79tbatts anb Vroreebinips in Varilatnent.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET proposed and carried the following list of Members as a Select Committee to inquire into the best mode of constituting Committees on Railway Bills in the present session of Parliament, and of the most expedient manner in which railway bills having relation to similar objects may be brought under the consideration of the same Committee—

Lord Granville Somerset, Sir George Grey, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Strutt, Viscount Howick, Lord Harry Vane, Mr. Estcourt, Mr. Greene, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Colquhoun, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Hodgson Blade, Mr. Pakington, and the O'Conor Don.

Soon after, Mr. WALLACE moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the act of last session, the 7th and 8th Viet. c. 85, commonly called the Railway Act. His speech went to argue that the whole present system is bad. The Committee in whose report it originated was a one-sided committee, com- prising no fewer than twelve persons who were directors or shareholders in railways. On examination, the report would be found to contain a preme- ditated scheme for transferring to the Board of Trade the right of deciding On railway projects. The applications to Parliament for power to esta- blish new lines amount to 248; of which 82 are new lines, 50 extension Tines, 68 branch lines, 48 junction lines. The decisions of the Board of Trade have been in direct opposition to the interests of the public; since they do not sanction new lines of railway, but discourage competition and deprive the people of this country of free trade in railways; without which they must virtually become the slaves of the railway-directors of Great Britain and Ireland He quoted some statistical figures to show the effect of .sang competition. Passengers are conveyed between Edinburgh 114aiNgW.6r, *Apse of forty-six miles, at the rate of twenty-seven miles Min carriagediallfellently fitted up, at fares ranging from twopence to yr-s of a penny mile. Between Edinburgh and Greenock—that is, between the German Ocean and the Atlantic –adistance Of slity-nine miles,

passengers are conveyed, in two hou mutes, at fares ranging

from 10s. 6d. to 2s.—about a farthing \add' a per mile at the lowest rat* But Nuevo Exetor and Bristatlekbagfeist fare is 17s., the second- chess -fore 11a tits, and the third-clots trains, which the law obliges to run at Id. a mile, are sa arranged as to, ,prevent passengers from rotyseelog on- the some k a resent pernPhiet, which he understood to be written by a Mr. Galt, it was shown that passengers might be con- veyed at a rate averaging eighteen or twenty miles an hour, in first-class carriages twenty-five miles for 3d., in second-class carriages for 2d., and in third-class carriages ld. Mr. Laing estimated the three classes of fares for which passengers might be conveyed one hundred miles, at 2s. 8d., Is. ad., and 10d. Competition is not altogether new in railways; for the Grand Junction and Birmingham Railway Companies have agreed to allow each other's carriages to run over both lines. Heavy goods ought to be pre- vented from being carried on railways running through populous districts.

Several Members supported Mr. Wallace's motion. Mr. Gunton/re—who could not, however, go to the length of abolishing the act of last session— quoted the report by the Select Committee of last session, showing the, opi- nion of the. Committee that the reports by the Board of Trade were in- tended to afford to Parliament aid in elucidating the facts and merits of various projects, while they ought not to be held to prejudice the claims of private persons; the examination of which should be altogether reserved to the Houses of the Legislature. He did not find either in that report or in acts of Parliament anything to authorize the Board of Trade to put minutes into the Gazettee. Those minutes have caused more gambling then anything he ever recollected: men who have paid up 21. or 51. a share prefer making a sacrifice of every shilling rather than adhere to schemes against which the Board has made its report, reducing the *bares to a discount; while other shares rise -under a favourable report. It is said that the Committee are bound to secrecy: but where nine or ten people know any particular fact, it is impossible to keep a secret: some men tell their wiires every- thing, some men lose their memorandum-books, others talk in their sleep_ there are a hundred ways in which such facts may become known; and extraordinary coincidences will always cane extreme suspicion. Is it worth while to subject a public board to such suspicion?

