Alrhattri anti illrarrtIlingst in Vatliantrnt.

LAw OF PRIMOGENITURE.

Mr. Ewan., on Tuesday, moved "for leave to bring in a bill pro- viding that, in cases of intestacy and in the absence of any settlement to the contrary, landed property shall, like personal property, be equally divided among the children or next of kin of the deceased, and pass through the executor or administrator as personal property now passes." He said that the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General were guiltless of giving him any reason for their opposition to a similar motion which he had brought forward last session. They ought to blush for the sophistry with which they had met the cases of injustice sanctioned by the present law. The Solicitor-General bad stated that the measure he proposed would only meet one case in a hundred ; but if that leurned person had pursued his studies during the recess, he must leave found out his mistake. Such cases were familiar to those who bad paid attention to the working of the present law; and be would refer the Lw Officers of the Crown to a treatise on the subject by Mr. Bails ',.of 'Sheffield, the author of the Rationale of Representation, _foe instances of its unjust operation. The origin of the law of primogeniture, acccording to Adam Smith, was the insecurity of property in the feudal times, when only the men of large property were safe. In the present state of Europe, the pro. prietor of a single acre is as secure of his possession as the pro. prietor of a hundred thousand. Blackstone had expressly said that the accumulation of large property should always be discouraged in a commercial country.

" Let me ask," said Mr. Ewart, "whether the sense of property, the feeling that he has something which lie can call his own, is nut a natural bond which links man, be lie rich or tie he poor, to the country of his birth? We acknow- ledge the truth of this principle in the case of the rich,—why should we renounce it in the case of the poor? The feeling of proprietorship is the parent of social freedom and of personal independence. In countries like Norway, and France, and America, wile' e it abounds, you will readily trace its results in the elevated independence of the people. The word poor may be familiar there, but the word pauper is unknown. Is it or is it not wise to extend to as many of the people as possible an interest in the well being of the com- munity? If such a policy be generally wise, it is much more so in times like these, when education and habits of good order are extending, and giving an additional guarantee for the independence and virtue of the less weal,by por- tion of the people. But are we not ourselves recognizing this principle in adopting the allotment system ? This system of lettiug out small portions of land to the labouring class is generally approved ; and if good conduct and independence are the results of leasing small holdings, the principle must hold equally good, and even be more apparent, when the labourer is a email pro- prietor instead of being a small tenant. But it is not to the independent character alone, it is to the moral and social feelings engendered by the system of equal and unequal partibility of property, that the legislator ought to look. All experience and the evidence of all writers tell us, that where the system of primogeniture prevails, the bad passions, the mote selfish motives are encou- raged, while domestic peace and social harmony are the offspring of the prin- ciple of equal partibility."

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, the Attorney-General, opposed the motion, on several grounds— First, because the law as it stood appeared to him to require no amendment; second, because the suggestion of Mr. Ewart, unless carried much further than he proposed to go, would enable him to gain nothing ; third, because, instead of simplifying the law, it would tend only to embai rase it ; and fourth, be- cause, to be carried into effect, it would require a totally new code, destroying the distinction that at present existed (and upon which all the laws of Eng- land affecting property were based) between real and personal property. In- dependently of these objections, it did not appear that the measure was in any way called for by the public. There had been no meetings to consider of it, no petitions to demand it. It was, in fact, a mere speculative question, and oat upon which he thought the House ought not at that moment to waste its time.

The House divided; and rejected Mr. Ewurt's motion, by a vote of 54 to 21.

TILE ARMY.

