Debates anti iproreebings in 'parliament.

Tan Coax Mx..

In the House of Peers, on Monday, Lord ASHBURTON moved the fol- lowing resolution, of which he had given notice- " That whatever may be the alterations which it may be expedient permanently to make In the laws regulating the introduction of foreign corn, it Is the opinion of this House. that the sudden introduction of the large quantity of wheat now in bond at a very low rate of duty, while the prices are moderate and the prospect of the approach- ing harvest is promising, may be productive of great injury and injustice to the culti- vators of the soil of the United Kingdom ; and that some better provision against such a calamity should be provided than is contained in the bill now before the House." Some time ago, it appeared by the returns that the quantity of corn in bond might be fairly taken at 2,000,000 quarters; and since then large quantities had poured in making a quantity equal to 2,500,000 quarters. The last price of wheat in our market which he had heard of was 52s. 10d.; and it was quite clear if that price remained, or was to fall, every ounce of this foreign corn would be poured into the market. To show how much this quantity exceeded the import of other years, he mentioned some particulars. In 1845, the amount exclusive of the ordinary import from Canada did not exceed 80,000 quarters; in 1844, there were only 780,000 quarters; in 1843, 844,000 quarters; showing an average for these three years of 550,000 quarters. What prospect, the's, was there that we could safely receive five times that amount, with a moderate market-price, and the probability, so far as we were able to judge, of a good hare t ? In 1838, 1839, 1840,1841, and 1842, we received large sup- plies, averaging 400,000 quarters; but from 1832 to 1837 the average was only 100,000 qu&rte4 and during four of these years we received no corn at all. lie showed how cautious former Governments had been in guarding against large influxes of corn at diminished duties. The resolution now submitted did not in- timate any particular plan, but was simply a declaration of the facts of the case. He meant not to call on their Lordships to retrace their steps—would to God he could induce them to do it; but, seeing the hopelessness of it, he was not inclined to,press the matter.

The Earl of Dianougns characterhed Lord Ashburton's speech as " dark with alarm and fruitful with prophecy "—

Any address more at variance with facts and unsupported by argument it bad not been his fortune to hear in that House. From want of sufficient information, Lord Ashburton had greatly exaggerated when he stated the amount of corn in bond at 2,500,000 quarters. By the latest returns, the quantity did not reach in wheat and wheat-flour together 1,900,000 quarters; and there was no likelihood of its being increased. The prospects of the harvest in foreign parts were as gloomy this year as they were last year. Both this and last year, Nature seemed to be setting her various elements in conspiracy against this country as regards the obtaining of supplies from abroad. In the North of Europe there was an

alarming deficiency of corn, from the superabundance of wet; in the South there was an equal or.greater deficiency, from the ravages of the grub. In Poland and the corn-producing countries of the North of Europe, the people were in a state of actual starvation; and in the South of Europe and in Anatolia the population were dying on the road-sides. Lord Ashburton wished it to appear that the quantity now in bond was unexampled in extent; and in contrast had mentioned the quantities introduced in 1843, 1844, and 1845. Lord Dalhousie, however

would quote the importations for 1842 and 1841, the two previous years. In four weeks of 1842, the quantity introduced was 2,180,000 quarters; in 1841, the quantity was 2,017,000 quarters. It was not the fault of Sir Robert Peel that

the present accumulation had taken place; for he offered to place corn in the same position as the other articles upon which a reduction in duty was proposed-, taking a bond for the repayment of the difference of duty if the measure did not pass. To this proposition great exception was taken by the opponents of the measure, and Sir Robert withdrew the offer. The resolution now under conside- ration contained no specific proposaL Upon what terms was the corn now in bond to be admitted? If the resolution was affirmed as it stood, a glaring act of injustice would be done towards the owners of the corn in bond. By adopting it, the corn now in bond would be dealt with in one way, while the corn which ar- rived next week would escape the resolution and be admitted as provided by the new bill. His noble friend had altered the resolution which, as it at first stood, was a mercantile monster in phraseology, for it talked of the " importation " of corn in bond. As to prices, it was notorious to every one engaged in the corn- trade that the whole of the transactions, external and internal, had been carried on with reference to the stock in bond. Its effect on prices, therefore, had been produced long ago. He much doubted whether the better course would not have been to make the change in the duties immediate. Under existing circumstances nothing could be worse than suspense.

Several short speeches followed. Lord Knesetran bad been told by a gentleman just returned from Holland, that the prospect of the harvest in that country was anything but satisfactory. In the Mark Lane Express of that day it was stated that the supply of wheat at Mark Lane was small, and that prices had risen.

Earl GREY wanted some explanation from the mover as to the practical conse- quences of his resolution. Did he mean that, if they adopted it, he would come down and say, that, having agreed to that resolution, of course they could not agree to the third reading? Was this resolution merely a roundabout and indi- rect way of defeating the Corn Bill? (" No!" front Lord Ashburton.) The noble Lord said no; he did not mean to throw out the Corn Bill. Then the House were called upon to pass this resolution, and tomorrow evening to pass the bill. Such a course was useless: it was, indeed, worse than useless; because it would give notice to importers that it was intended to bring in a bill to amend the bill now before the House—to carry with legal effect, in short; the resolution of the noble Lord; and the consequence would be, that the importers would not lose an hour or a day in entering the whole quantity of grain for consumption; and thus' instead of getting it gradually introduced, it would be thrown upon the market at once. It was impossible, then, his noble friend could mean to carry the resolution and pass the bill tomorrow; so that he was bound to assume it was an indirect way of throwing out the bill. Lord REDESDALE denied that Lord Ashburton intended to overthrow the bill by his resolution. He admitted that the market price of corn had risen; but it was a question if the rise was not factitious, and intended to keep up the averages. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH remarked, that Lord Ashburton was the only one of their Lordships who had not deprecated delay in the settlement of the ques- tion. His proposal amounted to this, that the bill should be stopped till their Lordships saw what the House of Commons would do with the resolution. He trusted the House would not become a party to such policy.

The House divided—For the resolution 47; against it, 70; majority, 23.

In a subsequent part of the evening, Lord STANLEY stated on behalf of himself and others, that after the divisions which had already taken place, and seeing the considerable majorities by which this bill was supported, they did not intend to take a division on the third reading of the bill, or to delay its passing: but as they meant to enter a protest on the journals of the House they wished the third reading to be postponed till Thursday; This proposal was at once acceded to by the Duke of WELLINGTON.

On Thursday, some of their Lordships availed themselves of the last op- portunity at their command to make some passing remarks on the mea- sure and on matters connected with it.

The Earl of WICKLOW said, that as they were now at the last stage of these proceedings, and were about finally to conclude this dreadfully long chain of the commercial policy of the country, be begged for information on two points. He wished to know the intentions of Ministers on the subject of those equivalents or compensations which Sir Robert Peel promised should accompany the Corn Bill; and also what they meant to do with the Income-tax? The Earl of RIPON answered, that it was the intention of Ministers to proceed with the measures referred to; not viewing them in the light of compensation, but as right and proper in themselves. With regard to the Income-tax, the act had been renewed for three years, and it would be unwise to give any pledge re- specting its further renewal. The Earl of FEVERSIIAM regretted that the Bishops should have voted for the bill: he believed that it was greatly through their influence and votes that the measure had been successful. He regarded the bill as a premium to agitation. The Duke of CLEVELAND rose to protest in the most solemn manner against the policy of the measure. If the Bishops had voted with his party, the Pro- tectionists would have been in a majority. It was not his intention to deprecate the system of proxies. Noble Lords residing in England might be able although not present in the House to form an opinion on a subject; but this could not be said of those who were abroad. The proxy of the Marquis of Tweeddale, the Governor of Madras, had been used, though he had probably never beard of the measure. The Duke r'iould for the future look up to Lord Stanley as not only his guide but his polar star. The Earl of DALHOUSIE reminded the Duke of Cleveland, that the question had substantially been before the country for seven months, and that the period of communication with India was only six weeks. During the whole of the die-

cnssion he had been in possession of the llfarquis of Tweeddale's opinions; and it was his firm conviction that if present he would have voted for the second rea- ding, though perhaps for a fixed duty.

Lord GAGE said the independent exercise of their Lordships' functions was gone, and it was idle to talk of the balance of estates. He had the greatest veneration for the Duke of Wellington; and deeply grieved that the last triumph of so great a general should be one over his own political friends and allies. Earl STAN HOPE urged that the measure had been carried by a monstrous and unnatural combination of parties. The agricultural classes had nail', a right to demand that they should not be subjected to any exclusive taxation, and that they should be at liberty to grow tobacco and extract sugar from beet-root. The Earl of SELKIRK trusted that their Lordships would not hesitate to re- consider the subject.