Viscount HOWICK would not vote for the motion, because he thought the 'act had introduced useful improvements; bathe agreed that the peeseat system is ineffectual for securing to the public the greatest facilities and cheapness in railway travelling. This session there is very good .opper- tunity of looking into the whole subject, before the great multitude. of railway bills are disposed of and new interests are emoted. While the competition between railway companies is so immense—the interests to be dealt with are so enormous—the amount to be gained or lost-is to vest—no tribunal, whether the Board of Trade or a Parliamentary,.Cemmittee, can deal satisfactorily with the subject. The mere sanction of Parliament will raise shares to a large premium. For example, there are three lines projected from London to York: whichever Company shall obtain the preference, its shares will sell at 201. or 251 premium; that is to say, a decision in favour of any of those communise *ill put into the peohet of one set of men or another a sum of money varying from one million to two millions sterling: the eonsequenee is, that gambling in thane ie going on in London, Manchester, and Liverpool, to: an extent not,only frightful but ruinous and demoralizing. When sneh.questions are at issue,: it isim- possible to create any authority on which-may net be,hrought to beer in- fluence, or money, or money's worth: either that will happen or it will be thought to happen. It is an inconvenience that cannot be avoided so long as the two questions, which is the best line of railway, and who are the parties to execute it, are united. Therefore it did seem to him, npen the whole, that something was to be gained, in considering this matter, I* turning to the example of a neighbouring country. In France, the filet point to be determined is, what is to be the line of railway, upon a sabot and dispassionate consideration of what the convenience of the country requires; and what is the best among the proposed lines for that purpose. That having been decided, the next step is to call upon the.capitaliste.to send in tenders, stating upon what terms they,propose to execute the line. Why not adopt something of the kind hero? Suppose, for butane°, the Legislature were to say, " We will not decide favourably upon one company or another, but in favour of some one line to York." Having ohoseu that line, suppose there were to be a call for a public tender from the conflicting companies for the execution of the line, setting forth their proposed fares, rate of speed, number of trains, &c.; those tenders to be opened in the face of day, and the best offer accepted. Then there would be no room' or job- bing; and that spirit of competition which now finds a vent in gambling upon the share-market would exist between rival companies as to the amount of accommodation to be afforded to the public. This would' be more fair and proper way to bring down fares than the mode-taken .by the bill of last year. In the infancy of the railway system, when such pro- jects were looked upon as doubtful or hazardous; that oousve might •not have been advisable; but now parties are only too eager toroth into.them, and instead of stimulating enterprise it is desirable to moderate it. It might be said, that when certain parties have displayed all their talent and ingenuity in laying out a particular line, for the execution of it to be taken out of their hands would be a great injustice. But they, might be remu- nerated for what they had done. Although the plan would' not exactly apply to existing lines, the principle might be applied to branches and feeders. Last year, when he was Chairman of' a Committee on rival pro- jects for a branch line proposed by two existing companies, both sides were obliged to put in a scale of the fares they proposed to elterge; tld the Committee was much influenced by the lower male. He hoped that this session no bills would be passed without looking into the tables of proposed charges. Colonel SIBTHORP highly approved of what had fallen from Lord Howick; but twitted the Viscount, and many others, with being in- volved in railway speculations; a oharge from, which he himself was per- fectly free. Mr. GISBORNE said, alluding to the case of York, supposing that none of the three projects should be adopted by Parliament., and that Parliament should decide upon a more direct line than any of those projected, how would the parties whose money had been expended be treated then? Sir ROBERT PEEL deprecated both Mr. Wallace's and Lord Howick's propositions. It would be precipitate to condemn the proceedings of the Railway Board appointed at the close of the last session, before even a single report bad been made by it. As to the Gazette announcements, it would have'een much more likely that disadvantage would result from the attempt to keep secret the decision upon so many projects, than from a fair *reopen publication. The number of railway bills may be considerably reduced on preliminary examination; but supposing that only a hundred Were promoted, the pressure on Parliament must be very great. He had been too long in Parliament not to know the irnpolicy of pronouncing at Moe on any new plan, and he had only that night heard Lord Howick's he must take time to oonsider it but it seemed -neither more nor less than a total revolution in railway business—to involve a new Government earvey of all the railway schemes in England, Ireland, and Scotland—to be tantamount to a declaration that for this session at least, Parliament would proceed no further with the consideration of proposals for new rail- ways. Ho did not know how it would suit the constitution of the country if every railway-officer were appointed by Government, or if any Govern- ment would undertake the management of all railways. He could not overlook the advantages of free competition. If two towns wished for a railway, the proper course seemed to be, to let them settle the line between them; for the fitness of railways must often depend upon suggestions arising out of local and personal information, to be carried out by private competition. He would advise the House to address themselves, through the intervention of Lord Granville Somerset's Select Committee, to the task of considering what is best to be done with the-multitude of railway bills. Let them wait until they received the reports of the Board of Trade. They would then hear the general principles upon which their judgment had been formed; and, reserving to themselves the full power, if they found it necessary, of devising some other remedy, yet they should for the present not disturb the course hitherto followed. They should im- mediately apply themselves to the inquiry as to the best mode of consti- tuting the Committees upon these bills. On account of the pressure, it might be necessary to limit the numbers of each Committee, say to five or seven; and why not impose upon Members the necessity of serving? Let the House set its shoulder to the wheel, and its strength would prove equal to the occasion.