On Wednesday, Lord Howicx having moved the House to go int* Committee on the Army Estimates, Colonel THOMPSON said, he bad a notice on the books which seemed to have been much misunderstood— He had not had an opportunity of explaining it, and from letters he had received, it appeared that many persons thought he intended to move for an inquiry into the details of the Commander-in-Chief's office. Now be had no such intention, any more than he had to move for an inquiry into the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, if there was one. What be wanted was, that the Army should be placed under the control of a Minislent who was responsible to that House, so that it might, as it ought to Op feel a decision of that House by vote. When the Mutiny Act said that tke raisitg and keeping up an army in the realm without the consent of Parliameal was against law, did it mean against an Act of Parliament? He believed that it never entered into the miad of any individual to think so. He believed tam " this is matter of allegation awl proof," said Mr. Ewart, " I will quote some instances from the work a Mr. Bailey. ' J. V. puteha•Ni a freehold public- Loose, and smile cottages adjoining, for 1500/, and borrowed on mortgage 600/. lie died suddenly, intestate, leaving seven children. The eldest son took out ;letters of administration, sold all the personal property, and after liquidating the few simple contract debts of theideceased, paid off with the remaining pre. ceeds the mortgage on the freehold estate, and took possession of it as heir-at- Iaw. His brothers and sisters were left entirely destitute, and were obliged to have recourse to the parish.' I ask the Attorney and Solicitor-General whether this is not a case in which justice, and the probable intentions of the deceased, were defeated ; and I respectfully pause for their reply. Again—' A. B., thriving manufacturer, bought the fee simple of the premises on which he car.. ried on his business. He expended a considerable sum in improvements, and ba doing so, contracted debts. Had he lived, he would in all likelihood have dis- charged these debts, and realized a handsome fortune. But he died suddenly, intestate, leaving two sons Nearly the whole personal property went in paying off the debts contracted in improving the freehold ; and unless the elder son, on coming of age, acts with a justice beyond the law, his brother will be left in a state of destitution.' Again I put this practical case, founded on fact, to the Attorney and Solicitor-General ; and I wait for their demonstration of the justice of the existing law. But I abstain from citing further cases. I refer my honourable and learned friends to the book, and to the irrefratable assertion which it contains, that instances such as these abound. I proceed to another legal point ; and I ask the Attorney and Solicitor-General this question—would it, or would it not, be a public good that the law respecting the two species of property should be uniform ? 'What can be more absurd than that, of two species of property, differing not in essence but in name, one should descend all to the eldest son, while the other is .divided equally among the children? Such is the law as it stands at present. A man possesses a freehold and a leasehold property for 999 years. What is the essential difference between the two? Yet the freehold property goes exclusively to one ; the 999 years' lease is equally distributed among all the children. But the author already cited had put this absurd inconsistency of the law in making the descent vary according to the tenure (or rather according to the name) of the property in so striking a point of view, that I cannot do better than give his description to the House- ' A merchant dies without a will ; he leaves a share in an old inland navigation. company worth 20001. ; this (by the inconsistency of the law) is deemed free• hold estate ; consequently, the eldest son takes it all. He leaves, further, 2000/. worth of shares in a modern canal; this is all deemed personal property, and goes among his children equally. He leaves a freehold mansion worth 40001., subject to a perpetual rent-charge ; this goes entirely to the eldest son. And he leaves a warehouse worth 4000/. . built on land leased for 999 years; this is divided equally among the children.' Again, I ask the honours able and learned gentlemen, whether the law should not be uniform? Do they admit it ? They will not say that the personal property should all go to the eldest son, like landed property. Then they only come to the same conclusion with myself, and make landed property.(in cases of intestacy) descend in the same just and equal manner with the personal estate of the deceased." there was a law in this country to which even statutes made in hat and the ether House of Parliament were subervient. To that law, then fore, he ap- pealed. He would ask whether government of the Army had beer kept in the rack in which it had been left by their ancestors? When a Tory Administra- Lee came into power, the first time it had a chance of doing an dr. r the Revo- lution, was the Duke of 'Marlborough kept all Commander-in. Chief one hour huger than that Tory Administration found it necessary to employ him abroad ; sod when the Whigs came back again with George the First, at as not that utile Duke again placed in that situation ? In hie opinion, there ought to be a institutional administrator of the Army, as there wag, if he might use the expression, of the King's name, and of the King's Courts. IF :hey quietly awl without resistance gave up that point, it would open the way to all male- practices in the regulation of the Army. The Army under such a to stem, might le employed against the very persons who paid it ; and the present ewe was preg- put with awful signs. He felt himself called upon to make allusion to Spain; and took whether Ministers would have submitted to the necessity of sending out to that country an undisciplined body of newly-raised men, exposing both them sod the rouse which they espoused to imminent danger, at the same time that a highly disciplined and expensive body of troops were kept inactive at home, if there was not a consciousness that this disciplined force was not in reality at the dis- posal of the Government—that, in fact, they could not move a corps rat's guard ? Tke Government had a control over the Marines, over the Navy arid Artillery, because they were under other management. For what purpose was an army kept op, if not to be employed? It was not impossible but the country might be en. gaged in a war, or preparations for a war with Russia. Was there no person in dial country to tell the Autocrat that the government of the Army was not under the control of the Ministers of the Crown, or to hint that there might be a directing power with respect to it behind the throne ? It had been said on the other side of the House—it had been expressed as a hope—that the time would sever come when the Army should be under the control of that House. If this Was the expression of a mere personal feeling, he should say nothing about is ; tat if it were politically meant to express a hope that the direction of the Army should he iti the control of some irresponsible power, and that gentlemen opposite should possess the dominion, he must protest against it. At the time of the Bristol riots, the power of Government with respect to the control of the Arise had been superseded. If a similar case, on a larger scale, should present hell in Ireland, what might be the result ? what the consequences if the Army were directed to net in a way which did not meet the approval of Government ? (" Hear, hear ! ") Under these circumstances, he would ask the House, whether it would not be desirable to return to the ancient and constitutional practice a lie hoped honourable gentlemen would not think he came with the expectation of making a grand coup de lance, but to make a beginning with a subjezt which by perseverance would certainly be brought to some result. If he found any person to second his motion, he would divide the House upon it; and if he did not, he knew very well where he would go and say that no man bad stood by him, and lie did nut believe that in the end he should be the worse for that. (Laughter.) He would therefore move, that the government of the Army, as now conducted, is against law, and no man is held to obedience thereto, and that no supply be granted until remedy applied.

