Debates anb Vroceebingsin parliament.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER.

HOME OP LOAM. Monday, March 12. Larceny Acts Amendment Bill, read a third time and passed—Adjourned at 5 h. 58 m. Tuesday, March 13. No business of interest— Adjourned at 5 b. 10 m. Thursday, March 15. Motion for Income-tax Returns—Ad- journed at 5 h. 45 m. Friday, March 16. No business of Interest—Adjourned at

5 h. 17 tn.

[Time occupied in the four sittings, 211. 10 m.

from the beginning of the Session, 36 h. 9 m.

HOME or CommoNs. Monday, March 12. Navigation-laws: second reading of the Government Bill carried, 266 to 210—Adjourned at 12 h. 45 m. Tuesday, March 13. Danish War : Lord Paimerston's Statement—Church-rates : Mr. Trelawney's 31 otion for Abolition negatived—House counted out on Mr. Anstey's Motion respecting Illegal Taxation in Van Diemen's Land—Adjourned at 10 11. 30 m. Wednesday, March 14; noon sitting. Landlord and Tenant Bill, read a second time—Real and Personal Pro- perty Conveyance BM, read a second time—Clergy Relief Bill, read a second time— Agricultural Burdens debate resumed and further adjourned—Scotch Marriage and Registering Bills, read a second time, and referred to one Select Committee—Adjourned at 5 h. 55 m. Thursday, March 15. Public Libraries : Mr. Ewart's Mot= for Select Committee agreed to—Agricultural Burdens : adjourned debate resumed and concluded ; Mr. Disraeli's Motion and Mr. Rome's Amendment negatived—Adjourned at 2 h. 45 m. (Friday morning.) Friday, March 16. Order of the day for Supply read : Mr. flume's Amendment for a Financial Statement negatived—House in Committee on Navy Esti- mates: Amendment to reduce the Vote of Men negatived Votes passed—Adjourned at 12 h. 45 m.

[Time occupied In the five sittings, 40 h. 40 m.

since the beginning of the Session, 230 h.] NAVIGATION-LAWS.

The adjourned debate on the second reading of the bill for the repeal of the Navigation-laws,was resumed on Monday, and proceeded to conclusion without any controversial interest: the only speech demanding especial notice was that of Mr. Gitansrosin, in development of his theory of reci- procity by conditional repeal. Mr. Gladstone prefaced the explanation of his views by some forcible statis- tics on the general question—statistics founded on figures selected and arranged by the Protectionist Mr. Richmond himself, before the Lords Committee. These statistics prove, that in the twenty-four years since 1824, when the first recipro- city treaty was made with the Baltic Powers, our shipping has increased at a far greater rate per annum than in the thirty-four years before 1824: that this more rapid increase has occurred chiefly on our non-colonial tonnage; yet that our colo- nial tonnage has outstripped in its rate of progress the wonderfully rapid increase of the United States tonnage during the whole of the period from 1790 to 1848. The results stand formally thus—In the thirty-four years from 1790 to 1824, the total increase of British tonnage was 1,048,000, which is at the rate of about 30,800 a year ; but in the twenty-four years from 1824 to 1848, the increase was 1,393,000, which is at the accelerated rate of 58,000 a year. Of the 30,800, the non-colonial increase was 27,000 per annum, and the colonial increase 3,300; and of the 58,000 a year, the non-colonial increase was 40,000 and the colonial 18,000 per annum: so that although both the home and colonial increase was accelerated by the reciprocity treaties, the home increase was most rapidly so. The compa- rison of the colonial increase with that of the United States gives this result. In the thirty-four years from 1790 to 1848, the colonial tonnage increased from 96,000 to 644,000, which is at the rate of 667 per cent; while the United States tonnage increased only from 502,000 to 2,829,000, which is at the rate of only 565 percent.

Disregarding abstract theories, therefore, and relying on facts selected by the opponents of change, he showed that experience of no narrow scope was in favour of advancing in the path that Mr. Huskisson had trodden.

