Debates anb Vroceebringsinglatliament.

THE FINANCIAL SCHEME: THE INCOME-TAX.

The House of Commons resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, on Monday; and the debate upon Sir Robert Peel's financial state- ' ment and his resolution for a three-years continuance of the Income-tax • seas resumed.

Lord JOHN Russam, took a general review of the whole scheme. The Income-tax, he contended, is suited only to some great emergency, such as a time of arduous and costly war: for inequality, vexation, and fraud, are inherent in the impost. At the time the tax was introduced, Sir Relied Peel dweltupon the events in Syria, India, and-China, and the expenses in- curred in Canada, as tantamount to a state of war; while both he and Mr. iirseilturn proposed it as a means of meaning the revenue under the great reclimtion of duties in the Tariff of 1 W. But the circumstances have quite elicited. In his staterneut of Fridem evening' Sir Robert Peel seemed to hipte-forgottup both theft grounds; No•seneW, ztouched upon them—upon the reduction of the tariff not at all. He took another course—very popu- lar, no doubt, but dangerous—proposing a sweeping abolition of taxes, and then taking advantage of the popularity produced in the House to ask the reimposition of the Income-tax. The result must be, that the tax origi- nally proposed for three years must now be a permanent one. The taxes enumerated by Sir Robert Peel are entirely gone: you have no longer any revenue whatever from them. Such being the case, can you, at the end of three years, when you will have no less than five millions of taxes abolished, expect that those five millions will be replaced by an increased revenue, derived from an increased commerce consequent upon the reduc- tion of those taxes? Can anybody mention a period in the history of-this or any other country, in which, in the course of three years, the general re- venue was augmented by no less than five or six millions in consequence of the abolition of taxes? Let it therefore be put forward on the proper footing, to be renewed from tune to timer but always to be renewed. Lord John went on to criticize other parts of the statement. He oensured Sir Robert Peel for unduly enlarging, with trite arguments, on the necessity of a military expenditure for our Colonies. Of the increase in the Navy he spoke with approval: but it is a fact that the expenditure of the year before last was 18,167,0001; last year it amounted to 19,118,000/.: Sir Robert Peel has proposed for the current year 18,895,0001.; and it was to be hoped that he would be able to produce reasons for that continued high expenditure. There is a surplus to dispose oft- of 3,400,000/. Many of the articles selected for reduction have been parti- cularly well selected—such as the duty on glass; but he did not see why 300,000/. should be thrown away upon Auction-duties: the reduction of the duty on fire-insurances would have been a better choice;_ while Adam Smith especially mentions soap as a tax on a necessary of life which ought not to be maintained: but Sir Robert Peel said that no one had ever com- plained of the Auction-duty, and he really seemed to think that it was a merit on his part to have found out a tax for repeal the imposition of which was not felt as a grievance by any one! From the tables which have been presented to the House, it appears that the reductions of 1842 in the tariff have caused great loss to the revenue, and that the increase has taken place almost entirely in those articles which have not been touched by the tariff; the increase, in fact, being occasioned by the plentiful sea- son, the revival of trade, and the Unproved condition of the country. The duty on exports everybody is glad to get rid off; and no one will dis- pute the policy of taking the duty off cotton-wool, and the raw materials of manufactures. But there is another principle to be attended to, advocated by that great man and writer Adam Smith, and recognized by Mr. Pitt— that you ought not to have protective duties which injure one class of your fellow-subjects for the apparent benefit of another, while in the long run they injure by diminishing the "protected" trade. Lord John strongly objected to the proposed alteration of the Sugar-duties, that it continues, or even extends to the degree of prohibition, the discriminating duty against sugar; which has proved impracticable, which is quite inconsistent with the admission of other slave-grown produce, and which entails a sacrifice of revenue to the extent of 1,300,0001. A great approach might be made to free trade, by admitting the sugars of other countries, and yet maintaining the present amount of revenue. There is a surplus of 3,400,0001.; but all of it is relinquished, excepting the small sum of 70,000/.; and the re- venue is put in such a state, that at the end of three years there will be no alternative except continuation of the impost or national insolvency. Lord John would adopt a different course: making some of the reductions, as those on cotton and glass, others he would not touch at all; and with respect to sugar he would adopt a different plan. He had said that he considered "protection the bane of agriculture" : he npvr repeated that with respect to all-" protected " interests. "If you wish to get rid of the Income-tax, you should take-the mode of endeavouring to improve the eon- dition and increase the prosperity of the empire, by opening new markets and admitting large imports—by finding fresh demand for labour, and by augmenting the consumption of those articles which you restrict by your imaginary favour and protection. Then, indeed, you might look forward at the end of three or five years to the abolition of your Income and Pro- perty-tax; but if the question be between a perpetual Income-tax and the continuance of monopoly and restriction, I declare for the Income-tax and a diminution and final abolition of monopoly." He could not give his hearty assent to the proposition in the hands of the Chairman; but he could not refuse to renew the Income-tax for three years. - Lord John Russell's view was followed up by Sir GEORGE GREY; who called upon hi-misters to state what reasons they had for believing that they could dispense with the Income-tax at the end of three years. He quarrelled also with the arrangement of the Sugar-duties; expressing strong doubt whether, if the price were lowered lid a pound, the supply of free-labour sugar would suffice for the demand. Mr. CH Arir.vs Wool) backed his leader with a long array of details and figures. He asked if the House were sure that there would not be additional expenses to meet in the course of the year? A Commission had recommended the construc- tion of certain harbours—too much time had been lost already in the con- struction of those works; but they would of course entail a large expendi- ture. Looking also to what is going on across the Atlantic, no one would say that it is wise to begin the commercial year with the small surplus anticipated by Sir Robert Peel. Lord HOWICIE argued that the drift of the financial scheme should have been, to abolish duties which-check con- sumption and encourage smuggling.

Mr. Romsucx moved an amendment on Sir Robert Peel's resolution— namely, to omit tile words "trades, professions, and offices "; thus limiting the tax to property. He believed that the Minister, surrounded by inte- rests which he could not combat, had attempted as much as he could hope to accomplish: he had gone further than his predecessors, and the benefit he was about to confer was great. Rut, granting much of his statement, Mr. Roebuck took large exceptions to it. If our Colonial system is to be maintained, the Army may not be too large for the necessary reliefs: but experience has taught that the foreign slave-trade can never be put down by the right of searoh; and the increased naval establishment on the West- ern coast of Africa must only load to expenditure, disaster, and collision

With the commercial navy of the world. Sir Robert Peel not only de- ttumds to increase the expenditure, but to alter the commercial taxation of the country. Before he does so, he is bound to show that the Income-tax Is not only easily paid, but better mdcalated than any other tax to promote the interests of the country. It can be shown that there is another and • a better method of meeting the deficiency of two millions which would exist without the Income-tax. An income-tax, permanent or temporary, is unequal. It is a rule in taxation, that each man ought to be taxed ac- oording to his means of payment: but the means of two men, each forty years old, with 1,0001 a year, onederiving his income from landed property which he could sell for thirty-years purchase, and the other from pro- fessional labour, for which, under the most favourable circumstances he Mould not obtain six-years purchase, are quite unequal. There is already - tin inquiry into the special circumstances of each man who pays the tax. Let then this plan be adopted: let every man return the extent of his in- • come, and the sources of it, together' with his age; and let a fair calculation be male of the worth of the property, and of how much per cent ought to be tak-en from it. Every man circumstances would be judged of as now. Sufficient protection would be afforded to the State if the oath of the party