The SPEAKER wished to know whether anybody seconded the mo- tion ? No seconder appearing, the Speaker left the chair, and the House went into Committee on the Army Estimates.

Lord HOWICK stated to the Committee, that the number of men would be the same as last year, but there would be a decrease of charge amounting to 10,3751. He explained, that on the effective service there would be an increase, on the non-effective a decrease, and that the balance would be the above-mentioned sum. The increase on the effective service was caused by a new regulation, which gave an aug. mentution of' pay and of retiring pensions as a reward for good conduct to the privates. He moved that the sum of 3,111,6521. be granted for the charges of his Majesty's land forces at home and abroad, exclusive it India.

Mr. Heim said that he should move that the Chairman report pro- gress, on account of the very thin attendance of Members.

Some conversation between Lord HOWICK and Mr. HUME ensued ; and finally, Mr. HUME agreed to allow the business to proceed. He then eotnplained that the number of men should be so much greater than in 1792, and even in 1822; and moved to reduce the vote by 500,090/., equal to a reduction of 10;000 men.

Lord Homo( reminded the Committee, that our Colonial posses- sions were touch greater now than in 1792; and maintained, that the reduction which took place in 1822 was injudicious, as it had been found necessary to increase the force, by raising six new regiments, in 1823.

After a few words from Mr. RICHARDS, General SHARPE, and Mr. BARLOW 110Y, Mr. Hume's motion was rejected, by 48 to 11.

The remaining items were voted with little opposition, and the Committee rose.

The report was brought up on Thursday. On the item that 56,917/. be granted for salaries of officers and clerks, Mr. HUME moved to reduce the turn by 4,0001., the amount of Lord Hill's salary. He did not impute misconduct in the management of his department to Lord Hill ; but Lord Hill maintained opinions which were opposed to the progress of Reform, and it was everywhere said out of doors that it was shameful in Ministers to retain a Tory Commander-in-Chief. The same remark applied to the Military Se- cretary, Lord Fitzroy Somerset ; and he should therefore add his salary, and move that the item be reduced by 6,2821.

The question was put, and strangers were ordered to withdraw ; when Lord Howice rose suddenly, and said—" I wish to state, before strangers withdraw, that I entirely differ with the honourable Member for Middlesex on this subject. The duties of a Commander-in- Chief have been exceedingly well executed by Lord Hill ; and I there- fore most confidently hope that the House will not agree to withhold his salary."

