grave subject before it, and remarking that "buffoonery was not the matter in hand." This led to some earnest conversation between Mr. ROEBUCK and Colonel SIBTHORP, in an under tone, the two sitting side by side, and also in open colloquy before the House: but Mr. ROEBUCK disclaimed any personal application of the word " buffoonery "; the SPEAKER ratified that disclaimer; and Colonel SIBTHORP was satisfied.

Mr. Charteris's motion was agreed to.

In the House of Peers, on the motion of Lord MONTEAGLE, it was re- solved, " That no bill for constructing, extending, or amalgamating any railway, or amending any railway act, be read a third time before the 18th of May."

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY.

Mr. HEADLAM moved for leave to bring in a bill to render lawful the incorporation of joint-stock banks upon the principle of a limited liability of the shareholders; citing in support of the principle of limited liability the opinions of bankers and writers on the subject as to the injustice of making the smallest shareholders in the largget companies equally liable in their whole fortunes with the largest and most wealthy shareholders for the management and debts of the concern.

The application was opposed by Sir CHARLES WOOD' who cited more abundant testimony, of equal credit, against the proposal of limited respon- sibility, as calculated to encourage languid inspection and lax management of the affairs of joint-stock companies. Mr. Headlans was supported by Mr. EWART and Sir WILLIAM CLAY. Sir Charles Wood's views were enforced by Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. WILLIAM BROWN, and Mr. MACGREGOR.

The bill was withdrawn.

COFFEE AND CHICORY.

Mr. ANSTEY moved a resolution condemning the non-enforcement of the act against the use of chicory in the adulteration of coffee, as injurious to the revenue, the consumer, the fair dealer, and the Colonial producer. He enlarged on these heads; quoting the statement of Mr. M'Culloch, that in 36,000,000 or 37,000,000 pounds of coffee 12,000,000 pounds of chicory is used. Sir CHARLES WOOD observed, that by the act in question (3 George IV. c. 53,) a discretionary power is given to the Treasury of enforcing the provisions or not. The use of chicory is approved of by many con- sumers; and although it does check the consumptiom of Colonial coffee in some degree, the degree is not great- It is,found impracticable to prevent the use without .a very minute and4orpetiske, survey of the article in re- ,tail.. But he WO considering theifiteepdiemsy of, imposing a slight dutyl msolsiaory. After a short debak -resolution was negatived, by 4 to 11.

PAUPER LABOUR IN IRELAND.

The second reading of the Employment of Labour (Ireland) Bill was moved by Mr. SCROPE with a short speech. The aim of the measure was to individualize responsibility, but so to do it as not to give an interest in the clearance of estates.

Let any owner or occupier, or combined number of owners or occupiers in a district, proving that they gave employment to their due proportion of the able- bodied population of the division, or that that proportion was independently main- tained in the district, be exempted from contribution to the poor-rate for the maintenance of the ablebodied poor, whom neighbouring proprietors would not employ. It was proposed that a census or enumeration of the ablebodied labour- ing population of the electoral divisions should be taken, and that the number should be applotted upon the several townlands in the division, according to their valuations, and then that they should be allowed to work their poor-rate out. Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE appeared to be about to address the House; but he delayed for some minutes: the question of the second reading was puts and just as he rose it was declared to be carried—amidst laughter from all sides, in which Sir William joined; On the motion to commit the bill on Friday, Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE used the incident which had occurred to show how unwillingly he opposed the bill; but, being aware of the manifold objections which exist to it, he could take no other course than to resist 'its further progress. Few questions have been more debated than this of forced labour; and the system has been generally condemned, as the most pernicious in its results and demoralizing to the labouring population. Mr. Scrope's pro- position is a great departure from that most sterling principle of keeping labour and relief totally distinct. The labourer will give but little labour when he is working only for relief and not for profit. Sir William feared that the bill would increase rather than check the system of demoralization already complained of in such districts as Galway and Mayo. He moved that the bill be committed that day six months. Similar objections were also felt by Mr. SLANEY, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Lord BERNARD. They were combated by Mr. FRENCH, Mr. ,HARMAN CRAWFORD, and a number of Irish Members; who admitted that the prin- ciple of a labour-rate is bad, but urged the exceptional state of Ireland. Most of the speakers objected to the details of the bill, but advocated going into Committee. On a division, the amendment was carried, by 166 to 41. Thus the bill was lost.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. The second reading of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill was moved by Lord JOUR RUSSELL without a speech; and Sir ROBERT INGLIS moved an amendment that it be read a second time that day six months. Sir Robert denied that power is an essential right of every subject of the realm. His other main positions were, that the Jews had never been invited or encou- raged to come into England—they came for their own personal benefit and aggrandisement; and that a decided and compact body, though small, Might greatly affect the deliberations of the House. The speakers were very numerous, but uninteresting, with one excep- tion. Mr. FREDERICK PEEL delivered his maiden speech.

