The Rouse of Lords listeeed Oh Tuesday to it) brig

speech by Lord Mounrcesnin, on Church Reform; and to another on Thursday, by Lord GODBRICH, on the subject of the National Debt.

The House of Commons discussed the Miscellaneous Estimates on Monday ; and on Tuesday, the case of Iudo-Britons or kW-castes, Ro- man Catholic Bequests and Marriages, and the Beer Bill. A debate on Mr. W. HORTON'S Emigration Bill was anticipated, but he bribed the House to let it be read a first time without opposition, by pro- mising not to bore them with a speech about it. On Thursday, the Shipping Interest, Sir Jonah Barrington, and the Usury Laws, came under discussion. Friday was a holyday for both Houses. The most remarkable incident of the Session undoubtedly is, the refusal of the House of Commons to vote another 100,0001. for the repairs of Windsor Castle. This circumstance would seem to indi- cate that the influence of the present possessor of Royalty is on the wane, or that the Members have the dread of a general election be fore their eyes ;—it may indicate any thing, in• short, except an in- crease of honesty in public men. In the House of Lords, the cor- ruptions of the Church were stated at full length by Lord MOUNT- CASHEL. The Bishops did not deny the truth of any of the state- ments; but neither they nor any of the Temporal Peers expressed the slightest wish to aid Lord MOUNTCASHEL, who unfortunately labours under the stigma of Saintship. In one point of view, Lord GODERICH'S new "prosperity speech's is curious. "There is no such thing," said his Lordship, " as a capital of the national debt: the creditor:can demand nothing more than an annuity. The Government has in fourteen years reduced the interest upon that debt by four millions and a half; a measure equi- valent to a reduction of the principal to the extent of one hundred andfifty millions at three per cent." We are astonished that our acute contemporary the Standard should subscribe to the soundness of such an argument. Let the country, emboldened by Lord GODERICH'S cheering declaration, attempt to pay off the balance of the debt, and its amount will, we fear, still be found to be something like eight hundred millions. The pressure of the debt, to be sure, is not aggravated by an unchangeable amount of interest ; but the reduction to which Lord GODERICH alludes, has only kept pace with the fall of interest upon capital generally—the public pays less for the use of its creditors' money, because it can obtain less for the use of its own. If the general rate of interest could have been maintained at the elevation of 5 per cent., while the interest *on the debt had been lessened to 3 per cent., the public would, as the rate of interest follows the rate of profit, have :pined in something like the supposed ratio : but the amount of the debt is no more lessened by a change in the general rate of interest, i Una the capital of private persons s lessened by it. In another .srg, of his speech, alluding to the increase of the National Debt by the adoption of a sound currency, Lord GODERICII says, that that increase, however highly estimated, " has been fully balanced by the reduction of the charge on the debt, which has taken place since the peace." Now, if the reduction of the charge on the debt be required to balance the increase of that debt caused by the change of currency, how can we, by the same process, be held to have gained a deduction from the debt itself of one hundred and fifty millions? We leave the dilemma to the Duke of WELLINGTON who hailed the revelations of the ingenious Goosaien with the most lively gratitude !

1. NATIONAL DEBT AND REVENUE. Lord G0DER1CH moved for certain returns on the subject of our funded and unfunded debt, and begged leave to direct the attention of the House to the subject. There was no part of his Majesty's speech in which Lord Goderich more cordially concurred, than in that which recognized the rights of the national creditor as sacred. The nature of the • national debt, as well as the amount of its actual pressure, were, he contended, gene- rally misunderstood. Errors in fact and fallacies in argument were current on this subject.

It was generally stated, that the whole capital of the debt had not in fif- teen years been reduced more than the sum of forty millions. If that were true, very little indeed had been done ; but the statement was inaccurate.