Mr. EWART said, that the manner in which Lord Hill performed its duties was not the point, but the political principles he professed— It was a duty that the Government owed to themselves and to the country, to le. ov .. Lord Hill from his present office. Whilst they suffered him to re- tain it, the r sincerity as Liberals and Reformers would be doubted by the great ins-s of thepeople. Supposing the Tories to be in power, was it probable that they would Ihr a moment allow the Government of the Army to remain in the hauls of a Whig Commander-in• Chief? Why, then, should the Whigs be *meat to retain a Tory in that high and important office? Mr. RomwsoN said, he did not wish to see every department of the Gaverament tilled with partisans ; and he especially disapproved of souvasioa of the Army into a political body. 6the Mr. ROEBUCK said, that such was not the object of Mr. Hume, who simply contended that the chief officers of a Liberal Government should be Liberal also— Ministers never seemed disposed to say much upon the subject of Lord Hill 'being retained at the head of the Army. He believed the short reason for it to be this—that the Whigs, on coming into office, found that they could not come in if they turned Lord Hill out. Now, if they were really a Liberal Govern- ment, as they professed to be, he thought they ought not to have consented to come in unless Lord Hill were turned out. TI a country had a right to have expected such an instance of firmness from them.

Captain MAURICE BERKELEY could furnish Mr. Hume with an instance to prove that there existed strong political feelings at the Horse- Guards— A gentleman in Gloucestershire, having amassed considerable property, died, leaving the whole of that property to his son. This eon wishing to get into a different station of life, wanted to travel abroad ; and for that purpose he was de- sirous of wearing the British uniform. He accordingly applied to the heads of the Whig party in Gloucestershire, but who could n.t obtain for him the purchase of a commission in any regiment whatsoever. Every excuse that could pos- sibly be made was resorted to ; which put it quite out of the question that that gentleman should obtain a commission by such means. Finding it impossible to get a commission from the beads of the Whig party, be went to the family of the Duke of Beaufort; Lord Fitzroy Somerset being Secretary at the Horse- Guards. He fairly and distinctly said to Lord Segrave—" My family have always hitherto been Whigs, and not on the same side of politics as the Somer- sets ; but if a commission can be got for me from the Horse Guards through the influence of the Beaufort family, we shall in future be on the Tory side." ( Cheers and laughter.) The application, he believed, (but he should be sorry to state it as a fact without knowing it to be such,) was made through Lord Edward Somerset; and in the space of a short time, permission came down from the Horse Guards to Gloucestershire for the gentleman on whose behalf application had been made to purchase a commission. (" Hear, hear ! ") A commission was purchased accordingly ; and that gentleman and all whom he could command had been Tories ever since. ( Cheers and laughter.) Lord Howlett said, that having had no notice that this circumstance would be mentioned, it was quite impossible that he could be prepared with an explanation of it. He really thought that Captain Berkeley should riot have mentioned it without notice ; and begged the House to suspend its opinion until, through some friend, Lord Edward Somerset should have had an opportunity of explaining it.

Captain BERKELEY said, that all the circumstances had been men- tioned to Earl Grey, when he was at the bead of the Government. Mr. GROTE said, he had understood that Lord HOWICK challenged Members to bring forward specific cases ; and now, when a specific charge was made, Lord Howlett complained of it. He did not under- stand that mode of proceeding— No answer had been given to the question put by Mr. Hume—namely, "would Sir Robert Peel, if he had remained in office, have retained a Com- mander. in Chief who was a Whig ? " If the gentlemen opposite were prepared to answer that question in the affirmative, then he would admit that they were now acting with consistency ; but if they could not do so, then it was quite clear that they were not able to carry out the principle for which they were now contending.

Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR said, nobody could believe that Lord Hill was swayed by political feeling. No stress whatever should be laid on the circumstance mentioned by Captain Berkeley, brought forward as it bad been without notice.