• Were taken. This-proposition might startle the Chancellor of the Exche- quer and men accustomed to official life; but he would recall to the recol- lection of the right honourable Baronet, that the doctrine of chances was nowextremely well understood, and that at this moment a society had been established, and attended with great success, to protect particle against the frauds of servants; to prove which, Mr. Roebuck quoted from the Vestiges of the Natural History of the Creation, which he characterized as an extra- ordinary book, a passage describing a society to furnish security for clerks, calculated on the average yearly number of eases of dishonesty. Under the pressure of Colonial interests, Sir Robert Peel last year threw away 900,0001. of revenue from the Timber-duties and he is now about to throw away 1,300,0001. of Sugar-duties: by equalizing the duties on Foreign and Colonial timber and sugar, both those amounts might be saved, and the country might be relieved from the odious imposition of the Income-tax. Mr. Roebuck also quarrelled with other parts of the scheme: an export- duty on coal would be -a benefit to this country; many taxes more onerous than the Auction-duties might have been remitted; and the cheapening of glass would in reality be a boon to the rich rather than the poor. But as he believed the existing mode of deriving taxation from Excise-duties to be most mischievous he-- took this instalment from the right honourable Baronet with thankfulness. Mr. WARBURTON combated Mr. Roebuck's proposal; which went upon the ground that it is unjust to impose a tem- porary tax in equal amounts on a short annuity, whether obtained from -professional exertions or otherwise, and on a permanent annuity: the only way- to tax the-two kinds of annuities-equally would be to make the tax permanent—without being permanent it-could not be just; but he was not disposed to vote for a permanent Income-tax.

Mr. Mnseen GIBSON suggested a, different-plan- In the Income-tax for 1692, in manufactures and trade the value of the capital employed was taken, and the tax- or duty-was computed upon. the interest which would be received from such a capital. For instance, ifs man's-goods, or ma- chinery, or mill, were worth 1001., and the interest upon the capital was computed -at 5 per cent, such a person would pay *duty computed upon an income of 5/. In the case of the Income-tax-of 1692, it was imposed at a-time when the coun- ty was very much in want of-money, whams way was going on with France, and when taxation was carried to such an extent that a tax was laid upon births, marriages, and burials, and also on widows and bachelors: but even at that time it VMS not thought right and just to put the same tax upon incomes derived from trades and professions as upon real property. If that principle had been applied before, why could it not be adopted again? In his opinion, it would be very rea- sonable to appoint a Select Committee to inquire whether the same amount, and if not what amount, might be derived by adopting this principle in trades, profes- sions, and offices, and also whether some mode less vexatious and inquisitorial -could not be found of levying the Mx upon trades and professions. This, in his view, would meet the whole case. eolonel CONOLLY, as an Irishman, declared that the tax had been most beneficial to his country, which was very- destitute of capital; for it had enabled numbers of landed proprietors to relieve their greatly-encumbered estates, and make large-improvements; and the spirit of enterprise had been awakened. [The naiveté of this commendation, from a native of the country exempt from the tax, elicited many roars of laughter from the Howe.] Mr. COLLETT, another Irish Member, also advocated the tax.

Mr. GEORGE &LIMES coosplained that the agricultural interest had-been quite overlooked; and surely a more generous or more noble interest could not be found. (Laughter.) They were doomed for three years more to a heavy tax, which was unjust even at a period when matters were more flourishing with them than at present. The complaint was reiterated by other Agricultural Members:. to whom Mr. MILNER GIBSON, parodying Sir James Graham's answer to the Roman Catholics, said that "concession had reached its utmost limits."

The Ministerial replication to all these objections may be much com- pressed. Mr, GOULBURN replied to Sir George Grey, that he grounded his anticipation of the future abandonment of the Income-tax on the experience of the past. From a return, inoluding only the ordinary revenue and ex- cluding all adventitious sources, he found that in the year ending on the 10th October 1842, the amount was 47,000,0001.: in that year and in 1844 taxes included in the ordinary revenue were remitted to the amount of 1,400,0001.: but in the year ending in October 1844 the ordinary revenue amounted to 47,499,000E; showing the beneficial effect of judicious reduc- tion in the taxes. When be was in office before,. taxes were taken off to the amount of 5,000,000E: before that the revenue was 50,700,0001.: in 1831 the revenue was 48,800,000E, having recovered more than 3,000,000/. in two or three years. Lord John Russell said the Tariff-reform had failed, because in some particular articles there was no sign of increased consumption: he was wrong as to his facts, still more as to his inferences: the reduction of the Wool-duties, for example, had given great impulse to an important branch of industry; enabling the persons employed to be- come greater consumers of exciaahle articles. He treated Mr. Roe- buck's plan as impracticable, and: as counter to the spirit of the time, which tends to the abolition of oaths. As to the distinction beween slave-grown cotton and sugar, it rests upon the fact that slaves are imported for the sugar-cultivation but not for the cotton-cul- tivation. Sir ROBERT PEEL replied to the Agricultural Members, by acknowledging local but not general agricultural distress: but- plating it to. the season, with the failure of the hay and turnip crop. At the recent conference which he had had with an agricul- ttiraI'deputation, no suggestion was offered with respect to the remission

of any particular tax. He believed that it would be very difficult to find a tax peculiar to the agricultural interest ; and with local rates it would be highly objectionable to interfere. It should be remembered, that the farmer paying under 3001. a year for rent does not pay the Income-tax; and he believed that the agriculturist would derive advantages directly from the cheapening of glass and the cheaper cotton manufactures, and indirectly from the impulse of trade. To Lord John, Sir Robert replied with sonic banter on the inconsistency of his speech and vote: considering that the noble Lord deemed this tax of all others " the most oppressive, inquisitorial, and vexatious," the compliment and value of his support were the more sensitively felt. Looking to the proposals made by Mr. Roebuck and others, this House could scarcely refuse to come to the conclusion that it is better to vote for the continuance of the tax for three years longer in its present form than encounter the tedious and unnecessary discussions which those proposals would inevitably lead to. Any attempt to convert annuities into capital would be futile; and it is the nature of all taxes to press unequally. As to the continuance of the tax, he confidently expected that, with the increase of the population, the increased consumption caused by remission of other taxes, and the impulse to trade, they might be at liberty to discontinue the impost in three years. In 1843 the declared value-of exports was 44,812,000E; in 1844 it was 50,615,000L ; showing an increase ofmore than 5,000,000/. in that short time. Three years is rather a short period for so extensive an experiment—he should have preferred five years: but at the end of the present time Parliament may think that the tax ought to be continued; and the diminution of complaints at the Stamp-office shows that the tax is felt to be less onerous than it was.

On a division, Mr. Roebuck's amendment was negatived by 263 to 55; majority, 208; and, after some conversation on the method of proceeding, the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wed- nesday.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOLNG DEBATE. Against the Ministerial scheme— Lord John Russell, Sir George Grey, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Vernon Smith, Lord

Howick. More particularly against the Income-tax—Mr. Roebuck, Mr. War- burton, Mr. Charles Buller, Mr. Milner Gibson. For the Income-tax—Colonel Conolly, Mr. Collett. Complaining of neglect of the .Agrieulairists—Mr. George Banke,s, Mr. Robert Palmer, Mr. Mies, Sir John Tyrell, the-Marquis of Granby. For Mististers—Mr. Gonlburn., Sir Robert Peel.