Mr. WAILLEY gave a new turn to the debate, by asking what was to be done with the banisters and their endless speeches? Why, the Members of the House would be completely victimized if they were to be disposed of in fives and sevens throughout the House and left to the mercy of the interminable speeches of the barristers. After reading a paper from the Morning Chronicle, declaring Parliamentary Committees very low in judicial intelligence, liable to be mastered by counsel, and much needing the aid of a competent leading assessor, he read another paper from the Economist, insinuating dishonest communications between Mr. D. OrBrien, the Railway Commissioner, and his brother, Mr. William O'Brien, manager of the South- eastern Railway, and purchaser of several shares in that Company just before the Railway Board made a report in favour- of the South-eastern line. Sir JAMES GRAHAM met these insinuations with a distinct explana- tion. He began by declaring that he had never had any interest in rail- ways. Both Mr. D. O'Brien and his brother had served in the Army, and had subsequently applied their professional information to aid the execution of several railways. Mr. D. O'Brien became Sir James's private secretary, and served him faithfully. Without any solicitation from Sir James, he was selected by Mr. Gladstone as one of the Railway Commissioners. Sir James regretted the loss of his services, and appointed his brother to the vacant secretaryship. A lucrative post, however, in a railway company, was offered to Mr. William O'Brien; and Sir James would not stand in the way of its acceptance. There seemed to have been some con- fusion as to the names of the brothers; who assured him that there had not been any communication between them on the subject of railways. If there were any doubt as to the accuracy of his statement, let there be an inquiry. With respect to counsel, he thought that neither their language nor the length of their speeches should be too nicely scanned; and he had ever found them most willing to attend to any communication from the members of a Select Committee. Mr. BROTHERTON declared that there was more reason to complain of speeches of members of private Committees than of counsel. He was a member of the Committee on the Railway Bill which had been so particularly alluded to by Lord Howick: that Committee had sat for sixty-one days, and he had voted in not fewer than one hundred and one divisions during the progress of the bill before it. The reason of this was, that a certain number of members of the Commit- tee were determined that the bill should not pass, and they divided on the most frivolous objections. Many more adjournments take place for the convenience of members of Committee than of barristers.

Mr. WALLACE was so far satisfied with the discussion and with Sir Ro- bert, Peel's valuable suggestions, that he withdrew his motion.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For the motion,—Mr. Wallace, Mr. Hume Mr. Warburton. Against the motion—Mr. Ewart, Mr. Gisbome, Sir Robert Pea For Lord Hoteick's proposition—Lord Howick, Colonel Sibthorp. Against it—Mr. Gisborne, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Warburton, Sir Robert Peel. Making special objections—Mr. Gisberne, Mr. George Bankos, Mr. Wakley. Against Mr. Wakley—Sir James Graham, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Darby.

The subject of the charges against the Railway Board was introduced to the House of Lords on Thursday. The Earl of DALHOUSIE, in pre- senting the Board's report on the projects for the South-eastern districts, glanced at the original formation of the Board, last session, in place of the more imperfect branch of the Board of Trade which had previously had the superintendence of railways; and emphatically declared, that the reports were only to be considered as aids to Parliament, and not in the smallest degree as conclusive decisions. The secrecy of the Board had been ob- jected to: but he averred that it would have been impracticable to make it a kind of open court in which antagonist speculators might carry on their discussions—to say nothing of the enormous expenses of such a plan. It had been said that he had pronounced it " physically impossible " to hear both sides: what he did say was, that it is physically impossible to receive deputations twice or thrice over, as the Board had been requested, merely to restate the same arguments. Referring to the charges against Mr. O'Brien and his brother, Lord Dalhousie gave explanations much like those by Sir James Graham in the other House. Neither he nor any member of the Board had ever possessed railway shares, except Mr. O'Brien; who had finally parted with his by the 2d September, and the Board did not enter into the examination of railway schemes until the first week in De- cember. He believed Mr. O'Brien to be as upright a man and as incapable of swerving from the straight line of duty as the best man in that House. Had he been inclined to make an, improper use of his influence to obtain a decision in favour of the South-eastern Railway Company, could the Rouse suppose'that the other members of the Board would have aided him iis so'clurepntalde a coarse? nut, foreseeing some difficulty, Mr. O'Brien had abstained from taking any part in the discussion on that project. The fact is, that the South-eastern Company put forth a very comprehensive scheme, offering the greatest advantages of convenience acd cheapness to the public; and when the Board decided in favour of a company offering such eminent advantages, was it to be said that the Board came to a deal- sion in its favour merely because its manager was the brother of one of the members of the Board? The charge was ridiculous and contemptible. He had specially called the Board together in consequence of the assertions that had been made; and each member of it had declared upon his honour— and had offered to be sworn, or to submit to any more binding form of adjuration, if a more binding one than honour could be ftiund—that in no case whatever, on no occasion whatever, had one word Wien from him with reference to the railway matters with which he had been engaged. He had very early seen the necessity of the most stringent secrecy ; and if the Board had given their reasons, as some recommended. the chance of premature revelation would have been greatly increased. This was the plan adopted— As the schemes were taken up, and as they were decided on, they had com- municated the decisions to the public, and to the agents and promoters of the bill simultaneously; but neon until after the hour at which the Stock Exchange closed, in order that no a?.vantage might be there taken. When a scheme was taken up, a member of the Board having examined it, wrote a summary of his views, enclosed all the papers in a box, and gave it with the key to one of his col- leagues. To this box a particular lock had been put ; and, save the master-key, which he possessed, there was but the one key which he had referred to in exist- ence. The second member having gone through his exsunination of the scheme, and drawn up a summary of his views upon it, passed the box and the key tea third; and so it went on, till it was brought back again to him. That box and these papers had never been looked into by any one; humanly speaking, it was utterly impossible that any one, save himself and his colleagues, could have cog- nizance of what they contained. Then with respect to the publication of the de- cisions:. none of the clerks in the Department—not even his own private secre- tary—knew any thing whatever of the decisions until after the publication of the,. Gazette. The decisions were never prepared for the Gazette till the last momenta they were always arrived at on the day of the publication of the Gazette; they, were communicated to the editor at the latest pdssible moment; and of course, when given to him, all responsibility was at an end with the Railway Department.