Mr. SANFORD never could understand why, when a change of Ad- ministration took place, and the head of the Navy was changed, the head of the Military department shall not be changed also— He believed that the country had suffered very considerably in consequence of such a distinction being made between the two services. When Earl Grey first came into office, the right honourable baronet the Member for Cumberland was placid at the head of the Admiralty ; and the House was aware that many alterations were made by that right honourable baronet in the civil department of the Admiralty, which had worked great advantages to the country. He believed that the saving effected by those alterations amounted in one year to between a million and a million and a half. Now, it was his firm belief that if a similar change had taken place at the head of the Military department, the country would have reaped an equally great advantage from it.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG said, the reply to Mr. Sanford was very obvious— With the duties of the First Lord of the Admiralty was combined the super- intendence of the civil department of the Navy ; whereas with the adminis- tration of the civil affairs of the Army the Commander-in-Chief had nothing whatever to do ; therefore it did not belong to his department to introduce those economical improvements in the civil department of the Army, which were effected in the improvements

department by the First Lord of the Admiralty when Sir James Graham was appointed.

Mr. AGLIONBY observed, that it could be easily proved that the Commander-in-Chief had a control over the civil affairs of the Army, and therefore Mr. Young ought to vote with Mr. Hume.

Colonel THOMPSON was satisfied that, by voting with Mr. Hume, he did not impugn the military character of Lord Hill. The object of his motion on the previous day was simply political.

Mr. WYNN contended, that a motion of this nature should not have been brought forward indirectly. He challenged any Member to pro- duce particulars of abuse of patronage by Lord Hill.

Captain BERKELEY said, he would not have stated the circumstance unless he had been satisfied as to its occurrence— He was quite ready to state the names of the pat ties. The name of the gee- tleman applying for the commission was Levettey ; the party through whom the first application was made to the Horse Guards, and refused, was Lord Segrave ; the party through whom the second application was made to the Horse Guards, and complied with, was, as be had already stated, one of the noble members of the Beaufort family.

The House divided : for Mr. Hume's amendment, 26; against it, 72.

The other votes were then agreed to, and the report was received.

REDUCTION OF TAXATION.

Mr. GILLON moved, on Tuesday, for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the duties on Soap. He supported his motion by a reference to the state of the revenue ; from which it appeared, that the surplus income on the 6th January last was 2.570.9571 Now as the net revenue de- rived from the Soap-duties was only 779,067/., it was clear that the

Chance11.)r of the Exchequer could do without them ; and Mr. Gillon argued, tug it would be difficult to point out any duty which could be more properly reduced, inasmuch as it appeared, that notwithstanding the prosperity of the country till within a recent period, and the in- crease of population, the amount of the soap-duty was on the decline. This decrease could only be accounted for on the supposition that much soap was illegally manufactured ; and Mr. Gillon went into a number of figure statements to prove tlfat the illicit manufacture of soap must be very profitable.

Mr. HAWES supported the motion. He complained of the conduct of the Board of Excise— In his opinion, the Board of Excise did not conduct its business in the way in which the public business ought to be conducted by a public board. He knew instances in which that body would not condescend to answer or take any notice of memorials addressed to it. It took remarkably high ground indeed ; it seemed to fancy that it must not be approached but by petition ; and, in short, so conducted itself as to obstruct iustead of facilitating the public busi- ness which devolved on it.

Mr. SPRING RICE said that he should bring forward his financial statement early in May ; and he hoped that Mr. Gillon would not now press his motion. He would find that his notion as to the surplus revenue was a delusive one.

Mr. GILLON withdrew his motion, on the understanding that when the Budget was laid before the House, he should be allowed an oppor- tunity of bringing it forward again.

Mr. EWART moved for leave to bring in a bill "for reducing the duty on Tobacco from three shillings to one shilling a pound." The argu- ment on which he chiefly relied was, that the present enormous duty was a premium on smuggling ; which, especially in Ireland, was carried on to un immense extent.

Mr. SPRING RICE did not think that smuggling of tobacco was as ex-

tensive as was represented, because the amount of the tobacco-duty was regularly increasing. However, he was every day gathering fresh infor- mation on the subject ; and he certainly should not object to reduce the tax, if he thought that the reduction of duty would produce an increase of consumption sufficient to recompense the revenue.