The Duke of &maim]) would be sorry to see such a measure become law without an amendment appearing on the journals of the House. He would there- fore move that the bill be read that day six months. He renewed the inquiry about the "compensatory" measures; remarking that their Lordships will have given a third reading to the Corn Bill without seeing them. This measure could not be a final one. He would advise the farmers to agitate against it, not for the miserable sliding scale of the present measure, or for any nonsensical four-shilling duty, but for an adequate degree of protection not only to agriculture but to every species of national industry. The Government would carry their two bills, and would have the satisfaction of thinking that they had broken up s powerful party, and that for some time the government of the country must be carried on by a weak Administration.

The amendment was then put, and negatived without a division; and the bill was read a third time, and passed.

THE TARIFF.

Before commencing the consideration of the Customs Duties Bill, on Monday, the Duke of' RICHMOND presented petitions from certain silk- manufacturers and weavers at Macclesfield, and from the silk-weavers of Spitalfields, praying to be heard by counsel against the clause in the bill which affects their interests—

The petitioners undertook to prove that the proposed duty on foreign silks, so far from being equal to 15 per cent, did not on many descriptions exceed 9 per cent. The Duke moved that the prayer of the petitioners be granted.

The Earl of DAr.monsm opposed the motion— The rule of the House was never to hear counsel on a general measure of cus- toms, but only on a measure ;Acting a particular trade or a particular locality. Lord BROUGHAM supported the motion— 'There was a great peculiarity in the case; and being anxious for information on the facts alleged in the petitions, he would not tie down the petitioners to a wwli of connsel on their behalf, but would be ready to hear witnesses, provided the production of evidence was not resorted to for the purpose of mere delay. He complimented the Protectionist Lords on the fair and candid manner in which they had conducted their opposition to the Government measures. They had not availed themselves of the opportunities for delay which had occurred; nor had they waited to see what might turn up elsewhere to affect the decision of the Howe. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH remarked, that if persons engaged in the silk-trade were to be heard by counsel, persons engaged in other trades likely to be affected by the measure might make a similar application. The Duke of WELLINGTON reminded the House of its position— They could not make any alteration in the details of the bill without an in- fraction of the settled rules of proceeding which have existed for more than two hundred years as between the two Houses. In considering the Corn Bill, their Lordships had kept these rules in view. The consequence of making alterations in Committee in the money clauses of bills of Supply and of Customs has in- variably been, not only the loss of the bills, but afterwards, in point of fact, en- tirely to paralyze the proceedings of Parliament. It was useless to allow counsel to come forward and make statements, while their Lordships knew that the ar- gumenta could be of no avail in inducing them to alter the details. The Duke of RICHMOND disputed this doctrine with some warmth— If such is to be the constitution of Parliament, it is a merefarce to ask their Lord- ships to consider a bill, while at the same time they are told that they cannot alter it. Better would it be to alter the standing order, and declare that the con sent of the Queen and the Commons is sufficient to pass a measure. "If that argument had been used by a young man just come from school, I should have taken no notice of it; but when it comes from my noble friend the noble and gal- lant Duke I am bound to protest against it, and I shall certainly feel it my duty to take the sense of the House on this motion."

Their Lordships divided—For the motion, present 43; proxies 31; total 74. Against it, present 42; proxies 36; total 78. Majority against the motion, 4.

This led to some criticism on the law of proxy. Lord Baotioness protested against the use of proxies in deciding a quasi- judicial question, and where a majority of those present had pronounced an oppo- site judgment. The practice of voting by proxy in that House could not stand much longer against such instances as this.

The Earl of CHAELEVILLE asked the Duke of Bucclench and the Earl of Home, who had made use of the proxies in their possession, if they had heard the discussion? The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said, that although not in his seat, he was in the House: he heard the question pat, and he also heard a considerable portion of the noble Duke's speech. The Earl of llostu answered, that he had also heard the noble Duke on the cross benches conclude his speech. The Earl of Wicictow hoped the use which had been made of proxies on that Decision might lead to the abolition of the system. Earl GREY was quite ready to support such a proposal, if made. At the same time, while it continued in Operation, he did not see that in the present case it had been improperly applied. Lord Brougham called this a judicial question: but he might as well call it a geo- graphical question or a mathematical question; to call it a judicial question was a perfect abuse of terms.

Lord STANLEY then addressed himself to the Customs Duties Bill— 'This measure was inconsistent with the principle of free trade as acted upon in the Corn Bill. In that bill all protection is taken away from agriculture; but in the Customs Bill a certain system of protective duties is laid down. But it was because he found the principle of protection recognized in that bill, that he was able to consent to its principle and to agree to its going into Committee. Free-traders had asserted that if once the Corn-laws were swept away, the agri- cultural interest would soon lend their aid in doing away with all other mono- polies and protections. He hoped that experience would falsify the prediction; and that the agricultural interest would not stultify the cause in which they were engaged, and in which they would continue to be engaged, by so acting. He would be much mistaken if many rears elapsed before their Lordships would find the manufacturing interest sensible of the mistake they had committed, desiring for themselves that protection which they had so earnestly requested might be taken away from others. Lord Stanley proceeded at some length to show the inexpe- diency of abolishing certain duties and of reducing others. It was an axiom in finance that those duties should not be interfered with which were increasing in productiveness; and he applied the axiom to the case of butter and cheese, live animals, silk, timber, bouts and shoes, and some other articles, all of which were increasing in value to the revenue. Before consenting to repeal or reduce the duties on these articles, the House should have an explanation of the principle upon which Ministers are proceeding. The Earl of DALHOUSIE made the required explanation— He had frequently explained that the measure was not offered as one of free trade. What 3ffinisters desired was, to remove the duties upon articles of 130CCA- sary clothing. Beyond this, the object of the Government had been in revising the Tariff to act according to the system which had been pursued of late years, and reduce the duties on articles of mannfeeture and on articles partially manu- factured, so as to leave an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent on all such articles of importation as nearly as possible. As to the revenue, Government, looking at the paskhad a perfect right to expect that the loss would be made up. Lord Dal. housie gave a number of explanatory details in connexion with the figure-state- ments adduced by Lord Stanley.

Lord Mosrittotx spoke of the revenue— He wished to know if Government were prepared to say that after carrying those measures they anticipated the possibility of the removal of the Property- tax ? He was not saying that it might not be wise and just to continue it; but let the fact be understood; let it be known that in gaining a great commercial good they were entailing financial difficulties upon themselves. With the redo°. tionsnow making there seemed no escape from a continuance of the Property-tax.

After some unimportant remarks from other Lords, the House went into Committee on the clauses.

The first clause was agreed to.' but the second, which relates to the duties on timber, WAS opposed by Lord STANLEY; who moved its omission as an amendment. On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 54 to 52, and the clause agreed to. Clauses four and five were then agreed to; and an adjournment till Tuesday took place.

On Tuesday, the Earl of HARDWICK& moved the omission of the clam* relating to butter and cheese; on the ground that it would prove injurion$ to many of the smaller farmers in England and Ireland: the revenue would also he injured, without any corresponding advantage to the consumer.

The Earl of DAtoorisix opposed the amendment—

The schedule had not been framed with the view of keeping up revenue: the interests of the consumer required that the existing duties should be reduced.

Lord STANLEY contended that the foreign producer would alone derive the advantage.

The Committee divided—For the amendment, 50; against it, 75; major- ity, 25.

The reduction of duty on lace was objected to by Earl SrAsmoox. The Earl of DAI.nonsix defended the reduction, on the ground of uniformity, and to prevent smuggling. Lord STANLEY remarked, that a very high authority, Mr. Deacon Hume, had told them in 1832, that unless they im- posed a higher duty than 25l. per cent ad valorem, they need not be ap- prehensive of smuggling.

Earl FITZWILLIAM apprehended that Lord Stanley must be mistaken in the opinion he had imputed to Mr. Deacon Hume: that gentleman never could have said anything so extravagant

The amendment was withdrawn.

The Duke of RICHMOND moved the omission of the clause which re- duced the silk-duties--

He held in his hand the brief which had been prepared by the silk-weavers for the use of counsel; and be regretted exceedingly that the House had refused to allow such respectable persons to be heard at the bar against the proposed re- ductions. Since the alterations of 1824, the wages of the weavers had been so enormously reduced that many of them had hardly enough to maintain them- selves and their families; and several employers had given notice of further re- ductions should the present bill be passed.