Comments on this statement succeeded. Lord BROUGHAM at once ac- quitted Lord Dalhousie and his colleagues of any improper conduct; but confidently predicted, that, in practice, the decisions of the Board would prove to be final, and would be adopted by Parliament. He could as easily guess the result as he had the issue of Election Committees from knowing who was Chairman; and he had never been wrong in that guess. Not a doubt had he upon his mind that nine out of every ten—that ninety- nine out of every hundred—perhaps one hundred out of every hundred— would, having received the recommendation of the Railway Board, receive, as a matter of course, the sanction of Parliament. If it were not felt to be so, where was the necessity for all this elaborate secrecy? But, such being the case, it followed that the Board ought to be composed of men high in station and of undoubted responsibility; whereas the members of the Board are not Privy Councillors nor responsible servants of the Crown. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought, that it would prove more convenient, and more effectual in checking undue speculation, if the Board were to publish the reasons as well as the mere decision. Lord STANLEY (making his first speech in the House of Lords) used his recent experience as a Member of the other House, to show that railway bills are really not made Government measures: he had often.knownsltrattistere, in their .oapsoity as Members of Parliament, vote against each other in such matters. Should Parliament concur with the Board, the most probable reason would be the likelihood that the Legislature would come to the same conclusions on seeh subjects as a body of intelligent and disinterested gentlemen. lie thought that the present plan would prove highly useful in repressing unprofitable contest and litigation, and facilitating useful schemes.

Here the matter dropped.

POOR-Law: SETTLEMENT.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Sir Jews GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to pa- rochial settlement and the removal of the poor.

Ho explained the differences between this bill and the one that he intro- duced last session. To show the importance of the question, he mentioned two facts: 1,500,000 persons, one-tenth of the population of England and Wales, annually receive poor-relief; and since 1815 the sum collected for poor-rates has exceeded 200,000,0001. sterling—an amount nearly equal to one-fourth of the capital of the National Debt. He had received innumer- able suggestions on the bill of last year-' and to two heads in it—the settle- ment by birth and the removability of paupers—very forcible objections had been made. It was said with respect to the provision of settlement by birth coupled with the right of irremovability after an industrial residence of five years, that it would cause landowners to " clear " their estates, by obtaining cottages in adjoining towns and obliging the poor to reside there, so that their own parishes might be relieved of the children born. He therefore modified that part of the bill : but, after the passing of the act, birth only should be the ground of settlement; leaving existing settlements undisturbed. The Registration Act would give facility for making birth prospectively the ground of settlement. He had also modified the checks on removal: the chief of which now provided by the bill arc—that the child of a surviving father under sixteen shall only be removed to the father's settlement; the child of a widow, or a bastard, to the mother's; but no widow or her child under sixteen shall be removoable from the parish where the husband had a settlement at the time of his death, until the expiration of a year from his death ; and that no person, Scotch or Irish, becoming liable by sickness or accident, shall be remove- able until he or she shall have received relief, bona fide, for the space of forty days. The present law of settlement, limited to parishes and town- ships, tends to confine the labour of the poor man to very narrow circles: he proposed to render compulsory the permissive clause of the existing act which enables Boards of Guardians to substitute unions for parishes as to all purposes of settlement; that would reduce the number of circles from 14,500 (the number of parishes and townships) to 620, (the number of unions,) proportionably increasing the extent of each circle. He should propose that all removals to and from unions should be conducted by Boards of Guardians and not by parish-officers. The costs of removal should be apportioned to the several parishes according to a scale based on an average of payments, say, for a period of seven years before March 184.4. Seves al -Members made short remarks on the proposed bill; generally with approval; but some objections were suggested. Colonel WOOD anticipated that the plan of union-settlements would deprive parishes of the motive to provide employment for their paupers, and would throw vast numbers of persons on the unions; while the taking birth as the test of set- tlement would still subject persons to be thrown back on parishes to which they had become total strangers. Others regarded the measure as the first step towards breaking up the parochial system.