The motion was negatived.

QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS.

On Thursday, Mr. WARBURTON moved for leave to bring in a bill "to repeal an act passed in the reign of Queen Anne, intituled An act for securing the freedom of Parliament by further qualifying AIem. bers to sit in the House of Commons ;' to repeal an enactment con- tained in the act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, providing for the qualification, in respect of property, of the Members elected on the part of Ireland to sit in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, and to make other provisions for the qualification in respect of property of Members elected to sit in the House of Commons, in place of those repealed." Mr. Warburton said, he regretted that Sir William Molesworth's motion for abolishing the property qualification of Members of Parliament had failed ; but as there was no chance of its being sanctioned by the House, be now proposed to amend, not to abolish, the laws relating to the qualification, so that the qualification of Members for boroughs might be 3001. a year, and for Members for counties 6001. a year, but that it should not be confined to real pro- perty. It had been stated correctly by Sir William Molesworth, that the object of the statute of Anne was to protect the landed interest against the growing power of the traders and manufacturers; but there was now no occasion for such protection ; and, moreover, the law was easily evaded— The oath, too, was left to the construction of the party by whom it was re- quired to be taken, and being so, was not in any degree stringent. It was something like the declaration required to be made by a party who purchased a commission in the Army. Such party was obliged to declare on his word and honour as an officer and a gentleman, that he had paid no more for his commission than the regulation-price. The Colonel of the regiment was also required to make this declaration; and yet it was notorious that not a single commission was sold for which much more than the regulation-price was not given. If such a declaration as this was nut binding, how could an oath upon which the party taking it could put his construction be so ? It was be- cause he despaired of persuading the house to get rid of the property qualifies. tiou altogether, that he endeavuured to persuade them to agree to amend the present law. The House had already admitted the principle in two cases. By the Reform Act persons not possessed of freehold property, but holding lease- hold property to a given amount, were admitted to vote for Members represent. ing counties. By the bill for regulating the Jury-lists, introduced by Sir Robert Peel, others besides the owners of real property were called on to act with free- holders. lf, then, they had broken down the old property qualification in some cases, why should they object to alter it in the case of Members of that House? He called upon Sir William Molesworth to support his motion, on the ground that Sir William would have a better chance of carrying his own views into effect hereafter, if his proposition were carried. Mr. Warburton then stated the leading provisions of his bill— He intended to fix 3001. a year for boroughs, and 6001. for counties, as the amount of the qualification of Members of Parliament. He proposed to admit tenures of land of a different description of property to those now required. He would take leaseholds of a sufficient length of term to give the party a reasonable prospect of having an income of 3001. or 6001. a year, as the case required, secured on that leasehold property for life. Ile would take not only leasehold, but any description of personal property,—property in the Funds, for instance, or any other kind of property that was likely to give the possessor a clear income of 3001. or 6001. a year fur life. If a man had a valuable collection of pictures, although he derived no income from them, still they were to be considered as personal property ; and if the pictures were of sufficient value to be equal to an amount of capital that would produce a rent-charge of 3q01. or 6001. a year, why should not the possession of such a collection of pictures be admitted as a qualification? (" Hear ! " and laughter.) Why not? He would also in-

clude professional men. Why should barristers, or physicians, or gentlemen in the Army and Navy be excluded, if they possessed an income of 3001. or 6001. a

year He did not see why he should not also include Fellows of Colleges, not in hely orders, who were in the receipt of the required amounts of income.

With regard to certain exceptions, such as related to Peers' sons and others, he should leave them to be provided for in the progress of his bill.