He came next to the mode in which this should be done; under what rules of action they might safely part altogether with those laws which they have already agreed to relax. As a first condition, the shipowner himself is entitled to the removal of every peculiar burden which now hampers him. Though much has already been done with respect to the Timber-duty, and though the employment of foreign timber in ship-building is of secondary consideration only, yet the residuary duty should no longer remain to favour an impression of ill usage—a drawback of the duty should be forthwith allowed, and that drawback would be a pledge of a general repeal of the duty as soon as the revenue could spare the loss. The grievance respecting the manning of ships should be removed ; the ex- istang restraint can no longer be continued: the extent to which our seamen al- ready man. the American marine is proof that the removal of that restraint would let in no competition that our men do not already meet more than half- *ay. . If it be necessary in policy to maintain impressment, the shipowner ought to be compensated. These are conditions which the shipowner is entitled to be- fore the repeal of the preseat laws; for although the especial superiority of Nor- wegian enterprise in the Baltic is merely acescienta/,—just as the prevaleney of Irish badmen in Liverpool is only accidental, and not founded on the power of Irishmen to drive Englishmen out of any given trades—yet, no doubt, the British shipowner would encounter a competition from the Baltic which would be sharp so far as it extended, and from America pretty sharp all over the world. In his plan of alteration Mr. Gladstone would follow the example of America. He would not proceed by treaties of reciprocity. It is one of the objections to the present bill that it involves a dozen initiatory negotiations—a dozen correspond- ences with powers all anxious, as a late Parliamentary paper shows, to make much of what they have to give and little of what they aim to get. That diffi- culty would be avoided by providing generally for conditional relaxation. Either her Majesty, by order in Council, might have power to declare, or by immediate effect of the law it might be provided, that the vessels of those foreign states which granted the same privileges to British ships as to their own should enjoy the same privileges with British ships; so that if state A were to allow British vessels to bring cargoes from all parts of the world irrespective of the origin of the goods or the nationality of the vessels, the ships of state A should be admitted to the same privileges in British ports ; and if state B allowed intercourse with its colonies, the same privilege should be accorded to it by Great Britain. Such a plan would be founded on real reciprocity; whereas the Government plan is founded on retaliation,—against which every word that had been advanced against reciprocity told with tenfold force. It was infinitely safer to stand on the existing 3ystem, and to make its relaxation dependent on time and circumstances, than to sweep it away and establish an entirely new system, under which would be sown the seeds of a new crop of claims that would be preferred against us if once we restored to act upon the principle of retaliation. It might be said that the re- taliation-clauses were intended to be a dead letter, and would never be carried into effect. If that were the ease, get rid of them at once; and be would join in getting rid of them rather than allow the bill to stand as it is. (" Hear, hear.r) If you were not to resort to retaliation except when an extraordinary case might arise to justify the proceeding, come to Parliament when the extraordinary case should occur. Such a plan would also be the most practicable, inasmuch as it would be the least variation from that now in operation: for, strictly speaking, duratate berm *cite, is at this moment the rule on which both parties may act in the case of our trea- ties with every important country in the world; the fixed period for which they were originally concluded having in all cases flown out. But his plan had this practical recommendation in a particular case---if we proceeded by unconditional legislation, we should not get the coasting trade of America ; but if we proceeded by conditional legislation, and refused to give America our colonial trade unless she gave us her coasting trade, we should get what we wanted.

Mr. Gladstone objected to the Ministerial plan, that he had heard nothing to. convince him that foreigners should not be admitted to our coasting trade if they could get into it; and in conclusion, he objected to that part of the plan which proposes to leave the regulation of intercolonial trade and existing colonial trade to the Colonial Legislatures. That was a matter which ought to be left under the control of the Imperial Legislature. Should difficulties arise, it would be neces- sary, under the plan of the Government, either to refer the construction of the co- lonial laws to Downing Street, which would not please the colonies, or to establish diplomatic relations between the colonies and foreign powers, which might lead to results which it was unnecessary to allude to further.

The direct opponents of the Ministerial bill were Mr. ROBINSON, (who demanded, what security, if the existing laws were repealed, would there be that the disabilities of shipowners would be removed?) Mr. CLAY, Mr. HORNET, (though generally a Free-trader,) Mr. WAWN, Mr. C. Baum, Mr. R. C. HILDTARD, Admiral BOWLES, and Mr. DECAMPED. Mr. MITCHELL and Mr. RICARDO replied, at no very great length, in its support.

Mr. LABOUCHER.E reminded the House, that the only question before it was the principle of the measure.