SPEAKERS IN TUE FOREGOING DEBATE. For the Bill—Sir James Graham, Mr. Brotherton, Lord Ebrington, Mr. Becket Denison. Against it—Colonel Wood, Mr. Henley. In reserve—Mr. Bright.

The operation of the new Poor-law was also the subject of some smaller discussions on Tuesday. Mr. WAKLEY, moving for papers, raised a complaint that restriction is put upon the employment in unions of gentlemen who have obtained their medical degrees in Scotland or Ireland. Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained, that the restriction did not originate with the Poor-law Commissioners, but in the Apothecaries Act, which prevents persons from practising in pharmacy in England unless they are licentiates of the Apo- thecaries Company. Captain PECHELL complained that paupers are in some workhouses em- ployed in the odious and unwholesome task of bone-grinding. Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought the occupation in many respects objectionable; but the authority of the Poor-law Commissioners is very limited in prescribing the nature of employment for paupers. 'Viscount EBRINGTON expressed sur- prise at the new and strange doctrine, that any work which may be done by able-bodied labourers out of doors might be too offensive for paupers. Mr. WAKLEY manifested great indignation at that remark. He was also bound to acknowledge that the Commissioners had been the protectors of his own profession against the parsimony of Boards of Guardians; and if, as it appeared, they had no power to prevent the employment of paupers in crushing bones, then he would say, the right honourable Baronet ought not to delay forty-eight hours in asking for more authority for them. Mr. ROEBUCK contrasted this declaration with Mr. Wakley's former attacks on Commissioners, as the " three tyrants of Somerset House," " pinch-paupers," and the like. The conversation soon after dropped.

SCOTCH POOR-LAW.

In reply to Lord DAI.MENY, on Tuesday. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that the utmost caution must be used in touching a law which has lasted two centuries, and concurrently with which the people of Scotland have acquired preSminence in science, agriculture, commerce, and productive industry; but that the attention of the Government had been anxiously directed to the report of the Commissioners and the evidence on the Poor-law in Scot- land. " I am of opinion," said Sir James, " on the whole, that some legis- lation is necessary: but at this moment I feel that it would be premature to pledge myself as to the precise time when a bill will be introduced, because I could not, as at present advised, submit what would be likely to give general satisfaction. During the present session I mean to introduce a bill on the subject; but it is impossible for me to say whether I shall feel bound by the precise terms of the report of the Commissioners."

TAXATION: IMPORT-DUTIES.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord MONTEAGLE moved for the annual balance-sheet of income and expenditure, and for accounts relating to trade and commerce; and took occasion to make some allusion to that part of the Queen's Speech touching the continuation of the Income-tax. Of course the continuation was only meant to be temporary: for if it were Intended to snake the tax a permanent part of the' ways and means, as a substitute for indirect taxation, it would be necessary to look into the question in the very closest manner; because it would be quite impossible to agree to its continuance as it now stands. From the policy of its con- tinuance for a time no one will dissent ; for although there is a surplus revenue in round numbers of two millions, there is in the permanent taxation of the country an equal deficiency of two millions, supplied only by the Income- tax. The question in giving relief to taxation is, what taxes can be the most judiciously selected for repeal as likely to lead to an increase of re- venue; otherwise, for all the Income-tax, there may again be a deficiency. Lord Monteagle referred to the tables lately laid before Parliament to show the working of the Tariff. It is a curious fact, that out of 813 articles, pro- ducing 22,720,0001., 585 of those articles, or nearly three-fourths of the whole, produce only 42,0001. Therefore Parliament would have it in its power, if no objection should be offered, to abolish the whole amount of Customs-duties payable on about two-thirds or perhaps three-fourths of the whole number of articles now subject to them, at no greater loss than that of 42,0001. of revenue. Lord Mouteagle, however, reminded Government, that in their anxiety to relieve trade they ought not to throw away the means of obtaining valuable statistical information. Some other curious facts appear in the tables. Through reductions made in the late Tariff on articles of minor importance, a considerable loss had been sustained; and the increase which had taken place had occurlrerl on articles producing each above 100,0001. of duty. It was also shown, that as to the character of the articles taxed, there was a con- siderable loss on articles of raw material, and a considerable loss on those imported partly manufactured; but that the neat increase had occurred in the classes of articles falling under schedule B, headed " articles of food." All the increase, however, was not due to reduction of duties. In tea there had been an increase of 1,839,0001.: there was no alteration in the rate of duty on that article, which is still 2s. Id. per pound; but there was a fall of price equal to Is. 6d. or 2s. 6s/.•' which quite accounts for the increased consumption, and therefore for the increased revenue. Among the papers for which he moved, was one to show the importation of that free-labour sugar specially contemplated by the act of last session: and it would be curious if it should appear, that while the whole policy and object of the bill, and the intentions of its framers, were to give a preference to foreign free labour sugar over foreign slave-labour sugar, (and no doubt that was the object,) no free-labour sugar of any description had been admitted to home consumption, but that the only foreign sugar imported under the bill was that very slave-labour sugar which it was obviously and declaredly the object and intention of Parliament to exclude. With regard to 'Venezuela sugar, he believed there had been an order in Council for its admission. Lord Monteagle referred to the effect of reducing the Coffee-tax and the Wool-tax, as illustrating the advantage of well-selected productions; of the Timber-tax, as affording en opposite illustration; and he urged upon the consideration of Government the repeal of the tax upon cotton-wool. On these points it was very necessary to know the intentions of Govern- ment. The Duke of WELLINGTON observed, that her Majesty's servants could obviously give no information until after Sir Robert Peel's financial state- ment on Friday.