The Earl of DALHOUSIE defended the clause, and went at some length into the state of the silk-trade- lie thought the conclusion was inevitable, of the perfect capacity of the trade to compete with the foreigner in thrown silk, as well as in the fabrics of silk. With respect to the parties engaged in the trade under this system, he had taken every pains to obtain information from all parts of the country; and he could assert, that in every part of the country there never was a time when, taken as a whole, the trade was in a greater state of prosperity and more full employment than now, notwithstanding the admission of foreign thrown silk and the foreign manufactured article. Why, on the very evening that his noble friend was originally to bring forward this petition, about a fortnight ago, a meeting of the velvet-weavers (who constituted the greater portion of the silk-weavers of Spital- fields) was held to consider whether they should not demand an increase of wages. They had demanded that increase, and it was at once acceded to by many of the masters.

Lord STANLEY supported the amendment— If his noble friend had proved anything by his speech, it was that the silk- trade, at this moment, was in a thriving condition, and that the imports and the. revenue, and the exports also, were largely increasing. Why, if that were so, the conclusion to which any prudent Government would come would be to say, "In God's name then, let our prosperity alone." Lord Stanley controverted the state- ments and inferences of Lord Dalhousie; and in reference to wages stated, that all his information went to show that with the exception of the hands engaged in the velvet branch, which had hitherto been the most highly protected, the silk-weavers had experienced a large reduction in wages. The Committee -&vided—For the amendment, 50; against it, 75; major-, ity, 25. The remaining portions of the schedule were then agreed to; and the bill, being reported without amendment, was fixed for a third reading on Thursday. On Thursday, the Duke of RICHMOND moved that the-bill be read that day six months. This amendment was put and negatived; and the bill was read a third time, and passed.

THE IRISH COERCION BEI..

In the House ef Commons on Monday, the debate on the second reading of the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill was resumed. Mr. Sams,- MAN CRAWFORD spoke-against it; Mr. SEYMER, for; Mr. CALEB POWELL against; Mr. W. R. CoLterrr, for; Mr. HALSEY against; Mr. H. V. STUART, against; Mr. ROEBUCK and Lord JOHN iiANNERS, against; Sir JAMES GRAHAM, for; Mr. LABOUCHERB,. against. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD regretted the .necessity of voting against Sir He- bert Peel at a time when he was unjustly and unnecessarily assailed ; and be congratulated Sir Robert on the triumphant manner in which he had met the at- taciis his enemies. As this bill, however, was unsuitable for the purpose intended, be had no alternative but to vote against it. His own plan would be to divide the disturbed districts into suitable divisions for police stations, and to register the inhabitants and houses; that all suspicious persons found prowling about, whether by day or night, should be detained; that when a 'crime was com- mitted, and the perpetrators not discovered within thirty days, a fine should be imposed on the district, as it was by the laws of Alfred. Mr. SEYNIER said, it appeared, from the conduct of Lord John Russell on this bill, as if the Whigs thought that by the support which they expected to receive from a certain portion of honourable gentlemen on that side of the House, that they should obtain possession of the Treasury bench. Now, what was this measure

on which they were called upon to have agreat party division ? He doubted whether

many of the honourable Members who had addressed the House on this subject had really read the bill. The bill was only. temporary, and would expire in 1849; and its operation was to be limited to distncts where crime abounded, and which must be proclaimed by the Lord-Lieutenant. He did not wish to refuse to give such powers to the Government; for whatever their other faults, they had acted in a just and generous spirit in the government of Ireland. He did not believe that the Government would bring the bill into operation without necessity. He would ask, whether it was to be expected that there was no feeling on the part of those whose relations had been murdered in the open day, in the sight of manypersons ? Was not this inch a denial of justice as called for an alteration of the law ? If Parliament did not interfere the people would take the law into their own hands, and they would have private revenge take the place of public justice. Mr. Seymer would have done anything in his power to place the Government in a minority on the Protective question; but he could not conceive the advantage of placing them in a minority on this question. Mr. Cates POWELL contrasted the manner in which Ireland had been

governed by the present Ministry with its government under the Whigs; and the inference he drew was in favour of the latter. He avowed himself a Repealer, to the event of a domestic Legislature for Ireland; but he was not friendly to entire separation.

'Mr. W. R. COLLETT would suppertthe second reading. He had expended a large amount of capital in the purchase of an estate in one of the most disturbed parts of Tipperary, and the slate-quarries on that property gave employment to 300 working men, and directly or indirectly to 1,000 persons; and yet not a week

that he did not receive a list of outrages from that locality. There was a

LeisIsde'Of marauders, ruffians, and assassins, prowling about the country; and he only wished that he was at the head of a body of police or a party of cavalry to hunt them down. He knew instances where 21. 10s. were subscribed to an as- sassin if the victim was not shot dead, and 61. 10s. where he was shot dead. He had been surprised to hear the days of the present Ministry were at an end. He hoped this was not the case; and he begged to record his approbation of all their policy except upon the single subject of the Corn-laws.

i

Mr. ROEBUCK, n accordance with all the principles which had hitherto di- rected his political career, should give his vote against the bill. All bills of this description were mischievous first, because they were inefficacious; and next, because if efficacious in some measure, they were much snore efficacious for evil than good. ' He took a review of the parties mixed up with the present bill. He believed that the motives of the gentlemen opposite in pressing the measure were as pure as motives well could be. Lord George Bentinck, however, and the party who followed him, had found a reason for turning their back on their former opm- ion—they•had no confidence in the Ministry. Whencethat want of confidence in Sir Robert Feel? 'Because he had done one great thing for the people of England— because be had freed trade from the shackles that formerly surrounded it, and had passed a corn-bill through that House which the people desired. But Mr. Roebuck wanted an explanation of the change of opinion which had taken place among the leaders of the Opposition. In 1833, under Lord Grey's Administra- tion, an energetic and vehement support was given by them to a coercion bill, the like of which had never disfigured the statute-book. He heard Lord John Rus- sell express surprise that Sir James Graham, in adopting his opinions, had not expressed some sort of regret for having _found fault with him upon a former oc- capon for holding the frame opinions. He remembered also that the majority of those who supported the' bill under Earl Grey's Administration did not hesitate to reproach, with almost opprobrium, all who opposed the Ministerial legislation of that day. Now, however, the noble Lord had taken up other views; but he had not depressed the 'sliglitest regret that he had before blamed others for holding the very same opinioes which 16 now'etitertained himself. (Cheers and laughter.) But • the noble Lord's acts were'not confined to' that Outrageous bill of 1833: there was the bill of 1835—much milder, indeed, than its predecessor; still'it dontainedthe famous sunset clauses, and'gave the power of making domiciliary visits. And what was Mr. O'Connell's opinion on the subject of these sunset aliatses? He approved of them : for he stated in his speech, that the "only in- fringement made upon public liberty by the bill was the power given to deal with persons who went out by night, having no lawful business to take them out; and

i

if it should be. effectual n suppressing this most baneful practice, it would have arnost salutary operation, and produce the greatest benefit in Ireland. He felt convinced that the bill would work well. He only wished its provisions had gone a little farther, and that it had proceeded to touch those affiliated societies which existed in IrelLid,and flourished in spite of the law, but which it was the bounden duty of tin law to put down." That was what Mr. O'Connell said in 1835, under a Whig Ministry. Mr. Roebuck wanted some strong assurance from Lord John Russell and his party, before ousting Sir Robert Peel, that they were not again to deal in the same sort of bills. He begged to put a question to Lord John Russell: it was well known that Lord John was last year, upon the resignation of Sir Ro- bert Peel, employed to form an-Administration; and three was a report abroad that Lord Besborough was to have been appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with the express understanding that he was to be armed with a coercion bill.

Lord Joist( Russia,--" It is entirely false." (Loud cheers.) . Mr. Rommusx.--That denial at once put an end to the report; and he had done the noble Lord a service in enabling him to make the denial. As regards the bill before the House, he found, upon this occasion, two parties about to vote in eronjunction against it, who had never voted together before; and he must say, that he looked.uOn each a combination with something like suspicion. The change of the noble Lord's opinion was, no doubt, an honourable change; but it came at an inopportune time, and with an inopportune effect; for with the pre- sent combination of parties, he feared that they could expect but little which would tend to the real benefit of the country: The noble Lord was not in a po- sition to govern this country by the aid of the friends upon his own side of the Howe. The consequence would be the disruption of 'the Liberal party': the result would be the same as in 1840, '41, and '42—the bringing in of measures only to reject them—an attempt at governing by a minority, and losing credit., in fact, every day with the country. If,. on the other hand, the Protectionists should by any ex traordinary freak of fortnne ever occupy the Treasury benches, the House would very soon show them what the value of their position was.