He had never attempted to conceal its magnitude, or to disguise that it was, in fact, the virtual abandonment of the system of restrictions on the navigation of this country.; and he would not ask for the vote of any one who was not prepared to consider the propriety of that course. There were undoubtedly details of the utmost consequence, such as the manning and registry of vessel, connected with this principle; bat they should be reserved for the House in Committee, when he hoped they would receive the most attentive consideration. With regard to the Timber-duties, he would be as glad as Mr. Gladstone to see them removed. Such a measure, would be most useful as regarded not only the shipping interest, but the community. But if the Government were unable, in the present condition of the revenue, to make a breach in the Customs-duties, that afforded no reason for the postponement of the bill before the House.

Mr. MI:wiz indulged in some general criticisms on cheapness; with prac- tical illustrations from his own business, which he was at last going to give up from want of profit. Mr. SCIIOLEFIELD, his colleague, retorted on behalf of the Birmingham constituency and free trade.

On a division, the second reading was carried, by 266 tel 210; but the smallness of the majority occasioned much cheering from the Opposition.

AGRICULTURAL BURDENS.

The adjourned debate on Mr. Disraeli's motion was opened by Sir CHARLES WOOD, in a speech of great length; endeavouring to discredit the estimates on which Mr. Disraeli founded his reasoninge, and to show that, granting his premises, his remedial proposals were not well adapted for the relief of the agriculturist.

Sir Charles agreed that the poor-rates, highway-rates, church-rates, and others of the same kind, together with the land-tax, amount to about 14,000,0001.; but he would point out very considerable corrections which should be made in Mr. Disraeli's other assumptions. For instance, he took the property rated to the poor at 67,000,0001. a year: but the Income-tax returns give the property rated to the poor as 84,000,0001.; and if one-fourth be added for incomes under 1501., the total real property rated to the poor would appear to be 105,000,000/. a year, instead of 67,000,0001. Instead, therefore, of the proportion which real property bears to the whole national property being one-fourth, it is two-fifths. But not more than 40,000,0001. of this aggregate consists of land: houses amount to 85,000,0001.; canals, railways, mines, and other property which cannot pretend to have been directly injured by repeal of the Corn-laws, supply the balance. There is great confusion in the persons to whom Mr. Disraeli would allow the compensation claimed; sometimes it is the owner, sometimes the tenant of the land. But it is clear that many of the charges paid at first instance by the te- nant are ultimately and really borne by the landlord. Nothing is more clear than that rates are a deduction from the landowner's rent. The tenant has therefore no interest in this question, and would not be benefited by any removal of these charges to another fund. Then as to many of the charges which are said to press unduly on the land—first, those of maintaining the roads: surely these charges are as fit to be paid exclusively by those who chiefly use them, as are the charges for lighting, paving, and cleansing the streets of towns, the benefits of which are not exclusively enjoyed by the townsmen who exclusively pay for them. It is moreover to be observed, that a large portion of these charge are borne by the general public, in the shape of general tolls. The church-rates ought surely to be paid by the parishioners who benefit by the parochial church ministration& These local rates are at present moderate in the rural districts; if transferred to the Consolidated Fund, the proportion paid by the rural populations would be in- creased. The cost of public prosecutions is now borne by the public Treasury, ma the argument derivable from that charge tends exactly in the opposite way to that in which Mr. Disraeli used it. It mast be admitted, by the way, that nothing was more unfounded than the outcry of the landed privilege to exemption from Legacy-duty: at this moment, land as compared with personal property ap- pears to pay 79 per cent of the Legacy-duty. Mr. Disraeli had continually insisted that little or nothing was done for the land, and had exclaimed against the amount of treasure drawn by the Excise from the agricultural interest: but since the year 1815 there has been a remission, by repeal or reduction, of Excise-duties affecting agricultural interests to an amount between 7,000,0001. and 8,000,0001. a year; and of the burdens enumerated by Mr. Miles three years ago,—the expenses of maintaining the Rural Police, the Malt-tax, the want of a general enclosure bill and a drainage bill, and the cost of proseentions,—the chief have been removed. In addition, there have been votes out of the Consolidated Fund for Coroners' expenses, registration expenses, and Poor-law Commission, amounting to some 770,000/. a year.