On Tuesday, Lord Joffe RUSSELL gave notice, that on the motion for going into the Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of proposing the Sugar-duties, he would move the following amendment-

" That it is the opinion of this House, that the-plan proposed by her Majesty's Government in Inference to the Sugar-duties, which professes to keep up the dis-

tinction between foreign free-labour and slave-labour sugar, is impracticable and illusory, aggravates-the evil of the protection given to the colonist at the expense of the consumer, and tends so greatly to impair the revenue as to render the re- moval.of the Income and Property tax at the end of three years extremely uneer- tain.and improbable."

The Committee of Ways and Means having been resumed, on Wednes- day, Mr. ROEBUCK moved, as an addition to Sir Robert Peel's resolution,

"That the provisions of the said act as far as regards the tax on property

be extended to Ireland." It is A true principle in taxation, that every man should pay according to his means; and he called upon Sir Robert

Peel to justify the remarkable deviation from that principle- in omitting Ireland from a tax imposed upon England, Wales, and- Scotland. He called upon the English country gentlemen, who say that they feel for their tenants and labourers, and aver that their own means, and therefore the wages of their labourers, are lowered by this tax, to aid him in extending it to Ireland: they are the predominant interest in the House, and he asked them to pluck up courage and no longer crawl upon their bellies as they

were doing, telling the Minister that he had hurt them, and then asking him, with bated breath, to kiss the place! He called .upon the manufac-

turing interest to support his proposition. They seem to be delighted with Sir Robert Peel's scheme—for Manchester has been bribed, Glasgow, New- castle, and Sunderland. They profess, however, sympathy for their la- bouring people, who work- twelve hours a day; saying, that they cannot lessen the hours of labour, nor give more wages,-because- they are so bur- dened with taxation. A-very touching statement! but why do they not diminish the impositions on the English labourer, as they migistdo by help- ing him to put this tax on the landlords of Ireland? He did not appeal to the Irish landlords—as he was not a money-lender, they were beyond any appeal from him; and Colonel Conolly had come-therewith a solemn face, avowing that he considered it a mighty benefit that the English people should pay taxes for him: but Mr. Roebuck appealed to- those who pretend to represent the Irish people, to say why his proposition should not be adopted, to relieve Ireland from the Stamp-duties and place a tax upon the -landlords of the country. When he gave notice of his motion, Mr. Shell advised him to read Burke on the conciliation of America. What was on Mr. Shell's mind? Revolution. Burke's grand argument, however, was, that America was not represented in that House: but can it be said that Ireland is not represented? [Mr. SMEIL—" Not equally."] Not equally!

some Members had been given to Ireland: where were they at that moment? [Mr. HUM—" What is the use of their being here? "] "What is the use!

why, has not Mr. Hume sat in this House in a minority almost all his life; and has he done no good ? " (Cheers.) Shame on the cowards who had deserted the people of Ireland on the very spot where their battle was to be fought., because their vanity was wounded at not being able to raise a cheer—because they were unable, from their own personal insignificance, (of course he did not include Mr. O'Connell in this,) to gain. the attention of

the House. (Cheers and laughter.) That he took to be the rationale of Conciliation Hall. In Ireland there are no Assessed Taxes. The English- man must pay a tax on his horse—the Irish landowner may bring as many as he likes to London, and still he pays no tax: he may go to Belgium, the Rhine, Vienna, Naples, without paying a single tax. How gay his position! how happy his state! He, who looked at all these things as they affix-bed the peasant, the merchant, and the professional man of this country, could not but turn round to those gay lords of many thousands, and ask them how they could face any English House of Commons and boast of the advantage they derived from an Income-tax on the people of England. Some Members supported the amendment on general grounds. Mr. WILLIAMS contended that the tax ought at least to be paid by the reci- pients of public money in Ireland,—of which the Lord-Lieutenant receives 20,00014 the Judges and officers of the Law-courts 158,0001; while the Bank of Ireland, which receives interest on 2,000,0001. lent to Govern- ment, pays no Income-tax like the Bank of England. Mr. Humes:rest objections by arguing that it was no new [additional] tax which it was proposed to lay on Ireland; but that Sir Robert Peel's scheme consisted in the substitution of an Income-tax for other taxes remitted; shifting the mode of taxation, and laying the burden on those who can pay it, to the great benefit of the poor; and Ireland, sharing the benefit, ought to take her share of the tax. The amendment, however, would never have been thought of but for Colonel Conolly's speech on Monday. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, although personally iuterested the other way, could not, as an English Member, refuse his vote to a proposition that would relieve the working classes of the empire.

A few of the Agricultural Members responded to the appeal which had been made to them. Sir Josur TYRELL said that he was ready to pluck up courage and vote with Mr. Roebuck. He animadverted on the way in which some parties regard the Treasury benches almost as family-seats. (Cheers.) If the present Ministers left them, those who had not long be- fore been expelled would soon fill them: there seems to be a pretty good understanding between the leaders. The Members of the late Government frequently support the present Ministers on the voluntary principle, while Sir John and his friends often support them on the compulsory principle. (Laughter.) Unless the country is much deluded, a negotiation had been going on between Lord John Russell and the leaders of Conciliation Hall: was the negotiation in such a state as to enable the noble Lord to lay the proceedings on the table of the House? (Laughter.) The object was of course to obtain the cooperation of the noble Lord ; and had time been allowed, the walls of Parliament would already have rung with cries of "Justice to Ireland "—not heard from the lips of one man only—and the beautiful and often-quoted lines, "Hereditary Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not Unless you yourselves strike the blow you cannot be free?" (Great laughter.) All of the Agricultural Members, however, did not support the proposi- tion. Mr. NEWDEGATE did not see, as the agriculturists of England com- plain that they can scarcely support the tax, how it could be placed upon a poorer country; and he believed that it would prove in productiveness a most miserable substitute for the taxes now imposed. He began vehemently to denounce the "foul calumnies" and "gross libels" in which Mr. Roebuck had indulged towards the country gentlemen; when Mr. CHARLES BULLER rose to order, and the CHAIRMAN (Mr. Greene) pronounced such terms too strong; on which Mr. Newdegate apologized for any disrespect shown to the House.