Lord Joins MANNERS had no wish to associate his principles of English Tory- ism with 'suclisa remnant of Whig legislation as that now under discussion. If he had thought the measure a good one, he would have supported it; but with his opinions-concerning it, he could not consent to show a late confidence in the Government by voting for the second reading. Sir JAMES GRAHAst defended the Government against the charge of having unnecessarily delayed the progress of the measure, and then proceeded to restate the principal facts upon which the necessity for the measure rested; wishing to bring back the House 6 the real merits of the question at issue. He reviewed the various suggestions which had been made during the debate for meeting the evils of which all complained by other means than those proposed by the Govern- ment. Among other schemes he noticed Lord John Russell's suggestion that the same means might be resorted to which had proved on a recent occasion so suc- cessful in repressing crime in Leitrim. Sir James showed the difference between the cases. The population of the five counties is 1,400,000, and the area 3,500,000 scree; ofleitrim the population is leas than 300,003, whilst the area is only 190,000 acres.- How is it possible for the Government to distribute over five counties the military force as they did over a single county, such as Leitrim? It must also be observed, that the measures taken with regard to Leitrim were adopted last bummer, when it was possible by patrol during the night, and the presence of a leige force, to exercise a commanding power over the population.

Having disposed of other cognate subjects, Sir James referred to a matter of somewhat personal kind. "I refer to an appeal made by the noble Lord the Member for London with reference to the conduct of myselE I have had the honour of a long acquaintance with the noble Lord, and I thought I fully appretiated his character. I knew him to be bold, and I also believed him to be generous. I was slow to sup- pose that in his bosom there was any recess where angry resentments could be cherished, that lapse of time would not mitigate, and which a sense of public duty could not restrain when public interests seemed to demand it. I am slow to believe and I will not believe, that I have fallen into a mistake. But the noble Lord says I am wanting in fairness—that while I have changed my opinions I have not done justice to him and his fellow colleagues by withdrawing the lan- guage which I held when opposed to the noble Lord. I am not prepared to defend any particular expressions which I may have used in debate. It is possible my opinions, honestly entertained, might have been conveyed in more appropriate language; but that I have done injustice to the noble Lord or his colleagues I do not feel myself called upon to acknowledge; though if I had I should not have been unwilling to make a retractation. I am anxious to avoid saying a word that can tend to increase irritation or protract discussion- ' but when the noble Lord says that I and those with whom I act overthrew a Government whose principles and measures we subsequently adopted, he must permit me to say, that he over- threw the Government of Sir Robert Peel in 1835, by carrying a resolution in this House in reference to the appropriation of the property of the Church of Ire.: land or a certain portion of it to secular purposes; that he, when in office, for some time certainly sought to effect the object, but at last he abandoned it, in a matinee which I will not characterize, because More severe expressions, were applied to that abandonment than I should choose to employ. Then, as to free trade in corn : though those with whom I act in the Government have changed their views on this par- ticular doctrine, yet the noble Lord and those with whom heacts were sudden con • verts under very peculiar circumstances. Let any gentleman read the speech of the honourable Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) in 1840, on Mr. Ewart's mo- tion as to sugar, and he will there see laid down the distinction between free labour and slave labour more broadly and distinctly than it had ever been laid down by any honourable Member. The acts of any Government meet be taken in connexion with the declarations of its nienibers: with -regard to the free inis portation of corn, what were the declarations of Lord Melbourne? did he not, up to the very last year of his Administration, contend that the mere change was especially objectionable and that the notion of introducing free trade into this country was to be regarded as insanity? I believe his expression was, that he thought it madness. It was not till Lord Melbourne's Government was on the

eve of dissolution, when power had departed from was not till the very last moment that the principle- of free _trade was enunciated by that Administration" as the principle of thew Government: And there is this difference between the conduct of myself and my colleagues, and of the noble Lerd and his colleagues, that we, in changing our views, -have given effect 6 a Principle which we really believe to be indispensably necessary to the welfare and happiness of this 'com- munity, by the sacrifice of our personal feelings, and all but the sacrifice of power. We have made that sacrifice, and Made it cheerfully. The noble Lord and his colleagues changed not less suddenly than We did; but by their change of opinions' they sought the maintenance of their power. .( Cheers.) Under these eircuin- stancest any retractation is quite impossible; though for the particular form of-

expressions I certainly 'do not contend:" ,

Returning to the main subject, Sir James said—" As far as my. official kusw- ledgegoes, the necessity for this measure was seriously felt in Ireland; asd my anticipations will be greatly deceived, if, this measure being.rejected, a necessity for it be not felt in the ensuing winter. Notwithstanding many difficulties and_ serious outrages, we have for Eve years conducted the Government of Irelind without asking Parliament to grant us any extraordinary powers. Charged with the maintenance of peace in that country, tinder the most adverse circuipstances,. and knowing that our power would, be shaken to Its foundation, we Nee not shrunk from Abe responsibility of proposing this measure. To have dyne so' lightly, would have been inexcusable; having done it from a conviction of its ne- cessity, to shrink from it would be base and ignominious. lire do not shrink from it—we adhere to the opinion that it is necessary. And I deliberate*, state, I am satisfied the time is not far distant when the Executive, however consti- tuted, will require all the powers of this measure. Let those who doubt that ne- cessity resist this measure, regardless of all the consequences of that resistance: on the other hand, let those who are satisfied of that necessity give a manly and cordial support apart from all questions of confidence or want of confidence,—that question can be raised at any time and upon other issues; but it will be most in-. excusable, unjust, and dangeroussto object to the second reading of this bill on considerations of that description. I may be wrong, but I have a deep conviction that if all those who are conscientiously satisfied that in the present circum- stances of Ireland this bill is necessary, should support the second reading, the

result of the division will not be doubtful." - : .

Mr. LABOU6HERE rose to repel an attack which had just been made upon him, not indeed for the first time, but which he thought his previous replies had si- lenced. He was not one of those who thought consistency ,a matter of slight im- portance. He was not presumptuous enough to say. that in the twenty years he had sat in that House, he had not modified his opinions on many important sub- jects. But he challenged Sir James Graham to point out a single instance in which he had turned completely round, and with an unblushing front maintained the direct contrary opinion, and still asking for the confidence of the Honk. On the occasion referred to by Sir James GrViam, he was President of the Board of Trade, and spoke on behalf of the Government. He had urged the House to re- sist the admission not merely of slave-grown sugar, but of all foreign sugar, under the peculiar circumstance's of the times. He said that the Colonies should have breathing-time after the abolition of slavery; and Sir Robert Peel—who is a fair opponent—admitted on a subsequent occasion that the plea was valid. Mr. La- bouchere entirely agreed in the remarks of Lord John Russell, referred to by Sir James Graham. Sir James and his colleagues had acted most unfairly to the Melbourne Government, for the purpose of thwarting and embairassing.it. With regard to the measure before the House, be should vote against it, believing that it was not calculated to meet the case.- On the motion of Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, the debate was adjourned. - On Thursday the debate was resumed. The sPeakere 'were Mi. 'STAF- FORD O'BRIEN, against the bill; Mr. VESEY, for; Mr. Mimi, and Lord NEWPORT, against; Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON; for; Mr. CHARLES BULLER, and Mr. BANKES, against; Mr. SPOONER, for; Mr. &IBIS, against; the. SOLICITOR-GENERAL, and the Marquis of CHARDON (Or; MEOW BERES- FORD, against; Mr. NEWDEGATE, Captain HARRIS, and Mr. COBDEN, against. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN maintained that the bill must be regarded as pre- eminently raising a question of confidence in the Government Those who were prepared to vote for the bill without reference to the question of confidence showed themselves little alive to the principles of constitutional liberty. Whether the measure might be a curfew act for Ireland or not, there was little doubt, from what they heard and saw, that it would be a welcome curfew to the Government. ("Hear hear I" and laughter.) It would but extinguish the lights of a domestic hearth from which confidence had been before exeltided. In voting against the bill, they would be relieving the Government from the difficulties of its position. -• Mr. linste congratulated the House on the new tone taken towards Ireland. He could remember, at a former period, when a coercion bill was introducel, that out of a House of 550 Members, only 89 Members, Scotch and Irish together, could be-found to vote against it. Opinion upon these matters was now altered, and 13tered for the better. He expressed his regret that Sir Robert Peel, who had announced a short time ago his intention to govern Ireland on conciliatory prin- ciples' should have introduced a measure of coercion. It was by such laws as these that the people of Ireland had been converted into a nation of slaves• and itwas unreasonable in those who had lowered the Irish to the condition of slaves to expect from them an orderly and peaceful demeanour.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER said, that one of the circumstances in a rather long Parliamentary career that he looked back to with great satisfaction was that in 1833 he ventured to give his constant opposition to the Government of FAH Grey upon their Coercion Bill. In his opinion, Mr. Roebuck had most pitiably narrowed the question when he brought it to bear on the state of parties in that House. On one subject, and that an unpleasant one, his feelings went altogether with his learned friend, who could not more thoroughly disapprove than himself the coarse and ungenerous attacks made upon the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Government. Honourable gentlemen opposite, by their odious imputations, were only arraying the feelings of the country more strongly on the side of the right honourable Baronet. He thought it odious that these attacks should be made and persevered in, without a shadow of evidence. But he was glad to see the gentlemen on the Protectionist benches give proofs of a soend and generous disposition towards Ireland. The prolongation of the discussion on the first read- ing of the bill, by enforcing attention to the state of things in Ireland, had done good. Ile felt a strong objection to the particular bill before the House. Even as a measure of coercion it was exceedingly poor. It was a servile imitation of former acts, and made no provision for a different set of circumstances. It by no means dealt with the disorders it was intended to remedy. Experience showed that there was a far better way of dealing with crimes and restoring order among the Irish people than by means of coercive measures.