• Mr. Disraeli had summed up by saying that the landowners of this country might be rather supposed to be a conquered race than a predominating legislative inte- rest; and that in no European country was the land so heavily burdened. If he would descend from the regions of fancy to the dull realities of life, he would find that in hardly any country does the land pay less: in France, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, a far greater proportion of taxation is borne by the land. But to whom did Mr. Disraeli propose to remove the pressure thus indiscrimi- nately removed? The effect of his plan would be to place upon the general taxa- tion a sum of 14,000,0001 a year; not less than half of which, it is to be pre- sumed, would have to be met by an additional tax on income. Now, under that arrangement, Szhedule A would have to bear some 3,233,0001 beyond the sum at present borne by it; the effect of which would be little beyond taking money out of one pocket to put it in the other. Under Schedule B, the tenant-farmers them- selves would have 405,0001. additional placed on their burdens. Sir Charles did not claim to be the farmer's advocate, but he strenuously protested against such imposition of new burdens on that interest. But perhaps Mr. Disraeli proposed to omit schedules A and B altogether, and levy the whole 7,000,0001 on the last three schedules, which at present produce only 2,750,0001.

In conclusion, Sir Charles offered some statistics on the prices of agricultural produce, to support exceptions which he took to Mr. Disraeli's sweeping assump- tions regarding agricultural distress. The general result was, that, comparing the prices of meats of all sorts for all the months of the two years 1844 and 1848, prices have very materially advanced; the average price of beef being but as. 100. in 1844, and 4s. 3id. in 1848; that of mutton was 4s. Oid. in 1844, and 5s. lid in 1848. The price of wheat is now on the advance.

Mr. Disraeli's proposition was briefly supported by Mr. Cifiusrorizurt and the Earl of Meacu; opposed by Colonel THOMPSON: and the hour of six approaching, the debate was again adjourned.

The debate was continued to a conclusion on Thursday, with a long array of speeches on both sides, and a proportionate development of argu- ments which are in the main familiar to the reader. Mr. Disraeli's motion

was supported, on the ground of just relief to an overburdened class, by Mr. SEYMER, Sir RALPH LOPES, Sir MONTAGE' CHOLMELEY, Mr. WIL- man' MILES, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. CA-rtxr, and the Marquis of GRANBY; opposed by Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. CORNEWALL LEWIS, Lord Non- REYS, (as involving an increase of the Income-tax,) Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. SID NET HERBERT, Mr. GOULBURN, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. COBDEN. It is useless to follow the level controversy as it waves from side to side in alternation of speakers: we notice the points that most stand out. Mr. MILNER GIBSON supplied a useful view, by showing that as local rates are levied on the annual income arising from real property, a very

small proportion of it falls on land used for agricultural purposes, in which the annual value is low as compared with the intrinsic value. Mr. Disraeli proposed to retain all the expensive local machinery to administer half the present fund; so that it would be as expensive to collect sixpence as it now is to collect a shilling. Mr. Gibson made light of the Malt-tax as a griev- ance: it is not a good tax, but the arguments against it are not more stringent than in other cases; and he earnestly exhorted the agriculturists to abandon that will-o'-the-wisp, in order to join with the manufacturers in obtaining a reduction of expenditure. To that end, he should vote with Mr. Hume.

Mr. LEWIS briefly examined the nature of local taxation. No doubt, the 43d of Elizabeth meant the poor-rate to fall on the personalty as well

as real property; but practically it had been found impossible to levy local rates except on visible property within the parish. There is a great ad- vantage in levying the rates upon persons who have an interest in econo- mizing the expenditure of the rate, and who see to the actual disposal of the money. No one would suppose that the House could be induced to vote the half of 13,000,0001. annually, without being minutely informed as

to what would become of the money. Mr. Disraeli seemed to assume that the local rates are a fixed sum, not to increase. [Mr. DISRAELI exclaimed, "No, no! ".] Then if they are to increase, that is a great argument against removing the check. On the other hand, Mr. MILES read prmnges from Black: One, to show that it is a principle of law that the provision for the poor sl oild fall upon personal as well as real property. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT addressed himself to the task of making out that the agricultural distress is not caused by free trade, but by transitory and

extraneous causes. If wheat is now but 45s. a quarter, the average price during the last century was considerably less. At this time, however, the corn-market is seriously deranged: wheat in the North still sells for 458., but in the South it is bad in quality and deficient in quantity; during the panic in France there were no purchasers of wheat, and she exported— she is now importing largely; in the mean time, the consumption in this country has been considerably checked. Mr. Herbert contended that the system of local taxation could not be disturbed without resorting to the representative principle in the management of county affairs.