air. Hot:et:ex denied that it would be inconsistent in those who tie.- vocated an entire abolition of the qualification to oppose this bill— He was of opinion that every attempt to alter the constitution and este.. blished laws of this country ought to be based on some grave and tangible principle. They ought not to interfere with any law without due caution and deliberation. The mere interference with any law was bad in itself ; it was as evil, and one that could only be justified by some great and leading principle. It could not bejustified by what was ordinarily, but correctly, termed a shifting expediency, which meant nothing more than a changing of the tack and a shifting of the sails to meet every wind that blows. No alteration should be attempted, then, unless we could tell what we were about, and what the are• vise end was we had in view, being fully aware what it was we were seeking, and using justifiable means to obtain our object. (Mr. Warburton here made some remark.] His honourable friend spoke of the course taken in reference to the Ballot and tke Reform Bill. Why, if they had stood out for the Ballot, the same terror that carried the Reform Bill would have carried the Ballot along with it ; and they who quailed before the People, if those who advocated the Reform Hill bad stuck to the Ballot, would have agreed to that measure as contentedly a, they did to the Reform Bill. He thought that it was a wise thing fur these who at first opposed the Reform Act, to accept the bill as they did, and as it was. It would remain as it was fur many a good day yet; and all those evil influences which the Reformers attempted to cut down at the time that measure was passed, would again grow up in all their pruriency and mischief, and they would yet have to carry a sweeping reform of Parliament. He objected to the pro. position of the Member for Bridport ; who, while he maintained that money- qualification was no test of the probity, honesty, or capability of any person is that House, proposed that a person, because he possessed a valuable collection of pictures, should be qualified to have a seat in it. So that, if a man po.se.sed a good picture of a robber, by Salvator Rosa, he would be duly qualified to he. come a Member of the House of Commons. With respect to the exception in favour of eke eldest sons of Peers, it might be observed, that they ought to be persons who had received an education that fitted them to occupy the im- portant office of senators. But he had seen, day after day in that House, half-a- dozen instances of the utter inefficiency and incompetency of sons of Peers is sit in that House—and he could point them out. What was the qualification required to become a legislator ? In his opinion, it meant that a man should have studied legislation, and jurisprudence, and human nature ; and not that when he arrived at the age of twenty-one years, after having studied at Oxford or Cambridge nothing but Greek, Latin, and mathematics, he should some into that House as a legislator. He was for carrying out a good principle to the full extent ; and if their efforts to accomplish that object failed, let the blame fall on those who wicked to keep up the exclusive system.

Mr. WYNN recommended Mr. Warburton to move to abolish the qualification at once, if his real object were to get rid of it. It was a folly to imagine that his new law of qualification would be of any use at all. Such property as that described by Mr. Warburton could be

shifted from band to hand with great facility. In case personal pro. perty were admitted as a qualification, it would be necessary to provide that the owner should retain possession of it during the whole of the time he sat in the House ; though, when a bill was introduced to make the same provision with reference to the landed qualification, he con. fessed that he did not wish that bill to pass.

Mr. SPRING Rice was at a loss to conceive what could be the feel- ings of those gentlemen who were opposed to any qualification at all. Such a principle he must oppose— The question now was, whether the present law did not require some improve. ment, and whether the bill proposed would effect the improvement which might be deemed necessary. If they interfered with the existing law, he thought they should do so effectually, and notleave it in an imperfect state, so that it could be evaded. The course of objection taken by Mr. Wynn would, he thought, be equally applicable to the present qualification as to those proposed by Mr. Warburton; because it seemed at present there was somebody who would trust Members with qualifications when no property had really passed into their hand,. He recollected a case—be should not mention names—of a gentleman, one of the richest men in England, and his son being Members of that House, although neither father nor son was possessed of the qualification by virtue of which they eat in it. He rejoiced that the matter had been brought before the House, and he hoped in the progress of the bill proposed a proper amendment of the law would be made. He was therefore quite ready, for one, to give his most hearty concurrence to the motion ; and even if his opinions were what they were not, and he was disposed to admit the repeal of all qualification whatever, be would not on that account object to a bill for the amendment of the existing law.

Mr. LEADER thought, that if the variety of qualifications proposed by Mr. Warburton were allowed, the new law might be more strictly en- forced than the present. But, for his part, he objected to any qualifi. cation beyond the confidence of the majority of the constituency which returned a Member to that House. At the meeting of the Working Men's Association the other day, there were many persons who were perfectly qualified, in the best sense of the term, to sit in that House.