In illustration, Mr. Buller specified the successful results of the policy adopted by Lord Normanby and Lord Fortescue. When Lord Normanby succeeded to the governmentof Ireland, crime was infinitely more formidable than it is now. What plan did he adopt? He endeavoured to win the confidence of the Irish people: he infused a liberal policy into his Government; he intrusted the admi- nistration of justice to parties who enjoyed the confidence of the Irish people; he obtained the confidence of their leader; and above all, of their clergy. What was the result? It was as clear as any matter of statistics could be, that crime went on progressively decreasing, till, in the last year of Lord Forteseue's Government, it was reduced to one-half of what Lord Normanby had found it. This fact was admitted by gentlemen in Opposition; but the credit was assigned to the salutary terror of the Coercion Act of 1835, which lasted till 1840. Now if it had been the terror of the Coercion Bill which operated on the Irish people, it would have acted most strongly immediately after the enactment of the measure: but what was the fact? For some time after its passing, crime did not diminish; but by and by a change was felt, crime began to decrease from year to year; and it did not break out again in 1840, when the bill expired; but the same state of matters lasted during two years after the accession of the present Government.

Mr. Buller proceeded to trace the sources of crime; and quoted the testimony of the Times Commissioner in proof of his position that the root was agrarian. He protested against the palpable cheat of putting forward coercion bills as an adequate remedy. He did not see how an end could be put to the constant circle of crime and outrage without providing that protection for the people which the people of every other country in the world possessed. How could the Irish pea- sant reverence the law which gave him no protection In France, Belgium, Switzerland, Prussia, the peasant was actually guaranteed by the possession of the soil. The English peasant depended upon wages; but he was really pro- tected by the Poor-law. Even the serfs of Russia and the slaves of the United States could not be left to starve by their masters. In Canada, the United States of America, and the tiew COlonies of !his country, the immense demand for labour and the scantiness of the population afforded a guarantee for the means of exist, ence to the people. With regard to remedies, he advocated the extension of the principle Of the English Poor-law to /rebind as the foundation. The reclamation of waste lands would afford important relief; and still greater would arise from giving facilities for the natural 'flow of English capital into Ireland. The sug- gestions of Lord Devon's Commission were likewise deserving of attention. No- Wng was more desirable than the breaking up of large and encumbered estates in Ireland, a revision of the law regarding stamps and taxes,and the giving the power and every facility to life-tenants to alienate and break up their property into smaller estates. In Ireland there was a great disposition among the people to emigrate, and advantage might be taken of that; and by a combination of all these measures they would produce a very good and very great effect. A fitting close to his remarks would be a few words upon the course pursued by the present Government. He had not been a strenuous opponent of their policy; but he must be permitted to say, on this point, that the greater part of the legislation for Ireland had been conducted on the worst possible principle; and he regretted to think that some of the measures, good in themselves, which they had brought forward, had lost half their efficacy from the mode in which they had been introduced.

[Messengers from the Lords now entered the House with the Corn Bill, to which their Lordships had agreed. Their advent was hailed by general cheering.]

Mr. Ileums, on noticing their entrance, expressed the gratification which he experienced from such and so welcome an interruption. (Loud cheers.) lie thoieght, too, that it would now be ungracious if, after this occurrence, he said a word more against her Majesty's Ministers, so far as their Irish measures were concerned. (Great cheering.) He could only deeply regret that the bill now under discussion should have been an exception to the policy by which, during the present session, they had so much and_ so wisely consulted the good-will of the country. He farther deeply regretted that it should have been his fortune, and that of gentlemen on that side of the House, to be compelled to give, on this oc- casion, a vote which might be fatal to the existence of the Government. (Cheers.) He said this sincerely, from the bottom of his heart: and he did regret that such should be the effect of his vote. Without affecting. any adherence to those gen- tlemen, he might say he felt acutely the ungraciousness of appearing to select the moment when they had conferred so signal- a service upon the nation, at a great sacrifice on their own part, to join in a vote of which such might be the effect, concurrently with those gentlemen who desired to punish the Government for the good they had done to the country. (Cheers.) But he could not help it. It was no fault of the Opposition that this Coercion Bill was introduced. Were the matter other than what it was, he would be willing to abstain from opposition to the Government; but any measure marking their policy towards Ireland was of far too serious a nature, and too important in its consequences, to be made the occa- sion of a compliment to the Ministers. He knew that the right honourable Baronet had looked all this fairly in the face; and that when he came forward with a great measure which would hand him down to posterity, and which at present endeared him to the hearts of the people of this country, he had properly estimated the personal sacrifice at which his object was to be accomplished—the penalty which was to be paid in the loss of power. ("Hear hear! " from Sir Robert Peel.) It somewhat diminished the pain with which he should give his votes to think that, by rejecting this bill, they would mark an important and a new tera in their legislation for Ireland. It would be the that instance of the demands of a Government for coercive power in Ireland being rejected by that House. Let him trust that such a rejection would effectually prevent a like demand being ever again made from the Imperial Parliament. (Loud cheers.) Mr. GEORGE BANKES was surprised at the original delay which had taken place with the bill; but he was still more surprised that the Government should now persevere with it. The Government would not exist two days longer, anl

yet those Who would succeed to the seats which Ministers now occupied were pledged to carry the bill no further. What, then, would be the effect of forcing on a division and in what position would Government place the Protestant Mem- bers cf Ireland if such a step were taken ? He would summon Ministers them- selves as witnesses to prove that the measure was not necessary; and to show that the measure was unsuitable and uncalled for, he could adduce the testimony of the Irish Members. When the Government was on the eve of dissolution, was that the time to give them such powers ? Were those who would join in a vote of censure on Ministers to intrust them with the powers of such a bill as this?

Mr. SPOONER would not give his vote in support of the bill as a mark of con- fidence in the Government, but from a conviction that the statements submitted to the House proved its necessity. But, if a vote in favour of the bill was a vote of confidence in the Ministry, was not a vote against it a vote of confidence in the noble Lord opposite ? Were honourable gentlemen below the gangway prepared to give that vote? Had they forgotten the Irish Church question? the Appro- priation clause ? and all the principles on which the Conservative party had so long acted together? Had they not continually told the noble Lord, that he was governing Ireland by giving concessions to a party whose every fresh concession only stimulated to fresh demands, and leaving unprotected and unguarded the real interests of that country ?