Mr. CAYLEY threw out a new plan of taxation for the consideration of the House.

It might appear somewhat comprehensive when he stated that it was to abolish every tax levied by the Customs, Stamps, Excise, or Assessed-taxes; and yet ?rithout increasing the Income-tax,—wluch he did not feel inclined to do, unless it were to carry it down to incomes as low as 501. a year. He would also retain the revenue from Crown lands, postage-duty, and land-tax; the latter as a set-off against any apparent inequality in the Income-tax on precarious incomes. He Would also throw half or three-fourths of the local taxation levied for national th,leCtS on the general taxation. How, then, make up a deficiency, after every „reauction in expenditure; and for every practicable reduction he should vote? ne proposed a system of inland revenue which should levy a tax en every article of Pmduce, agricultural, manufacturing, or commercial, at a point nearest practicable t3 the consumer—that is, when the article is at its greatest value—of, say for the sake of argument, 10 per cent. The income of the country was estimated in au able pamphlet by Mr. Sines, founded on official documents, at 485,000,0001., reck-

oning incomes above 1501. per annum, between 1501. and 501., and below 501.

This, if all collected, (which doubtless would be difficult,) would give 48,000,0001. a year ; but say 40,000,0001 What with an assiduous reduction of expenditure,

and the remaining taxes he had mentioned, a sufficient taxation could, he believed, be levied. The tax would be levied on produce from wherever it came, if con- sinned in England, whether the corn came from Norfolk or from America. To

the extent of 10 per cent, therefore, it would indirectly protect the farmer 10 per

cent, while it would lower hi taxation at least 20 per cent, being a direct relief to British agriculture of 30 per cent—at least this was his rough estimate; while it would diminish the cost of production to the exporting manufacturer full 20 per cent,—for the 10 per cent tax would not fall on him. He heard that a shnilar tax had existed in Holland for the last hundred years; and it had been introduced partially in this country, in the form of taxes on printed calico, cotton, and hats.

Mr. GOULBURN observed, that Mr. Cayley, who held the Excise system in utter abhorrence, suggested a scheme of taxation which would render the presence of an excise-officer necessary not only in every village but in every house. Lord JOHN RUSSELL spent some time in bantering Mr. Disraeli for his secrecy as to the plan by which he would make good the needful amount

of taxation. He was almost induced to go into Committee through mere curiosity. Mr. Miles repudiated an additional income-tax; Sir Montagu Cholmeley hinted at making good the deficiency by a moderate duty on corn; and Mr. Cayley volunteered an extempore plan of taxation for the nonce! Lord John explained what he meant when he said, in 1846, that if the Corn-laws were repealed considerable relief ought to be given to the landed interests from the burdens to which they were subject. When Sir Robert Peel abrogated the Corn-laws, he did propose a remission of the burdens which pressed upon real property, to the amount of 535,000/. a year. Lord John might have proposed to put some different charges on the Exchequer, and he believed that the total amount which he should have proposed would have been 585,000/.

Mr. COBDEN would not weary the House, after Sir Charles Wood's speech, by slaying the slain, in the way of replying to Mr. Disraeli; and he

therefore turned his arguments to particular points. He contended that the relief would go, not to the farmers, but to the owners of land; and being met by signs of dissent, be defied any Member to assert that if two farms were to be let, one with poor-rates of 2s. in the pound and the other 8s., they would be let for the same rent. Mr. Disraeli's proposition, there- fore, came before them under false pretences. In like manner, it was said that at the great meeting in Willis's Rooms none but tenant-farmers were to speak: now he knew that most of the persons who were called tenant- farmers were land-agents,—for he had met them all. Mr. Cobden entered into minute statistics to show that the labouring part of the agricultural classes are better off in cheap years than they are in dear years, as the wages do not increase proportionately with the price of provisions: at the same time, the stockingers of Nottingham, who had been for nearly seventy

years in a state of gradual extinction, have been placed by free trade in a state of comparative comfort and happiness. On the other hand, while the

price of the farmer's staple, wheat, has remained nearly what it was in 1790, and other produce in the nature of animal food has risen in price, the price of articles consumed by the farmer—his iron implements, cloth-

ing, cotton goods, tea, sugar, coffee, soap, fuel, candles, preserved fruits, in fact almost everything except beer—is cheaper than it was then, in some cases four or five times as cheap: rent, however, is double what it was in 1790; in Scotland it is treble. Mr. Cobden said that he should vote for Mr. Hume's amendment.