Even in looking at the question as to the amount of the capital reduced, it appears, from the figures, that it amounted to sixty millions. But the great i fallacy n this matter was to argue—and this was an assumption continually

made—as if there existed any such thing as a capital of the national debt. He denied that there was any capital corresponding to the debt due to the public creditor. An ordinary debt was composed of capital lent to the debtor : it was competent to the borrower to repay what he borrowed at his own convenience, and it was competent to the lender to demand back his principal. Of these two conditions only one was applicable to the national debt. By the contract the State had entered into with its debtors, it had the right to pay them off whenever it was convenient or advisable for the State to de so ; but, by the terms of the contract, the public creditor could neve( claim from the State a single shilling of what he had advanced. ' Thtatmost which he was entitled to claim—and to that alone had the State pledged itself—was the payment of an annuity. ("Hear, hear !" front the Duke of Wellington.) That was all the public debt consisted of, antk the evil and pressure it caused arose from the necessity of paying certain annuities, which were either permanent or temporary. The only question for the public was in what degree that pressure was felt. No._ be contended that the pressure had been gradually lessening since the petiee, ant' to Much greater extent than was commonly supposed. In 1316, the total charge for the funded and unfunded debt amounted to 32,938,751/. -In 1829, the charge amounted to 28,277,1171. The interest on Exchequer Bills in 1829 was less than the interest in 1816 by 1442;2021. The total di- minution of charge on the national debt since 1816 was 38 la/. The plan now in operation for reducing the 4 per Cents. would add to the amount of these ssavings no less a• sum than 778,0001. a year. The inte,rest on Exche- -quer Bills, also, would, during the present year, be lessened by 128,000/. On the most moderate computation, the reduction on the charge of the national debt since 1816 was not less than 4,500,0801. ; and such a reduction of the interest was equivalent to a reduction of 150,000,0001. of capital at 3 per cent. Had such a reduction been announced fifteen yells ago as possible, the sup- position would have been scouted as visionary. Many persons thought it would be impossible, and was unjust to continue to pay. the interest of a debt - in &metallic, which had been contracted in a depreciated currency. If the statement on which this notion was founded WAS correct, he might admit the deduction ; but it was a great error to assume, that the whole amount of the debt was contracted in a depreciated currency. (" Hear, hear !" from Lord Bexley.) Admitting a certain depreciation, as there was no real capital of the debt, its only effect would be to enhance the charge for the debt. If he were to extend the depreciation over as long a period as possible, it would not amount to 20 per cent. on the debt, and only amount to 20 per cent, on the whole charge. Lord Goderich here entered into a lengthened argument, to show that, whatever the effects of the depreciation might have been on the debt, they had been fully balanced by the reduction of the charge which had taken place since the peace. His Lordship then contended, that our national resources were not at all impaired, though our revenue might be suffering temporary de- pression. Parliament was bound to revise the whole system of tax- ation, and to ascertain to what extent productive industry could be relieved from the unequal pressure which at present weighed it down. It was their duty at the same time to effect reductions in expenditure wherever they could be accomplished. He was far, however, from wishing to accuse the present Government of profusion. On the contrary, it appeared to him that the noble Duke had gone to work with considerable vigour; and the only doubt that he had on the subject was, whether the reductions were not too extensiveto leave the establishment suffi- ciently effective. He saw nothing in the situation of the country to warrant despond- ency; and he deprecated the use of language which might impress foreign powers with the opinion that our resources were decaying— an opinion which would soon compromise the peace of Europe. The Duke of WELLINGTON expressed the highest admiration of these views, and of the manner in which Lord Goderich had brought them forward. He was not prepared, however, to admit that the • change in the currency had added so much as 20 per cent. to the chare upon the national debt: at all events, a saving of one hundred ' and fifty millions had, as Lord Goderich had shown, been already effected ; and this was a sufficient reply to those who contended that the debt could be got rid of only by national bankruptcy. Earl STANHOPE could not concur in the noble Viscount's views. There must, he contended, be an equitable adjustment or a change in the currency.

After a few words from Lord BEXLEY, and Lord CARNARVON, the motion was agreed to.

2. THE CHURCH. Lord 1VIomrrcitsnEL presented a petition from New Ross, in the county of Wexford, signed by many persons of high respectability, and another petition from Cork, signed by up- wards of three thousand members of the Church of England, among whom were sixty county magistrates, praying for an inquiry into the existing abuses of the Established Church of Ireland. The state of ecclesiastical law and the condition of the various orders of the clergy called loudly for reformation. Lord MOUNTCASHEL proved, by doettments, the existence of gross and flagrant abuses in every de- partment of the Church ; and concluded a speech of great length by moving,

"That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to appoint a commission to inquire into and state if any and what abuses exist in the Church Establishments of England and Ireland ; and, if any, to report the measures most expedient to the removal thereof."