Mr. &MIL rose for the first time this session, and began—" Sir, necessity is sometimes the best plea of a good government ; of a bad government it is very frequently the very worst pretence; and that it is in the present instance a pretence and not an argument, I have risen for the purpose of proving; for it is my thorough persuasion that the criminalities of Ireland ought to be attributed to that moral distemper of which a government utterly destitute of the confideuce and support of the .people never fails to be productive. I shall have occasion in following up this view of the question, to animadvert upon the policy pursued'by the present Prime Minister in reference to Ireland. , It has often been my misfor- tune to have thought it my duty to do so; but, in doing so, I have never for- gotten that it i to the right honourable gentleman himself that I am indebted for the privilege of pronouncing his condemnation, and that to his face, from this lofty level, where the Irish Catholic and the English Protestant are placed in an imperial parity together; and as, in his highest and most palmystate when he stood at the head of that great Conservative party which it cost him ; so many years to construct, and which in a few months he has reduced to such utter dila- pidation, I have always endeavoured to avoid, and I hope I have succeeded in avoid- ing, the use of any phrase which could be justly considered as wantonly offensive, now that the right honourable gentleman has undergone some apparent and temporary change of fortune—now that, in his descent from his meredian, a cloud; tinged perhaps with light, but still a cloud, is passing over him—it shall be my peculiar care that the language of strong animadversion shall be dissociated from disrespect. I do not despair of the right honourable gentleman: I entertain a hope that he who has had the virtue and the courage to dash to pieces the sliding scale, which it cost him so much fruitless ingenuity to elaborate, will recant his Irish heresies at last, and to his celebrated inconsistencies will give a glorious consum- mation." (Loud cheers.) When the Catholic question was adjusted, he had no doubt that Sir Robert Peel intended to act upon its principle; but when driven from office in the suc- ceeding year, he united himself with the most unmitigable antagonists of Ireland, and did his utmost to obstruct the Whig Government in their endeavours to carry out the principle of Emancipation and to enlarge the political rights of the Iris people. Mr. Sheil instanca.. Sir Robert's opposition to the .Irish Municipal and Parliamentary Registration Bills. He promised recently to introduce a measure to assimilate the municipal law of England and Ireland. For this intimation, however tardy, he deserved praise; but what a satire is his present on his former conduct! The Registration Bill is a still greater disgrace. He coalesced with Lord Stanley ins project for the annihilation of the constituencies of Ireland; and as soon as he came into power he flung the bill aside. When placed at the head of the Government, he-found himself surrounded with diffiCulties of his own creation. He was forced to select as colleagues men who were objects of peculiar disrelish to the Irish people. One of them has, it is said, repented of a very unhappy phrase, and Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst has relapsed Into Mr. Sergeant Copley; but the phrase that escaped him is not forgotten. lie promoted partisans hot- and reeking from the encounters of faction to places in which coolness and impartiality are especially required. He endeavoured to countervail his sayings by his doings; but between his doings and sayings there was an antithesis so marked that his professions excited the alarm of one party without creating the confidence of the other. Seven millions went into opposition. Two-thirds of the Irish Members, every man in Ireland belonging to the Liberal party who could .write with exciting force or speak with contagious fervour, the whole of the Liberal press, the whole of the Catholic hierarchy, the Catholic priesthood to a man, were arrayed against his Government. It was impossible that, under such circumstances, he could succeed. Agitation burst out with unprecedented violence. The Repeal Magistrates—miserable expedient! were dismissed. Then came the monster meetings; followed by the monster pro- secutions insidiously; conceived, and conducted in a spirit of oppression. The

• beheld the Liberator and the leader of a Catholic nation tried by Protestant

grocers and Protestant tanners, presumptuously called his peers; but the long series of ignominious proceedings terminated in a discomfiture of the Government of which there is no former example—terminated with a denunciation pronounced by the Chief Justice of England, from the highest seat of judicature in the world, and in the conversion of the porch of a prison-house into an arch of tri- umph, through which the most remarkable man in Europe, whom you had the teinerity to call a convicted conspirator, was given back to the embraces of all enthusiastic and devoted people. (Cheers, with some ironical cheering from the Tory benches.) "Yes, the Liberator of his country, whom you called ' a convict- ed conspirator—and you have reason to lament the phrase—was brought back to the embraces of a grateful country; and no man who rightly values freedom will blame me for standing up before you to say that."

Was it possible that the effect of such treatment, which had influenced all other classes, should not reach to the lowest; that when the moral atmosphere was thus charged with contagion, the poor peasant should remain unaffected; and that in the midst of the general turbulence, the burly-burly into which the country was cast by the Government, they who have the greatest grievances to complain of—they who groan beneath the wrongs which we are told by the highest of all authorities make the wise man mad—should not break oat into those ex- cesses for which an incarceration after sunset is prescribed, with all the perti- nacity of baffled empiricism, as a sovereign and unfailing cure? To show that a Government conducted on other principles had been fertile in peace, Mr. Sheil referred to the Administration of Lord Normanby, in connexion with which Mr. Drummond, Sir Michael O'Loghlen, Chief Baron Woulfe, and other friends of the Irish people, had acted. That Administration was in sym- pathy with the people, and was trusted, obeyed, and beloved. It was sustained by the vast majority of the Representatives of Ireland, by every man of name in the Catholic body, by the whole of the Catholic press, by every Catholic Bishop, by the entire Catholic Church in Ireland; every priest was an unpaid constable of police, (for they are the true conservators of the peace, without whose aid the goverinient of Ireland never can be carried on with success); and the result was social and political tranquillity.

Mr. Sheil denied that the present measure was called for' or that it was adapted to meet thealleged case upon which it rested. It had been called temporary, but the original intention was to make it permanent. This shows the tunnies; the spirit wit, made manifest, and the sin of the volition is as great as the guilt of

perpetration. " There never was a moment when it more behoved the Parliament to Consider the political effect with which any measure proposed for Ireland will be attended. Never was mom caution required. The repeal of the Corn-laws

ought to make you .pause before you administer to the popular excitement Let me explain myself in this. There are in Ireland two powerful classes,—the pro-

prietors of the soil, who hold in fee under a series of military snbjugations; and the niass of the people, of whose intelligence, whose energy, and whose power the development has been so rapid. You have contrived in the course of this sessiop to alarm the interests of the one, and to awaken the passions of the other. I am of opinion that the repeal of the Corn-laws will be ultimately conducive to the good of Ireland, because the prosperity of England must contribute to that of the sister island. The overflowings of your opulence must ultimately extend to us. The Irish l'rotestant gentry, however, take a different view: they conceive that

on are doing them wrong—that you are breaking the word of Mr. Pitt—that by you are them of their exclusive market, and putting Belgium and Holland upon a revel with Ireland, you are loosening, if not cutting, one of the ligaments by which the two countries are fastened together. It must be confessed that there are many among them whom the repeal of the Corn-laws will materially affect. The fall of rents will be a deathblow to mortgagers; and many a Cromwellian gentleman, who now totters beneath the load of incumbrances, after staggering on a little, will fall under the burden of which the repeal of the Corn-laws will not fitil to produce an aggravation. In this state of things, while you are thus alien- ating the Irish Protestants, on whom the present Government have most injudi- ciously relied for their sustainment, how impolitic it is to enact as a companion to the repeal of the Corn-laws, a Coercion Bill, by which you will exasperate the great body of the people!"

Mr. Shell advised the Commons, as representing the English nation, to get rid of their addictions to despotism, for the Irish had divested themselves of all the habi- tudes of subserviency. Not a trace of the fetter remains. A change had taken place in the national character. This was the fruit of education. There are hun- dreds of thousands of readers in Ireland; those hur.dreds of thousands will grow to millions; and for a nation of readers this bill is not fit. "You, perhaps, think that the education of the people is of such a character that it will not be attended with any important political effect. You are mistaken: the books put into circulation 17 the Education Commissioners are of an order greatly superior in all regards to the wretched writings which were once considered to be adapted to the populace: you will not only find books of grammar and arithmetic, but volumes containing extracts from history, in which generous heart-stirring events are told, con- taining passages of lofty morality, the ethics of patriotism, the catechism of freedom—verses, immortal ones, in which the advantage of liberty is magnificently taught. I repeat to you, that for a nation of readers this bill is not, fitted. And because there is no evidence whatever of the necessity for this bill—because there is no proof whatever that it will accomplish the objects it professes to aim at— because there' is no testimony to show that it will be more successful than the Arms Bill—because it is a violation of the principles of the Union—and because you avail yourselves of the existence of the Act of Union to inflict upon the Irish nation a measure which two-thirds of the Irish Representatives denounced—I shall vote against the second reading of the bill." The Somoirost-Giwrinat, defended the bill; going into the statistics of the question, and tracing the effects of previous bills in diminishing crime.