The commercial relations with Brazil were mentioned in the House of Commons, on Wednesday, on going into Committee of Supply. Mr. BOUVERIE asked, if it was true that negotiations were on foot for a new commercial treaty? Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that a proposal had been made to the Brazilian Government, and was still under consideration, in- volving one of the original treaties of commerce and navigation: but it merely related to navigation; there was no negotiation involving any alter- ation of the tariff, with respect to import-duties. Mr. RICA.RDO urged the Premier, without regard to "reciprocity treaties," to give up differential duties which impose profitless burdens on this country. Mr. MILNER Gummi followed in the same strain; observing that, without a reduction of import-duties on leading articles of consumption and food, it would be im- possible to make those concessions to other countries which would induce them to make a reciprocity treaty. The difficulty lay at home; and it would be far more satisfactory to the House if the right honourable gen- tleman were to tell them that commercial negotiations were going on suc- cessfully with the Central Society for the Protection of British Agriculture than it would be to hear of such being in progress with any Foreign Power.

In the course of some further conversation, Lord JOHN RUSSELL ob- tained a promise from Sir ROBERT PEEL that no vote should be taken with respect to his proposition on Friday, but that an early day should be named for the decision of the House.

The House went into Committee; and 18,404,5001. was granted to the Crown to pay off Exchequer Bills " charged on the aids of 1845, unpro- vided for." The House then resumed; the Committee to ;it again on Friday.

STATE OF THE Km-.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Sir CHARLES NAPIER moved for a Select Committee " to inquire into the manner in which the money voted since the year 1835 for the construction of ships has been expended, and if the ships constructed are an improvement of the old system." .The Commodore took a long and detailed review of the state of the Navy; be-. ginning with 1800, when he entered the service; tracing the method of constructing and altering various classes of ships; and maintaining that the country was put to enormous expense in former times for building bad ships. One complaint was, that the excellent ships taken from the French during the war, the Tennant, Sanspareil, and Canopus, were tardily and partially used as models; and that the Sanspareil had never been copia. until Sir George Cockburn ordered ships to be constructed on her model. The American war found British vessels unable to cope with corvettes of the same rating as their own; and it needed the capture of two or three frigates to open the eyes of the Government. Sir Robert Seppings, his naval architecture, and the sterns with cumbersome external galleries, were, next attacked. Sir Charles read a letter which he addressed to the Duke of Clarence as Lord High Admiral, in 1827, recommending the amalgama- tion of the Admiralty and Navy Board; and cited a pamphlet on the same point, published when Sir James Graham took the chief post at the Admi- ralty. The Navy Board was abolished; but the system substituted, by throwing upon the First Lord of the Admiralty an amount of work physically impracticable, does not work much better Sir James Graham allowed Sir William Symonds, the Surveyor of the Navy, who had succeeded in a smaller vessel, to build a frigate of 50 guns, the Vernon,' and afterwards the Vanguard, of 80 guns, both good ships, though not unex- ceptionable. But then Sir William built the Pique and the Queen, two clumsy and bad ships; and, without sufficient trial, the Board of Admiralty allowed Sir William to lay down six Piques and six Queens. The Queen, went to sea, and after nine months' trial in the Mediterranean, she lying a greater part of the time in Malta harbour, a report was made upon her ca- pabilities; which Sir Charles read. [He excited great laughter, partly at the long string of official questions on nautical points, to great part of which the answer in the report was "no trial," Sir Charles making sarcastic inter- jections; and partly by a running equivoque, which the House chose to perceive, in certain familiarities taken with " the Queen."] The Queen has been sent to Chatham to be altered; but if with all the doctoring she do not succeed, what is to be done? Are we to return to the old sys- tem, of building seventy-fours to be cut down to frigates, and frigates to be cut down to corvettes? The Albion was next attacked: the vessel rolls so that in au experimental trip with the Caledonia it was impossible to keep her lower ports open; and an anecdote of her tells volumes. When the captain came alongside the Caledonia and saw how quiet she was compared to his own ship, he called out to the captain of the Caledonia, and said, (he would use his own words,) " Dann, my eyes, Jack, is your ship aground?" (Much laughter.) He now came to the most important part of our naval construction—steam-boats; on which he entered with much length and minuteness. His chief objections were these,—that the steamers, as hitherto constructed, have "no bottom"; that their machinery is exposed to injury by shot; that they do not carry sufficient fuel; and that the bows and stem are so sharp that guns cannot be carried or cannot be worked at these parts. Steam-boats are to the Navy what cavalry is to the Army: no one would ever think of sending out one steam-boat to fight another, any more than of sending one cavalry regiment against another. Their use is to cover a retreat or harass an enemy's rear; and he should like to know how they could harass an enemy's rear without guns? Sir Charles called for a Committee, to know whether he had libelled the Navy or not.