The amendment was opposed by the Irish Members generally. Mr. SHEIL defended his absent colleagues, though he did not approve their policy in staying away: they thought it better to array the people of Ire- land in an united mass, in order to a gentle "pressure from without," than to make unavailing speeches in this House. Mr. Warburton wished the Income-tax to be perpetual; Mr. Roebuck, universal: " Eternity! " cries the voice from Kendal—" Infinity ! " cries the voice from Bath; and, spread- ing the blister over the whole Imperial frame' Mr. Roebuck would extend -schedule A to impoverished and emaciated Ireland. Mr. Shell did not shrink from the construction which had been put upon the allusion to Burke; and he appealed from the Member for Bath to an authority of which that honourable gentleman might think very humbly, though every .-one else forms no ordinary estimate of it—that of the late ad- vocate for Canada in the House of Commons, [Mr. Roebuck himself;] who had laid downs maxims of government entirely at variance with the proposition of the honourable Member for Bath. No statesman—not Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. Perceval, Lord Liverpool, nor Sir Robert Peel, had ever thought it practicable to impose this • tax on Ireland. The proposition was most rash, unjust, and im- politic. Before the Union, the expenditure of Ireland was far less than her income; but she was forced into partnership with this country, and in- volved in the ruinous impolicy by which the vast debt was accumulated. Drained by the absentee system, the consequence of the Union, a large por- tion of her wealth swells the great Pactolus of British opulence • and part 4' her quit-rents go to adorn Windsor Castle and embellish London. If -with Wood's halfpence Swift was enabled to raise all Ireland and produce an excitement of the most formidable character, with the Income-tax what will not the man of whom Swift was the precursor be able to achieve? Mr. Shell would show how a vast accession of income might be raised from Ireland. Saving is gaining in good housewifery. Mr. Hume used to point out how the forces in Ireland might be reduced: but this year the dragon of the golden fleece has been lulled to sleep by that fascinating financier Sir Robert PeeL If, instead of endeavouring to adapt Ireland to your in- stitutions, you adapt your institutions to Ireland—govern Ireland as Eng- land is governed—establish permanent peace—you will reap golden results. Mr. Ross pleaded the increasing burdens that press upon Ireland—the Poor-rates—the Stamp-duties, which fall heavily on the leases of minutely- divided estates. Lord BERNARD argued, that there is no machinery in Ireland to collect the tax; that the provision by which tenant-farmers paying less than 3001. rent do not pay it in England, would apply to the greater part of the land in Ireland, where the farms are small; and that in fact the tax would produce very little. Colonel CONOLLY regretted that any remarks of his should appear to countenance the introduc- tion of the tax into Ireland. Lord CASTLEREAGH, to show that Irish landlords resident in England pay the tax, said that he paid 80/. a year, although he possessed not a single acre in England. Sir Emir WINSTON Banaorr referred to official documents and the opi- nions of past statesmen, to show that Ireland is overtaxed. He angrily re- sented Mr. Roebuck's charges against the absent Members; • declaring that he would not in their presence have "dared" to say what he had said in their absence. The CH tIRMAN observed that this language was not Par- liamentary. Sir BEERY BARRON was not aware of that, and he bowed to the Chair. Mr. ROEBUCK afterwards observed, in his reply, that Sir Win- ston's reproach amounted to saying, that if the Irish Members had been present, he would not have "dared" to say that they were absent ! (Laughter.) Sir WINSTON BARRON said, the observation with which he found fault was, that from their personal insignificance the Irish Members .could well be spared; and that was what Mr. Roebuck would not have dared to say had they been present. (Roars of laughter.) Mr.-Roam:TIE remarked, that he had learned from his experience in cross-examination, that when he had to deal with witnesses of a peculiar turn of mind, it was best to let them tell their own story. (Laughter.)

Sir ROBERT PEEL strenuously opposed the amendment. He began by bantering Mr. Hume; who had quite put himself out of court by hi.s allusion tOColonel Conolly's speech. Mr. flume has sat in the House for forty years;

and, although apolitical opponent, to whom the honourable Member had never given a vote in his life, Sir Robert cordially acknowledged his zeal, his in- dustry, and his great services to the country: he was only anticipating the judgment of a grateful posterity. (Cheers and laughter.) Yet he, who had for forty years carefully attended to questions of finance, admitted that he was provoked by a foolish speech to apply a new tax to Ireland! Sir Robert had heard Colonel Conolly's speech with dismay, foreseeing the use that would be made of it; but he was surprised at the change which it had effected in Mr. flume's views. At the first view, if the tax were perma- nent, it seemed just to extend it to Ireland. But in 1841 Ministers care- fully considered the application of an Income-tax to that country; and they calculated that, with the expense of collecting an Income-tax upon a period of three years, a Stamp-duty and the additional Spirit-duty would be more productive. Of the 700,0001. produced by the Cotton-duty Ire- land only pays 1141.,—though it must be allowed, as a qualification of that comparison, that most of the cotton used in Ireland is first imported into Liverpool; in Great Britain the Auction-duty yields 270,000/.—in Ireland, 11,7001.; in Great Britain the Glass-duties yield 574,0001.—in Ireland, 5,7471.: these figures show that, although Ireland may ultimately benefit by the remission of duties, Great Britain will derive by far the greater present advantage. Nor was the present proposition one of equal taxation; since it was proposed to limit the tax in Ireland to land. And the House must remember, that the Irish landed proprietor resident in England is already subject to the tax. Sir Robert had cheered Mr. Shell, not when he said that to place the tax on Ireland would be "unjust," but when he said that it would be "impolitic"; for, looking at the present condition of Ireland, its brighter prospects, the diversion of men's minds from political agitation to the improvement of the country, he did think that the hundred or two hundred thousand pounds gained by the tax would be no compensa- tion for the moral and political consequences of such an impost. Let the English Members take an indulgent view of things—relinquish their own particular advantages, and they would be amply repaid in reciprocal good- will, engendered by their kindness and consideration for a people of inferior wealth. Mr. GOULBURN showed, at great length, that the Assessed Taxes had been very burdensome to Ireland, and had produced very little; and hence they were repealed; arguing that it would be the same with an Income-tax in that country. He pointed out a technical defect in the terms of Mr. Roebuck's motion: it simply extended the Property-tax to Ireland, without removing the Stamp-duty, which was included in the original resolution.

The Committee divided and Mr. Roebuck's amendment was negatived, by 275 to 33.

The Committee again divided on the main question—Ayes, 228; Noes, 30; majority in favour of Sir Robert Peel's resolution to continue the In come-tax and the Irish Stamp-duties, 198.

SPEAKERS TN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For extending a Property-tax to Ireland—Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Williams, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Hume, Mr. Shannan Craw- ford, Sir John Tyrell, Mr. Blackstone, Colonel Sibthorp, (last three Agrieultu ml Members.) Against that proposition—Mr. Shell, Mr. Ross, Lord Bernard, Mr. Bellew' Sir H. W. Barron, Colonel Conolly, Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Colonel Rawdon, Lord Castlereagh, (all Irish Members,) Lord Palmerston, (Irish Peer,) Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Darby, (Agricultural Members,) Mr. Goulburn, Sir Robert Peel, (Ministers.) Against any form of-Income. tax—Mr. Cartels, Mr. Wallace.

' THE RAILWAY BOARD.