The Marquis of CRANDOS would vote for the bill, irrespective of party con- siderations. His belief was, that but for the repeal of the Corn-law, the bill would have been carried by the very parties who were now to vote against it. Mr. NEWDEGATE conscientiously voted against a bad measure like the present, because he would not place the powers which it conferred in the hands of a Ministry in which he had no confidence. Although the vigorous and racy lan- e of Lord G. Bentinek might not suit the delicate apprehension of some gentlemen, it was rendered necessary by the emergencies of the time. [This declaration led to hootinge, which rendered the remainder of the speech in- audible.] Mr. COBDEN wished to say a few words in explanation of the vote lie was to give. He should find himself in the same division with three classes of persons,— those who have hitherto voted against the bill, with some who voted tor the bill on the first reading; and, to his great surprise, he should find himself united with a large number of gentlemen who sat below the gangway. He did not wish to impute motives to others, but he wished to clear himself from all suspicion as to the vote he was to give. Lord George Bentinck had said that it MS the duty of every honest man to punish the traitor, however much he might like the trea- son. To vote against the bill, then, meant a vote of censure in the estimate of Lord George. "Now I beg to repudiate for myself, and for many honourable gen- tlemen on this side of the House, such an unjust and unfair construction upon the votes we are giving. (Cheers.) We should be acting very inconsistently in- deed with popular opinions-and we especially affect to represent popular opinion —if we were to give such a vote as this; because I apprehend there will be no dispute on this point, that the right honourable Baronet has been the means of passing this session one of the most popular measures that any Minister could possibly undertake. We should be outraging public opinion if we allowed such a construction to be put upon our vote at this moment, on the very day that this great measure has been brought down to this House from another place. Yes, I can imagine the noble Lord fueling that there is a sort of poetical justice in car- rying a vote of censure at the very moment of the passing of the Corn Bill: but I beg to say that he must, not pass this construction upon my vote, at all events." It appears that Sir Robert Peel attaches so much importance to this measure, that he is determined that his Government shall stand or fall with it. Mr. Cobden had nothing to do with that determination; but he was not going to stultify his own vote, or to vote, as Lord George Bentinek has intimated he will do that black is white, to turn out the Minister. Two months ago, it had been stated that the gentlemen below the gangway were prepared to give any vote consistent with their personal honour, (which must not be questioned in that House,) to turn Sir Robert Peel out of office. It was therefore hopeless to attempt to keep the Mi- nister in power by a single vote. "I beg to assure honourable gentlemen opposite, that the state of parties will are long receive a solution out of doors. (Load cheers.) We cannot continue with three parties in this House, neither party being able to carry on the Go- vernment. fliers must be a fusion of two parties. I see no immediate prospect of an amalgamation between the gentlemen below the gangway and their late friends on the other side; and I must say that I am very glad to think it is so. (Cheers.) There is nothing whieh I should regret more than to see the right honourable Baronet forced into an alliance with that rearward party. But there is another alliance which I imagine, in some shape or other, must take place here, and which has already taken place in the country. There is no distinction in the country, so far as I am aware, between those who follow the noble Lord the Mem- ber for London and those who give in their adhesion to the policy of the right honourable Baronet. (Cheers from the Protectionists.) I don't understand the logical inference to be drawn from that cheer. I don't think it holds out a cheer- ing prospect to the honourable gentlemen below the gangway. But I augur that if this fusion has taken place out of doors, and the rank and file of those who follow those two distinguished leaders are found mingling in their ranks and fra- ternizing with each other throughout the country, there cannot long be a separa- tion between the two, chiefs themselves; and the result will be an abandonment of their strife and a fusion between the two parties in this House. (Cheers.) Well, I apprehend that this will give us a Government and a majority—which will not be a Protection Government, at all events. Now I have only to say, in contra-

diction to the noble leettit that if the right henoureble Baronet chooses to retire

. , W from office in consequence of this vote, he carries with him the esteem and grati- tnde of a larger number of the population of this empire than ever followed any Minister that was ever hurled from power. [Mr. Rashkigh—" Not of the work- ing classes."] The honourable Member for Cornwall says, not of the working classes.' [Mr. Raakteigh—" And I repeat it."] I am sorry the honourable Member is so excited in making the declaration; but has he the same expression of opinion to give with regard to the voting classes ? (Cheers.) I think the right honourable gentleman has shown great forbearance to honourable Members below the gangway, in not having availed himself of the strength he has with the country, and, taking them at their word before he abandons office appealing to the country. (Cheers.) But should he not do so, I am not misinterpreting the opinion of the people, not only of the electors, but especially of the working classes, when I tender the right honourable Baronet, in my own name, as I might do in theirs, my heartfelt thanks for his unwearied perseverance, the unswerving firmness, and the great ability with which he has during the last six months con- ducted one of the most magnificent reforms ever effected in any country." (Muck cheering ,from the Liberals, with derisive indications from the Protectionists.) The House then divided—

For the second reading 219 Against 292 Majority against the second reading —73 The division was received by the House in silence; and an immediate adjournment took place, at a quarter-past two o'clock.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES.

On Wednesday, on the motion of Mr. WATSON, the Commons went into Committee on the bill for the removal of certain disabilities imposed upon Roman Catholics by the Emancipation Act of 1829. Sir ROBERT Imam stated, that the Speaker had left the chair unnoticed by him; otherwise it was his intention to have moved that the House go into Committee on the bill this day six months—

At the lapse of seventeen years, he saw no reason why Parliament should give advantages to the Church of Rome which had not been conceded to her in 1829 The question of mixed marriages had rendered such additional concession more inexpedient than ever: since the appointment of the present Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese of London, no Roman Catholic priest would celebrate a mixed marriage without requiring from the Protestant party a written undertaking that the children of the marriage should all be brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. Ile considered that, although the bill had been very much changed, still there was enough of evil in it to justify him in moving that Mr. Greene do now leave the chair, and report progress.

Mr. WATSON wished that Sir Robert Inglis had divided on the principle of the bill—

He did not wish to shake the foundation of the Protestant Church, nor did he wish Parliament to dispense with any of the "compensatory" securities which already existed. His sole object was to prevent their Roman Catholic brethren from suffering penalties on account of their religion. He was ready to modify the wording of any of the clauses. He did not consider the clause which attend Roman Catholic Bishops to assume the titles enjoyed by the dignitaries of the Protestant Church as material to his bill; neither did he deem it essential to adhere to the clause enabling the Bishops and priests to appear in their pontifical robes in all places except the public streets. By one of the clauses persons were

prohibited from exercising the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church in any .public street or road; and by another clause, that part of the act of 1829

which imposes banishment on the members of religious orders was repealed; but, with the view of removing objections to this relaxation, his bill provided for a ms gistration.

Sir JAMES Grraneat declared Ids intention to vote 'with Sir Robert Inglis—

He thought there was something like levity in the author of the bill first in- troducing provisions, and then offering to withdraw them on the ground that he did not think them material. Sir James Graham deemed the points under con-

sideration too important to be dealt with in that easy way. He was quite willing to allow the Roman Catholic Bishops to enjoy the titles recognized to them by

law; but as long as there is an Establialied Church, he would not consent to

allow them to use the titles appropriated to the Prelates of that church. Mr. Watson had made a change in his second clause, restricting the exercise of

Romish rites; but Sir James did not think that the restriction was sufficient He would not consent to allow official persons to attend Roman Catholic places of worship and carry the insignia of their offices along with them: if there were to be any regulations in such a matter, he would adhere to the regulations already laid down in the statute-book. With respect to religious orders, he deemed the question the most important of all. He would not ascribe to these orders disloyal

or treasonable intentions; and with respect to one of the number, the Jesuits, he could not forget that literature and the Christian religion itself had been under immense obligation to that order. "But, on the other hand, I am bound to state with respect to them and to the regular orders generally, that the members of the Protestant religion have just cause of jealousy—not on account of the political opinions of those orders, but on religions grounds; because it mast be admitted that the regular orders are the aggressive force, and that they supply the missions"), body most active in the conversion of those who are hereties in their eyes. I therefore say, that the Protestant establishment has just cause, upon religions grounds, to entertain a jealousy of the regular orders." (Cheers.) The question was one of regulation; and although he was not satisfied with the law as it stood, still no practical grievance was felt from it and no harm could arise from postponing the question of regulation to an after time. As head of the Home Office, he could state that there is no record of the orders or their vows kept there. He did not say this in commendation of the law: on the contrary, the fact showed that the law is not in a satisfactory state: but in dealing with such a matter the utmost caution is necessary, and therefore he approved of delay. Sir Robert Inglis's motion was opposed by Mr. WYSS, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. B. ESCOTT, Lord SEYMOUR, Mr. REDDINGTON' Mr. DABOUCRERE, and Lord Joint MANNERS; and supported by Mr. COWPER, Mr. Ear- COURT, Mr. COLQUHOUN, and Mr. NEWDEGATE. Dlr. WrsE, on the subject of ecclesiastical titles, stated that he should insist OR perfect equality between the two churches in Ireland. The opposition made to the

clause relating to religious orders arose from a prejudice against the Jesuits, which he believed to be unfounded. They were not given to proselytizing; and as to political questions, the Jesuits had been the most exempt of all the Roman Ca- tholic clergy in England and Ireland from taking part in them. Mr. CowrEn expressed great distrust of the Jesuits. They were held to be an intriguing political body, inculcating bad morality, not only by Protestants but

by the whole Roman Catholic world. He wanted to see a distinction drawn be- tween them and the other orders that might obtain the sanction of the Government. Mr. ESTCOURT said that the bill went to abrogate the compact eetered into in 1829, without any sufficient reason. Lord SEYMOUR remarked, that the House bad been told it would be dangerous to admit Jesuits into this country; but, for anything they knew to the contrary, there might now be Jesuits in that House, or even in the Cabinet. Mr. COLQUHOUN spoke of the rapidity with which the religious orders WON increasing in this country. He had been informed that there were now in the city of Dublin twenty convents and ten monasteries. He should like to SOS an exact register of the number of persons who have embraced monastic and comet- teal life in this country. In Ireland there could be no difficulty in obtaining such a register; for a friend of his had informed him that it might easily be made by the Inspectors of Police. (" Hear' hear!" from Mr. Morgan John O'Connell.) The honourable gentleman appeared to be surprised at this suggestion. (Mr. M. O'Connell—" Oh, no not at all." Laughter.) Certainly there did not seem anything extraordinary in the suggestion. Mr. LABOUCHERE remarked, that although the Jesuits might in former times have by means of the confessional obtained influence over the consciences of weak princes, yet in the present day the world was not governed in that way, but through the means of public discussion and a free press. He had therefore no fear of them.