The motion was seconded by Mr. HUMS, and supported by several Members. Captain PECHELL advocated the Archimedean screw, as a means of abolishing the unwieldy paddle-boxes.

Captain HARRIS, who echoed many of Sir Charles Napier's complaints, did not think that the motion would attain the desired object; but recom- mended a scientific Commission, appointed by Government and including the Surveyor of the Navy, to investigate the whole subject, and receive communications from all parts of the world as to well-established improve- ments. He also contended, that, from economy of space effected in line-of- battle ships, steam-engines and Archimedean screws could be adopted with advantage; and though no greater speed than five knots an hour might be gained, all acquainted with the details of the battle of Trafalgar knew how valuable even that would be.

Sir GEORGE COCKBURN led the direct opposition to the motion. He declined to follow Sir Charles's complaints from the year 1800, or to be responsible for what was done before he came into office. He asked, what would have been thought if, when the present bfinistry entered office, they had at once changed the plan which they found adopted? Sir William Symonds was considered by a great majority of the Navy to have much iniprotied the building of ships. Every report on the Queen was favour- able; and when she had been tried with several other ships, she beat them all, except the Vanguard, also a ship built by Sir William. When the present Ministry entered office, the Albion was on the stocks; they hurried her on for trial; then stopped the system altogether, and appointed a com- mittee of shipwrights, that they might point out the best way to construct men-of-war; and their particular attention had been directed to the make of the bows and sterns, to which Sir Charles bad referred. They had sent in a report; that report had been laid before the Surveyor; and he, though partly differing from it, had given directions for carrying out its recommen- dations. Sir George felt bound to say, that purely scientific men have not succeeded best in practice; but those who best succeed are generally practical men. Government had made up their minds not to trust any single per- son with the building of the Navy, but they would not be in too great a hurry to overturn what they found established. If the Queen and Albion turned out inferior vessels, those now on the stocks would be altered in conformity with another model. Sir George felt equal interest with Sir Charles Napier in the construction of steamers; and since he came into office, the steamers which were " under-bowed" have been greatly improved by enlarged bows. He agreed that a steam-marine cannot be the main force of the Navy; and the endeavour of the Admiralty has been to increase those advantages which peculiarly belonged to ships using the steam-power. The principle had been to give them guns of greater range. By this means, they could place themselves in a position of safety, and with their long- range guns do serious injury to the enemy. But if they loaded steamers with too many guns, they would not be able to go through the water with sufficient velocity to accomplish the purpose for which, in his opinion, they were adapted. The Admiralty are now contracting for some iron steamers; and it has been insisted on as a sine qua non that they should have the power of firing two guns right forward and two guns right aft. They have also contracted for some steamers to guard our own coasts. He knew how many steamers France has, and he also knew how many steamers we have in this country; *Ad though he hoped that he would not be asked to state the numbers, he could assure the House that England has a much larger steam force than France, despite of all her vauntings. (Loud cheers.) As to the inquiry, he must say that a Committee of that House was the worst selection that could be made for the purpose.

Sir George's resistance was followed up by Mr CHARLES WooD, the former Whig Secretary to the Navy; who, with some asperity, defended the late Ministry against their share in Sir Charles Napier's animadver- sions. Admiral BOWLES, who had tried the Queen, said that the weather came on fair sooner than he expected; and he did not feel justified, in order to try a ship, to go about in quest of a storm.

In his reply, Sir CHARLES Narrate raised a fresh question. The Queen's yacht, he said, which cost 40,0001., is a complete failure: it cannot steer within eight points; the engines go round for some minutes before the helm answers; and when her Majesty was on board in her voyage to Scot- land, the vessel was not allowed to go more than six knots an hour, because the officers could not answer for her steering. Sir GEORGE COM- M:TB/4 said, that this was a mistake: the Steering had nothing to do with it; but the order was given because the Admiralty considered it wrong that in a sea like the North Sea, covered with colliers, any vessel should, on dark nights, go more than six knots an hour. Sir CHARLES NAPIER exclaimed—" Surely the gallant Admiral, who has been on board of her, will admit that she cannot steer? " In fact, she is now in dock, undergoing alterations; and the Queen ought not to be allowed to embark in her until her safety has been quite secured.