The motion was not seconded ; and the Lord CHANCELLOR hav- ing put the question, there appeared only one "content," so the "not contents" were declared to have it. Lord MOUNTCASHEL de- clared his determination to take the sense of the House upon the question ; but the CHANCELLOR said that it was already disposed of.

3. MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES. The CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER having moved that the House do resolve itself into a Com- mittee of Supply, Mr. R. GORDON protested in the most energetic terms against the unprincipled extravagance that marked our public expenditure. After dwelling on the disgraceful jobbing that attended the erection of all our public buildings, he went into the history of the origin of the grant for Windsor Castle.

A sum of money having come to us as a godsend from Austria—so it had been termed—it was resolved to spend part of it in completing the residence of the Sovereign. A noble friend of his proposed that 300,000/. should be devoted to that purpose. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, being pressed as to whether a larger snna might not be necessary, said, " He had no hesitation in saying that nothing was contemplated, or could reasonably be contemplated, with regard to Windsor Castle, which would cause the ex- pense to go beyond 300,0001." The House not being quite satisfied, Sir Charles Long was pressed on the subject ; and he was asked whether, as there was no grant or estimate, the expense might not be more. Sir Charles Long said, nothing could be more easy than to limit the expense, for the architect would be told to produce a plan which should come within the spe- cified sum. Afterwards a sum of 150,000/. was voted, and again the estimate was raised to 500,000/.,—than to 644,0001.; and when it had been increased to this sum, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be only candid in him to admit he supposed it would require 50,0001. more to complete the undertaking, makine. a sum of 700,0001. in all. 17p to 1829, the suns of 800,000/. had been voted for the furniture and repairs of Windsor Castle, ex- clusive of the vote of this year. By the vote now asked for, it would be raised to 900,0001., and this vote would not be the last. The sums voted on this ac- count had already amounted to treble the original estimate, respecting which Lord Goderich told them he could not contemplate how it could be increased. He thought this subject called for inquiry.

Mr. Gordon objected also to our Colonial expenditure in all its departments, as well as to the Irish estimates. The whole were a tissue of jobs.

He was sure that if a special committee were granted, and the estimates referred to it, there would be such reductions effected as would be most im- portant for the country, and perhaps some of his honourable friends would have an opportunity of congratulating the Government on its disposition to economy

Lord ALTHORP thought that the appointment of a select committee would be productive of advantage in all cases. of public works,—that their utility should be ascertained before the public money was ex- pended upon them. He thought, however, that it would be better to go into the Committee of Supply now, and move to refer the ob- jectionable votes to a Committee up stairs. Sir JOHN NEWPORT and Mr. O'CONNELL complained of the prac- tice of not referring all public estimates to a select committee. Mr. HUME recommended the economy of the American Govern- ment to the notice of our rulers. It was in vain, as the House was constituted, to attempt to check extravagance, however shameful, for the country gentlemen uniformly supported it. He hoped, as there would soon be a new election—(Cries of " Order ! " Order !) He was quite in order : it was the honourable member who cried "Order" who was disorderly. He was perfectly justified in alluding to a new election. We were now in the fifth year of a Parliament, which it was known was seldom allowed to sit longer than six years, and on an average not five. But come when the election might—if that would suit the honourable mem- ber better—he hoped that those constituents whose interests were now neglected would bear in mind the conduct of their present representatives with respect to the expenditure of the country. He would not now object to going into the Committee of the whole House, but he would object to every vote -which he thought extravagant.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY was not disposed to follow the example of America. To refer the estimates to Committees, was to absolve Ministers of their responsibility.

Colonel DAVIS denied that Ministers were liable to any thing like practical responsibility. The motion that the Speaker do leave the chair having been put and carried, Mr. G. DAWSON observed that the Miscellaneous Estimates had been for many years regularly lessening. 'Mr. HOBHOUSE begged to ask whether it was the intention of Government to grant to the public the promised entrance to St. James's Park ? Should it be refused, he should Move an address to the Crown on the subject. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended the estimates ge- nerally, and stated that the public had no right to complain of the recent alterations in the Park.

Mr. GORDON begged leave to ask who paid for those improve- ments ?

