COLLECTIVE WISDOM.

ON Mr. GORDON'S motion, that officers on full pay, as well as those on half-pay, should lose their military emoluments on accepting of situations under Government, Sir HENRY HARDINGE, in reference. to the case of Sir GEORGE MURRAY, observed, that, "to take away his 'military allowances, merely because he undertook to serve the state in some other way, was anything but fair and equal justice."— We never heard of any unwillingness on the part of half-pay gentle- men to serve their country ; but "fair and equal justice" demands of them sacrifices which she is accommodating enough not to demand of Sir GEORGE MURRAY.- Sir FRANCIS BURDETT "could not consent to urge economy at the expense of individuals."—Placemen, sinecwists, pensioners, and tax-eaters of every description, are "individuals." The economy that shall not trench on the comforts of individuals, must be of a rare sort.

Mr. WILMOT HORTON thought, that "a remission of taxes would do little towards relieving the people, because such a remission would not cause more money to be spent among them."—By a remission of the taxes which affect them, the poor would have the spending of money which they now give to Government ; and they would be benefited besides by the relief which those above them would experi- ence, because a remission of taxes, in so far as the wealthier classes are concerned, would be attended with an increase of capital and a greater, demand forlabour. Mr. WILMOT HORTON would recommend that "every poor man should have a piece of land." It was aptly asked by Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, where was all the land necessary for such a scheme to be had? But Mr. HORTON himself, only a few sentences before, had declared, that in order to prevent a redundancy of population, it was advisable that landlords should on all occasions throw down the greater num- ber of cottages that might spring up on their estates during a lease. Now if the cottage system be bad, how can the acre-per-man system be good ? But supposing its effects upon population thrown out of view, it is clear enough that the poor could only expect to obtain poor land—land, in the greater number of cases, almost irreclaimable ; and the necessary consequence of cultivating such would be, that before any part of the produce could be sold, the price of corn must rise—if they consumed the whole of it, they would expend much more labour than was necessary, in procuring food. Leave every man free to get the highest value for his labour, and the labourers in this country will grow their food abroad at one half the expense which this scheme would entail upon them.

Mr. HORTON " would not inflict poor-laws on Ireland, unless her redundant population could be got , rid of."—Why not ? The Irish poor are supported by the public—they ought to be supported by the Irish landlords. It would be better that all the rents in Ireland should be swallowed up by poor-rates than that the labourers of England and Scotland should be degraded irretrievably by the compe- tition of starving Irishmen. There is no risk of such a catastrophe, but of the two evils it would be the lesser.

Colonel O'GRADY and Mr. O'CONNELL "denied that Ireland could be overpeopled while her lands were not fully cultivated."—This might be conclusive if Colonel O'GRADY and Mr. O'CONNELL could establish any necessary connexion between uncultivated land and high wages. The happiness of the labouring classes depends upon the proportion which their numbers bear to the capital which employs them, not to the quantity of land cultivated or uncultivated.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT " knew that popular opinion was in favour of destroying ancient institutions, but he had no wish to minister to that appetite. He wished to avoid giving way to the visions of wild theorists." At the moment of making these declarations, Sir JAMES SCARLETT was recommending, as Mr. O'CONNELL afterwards ob- served, the abolition of some of the most ancient institutions in the country ; and what "theory" can transcend in wildness the Attorney- General's propositions about the unapproachable excellence of Eng- lish law ? The Attorney-General should leave " theories" alone. Ne sutor ultra crepidam. English law, according to the Attorney-General, is cheaper and more expeditious than that of France. Shall we, asked Mr. O'CON- NELL, be contented with bad law, because that of France is worse ?

Mr. SPRING RICE had manifold objections to the introduction of Poor-Laws into Ireland.

1st. "A poor-rate would diminish capital and lessen the employ- ment for labour."—A poor-rate would diminish revenue in the first in- stance, but would increase capital in a very short time. If the Irish landlords were bound to support their poor, they would find them em- ployment, rather than support them in idleness. They would engage in agriculture—in trade—in public works—in any thing that would yield profit—as the English landlords began to do two hundred and fifty years ago, when the burden of supporting the poor devolved upon them. The capital of the country would be augmented, absentees would contribute to public burdens, Ireland would soon be able to bear her share in direct taxes, while the consumption of exciseable commodities would increase. The landlords would be forced to become in a sort the guardians of the poorer classes, and cease to encourage the undue multiplication of their numbers. 2d. "It would be impossible to find overseers and churchwardens of skill and intelligence enough to administer the poor-laws."—As the maleadministration of the poor-laws would be at the risk of the rich, we may be assured that the same instinct which directs them in the choice of stewards and land-agents would guide them in the selection of churchwardens.