Starting with the postulate that a strong presumption in favour of the Jew is made out by the fact that the privileges and capacities of the constitution do of right belong to every natural-born subject of the realm, Mr. Peel deduced step by step the progress in this direction which Parliament has in fact made, and in the end confessed himself unable to assign a just reason why the political status of the Jews is left "incomplete." He dealt wkth the especial machinery which has excluded the Jew from Parliament; showing that it was not originally aimed at his case, and that it only comprehends it now by a fortuitous consequence. He argued that the effect of change in dechristianizing the Legislature has been an- ticipated formally by the admission of Unitarians and others, and is not ever likely to become more effectual in practice than the dechristianizing of corporations as an effect of the Municipal Reform Act. Deprecating the charge made by Sir Robert Inglis, that as legislators they were apparently disregarding the influence and the injunctions of Christianity, he replied, that they must honestly act on their own consciences; and if they thought that special and exceptional-exclusion from ad- vantages which ought to be common to all could not be justified on anyground of common justice, or of Christianity—if they believed that a mild and con- ciliatory come is more in harmony with the genius of Christianity—then, however painful it might be to incur misconstruction and the displeasure of those they respected, they must persist in the discharge of what they considered a great public duty.

Mr. Peel's speech was concluded amidst "loud and protracted (sheering "- and it procured him the compliments of Mr. Tonna, Lord Mallors, tar! FAGAN, Mr. BANKES, and Lord Joan RUSSELL. Lord John pronounced it worthy of Mr. Peel's name and lineage, and expressed personal gratifica- tion that the expectations of the House had been more than realized in the speaker's force and eloquence. The other opponents of the bill were Mr. TURNER, Mr. A. B. Hopn, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. SPOONER, Lord MAHON, the Marquis of GRANBY, Mr. PLUMPTRE, Mr. BANKES, and Mr. GOULBURN. Its other supporters were Mn H. WILLYAMS, Mr. TRELAWNEY, Mr. ROBARTS, the Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY, Mr. Sergeant TALFonan, Mr. FAGAN, Mr. Mosicxxors Mthrms, and Mr. ROEBUCK.

On a division, the second reading was carried by 278 to 185. During Mr. Newdegate's speech, a motion was made to count out the House; but more than forty Members were mustered. This comparative desertion of the House of Commons prevailed throughout the evening; Members being attracted to the other House by the superior interest of the debate on the Navigation BilL

NEWSPAPER REPORTING IN PARLIAMENT.

In supporting his motion, " That the standing Order No. 130, as to the presence of strangers during the sitting of the House, be considered," Lord BEAUMONT glanced very rapidly at the history and effects of the order nominally excluding strangers from the House of Peers. Originally, no doubt, its object was to secure greater freedom of speech, immunity from personal consequences, and the power of retaining secrecy. Lord Beau- mont read a description of the last occasion on which the order was actu- ally enforced—in December 1770; when the Duke of Manchester called attention to preparations for defending the British possessions in the West Indies and Mediterranean. On that occasion, Earl Gower moved that the House be cleared of all but those who had a right to be there. Several Members of the House of Commons were standing at the bar of the House at the time, and Colonel Barre gave a laughable account of the scene —the Peers suddenly converted to a mob; one of the heads of the mob being a Sootchman, who called out " Clear the 11001143, clear the Ifoose," several times; and the other " putting Mt a nose of eno4moua Lige," with "his eyes starting out of his head in so frightful a way that he seemed to he under- going the operation of being strangled." Lord Beaumont contended that the period had passed when their Lordships could fear intimidation on the utterance of their sentiments. It is incodstatent to effect that by conni- vance which is professedly forbidden; and the present system is injurious to the Public, as the reporters find it impossible to supply complete or accurate versions of the speeches. Instances of this incapacity occurred in the Navi- gation debate. He did not think it necessary to call for a Committee of Privileges; but the Library Committee, which had touched upon the ac- commodation for reporters in 1834, might again be authorized to consider the subject. He objected also to the practice of making Ambassadors stand at the foot of the throne: a separate box might be reserved for them, as in the French Chambers. He wished to hear the opinion of the House upon his motion.

The subject was discussed with earnest attention by many of the Peers. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, Lord BROUGHAM, and others, strongly ob- jected to any relaxation of the privilege which secures the power of ex- cluding strangers: the consequences of the relaxation could not be fore- seen. The same Peers, and several others, bore testimony to the assiduity and ability with which the reporters contend against the peculiar difficul- ties of hearing in that House—difficulties not solely arising from the structure of the House, but also from the practice of separate and irregular conversations during the progress of a debate; and a hint was thrown out, that if the Lord Chancellor were to call the House to order the admo- nition would be responded to, although he has no privilege, like the Speaker of the Commons, to enforce order.

The Earl of GALLOWAY was an exception to the general feeling. Speaking with great vehemence and loudness, he denied that the reports were accurate or impartial; and complained that, although prominent Peers are reported, humble individuals like himself remain unreported. This complaint provoked shouts of laughter.

The Earl of MALMESBURY suggested, that a short-hand-writer should be employed to write out all speeches in full, not for publication, but for preservation and reference in the Library. The suggestion, however, did not meet with support.

Ultimately, Lord BEAUMONT modified his motion; which was carried in this form- " That a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the accommodation to be afforded to strangers."