Sir M. W. RIDLEY observed, that there were circumstances of a peculiar nature connected with the matter at present, which must operate as a preventive of further proceedings in it on the part of the Woods and Forests.

He need not do more than allude to those peculiarly delicate circumstances in this indirect way, as every member, he was sure, understood his allusion and its tendency. (Hear.) Mr. HUME suggested the propriety of postponing the vote. Lord MILTON contended, that the pleasure of the public should be consulted on all such matters.

On the resolution for granting 100,000/. to defray the expense of the alterations and repairs at Windsor Castle being put, Mr. GORDON repeated his objections to the vote. He should move that 100/. only be granted for this purpose. (Loud cheers.) Mr. O'CONNELL complained of the excessive mass of taxation im- posed upon his constituents. He called upon Irish members to con- sider that, by refusing this vote, Ireland might save 100,000/. (A laugh.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed, that the repairs at. Windsor had been sanctioned by Parliament and by the people. It was impossible to tell beforehand what the expenses of repairing old buildings would be. To refuse the present grant, would be to leave the work unfinished, and to throw away the money that had been already spent upon it.

Mr. BROUGHAM observed, that if it had been explicitly stated that this would be the last estimate which would be required for completing the repairs and improvements of Windsor Castle, and for restoring that ancient and magnificent structure to the state in which it should be—a structure alike worthy of the monarch and the people of this country—he would be the last man in that House to oppose it. But before we should vote 100,000/. more in addition to the 800,000/. which we had already voted for that purpose, we should ascertain how that 800,0001. had been already expended ; and before we voted an additional 100,000/. we should ascertain whether that sum would be sufficient for completing the repairs and improvements of this structure, Sir J. SEBRIGHT should vote for the amendment.

Sir T. ACLAND, under existing circumstances, felt it his duty, though it was most exceedingly painful to be obliged to do so; to vote against the grant, and in favour of the amendment. (Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER quite ag,reed*with Sir T. Acland, that there were circumstances at the present moment which rendered a discussion on this subject exceedingly painful indeed..

He was ready to say, that if it were the general feeling of the House that this estimate should be referred to a committee, he should no longer resist that feeling ; and he did not think that be showed any undue deference to the opposition which had been raised on this occasion, if . under such circum- stances he should consent to have this vote referred to a committee, for the purpose of ascertaining what might be the ultimate expense necessary for the completion of this building. (Cheers.) He did so, he confessed, with considerable pain : he did so under the conviction that, at the present mo- ment, he was taking that course which was best calculated to prevent a most painful discussion, and to prove that the recommendation which he had made to the Committee was one which he was justified in making, and which, after the information which he should lay before them, they would feel justified in carrying into effect. He should therefore withdraw this vote for the present, with a view to ascertain what might be necessary to complete these works. (Cheers). Mr. BROUGHAM would venture to say, that neither Mr. Goulburn, nor the whole power of the Government, could any more have suc- ceeded in carrying this vote, on the present occasion, than they would have succeeded in carrying a vote for 10,000,000/. sterling. (Cheers.) The estimate was accordingly withdrawn.

4. SALE OF BEER BILL. Mr. CALCRAET, in moving the second reading, stated, that the object of the bill could not be misunderstood by any one who had read it. It was to promote the sale of beer, by giving greater freedom to the trade, and the mode of giving that freedom was to grant licences for two guineas to persons who were inclined to sell beer.