3d. "Poor-laws would not draw the absentees to Ireland."— Let the absentees contribute to the poor-rate, and the public burdens, and they may reside where they please. 4th. "He had the sanction of Mr. Ricardo for stating, that whatever lessened the independence of the poor, would be injurious to their in- dustry."—We should like to know by what process the dependence of the Irish poor could be increased—how they could be rendered more miserable than they are, or what can lessen the industry of those who have nothing to do? 5th. "He thought, with Dr. Franklin, that the more the law did for the people, the less they would do for themselves."—The Irish poor have yet to learn what the law has done for them, or how they could do less for themselves than under a system which denies them the right of demanding either labour or support. But "the Irish do not want the aid of law"—no, they are only required to exercise "the moral virtues of industry and frugality."—The good Samaritan was but the type of Mr. SPRING RICE! What balm and oil for the wounds of Ireland! " Industry" for those who can find no employ- ment—" frugality" for those who are starving. 6th. "A loan from Government, to be expended in public works, would relieve the Irish poor."—A Government loan might create job- be' 5; but if public works would be beneficial, give Ireland poor-laws, and the landlords will soon devise public works. Mr. SPRING RICE, in conclusion, said some civil things of his own exemption from selfishness, and of his addiction to political economy. "Although a political economist," &c.—We like this although. It is delightful to hear a man plead guilty to scientific attainments. Had we, however, been on a jury to try him for that crime, we shduld have been compelled to find him innocent.

Mr. BROWNLOW denied that England suffered by the immigration of the Irish. "If Ireland sent labour to this country in the shape of human beings, England sent labour to Ireland in the shape of manu- factured goods."—True ; but in sending manufactured goods, Eng- land sends capital, which, from the circumstance of its tendency to increase more slowly than population, has a value which labourers have not. But Mr. BROWNLOW is in error as to the exchanges that take place between the countries. English manufactures are exchanged for Irish agricultural produce. The Irish labourers are a present from their landlords—a token of love —a proof of generosity. They are the quails and manna showered upon us by the aristocracy of the Emerald Isle. v Mr. M. FITZGERALD took still higher ground. "Let England ex- clude Irish labourers, and Ireland would exclude English manufac- tures."—Here is a nice mode of balancing accounts. But would the Irish producers be disposed to consult the unemployed poor around them, as to whether they should take English manufactures for their corn and cattle ? or will the English manufacturer send his goods to Ireland in future, and take in exchange for them a consignment of Irishmen ? If they will, let us forego exchanges of the mere products of labour, and engage forthwith in the simpler task of exchanging labourers. In Irish economy, the principle of population is the prin- ciple of wealth.

Mr. PEEL thought that "poor-laws, if introduced into Ireland, would degenerate into an abuse."—Why should they? But what abuse can be more enormous than the present condition of the Irish poor ? Any change must be an improvement. Mr. PEEL was "unwilling to interfere directly with absentees."— There is no occasion for direct interference. The poor-laws will do all that is necessary.

Mr. ALEXANDER DAWSON declared, " that Irish labourers in this country gave a full equivalent for their wages."--He called on Parlia- ment "to employ them in the draining of waste lands."—If the Irish labourers give a full equivalent for their wages, let the owners of the waste lands employ them.

General GASCOYNE does not admire Irish labourers so much as their landlords do. He would " condemn them to imprisonment and hard labour."—Let them be imprisoned by poor-laws on the estates which breed them ; and the landlords, the natural gaolers, Will SO0n find hard work for them.

The gallant General remarked, that "every proposition of an Irish member ended in a demand for money."—The Irish members are not to be blamed for taking money, if Parliament is obliging enough to give it to them. At present, they pay few Government taxes—they pay no poor-rate : the redundant population swells their rents by competition for potato-gardens, while English manufactures are cheapened by the cheapening of labour consequent on its redundancy. These are their advantages—why should they not increase them by picking the pockets of the English of a few millions, if the English are willing to submit to the operation?

Mr. O'CONNELL'S recommendation of the system of voting by bal- lot seems to have frightened the House from its propriety. Members spoke of ballot as the Irish landlords do of poor-laws.

Mr. PEEL held that "it would give birth to greater abuses and more hypocrisy than the present system ;" but that, according to Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, is of the nature of an impossibility.

Mr. WESTERN denounced the proposal as "destructive of the spirit of the present representative system."—That is exactly what those who recommend ballot say of it.

Mr. JOHN MARTIN extolled the present system, because it gave men an opportunity of exciting admiration by." voting against their pecuniary interest."—From this encomium, we might conclude that opportunities of injuring one's pecuniary interests were rare in this world. What noble opportunities of exciting admiration are thrown away daily by nominees in the Lower House, who refuse to thwart their patrons in the Upper, and by placemen in both, who refuse to leave the Ministry in minorities !

Lord JOHN RUSSELL and many others deprecated the introduction of ballot as destructive of manliness, and the other national virtues.— The use of umbrellas in rainy weather has precisely similar effects upon our "manliness" and our virtue. Why should we run the risk of cold or ruin, when both may easily be avoided ? and why should all these commentators lose sight of the end of representation? Have the electors any interest in being misgoverned? Would the ballot ' system induce them to choose incapable or unprincipled legislators ? If it did, the present body of electors and the nation must have sepa- rate interests.