• The charges against the Railway Board were the subject of an irregular conversation in the House of Lords on Monday evening. Lord BROUG- HAM had been informed, that Mr. William O'Brien had published 204 shares in the South-eastern Railway Company on the 17th December and that the value of the Company's shares went up from 13i to 38 as soon as Mr. O'Brien's name was put up. He "wondered" if what he had heard was true—that the decision in favour of the South-eastern Railway was carried by the narrowest possible majority? He understood that Ge- neral Pasley and Mr. Porter voted against the South-eastern Company, and Lord Dalhousie and Mr. Laing the other way,—Captain O'Brien not voting at all; and that the numbers being equal, Lord Dalhousie gave his casting-vote as Chairman. There was also this rule at the Board, that however a member of it voted, he signed the report as if he voted for the proposition. He had received this information from a gentleman who was a sufferer by the decision to the extent of 10,0001. The Earl of DAL- HOUSIE was not aware that his noble and learned friend expected an an- swer to the question about Mr. William O'Brien. With respect to the division on the South-eastern scheme, the only answer which he should give was, that his noble and learned friend might be sight or might be wrong; leaving him to " wonder " on. As to the signing of the reports by all the mem- bers, the same rule was followed as at the Customs and Admiralty Boards. Lord BROUGHAM said, he had now no "wonder," and was quite sure that his information was correct: but he cast no imputation on Captain O'Brien or his brother. The constitution of the Railway Department was condemned by Lord CAMPBELL. The Board was defended by the Duke of WEL- LINGTON, Lord STRANGFORD, and Lord WILLIINCLIFFE; and the subject dropped.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN CALICO-PRINT-WORKS.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Lord ASHLEY moved for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the labour of children in the calico-print- works of Great Britain and Ireland. • For the facts in support of his mea- sure he referred to the Report of the Commissioners on the Employment of Children. Calico-printing, with its subsidiary processes of bleaching and dyeing, is carried on to the greatest extent in the cotton-districts of Lan- cashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, and the West of Scotland. There are also a few print-works near London, and several near Dublin. The ages at which children are put to work range from four to thirteen or older; • the great majority being between eight and nine. In the report, the total number of children under thirteen is stated at 13,492; but that is confessedly be- low the truth, and Lord Ashley estimates the number it 25,000. In some works, the proprietors spare no trouble or expense to secure proper ventila tion, temperature, and drainage; but in others those conditions are deplorably neglected: the rooms are filled with dust, so that children have inflamed eyes with a perpetual disCharge; the stoves are overheated—even at times to a red heat, so that the stove-girls faint; and the steam arising from wet goods put up to dry oppresses the breath. •But it is the long duration of the work that has the most debilitating effects both on body and mind: the nominal hours for work are twelve, but it is common for children five or six years old to be kept at work for fourteen or even sixteen hours a day: girls have been kept at work-thirty--eight hours in succession; and a block- printer mentioned a boy who was kept at work from Wednesday morning till Saturday morning. This constant employment empties the day-schools; and children are brought up in ignorance, with all the consequent vice. The Commissioners, indeed, state that the improvements in calico-printing tend to diminish th labour of children, and that there is a growing dis- approbation of the oppressive treatment of children: "severe punishment, which was formerly common, is now scarcely known." Still, parents sacri- fice the future welfare of their offspring to immediate gain; and girls grow up without habits of neatness, order, and economy, necessary to domestic life. Morally and physically, nothing can be more injurious than night- work; and it gives no countervailing advantages to employers, for at night more work is spoiled than in the day. To prove the necessity of inter- ference, Lord Ashley quoted from the Law Magazine statistical figures showing the increase of crime. Schools have multiplied, but they are still insufficient.

"The time was," exclaimed Lord Ashley, "when many believed, or maintained, that utter ignorance and excessive labour were the best guarantees for the tran- quillity of the people. Awful delusion—to suppose that men brutally ignorant could not find time and intellect for mischief! They went to the beer-shops to listen to seductive compositions in prose and verse, written with great force and power, with great fancy and genius, and embellished with all the attractive- ness of modern art. Good heavens ! what a monstrous perversion of the noblest talents, meant to refine and elevate mankind! In these compositions, so seduc- tively written, (I need not name them, for what I mean will be understood by many of the it,sintlemen I now address)—in these compositions you find vice and violence dignified ' 'ed into heroism." It might be asked, why he began with this abuse, and left others un- touched: but he confessed that he had been unable to cope at once with the whole of the grievances disclosed by the inquiry. He had also been asked, where he would stop? He replied, without hesitation, that wherever and so long as any portion of this great abuse remained unremedied, he would not stop. He stated his plan as follows-

" In the first instance, I should propose the total abolition of night-work for all females of whatsoever ages and all of both sexes under thirteen, to commence in October next. I propose diet in October 1846, allowing thereby nearly two years before the operation of the enactment, none under thirteen years of age shall be allowed to work more than eight hours a day for six days in the week, or more than twelve hours a day for three alternate days in the week. I shall propose also in conformity with the provisions of the Factory Bill, that two hours a day of schooling should be required with respect to those children who work eight hours a days for six days in the week; and three hours of schooling on alternate days with respect to those who work twelve hours a day for three days in the week. Should more labour be required, it may be obtained by relays, to which the trade is accustomed."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM acknowledged the purity of Lord Ashley's motives and the singleness of his purpose: but, looking at the rapid increase in the amount of the population and in the supply of labour, it behoved them— especially the Government—to be extremely cautious in dealing with a matter affecting the physical condition of a large portion of the community. There are several marked distinctions between factory labour and that with which Lord Ashley seeks to interfere. The occupation in print-works, in great part carried on in the open air, is upon the whole healthy. In calico-printing, when the process is once begun, it must be carried on till it is.completed, otherwise it may suffer irreparable injury: in factory-work, the labour is carried on by Machinery; you may calculate your time, and then stop your machinery without any injury to the work. Factory-work is equal, uninterrupted, and continuous: in print-works there are three months in the year in which work is slack; whilst in spring, when there is a demand for new patterns, there is a great demand for labour, and the work must be continuous. The mixture of the work of young children with that of young persons and adults is indispensably necessary to carry it on : if by legislation you compel the labour of children to be suspended, you compel the suspension of the whole operation, or else the substitution of adult labour at higher wages; which would cause a great diminution in the profits of the trade. Again factory-labour is concentrated, inspection is easy, and evasion of the law difficult; it operates, therefore, equally in all manufac- tories: in calico-printing there is no machinery, or at least no machinery worked by steam-power; and the labour is in consequence not concentrated, but dispersed; inspection therefore is difficult, and evasion easy. The fact that night-work is resorted to seems to show that it is necessary: if it were not advantageous, it would be discontinued. Considering the moderation with which Lord Ashley stated his proposal, Sir James could not withhold his consent to the introduction of the bill; but he reserved to himself the most perfect latitude and discretion as to the mode of dealing with the proposition.

A short and not very remarkable discussion ensued. Mr. COBDEN de- precated the implication that there is something peculiarly demoralizing in calico-printing. The character of the workpeople is much the same as that of other workmen; and the children, about whom so much concern is shown, work in a mild temperature, under shelter from the weather, and earn 38. a-week; whilst in the agricultural districts, he believed, they work for Is. 6d. a-week, and are exposed to all temperatures. He corrected two errors into which Lord Ashley had unconsciously fallen: the noble Lord is a father, and must know that it is physically impossible to employ children at three or four years old; and as to persons working eighteen or twenty hours together, Mr. Cobden had never heard of such cases.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For the Bill—Lord Ashley, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Wakley. Against Interference—Sir James Graham, Mr. Hume, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Labouchere.

LETTER-OPENING AT THE POST-OFFICE.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. THOMAS DIINCOMME com- plained that the inquiry into the charges which he brought against the Government last session, of opening letters at the Post-office, had not been properly investigated; and he made the following motion-

" That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the mode in which letters have been detained, opened, and resealed, at the General or at any Pro- vincial Post-office; and also into the circumstances under which every warrant for that purpose has been issued by any Secretary of State, from the let day of January 1840 to the present time; the said Committee to report their opinion thereon to the House, and also whether it is expedient that the practice should be continued."

This motion Mr. Duncombe supported in a speech of great length. Last year, having presented petitions from Mr. Mazzini and other Italian gentlemen, complaining that their letters had been opened, and from Cap- tain Stolz-nan, a distinguished Polish officer, he moved for a Select Com- mittee to inquire into the subject : the Committee was carried, but he

was excluded from being on it. Being called before the Committee, how • ever, he made these specific charges—

First, that there was a secret department in the Post-office, by which the sanctity of private correspondence was violated, letters opened and resealed and then sent forward to their destination as if they had never been opened: secOndly, that Sir James Graham had exceeded his authority and made an unscru ulons use of it, and had opened more letters than any one of his predecessors: thirdly , that the letters of certain foreign exiles had been opened at the instigation of foreign Powers, and that the contents had been communicated to those Powers; that England had become the spy of foreign despots, and that in consequence several persons had been consigned to imprisonment and death upon the scaffold: fourthly, that the correspondence of foreign Ambassadors had been opened by order of authority in this kingdom: fifthly, that a roving conunission had been sent some years ago into the manufacturing districts to ascertain who was writing to whom: sixthly, that the sanctity of his own correspondence had ken violated, and that his own letters had been opened by the Secretary of State.