It had been said that the bill interfered with the vested rights of the publi- cans. (Laughter.) What vested rights had the publicans ? Their licences were in the power of the magistrates, and renewed year by year. A trade in which sixty thousand persons were engaged, and in which a capital of many millions was employed, ought, doubtless, to be dealt with with consideration and deliberation ; but certainly the interests of such a trade ought not to overbear the interests of the people. The object of the Government, of the Committee, and of himself, as Chairman of that Committee, had been merely to provide that a better beverage should be provided for the subordinate ranks of society. No one could take up a newspaper—no one who knew that there were now pending five or six hundred informations against publicans for selling beer mixed up with deleterious drugs, could doubt that they who loved the plain old English beverage, called beer, ought to be protected against these practices. He said nothing against the brewers. He believed that the inhabitants of the metropolis would have good beer if the publicans sold it as they received it from the gentlemen who supplied the town with porter. (Laughter.) The only way to meet this evil was to introduce competition, which could be done by giving freedom to the trade. The next point of opposition to the bill arose out of the chance that it might lead to the establishment of tippling-houses all over the country. It had been said that this could be prevented by not allowing the beer to be drunk on the premises of those who sold it. All the petitioners against the bill agreed on this point. Now, it should be recollected that magistrates would have the power to correct, or put down altogether, such houses as were impro- perly conducted. As to the unlimited number of persons who might obtain licences, like all other trades this would find its level. Then, as to the old publicans being injured by the bill—such of them as chose to carry on busi- ness with beer and spirit licences might do so still : they were not interfered with—they were left, as before, under Mr. Esteourt's bill. Well, then, how could it be prejudicial to them ? -.1n no way, unless they allowed the new dealers to sell better beer than they did. Some of these persons had set up a claim for compensation, in the event of this bill passing. (Laughter.) Tnis claim was too ridiculous to be entertained, for if it were seriously listened to, they could never pass a turnpike-hill, or effect any, even the slightest im- provement. The proprietors of post-horses might as well ask for compensa- tion on account of the stage-coaches, and all land carriers on account of im- provements in water-carriage. Mr. PORTMAN contended that the bill would not relieve -the poor so much as the repeal of the malt-tax would have done. To remove the tax on soap and candles, would be a greater benefit to that class.

The bill gave no additional security to the public against the adulteration of beer; it took away the power of the Excise to search, and it substituted competition. • In the country, however, it was not easy to find this competi. tion. The present bill was calculated to do good to no party—neither to the poor, for it would not lower the price of beer, nor to the agriculturists, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it would raise the price of barley. If so, how could the price of beer be reduced ? Mr. Portman did not think, with the anti-gin people, that it would diminish the consumption of spirits. Those who were fond of gin would not give up their favourite for beer. In the mean time, the measure would occasion great destruction of property, and lessen the value of land, 'whilst the good was remote and obscure.

He concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time six months hence.

Mr. DICKINSON seconded this amendment.

Mr. BENETT and Mr. HEATHCOTE supported the bill.

Mr. SADLER contended that this was no measure of relief, and that the present system of magisterial interference was beneficial, and had been well conducted. He objected to placing the power of granting licences in the hands of the Excise. The Legislature ,vas bound to attend to the vested interests of persons who had purchased public-houses. Mr. BUXTON scouted the claim of right to compensation which had been advanced for the publicans ; but as their interests were deeply affected by the measure, he thought that the sale of beer in the new houses ought to be prevented. Mr. MABERLY was of the same opinion.

Sir C. BURRELL was disposed to doubt whether the measure would be productive of much good.

Mr. C. CALVERT approved of the measure.

Mr. C. BARCLAY believed that the removal of the beer-tax would be more beneficial to the poor than the removal of that on malt ; but he feared that the competition between the small retail beer brewers and the publicans would be such as to be extremely injurious to the peace of the country. Lord MILTON observed, that the measure seemed little calculated to benefit the people ; for though it would diminish the price of beer to artisans in large towns, he did notthink it Would be any advantage to the agricultural peasantry of the country. There was one point in which he even thought this measure would be injurious—it would discourage domestic brewing among the poor in the country, and draw- them to the alehouse.

Mr. HOULDSWORTH thought that there were many objectionable things in the bill.

Lord G. SOMERSET gave it his cordial support.

Colonel SIBTHORPE thought that the way to benefit the public would be by the repeal of the malt-tax.

The relief by this beer-bill would be nothing—if would be only a flea-bite. (A laugh.) Let the House be, as it was last night, deter- mined to oppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he would re- trace his steps.

Mr. BROUGHAM was decidedly in favour of this bill, because its inevitable tendency was to increase competition, and thereby improve the quality of beer ; which being when good the favourite beverage of Englishmen, would then supplant spirituous liquors.