He supported the repeal of the Malt-tax, because he was desirous to get rid of excise taxes as far as he could, but mainly because he wished to diminish the waste of the national expenditure upon cumbrous and unnecessary armaments. He was satisfied, from studying the proceedings of that House for thirty-five years past, that if they wanted to reduce expenditure they must get hold of a tax as a grievance; they must bring a pressure to bear upon the Government, and means would be found of effecting a reduction. In 1816 or 1817, when Lord Palmerston was Secretary at War, he passed his estimates, after a great battle for a reduction in the number of men to be voted; the present Premier having fought most man- fully in favour of that reduction. A week afterwards, the Property-tax was brought under the consideration of the House, and it was rejected by a large ma- jority. What was the result? Within a week from that time the Secretary at War came down and withdrew his Army Estimates, in order to amend and reduce them. If, then, they enforced upon the Government the necessity of reducing the Malt-tax and other taxes, they would obtain a reduction of the public expenditure.

Mr. DISRAELI replied, justifying his case against the principal objec- tions—namely, that his allegations were not correct, that his scheme was impracticable, and that if practicable it would not benefit the farmer: but for the most part he did so in very general terms. He retorted Lord John's banter; reminding him that he had pledged himself to an eight shilling duty on corn, and offering to accept that now. He reminded Lord John also, that be himself, who was now surprised at Mr. Disraeli's "secrecy," had laid on the table certain celebrated resolutions, [on the Irish Poor-law,] and proposed to go into Committee without explaining his plan. In Com- mittee, Mr. Disraeli would be prepared to explain the remedy that he pro- posed; and he endeavoured to show that his plan would benefit the farmer. If 5,000,000/. were raised on property not now subject to poor-rate, it would require a rate of 41. in the pound: in common with other classes, the farmer would have to pay that 6id. in the pound, in lieu of half his present rates; but those rates are at present in some places as high as 8*. in the pound. By some combination of parties Ministers might extricate themselves from the embarassment which his resolution might occasion them, but the only consequence of rejecting that resolution would be a proposition conceived in a sterner spirit of justice.

"Do not suppose that the various classes of the interest you have been con- spiring to injure will renounce for a moment the resolve of obtaining at your hands those measures of redress and compensation which you now refuse. (Loud cheers.) I tell you that you will, before this session ends, if you do not do them justice, be appealed to a third time—you will be appealed to like the unknown stranger in the Roman legend. We will come a third time; only one book will remain, and on it will be inscribed, 'Protected and regenerated England:" (Loud and protracted applause.)

The House divided first on Mr. Home's amendment: negatived by 394 to 70—majority 324. It then divided on Mr. Disraeli's resolutions: ne- gatived by 280 to 189—majority 91.

CHUELCH-RATES.

The debate on Mr. TRELAWNEY'S motion for pledging the House of Commons "to take effectual measures for the abolition of church-rates," was not characterized by novel argument or interesting incident. The me-

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.

In moving the second reading of his Landlord and Tenant Bill, Mr. POSEY stated that it now came before the House for the third time, as the clauses had passed through Committee last session. Colonel Sinrnone moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. This was seconded by Sir HARRY VERNEY, and supported by Mr. Conisroreims and Mr. MULLINGS. The bill received the hearty support of Mr. HENLEY; and Was defended by Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT and the ATTORNEY-GENE- RAL. On a division, the second reading was carried, by 147 to 11.

RESIGNATION OF THE CLERICAL STATE.

The second reading of the Clergy Relief Bill was moved by Mr. Bou- VERSE; and supported by Mr. HUME, Mr. SPOONER, and Mr. KERSHAW. Sir GEORGE GREY thought it appeared calculated to redress a great grievance. Mr. LACY moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. This amendment was supported by Mr. HENLEY, Mr. KEWDEGATE, and Mr. Hexer Dnummown, on the general ground that it would be impro- per to allow clergymen to avoid penalties they had incurred by merely de- claring themselves to be Dissenters; though the last speaker would not affirm that connexion of the Church with the State was right. Mr. LACY, however, withdrew his amendment; and the bill was read a second time.