The Committee was bound to tell how far those charges had been proved to be true or false; but not one of the allegations had been contradicted. The Committee went into a vast amount of research as to the ancient practice, but neglected to report what is the existing law; their information, as they approach the nineteenth century, exhibiting increased reserve and concealment. They neglected to investigate the existence of the Secret Office; which, according to a paragraph in the newspapers, was abolished just before the recent meeting of Parliament; though Mr. Duncombe be- lieved, as the lawyers say, that the venue only was changed: it matters not whether this prying into letters takes place in St. Martin's-le-Grand or at the Home Office. That Sir James Graham had abused his powers, is proved by the figures: the average number of warrants issued each year on political grounds was eight; in the three years ending with the summer of 1844, it was 44; previously, the greatest number issued was in Lord Sidmouth's time, when, in 1812 and the two next years, 39 warrants were issued. The Committee stated that a warrant for opening Mr. Mazzini's letters was issued on the 1st March 1844, and cancelled on the 3d June: but he could prove that the system of opening Mr. Mazzini's letters was going on from Christmas 1843 to the lath June 1844. He did not believe that any legitimate warrant was in existence, but that a warrant was fabri- cated for the purpose of showing to the Committee. Mr. Duncombe re- ferred to the letter of Mr. Mazzini describing how the brothers Bandiera had been entrapped as conspirators at Naples. [The substance of this letter was given in the Miscellaneous news of our last number.] The report of the House of Lords Committee stated that certain parts of the informa- tion derived from a perusal of Mr. Mazzini's letters had been communicated to a foreign Government, with a warning against plots, of which Mr. Mazzini was said to be the centre, to excite insurrection in Italy; but with- out the names or details that might expose to danger any individual re- siding in the foreign country to which the information was transmitted. Now, the facts were, that Mr. Messini attempted to dissuade those persons from the rash attempt at insurrection, and that the brothers Bendier& were shot: their blood is upon the head of her Majesty's present Ministers. Mr. Mazzini was never examined before the Committee. Neither was Captain Stolzman. When the Emperor of Russia was in this country, certain exiles, to ingratiate themselves with him, turned spies and got up stories of intentions to assassinate him. Nothing appeared in the letters of Captain Stolzman to criminate him, or other gentlemen whom the Committee did not scruple to name, although Imperial decrees made the correspondence with exiles a treasonable crime: under such a decree the wife of General Slobinski had been imprisoned on suspicion--only on suspicion—of corre- sponding with other Polish ladies in exile. Another Polish lady has also been imprisoned for writing to her husband in exile. Another has been imprisoned, and received fifty severe lashes, for corresponding with an exile. Mr. Dun- combe went on to reiterate and runplify the remainder of his charges. With respect to the statement that his own letters had been opened, the Commit- tee was totally silent. He could not conceive a greater personal insult to a man, or to the constituency which he represents; and he called on Sir James Graham to justify the opening of his letters. "He has had the meanness, ay and the baseness, to conceal his act, and has not had the courage to avow it." [Amidst the Opposition cheering which the words and manner of Mr. Duncombe excited, the Speaker interposed- " Those observations appeared to be very personal; and if so, the honour- able Member would no doubt be glad of the opportunity to withdraw them."] "Sir, I applied those observations to the right honourable gentle- man in his Ministerial capacity: to those observations and those topics I adhere; so they must and shall remain." (Cheers.) To open the letters of a Member of Parliament without the warrant of a Secretary of State, has been declared by the House a breach of privilege: if Sir James Graham had not issued the warrant, other persons had been guilty of breach of pri- vilege, and he should certainly summon them to the bar of the House. Ridiculing what he sarcastically called "the conclusive conclusion" of the Committee's report, which expressed no opinion, he called for a new inquiry, to settle whether the practice should be continued or not.

Sir JAMES GRAIIAM denied that Government had made any effort to suppress inquiry. The Committee—consisting of Lord Sandon, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Thomas Baring, Sir William Heathcote, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt, the O'Conor Don, and Mr. Hawes—com- prised a majority of his political opponents, and some of the most expe rienced, learned, and honourable Members of the House: before that Com- mittee, having obtained permission of the Sovereign, he laid all the informa- tion that he possessed. The Committee of the House of Lords comprised Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham, Lord Auckland, Lord Colchester, the Bishop of London, Lord Somers, and Lord Colborne: before that Com- mittee he was examined under oath. Both acquitted him of party or per- sonal motives of " baseness" or "meanness"; and to such charges from Mr. Duncombe he was indifferent. The "Secret Office" at the Post- office had not been suppressed by the Home Office: it was connected with the Foreign Department. It was deliberately recognized by Parham. ent in 1742, and subsequently; and it has been suppressed by the Foreign Office. He admitted that information had been given to disclose an insurrection in Italy which might have compromised the peace of Europe: but no infor- mation was given to endanger individuals; none was given to the Neapo- litan Government; and, so far from having entrapped the conspirators, that Government was unprepared to meet the invaders. Sir ROBERT PEEL, later in the debate, followed up this defence, contending that every re- quirement was satisfied by the ample disclosures that Ministers had made before the Committee; that the responsibility of restoring tranquillity in 1842, and of protecting the Emperor of Russia from any mischance, Just,

fled the issue of warrants; and that the House ought not to cast discredit on its own tribunal by granting a new-trial. Mr. Htesta having called for the evidence -taken by the Committee, Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that Ministers had obtained permission of the Sove- reign to make full disclosures on the understanding that the Committee was to be secret.

Mr. SHELL vehemently called upon Sir James Graham to say whether he had opened Mr. Duncombe's letters; the Opposition echoing the inter- rogatory with loud cheers. Amid great uproar, Lord SANDOK, as Chairman of the Committee, interposed the statement, that if he disclosed =Ps than the report he should be guilty of a breach of duty; that the information laid before the Committee was full, complete, and freely given; that the information given in Mr. Mazzini's case had not led to disastrous consequences; and that the names of those who corresponded with Polish refugees had not been communicated. Mr. WARBURTON confirmed this statement as to the free communication of the facts to the Committee; but condemned the practice of opening letters, and was proceeding to question called to order by Mr. Escorr. Sir JaraEs GRAHAM again referred to his disclosures before the Committee, but declined to answer Mr. Shell's questions.

_Sir James Graham's discretion in the case of Mr. Mssrini; when he was The debate was adjourned till Thursday.

SPEAKERS LN THE FORECOLNG DEBATE. For Inquiry—Mr. Thomas Dun- combe, Mr. Shell, Mr. Hume, Sir John Hanmer, Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Mr. litiakley. Against Inquiry—Sir James Graham, Lord Sandon, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Warburton.