Mr. WARBURTON briefly replied ; and leave was given to bring in the bill.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

CARLOW ELECTION. On Tuesday, the SPEAKER informed the House, that the electors, who on the 9th of March had petitioned against the return of Mr. Vigors for Carlow, had not entered into the requisite recognizances. The order for considering the petition was therefore discharged.

THE BUDGET. Mr. SPRING RICE gave notice, that he should make his financial statement on the 8th of May.

COERCION OP CANADA. Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed the fur- ther consideration of the Canada resolutions to Friday next, the 14th of April ; as he did not wish to press the discussion of so important a subject in a thin House.

COMPENSATION TO EAST INDIA MARITIME OFFICERS. Mr. G. F. YouNG moved for a Select Committee to consider the petition of Captains Newall, Barrow, and Glasspoole, for compensation for losses suffer ed on the breaking up of the East India Company's commercial concerns ; which compensation had been refused by the Board of Control.

Sir JOHN HOBIIOUSE opposed the motion, on the ground that the officers had no equitable claim ; having had the opportunity of entering the merchant service, of which they had not availed themselves. Ilud the commercial privileges of the Compithy been continued, these ofh- cers would not have been benefited thereby : it was therefore not fair in them to require compensation for what was actually no injury. Their claims had been rejected by Lord Ellenborough, the President, and Mr. Praed, Secretary of the Board of Control ; turd they were

not recognized by the Act of Parliament, which awarded compensa- tion to those who were actually employed in the maritime service of the Company.

Mr. PRAED supported the motion. He had carefully considered the claims of these officers, and would rather be found guilty of inconsistency than that Parliament should be unjust. Lord GRANYILI.E SOMERSET, Alderman THOMPSON, and Mr. Gement Petits', also supported the motion. It was opposed by Mr. HUME, Mr. CRESSET PELHAM, and Mr. VERNON SMITH.

On a division, the motion was carried, by 45 to W. The Committee was then appointed.

SALE or BEER BILL. Mr. ARTHUR TREFOIL moved the second reading of this bill on Wednesday. It was opposed by Mr. ROEBUCK; en the ground that it would confer very objectionable powers on coun- try gentlemen and the clergy to interfere with the habits and enjoyments of the rural population. Mr. WYNN advised Mr. Trevor to withdraw leis motion. The bill would impose irksome and invidious duties on the clergymen of every parish. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, that a more ridiculous and arbitrary measure was never brought before Parliament. Mr. WILES said, that beer-shops had been very useful in diminishing the consumption of ardent spirits. Mr. TREVOR, in deference to the opinion of Mr. Wynn, withdrew his motion ; and the bill was conse- quently lost.

FACTORY CHILDREN. In reply to a question from Lord ASHLEY, Mr. POULETT THOMSoN stated, that Lord John Russell would intro- duce a bill for the better regulation of factories, this session ; but that it would have no reference to the ages of the persons employed. Hereupon Lord ASHLEY gave notice, that he should move "as an in- struction to the Committee, on any bill that might be introduced, to make provision that in future no female between the ages of thirteen and eighteen should labour in any factory in the United Kingdom more than ten hours a day, or fifty-eight hours a week."

REPEAL OF THE DUTY ON COTTON. On Thursday, Mr. MARK PHILLIPS postponed his motion to reduce the duty on raw cotton, till the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make his financial statement.

BRITISH LEGION IN SPAIN. Sir HENRY HARDINGE gave notice, that on Monday or Thursday next, be should move an address to the Crown, not to renew the Order in Council granting permission to British officers to enter the service of the Queen of Spain.

POST-OFFICE. Mr. WALLACE moved a resolution, that the receiv- ing. boxes of the General and Branch Post-offices should be kept open till twelve at night. Some discussion ensued. Mr. LABOUCHERE stated, that in future letters received on Sunday morning would be forwarded at once, and not kept till the following day, to different parts of the country. Mr. SPRING Rice and Mr. LABOUCHERE objected to the motion, as an irregular interference with the internal management of an executive department. Mr. WALLACE withdrew it.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. The House went into Committee on this bill ; and after some discussion, agreed to clauses 12th and 13th.

A NEW WRIT was ordered to be issued for Rochdale, in the room of Mr. Entwistle, deceased.