INCOME-TAX IN IRELAND.

In moving for returns to illustrate the subject, the Earl of WICKLOW said he had heard that no less than 8,000,000/. drawn from Ireland is amenable to the Income-tax. No doubt, the amount is exaggerated; but it is certain that it reaches a very considerable sum, and cuts away the argument of those who say that Ireland is exempt. The Marquis of Leassoowrie did not oppose the returns, but said that it might be diffi- cult to make them complete. Instructions, however, had been given to the Board of Taxes to distinguish the several sources from which the Income tax is derived.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES.

In moving for " a Select Committee on existing public libraries in Great Britain and Ireland, and on the best means of extending the establishment of libraries freely open to the public, especially in large towns," Mr. Ewa= observed, that England is far behind other countries in the number of public libraries: there are 107 in France, 81 in the United States of America; and on the Continent there is a regular system of lending books. Sir GEORGE GREY objected to inquire into the" existing libraries "; as many are not public institutions, and the investigation would clash with the inquiry already proceeding on the library of the British Museum. Mr. EWART agreed to omit the reference to" existing" libraries; and with that alteration the motion was agreed to.

THE DANISH WAR.

Replying to Mr. SANDARS, on Tuesday, Lord PALAIERSTON stated the actual position of the Schleswig-Holstein affair—

It was true that the Danish Government had given notice of the termination of the convention on the 26th of the present month; but, in giving that notice to the parties concerned, it at the same time declared in writing and officially, that it was not its intention to recommence hostilities, and that the object which it had in view in renouncing the armistice was to make a different arrangement with respect to the Provisional Government of the dutchies of Schleswig and Heletein.

tion was resisted by Sir GEORGE GREY and Sir ROBERT PEEL, chiefly on grounds of form; and by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on principle: it will suf- fice to indicate the positions in which the other speakers ranged. Mr. PAGE WOOD moved as an amendment, to omit the words "abolition of church-rates," and, substitute the words "discharging persons dissenting from the Church as by law established from contributing to church-rates, and from taking any part in the assessing, levying, or administering the same." This amendment found a seconder in Mr. HEADLAM; supporters in Mr. RICE and Mr. CORDER. Mr. GLADSTONE again distinguished himself from his party, and took ground especially his own: thereby provoking a sneer from Mr. HENLEY, and praise from Mr. COBDEN.

The original intention of the law, Mr. Gladstone said, was not to impose an uncompensated burden on the people, but one for which the people should receive a benefit in exchange ; and while every member of the community was bound to contribute church-rates, every member had the right to go to the Churchwardens and demand a free place in the church. Now, however, considering how all the desirable places in churches were monopolized by pews, the property of the middle class—how the mass of the community, the labouring class, found themselves re- moved from all opportunity of hearing or seeing, and only went to church to be exposed to marks of social degradation, which they were subject to nowhere else —he could not but feel that this law of church-rates was most unsatisfactory, and that it was their duty to give their consideration to every plan which in any degree proposed to afford a remedy. Feeling this strongly, he was bound to say, that while he would vote against any abstract resolution, yet, if the honourable Member for Oxford embodied his plan in the form of a motion for leave to bring in a bill, he should not think himself entitled to vote against it, but should deem it only fair to give the honourable gentleman an opportunity of laying his plan upon the table.

The amendment was opposed by Mr. AGLIONBY, Sir GEORGE GREY, Lord DUDLEY STUART, Mr. GOULBURN, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. HENLEY; the ground of opposition being chiefly that exemption from church-rates would have a tendency to induce persons to separate themselves from the Church. Mr. JOHN BRIGHT opposed the amendment, on the ground that it deprived Dissenters of that share in the management of Church property to which they are entitled and which they ought to maintain, as that property is national property.

The original resolution found supporters in Mr. RUBE, Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. OSBORNE, and Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON; and was opposed by the chief opponents of the amendment, on the ground that the proceeding by resolution was ill-advised in such a grave matter, and that no new argu- ments for the course had been advanced, since it was negatived when pro- posed by Mr. Thomas Duncombe some ten years ago.

A division was first taken on the amendment; which was negatived, by 183 to 20. The original motion then went to division; and was negatived, by 119 to 84.