On Wednesday, Mr. MONCKTOK MILKBS asked whether, when Lord Aberdeen communicated to any foreign Government the fact of a oon- spiracy at Corfu or any other British possession, the conspirators were warned that they had been watched and denounced; and whether Govern- ment or the local authorities at Corfu had taken steps to impede that dis- astrous expedition? Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that early last year it was distinctly intimated to this Government, on the part of Austria, that a number of Italian refugees and others, subjects of Austria, were in the Bri- tish Mediterranean possessions organizing attempts hostile to the peace of Italy, and of Rome particularly; and that instructions had been given, that, on the occurrence of any insurrectionary movement, the Austrian troops at Milan should move into the Papal States. Lord Aberdeen had conveyed information to Austria touching such designs; but no letter, nor extract of a letter, nor any name of any individual within the power of the Austrian Government. Lord Aberdeen had destroyed the letters that were not offi- cial: but he believed that he had never seen any communication that led him to apprehend the expedition from Corfu; he had never communicated to the Austrian, Neapolitan, or Roman Government, any communication whatever respecting any particular design to be directed from Corfu against any part of Italy. In fact, that expedition took Lord Seaton, the Governor of the Ionian Islands, and the authorities of Corfu, quite by surprise; and representations on the subject to Lord Seaton were not made by the Aus- trian Ambassador until after the boat containing the brothers Bandiera and twenty other conspirators had sailed, on the night of the 12th June. Sir Robert could assure the House, that any impression that the Government had allured those individuals on, or had abstained from giving them notice of their danger when there was the opportunity of so doing, was entirely erroneous, and without foundation.

Before the resumption of the adjourned debate on Thursday, there was more conversation on the Corfu affair, and Sir ROBERT PEEL cleared up some points. Lord Seaton, he said, reported that the brothers Bandiera conducted themselves with great propriety in Corfu : after they had sailed, a mixed application was made to the Governor by the Consuls of Austria, Naples, and Rome, that a steamer might be sent after the boat to bring it back; that was of course refused; but Lord Seaton sent a steam-vessel to Otranto, to enable the Consuls to report to their several Governments the departure of the boat. The debate was continued at great length. In supporting the motion, Mr. MoNcarors MILERS stated, that he had travelled on the Continent since the disclosures of last year, and they had brought much discredit on this country. He contrasted the present with former times, when Elizabeth gave an asylum to refugees from the tyranny of Philip the Second, and when the French refugees of the Revolution found safety here; and he compared England now with France, where Carlists, Italians, and Poles, equally find refuge, and where M. Guizot has declared, in the Chamber of Deputies, that as far as he knows the communications by post are abso- lutely secure. In Germany, Mr. Milnes saw bills posted on the walls and heard songs sung derogatory to the English name. The conduct of Go- vernment has not been sueh as to secure them from unfounded suspicions. It was said of old, that,Cassar's wife must not only be pure but be above suspicion: yet if that distinguished personage had taken every opportunity of placing herself in an equivocal position, and had cloaked her simplest proceedings in the gravest mystery, she could scarcely have expected to remain totally above suspicion. As to the affair of Corfu and Mr. Mazzini, Sir Robert Peel's explanations seem satisfactory. But a very grave ques- tion is suggested here as to the foreign policy of the Government: it appears that the Austrian Government has nothing to do but to threaten that it will invade Italy, or that it will enter into any inde- pendent country, whose independence is fully established, and the con- sequence will be the immediate submission of the British Minister for Foreign Affairs to favour and encourage such pretensions! Mr. Milnes thought that Mr. Duncombe had a right to demand an answer to his question. He had acquired influence over a large mass of the people, and he had been mixed up with persons who had been suspected, or even some who had come under sentence of the law—[Mr. DUNCOMBE cried, "No; nasne!"]—Mr. Lovett, for whom Mr. Milnes had a great respect, was one; and therefore there might be a reason for opening his letters; but he had a right to know it. Mr. ROEBUCK put Mr. Duncombe's claim on the Home Secretary, who pleaded that he acted on his "responsibility," in this shape—Sir James had a right to issue a warrant on his responsibility; he had a right to say that Ile would not tell when or what was the advice on which he issued the warrant: but he had no right to say to that House that he would not tell them whether or not he had issued a.warraut; and the resolution then before them was to make him responsible to that House. Mr. Roebuck stated, that if he chose to follow Mr. Duncombe's example, he might say that some of his own letters had been opened—at the begin- ning of 1837, and in 1838. Mr. CHARLES Bum.Es enlivened the pleadings for the motion with st number of pleasant sallies. He likened Sir James Gra- ham, talking, with folded arms, in tones of eolenm deprecation, about Alb-

lie duties not allowing him to reveal the secret—about no force compelling - it from Isis breast, and so forth—to "'Socrates before his judges" Sir James Graham's situation was remarkablyslisagreeable,—to be queetioned, atd

cross-questioned, night after night, all the while feeling internally ' full certainty Unit he would get the worst of it; for in their struggles, thopgh Mr. Duncombe is not so big a man, the right honourable Baronet is invariably thrownsin the dirt. Mr. Buller was surprised that Sir James Graham should not have seen that. He was more surprised at Sir Robert Peel: he thought he had more sense in these matters than to take it in. dudgeon—nudting matters worse by allusions to 1842—quoting dreadful passages from the speeches of Mr. Villiers and others. Mr. Buller had net so lively a personal recolktion of events in 1735, which -Sir Robert Peel seemed to think necessary; but he did -recollect what took place in 1842: - at that time Sir Robert Peel said that there was a vast deal of exaggera- tion about those speeches, and placidly assured Members that they might go home to their grouse.-shooting and " other. duties" without the least alarm: but he now reproduces, with thrilling effect, those dreadful state-, ments! Among them was one of a diabolical conspiracy -among certain . little children to put pins into their work: did .he mean that the honour- able Member for Flashing was mixed up with the sliabolloal machinations of the certain little children? And the Queen is called to the resents: some of the evidence-was given by members of the-Privy Council, and their evidence cannot be disclosed without the Queen's consent! Why, if they were to ask the Queen's leave, she would in turn ask her responsible ad- visers whether she should give it or not. If therefore Sir James Graham's mouth was hermetically sealed, he had asked her Majesty to shut it for him. Yet it is not easy to understand how her Majesty could be brought to this: her Majesty, if she felt that the right honourable Baronet's popu- larity was one of the great bulwarks of her throne, Must needs wish that popularity not to be lessened any further by his remaining in the unpleasant . position of not being able to give a simple explanation of the matter put to

short answer tea plain question.