Lord JOHN MANNERS observed, that there were Jesuits in England in Arch- bishop Laud's time-' and so far from defending the Church by pains and penalties, that Prelate did not hesitate to inset the Jesuits in argument, even in the pre- sence of the King.

The Committee divided—for Sir Robert Inglis's motion, 120; against it, 80; majority against proceeding with the bill, 40.

THZ SUGAR-DUTIES.

On Monday, the CHANCELLOR of the ExcnizottER brought under no- tice the question of the Sugar-duties- On Thursday he had given notice of his intention to move at the present sitting a resolution providing for the continuance of the Sugar-duties for one month from the 6th July. His object for making the proposal was to afford the most ample time for discussing the larger measure. At seven o'clock on Sunday evening, lie had received a communication from Lord George Bentinck, intimating that he intended to move as an amendment, that it was the duty of the Government to have introduced a bill for the continuance of these duties at an earlier period of the session, and that the introduction of it at so late a period was calculated to injure the commerce of the country. This was tantamount to a vote of censure; and if lord George Bentinck persisted in his intention, it would interrupt the progress of the temporary measure' and lead to delays which might render it im- possible to pass the temporary bill before the existing duties expired. He hoped, therefore, that Lord George would not persist in submitting his amendment on the present occasion.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCIC assured the .Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he was right in considering the amendment in the light of a vote of cen- sure—

In his opinion, the Government were greatly to blame in ;tutting to hazard three or four millions of the public revenue by delaying till within fourteen days of the expiry of the existing duties any step for securing their continuance. He had no wish to throw any obstruction in the way of a temporary measure, and would reserve his vote of censure for a fitting time. The proposal was only for a month; but before the lapse of a week Lord John Russell may be Prime Minister. Then the House must be adjourned for some time, to allow the various appoint- ments to be made and the members of the Government to be reelected; and under these circumstances, Lord John would no doubt ask another month's renewal, to the great derangement of trade, and injury to the revenue. As for himself and his friends, true to the principles on which they had turned out the Whig Govern- ment in 1841, they were prepared to support the renewal of the existing Sugar- duties for another year or even to support them with the modifications pointed at by Sir Robert Peel five months ago.

Mr. HUME, Mr. MILNER GIBBON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Sir ROBERT Iwo-us, spoke in favour of the temporary measure.

The House went into a Committee of Ways and Means. The resolution Was put and agreed to.

On Tuesday the report was received; and a bill giving effect to the rests- lution was introduced by Mr. CARDWELL, and read a first time.

Now ZEALAND.

On Monday, Mr. CRARLEs BoLLER asked a question of which he had given' previous notice—

On a former occasion, when alluding to the state of the colony of New Zealand, he had.put a question on the subject of the intentions of the Government; and Sir Robert Peel was pleased to say that he should give ample notice of such inten- tions. As a month had elapsed since that assurance was given, Mr. Buller thought it would be acknowledged that he did not pass beyond the limits of his duty if he begged to put the question now, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government in the coarse of the present session to bring into Parliament soy measure for the government of New Zealand?

Sir ROBERT PEEL assured Mr. Buller that the subject had not been overlooked— Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State for the Colonies hadgiven it a gbod deal of consideration. Mr. Buller would know that the difficulty in giving any positive answer to the question at the time when previously it was put to him were now considerably diminished by theaccounts which had recently been received from the colony.. Formerly, the information which had reached them was that our troops were in face of the enemy; but there was now every reason to hope that the authority of the British Crown had been reestablished. He had therefore, under these circumstances, no hesitation whatever in stating, that in his opinion it would be highly desirable, in the coarse of the present session,' to present for the Consideration of the House a legislative measure in reference to the government of New Zealand. As to the particular, character of that measure he Mould wish to abstain from entering into particulars at that moment. Whether it would be an enacting measure or an enabling measure, he could not at present say; but, at all events, he would engage thus far—that the present session should not close without the attention of the House of Commons being called to some legislative Measure connected with the Government of New Zealand.

The advance of 100,0001. out of the Consolidated Fund to the New Zealand Company, by way of loan' has been sanctioned by a vote this week, which is now embodied in the form of a bill.

AMENDMENT OF THE REFORM BILL.

On Wednesday, Sir DE LACY EVANS moved the second reading of the Parliamentary Electors and Freemen Bill— By the 27th clause of the Reform Act, it is required as a condition of exercisinz the franchise, that parties should discharge all rates and taxes due to the 6th o April on or before the 21st of July following. This provision had been found to produce much inconvenience in operation. One of the objects of the bill was to provide a remedy, by changing the date so that parties should be required, on or before the 21st of July, to pay rates and taxes due, not on the 6th of April, but OR the-11th of October preceding. In 18361 Lord John Russell carried through the House a similar provision, but it was rejected by the Lords. A great many electors of the highest respectability in London had been disfranchised from the operation of the clause: the collector had either neglected to call at the proper tune, or absence from home may have caused delay in the payment. Another provision contained in the bill was that every p n claiming to be rated to the relief of the poor, shall, for the purpose of re s lion, be deemed to have been rated from the period at which the rate shall have been made in respect to which he shall have claimed to be rated, notwithstanding the making of any subsequent rate from which his name might be omitted. These emendations he considered essential to the carrying out of the Reform Act. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt it his duty to offer a most determined opposition to the bill—

The House had never given its sanction to any such provision as that conlained in the first clause: on the contrary, the Legislature in 1848 deliberately sanc- tioned that which it was the object of the bill to alter. He considered that the time for paying up the arrears was amply sufficient. With respect to the second clause, he considered it decidedly mischievous. Be moved as an amend- ment that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. HUME and Mr. WILLIAMS supported the second reading: they con- sidered the mixing up of the franchise with the payment of rates highly objectionable. Mr. Esoorr wished the bill to go into Committee: under the present system frequent opportunity existed for bribery. The second reading was supported also by Sir GEORGE GREY.

Sir JAMES Goalies& opposed the further progress of the bill— He did not pretend to say that rating was an infallible test either of the gence or of the independence of the voter; but he was strongly of opinion, that unless they adopted universal suffrage, it was indispensable to show some test of intelligence and of independence; and that test, he considered, was most fee,. quently to be found in property and solvency. He could not consent to any en- largement of the period fixed in the Reform Act for paying up arrears.

Colonel SIBTHORP denied the applicability of Mr. Escott's allusion to bribery to the constituency of Lincoln: he considered a ten-pound voter of Lincoln equal to a twenty-pound householder of St. Giles's.

Mr. THOMAS Dustoommi rose at the mention of St. Giles's: it is part of the borough of Finsbury- " Perhaps the honourable and gallant Colonel is not aware how the parish of St. Giles's is composed. [Colonel Sibthorp--" No! I am not." Great laughter.] It contains several of the Inns of Court, and the residences of many of the moss eminent lawyers. The honourable and gallant Colonel may have a different idea of it; he may unfortunately, only have visited the lowest purlieus of that parish. (Laughter.) I confess I never saw a Lincoln ten-pounder; but, if I might be allowed to judge of them by their representative, I should say, that, from one end of Finsbury to the other—from St. Giles's to St. Luke's--1 never saw, for ele- gance of diction, mental accomplishments, or personal adornment—(Much laugh- ter, in which Sir Robert Peel heartily joined)—anybody in the least like the honourable and gallant representative of the ten-pounders of Lincoln."

The measure in question did not go far enough; but the resistance it was meeting showed that the Home is gettutg more and more aristocratic—every day more opposed to popular reforms; and is retrograding from public opinion, instead of advancing with it.

The House divided—For the second reading, 53; against it, 94; majors ity, 41. So the bill is lost.

PUBLIC RECORDS. On Tuesday, Mr. CHARLES Bimurn obtained the agt4 ment of a Committee to inquire into the best mode of providing a General Office for England and Wales.