The House divided, and the motion was negatived, by 93 to 32.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For the motion—Sir Charles Napier, Mr. Hume, Captain Pechell, Captain Rona Against it—Sir George Cockburn, Admiral Bowles, Mr. Charier Wood, Mr. Corry. For a Gorernment Commission—Captain Harris, Mr. Wakley.

THE QUEEN'S REPLY to the Address from the House of Lords was presented to the Lords, by the Lord Chancellor, on Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE LORDS. On Monday, the Marquis of NORMANDY cited a return showing that three-fourths of the bills that came up from the House of Commons last session did not come till the month of July; and he hoped the Duke of Wellington would have the kindness to use his powerful influence with his colleagues, so to order matters as to enable their Lordships, from the Easter recess to the conclusion of the session, to take business step by step, instead of having it accumulated together at the very close of their sittings. He asked— first, whether any of the measures to be introduced by Government were likely to originate in that House? and also, whether they were likely to have any im- portant measures submitted to them previous to the Easter recess? The Duke of WELLINGTON begged that the question might be repeated next evening. He then replied, that all the measures contemplated by Government were of a kind that must necessarily originate in the other House; except two, which would shortly be introduced into their Lordships' House.

LAW Rusorous. On Monday, Lord CAMPBELL asked the Lord Chancellor, whether he meant to introduce a bill relative to bail in error; and also whether he meant to introduce one respecting "the challenge of the array"? Formerly, where the Jury was improperly empanelled, the common law gave a remedy against the Sheriff, and the whole proceedings might bequashed; but if the Judges were right in a recent case, [that of Mr. O'Connell,] an alteration of the law, which has transferred certain of the Sheriff's duties to other officers, has taken away that remedy. Was any measure on that point contemplated? The LORD CHANCELLOR replied, that he should shortly introduce a measure respecting bail in error. With respect to the other question, the common law only gave a re- medy where the Sheriff or returning-officer misconducted himself or was unin- different ; which was not alleged in the present case. Nevertheless, the defective state of the Jury-book might cause an improper empanelling of the Jury; there ought to be a remedy for that wrong: his attention had been turned to it, and if possible he should endeavour to provide a remedy.

A NEW Warr was ordered on Monday, for Lewes, in the room of the Honour- able Henry Fitzroy, appointed one of the Lords of the Admiralty.

WINDOW-TAX. In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord DUNCAN gave notice that he should, on Thursday the 20th instant, move for a Committee on the subject of the Window-tax, unless he were forestalled by the right honourable gentleman at the head of the Government.

GAME-LAWS. Mr. BRIGHT has given notice, that on the 27th instant he will move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Game- laws.

AGITATION DI THE CHURCH. OR Monday, Lord EBRINGTON presented Petition to the Commons from the Reverend Dr. William Carwithen, Rector of Stoke Clymeeland, in Cornwall, alluding to the difficulties under which the clergy he who hold themselves bound by their ordination-vow strictly to obey the regulations of the Church, and praying the House " to procure a calm, mo- derate, and temperate review of the Book of Common Prayer Rubrics and Canons of the United Church of England and Ireland, as may have the effect of settling those differences of opinion and practice which now exists."

THE COMMONS AND ATTORNEY HOWARD. On Wednesday, the Sergeant-at- Arms reported progress in the action brought against him by Thomas-Howard; stating that, under the advice of the Law-officers of the Crown, he bad applied for time to plead to a Judge at chambers, and be had been allowed till the 18th February. On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, the subject was ordered to be taken into consideration on Thursday; when permission was given to the Sergeant-at-Arms to appear and plead to the action.

THE PORTLAND VASE. Mr. CHRISTOPHER asked, on Wednesday, whether any steps had been taken to prevent the recurrence of such outrages as that com- mitted at the British Museum on Friday ? Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that the Trustees of the Museum were to meet on Saturday, for the purpose of considering that important subject; and most probably their opinion would be communicated to Government.

CANADA. On Wednesday, Mr. ROEBUCK, alluding to the riots during the election at Montreal, said, that the conduct of Mr. ] elling, the Sheriff, had been imps in a petition before the local Legislature; and he asked whether that of&ei had received the thanks of Government? Mr. G. W. ROPE answered, that there-had been disturbances, and protection had been claimed for the elec- tors at the poll: it was afforded so effectually that no life was lost; and the despatch announcing the result to the Secretary for the Colonies gave great credit to Mr. Young: Lord Stanley signified his approval, but did not formally convey the thanks of Government.