Mr. Brougham then stated an example given at a recent trial, where the badness of the beer had created a rum trade in a licensed victualler's, and when at the risk of ejectment he had changed his brewer, and got a better article, the previous consumption of malt liquor speedily returned, and the effects of the continued use of dram-drinking were obviated. He was happy to say, that upon the present occasion he thought that the conduct of the brewers was highly creditable to their good sense, and formed a striking con- trast to their conduct seven or eight years ago, when he had them on his back even after he had etihited them, by altering his bill, and by introducing into it this restrictive clause, and after he had reduced them, as he thought, by the introduction of it as a sort of deleterious ingredient. Notwithstanding all that, he might as well have kept out his water and his coculus indicus from the brewing; for the brewers joined the publicans against him, and the bill was thrown out almost as speedily, and with as great -a majority, as if he had introduced the bill without the restrictive clause. He congratulated his right honourable friend on bringing in this bill under happier auspices ; it showed that, owing to the march of intellect, brewers, as well as beer, were im- proving. (Cheers and laughter.) 5. THE SHIPPING. Mr. Alderman WArrrnwAx presented a peti- tion from the shipowners, praying; for relief: The free trade system, he contended, was gradually ruining every interest in the country ; and unless speedily departed from, would undermine our naval supe- riority. The House was bound at least to institute an inquiry into the subject.

Mr. SADLER supported the petition ; and enlarged in his usual style upon the mischiefs of free trade.

Mr. LIDDELL expressed his conviction that extension of trade was the only mode by which the shipowners could hope for relief. He hoped, therefore, that the India trade would be thrown open. Mr. ROBERTSON WiSligil for a Committee.

Mr. SYKES was satisfied, that, with reference to the commerce of' other countries, we must be either in a state of reciprocity or in a state of retaliation ; and that if we were in a state of retaliation, the shipping of this county would soon be reduced to our coasting and , our colonial trade. Now, would the worthy Alderman wish it to be

so limited?

Mr. HERRIES disproved at great length the assumptions of Messrs. Waithman and Sadler on the state of the shipping interest. The average annual amount of tonnage of British shipping entered inwards in the various ports of the United Kingdom for the three years ending in 1814, was 1,290,000 tons ; the amount for the three years ending 1817, was 1,470,000 tons; the amount for the three years ending 1.820, was 1,787,860 tuns. To the average of the next three years he begged -to call the particular at- tention of the House, because they preceded the alteration in our commer- cial policy. The average annual amount of British shipping entered inwards during the years 1821,1822, and 1823,was 1,668,100 tons. The next period was that during which the change in our commercial policy was beainningto take place. The average annual amount of British shipping entered inwards during the years 1824, 125, and 1826, was 1,964,182 tons ; being a considerable in- crease over the last period. But what was the average amount during the last three years, when the new system of commercial policy was in full ope- ration? No less than 2,121,930 tons. (Cheers.) As a proof that it was still increasing, the amount of the last year, 1829, was much the largest of the three years. It was the largest ever known. There had never been anything like it in the history of British shipping, either since the peace or before it. Nothing that had taken place in the course of the war could be compared with it. He would now state some facts with respect to foreign shipping. The amount of foreign shipping entered inwards in the ports of the United Kingdom during the highest year of the war, was 793,000 tons : the average annual amount of the last three years, was 698,000 tons ; being a diminution of nearly 100,000 tons in foreign shipping, while the increase in British shipping had exceeded 550,000 tons. He begged to call the attention of the House to some further facts respecting foreign shipping. He had stated the highest amount during the war: he would now state the amount in peace since the year 1820. The average annual amount of foreign shipping entered inwards during the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, was 482,801 tons. The average annual amount daring the next three years, 1824, 1825, 1826, greatly increased, for it was 803,809 tons. But the average annual amount during the last three years was, as lie had already said, only 098,000 tons.

Mr. Herries proceeded to show that the coasting trade had expe- rienced a similar extension ; and that some statements about the decay of the silk trade which Mr. Sadler had made were diametrically opposed to facts. Mr. Ronixsow contended that the shipping interest was entitled to protection, as much as either the silk trade or the corn trade.

Colonel WILSON was disposed to give the House the benefit of the opinions of some correspondents in Hull, but the cries of" question" marred his endeavours.

Mr. P. THOMSON declared that the free-trade system would be found to admit of a most triumphant defence, whenever Mr. Waith- man might bring it fairly under the consideration of the House. Mr. WAITHMAN complained of Mr. Thomson's dictatorial tone ; and observed, that he knew nothing of the silk trade.