Mr. JAMES WORTLEY was both the first and the most ardent of the even- ing in opposing the motion. He declared the power of opening letters to be perfectly constitutional, since originally the office of conveying letters lay exclusively with the Crown; and the practice is universal in every state of Europe. If Mrs Duncombe meant that there had been no warrant from the Secretary of State, his course should have been to impeach the Govern- ment. He did not wish to draw invidious comparisons; but in 1831 and 1832, we saw riots increase till cities were in flames- in 1837, tumults swelled to treason; and in 1839, a conspire-ay was discovered in Yorkshire of so dangerous a nature that hand-grenades and infernal machines were produced in a court of justice. Suppose .a letter from a ringleader of theme disturbances had been found: was it not to be opened because it was ad- -. dressed to a Member of Parliament? Sir James Graham merited the eter- nal gratitude of the country for his conduct during the insurrection in the . North. To prove that the practice of opening letters has been common at different times and in different countries, Sir ROBERT Issoms told an _ anecdote. Not very long ago, the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs t wrote a letter to the British Minister at a Foreign Court, instructing him to demand his passports unless he obtained a certain concession: that letter was sent through the post: another letter, sent by a private channel, told the Ambassador that the former letter was only - written to be opened in the post-office of the foreign country,—giving him further instructions: the concession was granted. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT made a brief and nervous speech; describing Sir James Graham as a man with his hands tied, and thus struok at; and calling upon the House of Commons not to lend itself to—he would not say cowardly, but personal and invidious persecution. Lord SANDON reminded the House, that the report described the Committee as having examined all the political war- rants issued by the Secretaries of State for the last twenty-two years, and as satisfied that in the issue Ministers had been guided by no motive but anxiety to maintain the public peace. Several Members declared that they could not vote for the motion in its original terms; though they gave Mr. Duncombe a hearty support on part of his proposition. Early in the evening, Mr. MACAULAY enunciated that view; saying that he could not vote for the resolution because that and the speech of the mover implied censure on the Secret Committee, in which he did not concur. Moreover, he did not Bee the necessity for further inquiry into the general subject, which he thought already ripe for legis- lation. He could perceive no distinction between a letter received and ORO in transit—the secrets of both should be equally sacred; and he regerded the seizure of the letter as equivalent to a seizing of papers in a man's house. He would leave with the Secretary of State power to take and open any letter; but he would require him, after a certain fixed time, to send that letter, unless retained in order to some judicial proceeding, with a stamp showing that it had been opened. Surreptitious seizure of letters and such espionage may he convenient: torture has been useful in detect- ing great crimes; but that is no sufficient reason why it should be reintro- duced into our jurisprudence. The experience of many years shows that the benefits arising from the strict observation of the security and secrecy of private life, without the exercise of arbitrary power, much more than counterbalance all the advantages to be derived from a contrary system. Setting aside the general question, and limiting the view to the simple charge of opening Mr. Duncombe's letters, he seemed entitled to inquiry. Last year Ministers professed to constitute the Committee on new prin- ciples of peculiar fairness; excluding members of the Government, of the late Government, and Mr. Duncombe—all the parties "interested": but in the Committee of the Lords they slid not scruple to admit members of both Governments; showing that :in the Commons their object was to ex- clude Mr. Duncombe. Every Member of Parliament ought to be regarded as a part of " the grand inquest of the nation ": that he is liable to receive perhaps hotheaded complaints of grievance, shows that he does his duty: such "correspondence ought to be peculiarly sacred from inspection. If Mr. Duncombe had compromised the safety of the State, he ought no longer to be a Member of Parliament: if innocent, the least reparation to him was fair inquiry and frank acknowledgment. Mr. WARD also was for limit- ing the inquiry to Mr. Duncombe's case; believing the power of open- ing letters under proper checks necessary to a Goveenment and dis- liking the gross exaggerations which had been indulged in against 5$1. James Graham. He suggested -that some Member of more.influence, than himself should move an amendment thus restricting the inquiry. - Lord JOHN MANNERS enforced dust view; deprecating the notion that any vote relating to question,s personal to an individual Member was to be '

made the touchstone of "confidence "in Ministers; for then, the sooner some new Cromwell came in and said, "Take away that bauble," the better. Mr. BERNAL did not wish to rest the case on technicalities and privilege—those were best tried in a court of law; but he wished Mr. Duncombe to take the high ground afforded by the responsible and useful situation of a Member of Parliament, who belongs to his constituency. In passing, he explained that Mr. Duncombe could exercise his privilege of calling the officers of the Post-office to the bar and requiring them to pro- duce their justification. Lord HOWICK expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from Mr. Macaulay, and moved the amendment suggested by Mr. Ward. He strenuously contended for the necessity of enabling every Member of Parliament freely to communicate with others upon public affairs. Mr. Wortley's speech showed that the inquiry was more necessary than ever. It had been said that it might not have been letters of Mr. Dunconthe's writing that were opened, but letters directed to him: they were equally his letters. And if a judgment was to be formed from his public opinions and expressions against the Government, a celebrated speech about "birds of prey," in 1830, might have pointed out Sir James Graham to the Home Secretary of that time, Sir Robert Peel, as a person whose letters it would be proper to look into. But Lord Howiek con- demned altogether the principle that a Minister is to judge when a Mem- ber's letters are to be inspected. He moved the following amendment- " It having been alleged by a Member of this House in his place, that letters addressed to him have been detained at the Post-office and opened before being delivered to him, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether this allegation is true; and if so, by what authority and upon what grounds such de- tentonand opening of post-letters has been sanctioned. This was seconded by Mr. DISRAELI, in a somewhat discursive speech of historical allusions, and bantering professions of respect for Sir Robert Peel; which provoked occasional laughter. He warned the House not to be frightened, as he once was and as young Members still are, by Sir Robert Peel's playing the choleric gentleman and thumping the red box on the table: he would not eat them up—nor resign.

Just after midnight, Mr. COLLETT moved the adjournment of the de- bate: hut Sir ROBERT PEEL resisted—he wanted to finish that night. Lord Joeue RUSSELL supported the Premier; and the motion was nega- tived, by 269 to 29; several Opposition Members having left the House, in the expectation of an adjournment. Under those circumstances, Sir Ro- BERT PEEL yielded to the wish of other Members, and the debate was ad- journed till Friday.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For Inquiry—Mr. Monckton hlilnes, Captain Layard, Mr. Charles Buller, Mr. Roebuck. Against it—Mr. James Stuart Wortley, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Peter Borthwick, Mr. Sidney Her- bert, Lord Sandon. For limited Inquiry—Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Ward, Lord John Manners, Mr. Bernal, Lord Howiek, -Mr. Disraeli.

REGAL TITLE FOR PRINCE ALBERT. On Monday, Mr. PETER BORTH- WICK asked whether there was any truth in the -newspaper rumour, that a "Kingly title" was to be conferred on Prince Albert. The rumour was suffi- ciently absurd to refute itself; but it was calculated to do very serious injury to the object of all their loyalty and affection. Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to being called upon to contradict newspaper rumours which are sufficiently absurd to re- fute themselves; but stated that the one in question was utterly without founda- tion.

NEW linters were issued, on Tuesday, for East Kent, in the room of Sir Ed- ward Knatehbull, who had accepted the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds; and for Thetfor'

d in the room of the Honourable William Bingham Baring, ap- pointed Paymaster of the Forces.

Durres ON One. In reply to questions, on Wednesday, Sir ROBERT PEEL said thatthe abolition of the duty on sperm-oil would not take effect at once, in order to prevent injury to existing interests; but would cease after the 5th January 1849. (Laughter.) The duty on train would cease at an earlier period

WINDOW-TAX. Viscount Duncan's motion against the Window-duties stands for Thursday next.

BAIL IN ERROR. In the House of Lards, on Thursday, the LORD cHAN- CELT.OR obtained leave to bring in a bill for empowering heal in error to be taken in criminal cases—by which he meant cases of misdemeanour; to be read a second time on Thursday next.

PRECISENESS OF SIR JAMES GRAHAM. Last week, Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated, that never since he sat in that House had he been connected with a rail- way. On Wednesday, he corrected himself; confessing that the statement was not literally exact: in 1827, when he represented the city of Carlisle, a railway was proposed between Newcastle and Carlisle; and to encourage an object-of local importance, he purchased a share of 1001. (Laughter.) On parting with that share, it was not a source of profit to him.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES. The railway campaign began. inearnest on Monday, with the sitting of the Sub-Committees, appointed by the Select Committee on Standing Orders to ascertain that the promoters of bills had complied with the regulations. Shoals of bills have passed through this preliminary ordeal.