CORN-LAWS.

On Monday, in answer to Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that on Friday next he should state the amount of duty which he would propose to lay on the importation of foreign corn. After presenting 120 petitions against repeal of the Corn-laws, in the House of Lords, on Monday, the Duke of BUCKINGHAM said that the petitioners had communicated with him since the petitions were sent in, expressing their regret and surprise that Lord Melbourne should have united with his colleagues for an alteration of the Corn-laws. The Duke hoped, however, that the declaration "in another place" would meet with the decided opinion of the House of Commons as well as of the House of Lords, in a manner that would at once dispel the fears of the agriculturists. When he recollected the sentiments which Lord Illelbourne had formerly expressed, be certainly hoped that he would not have joined his colleagues on this occasion. He gave a reason for that hope, in the following extract of a speech by Lord Melbourne in reply to the proposition of a noble lord on the subject " His noblefriend had carefully abstained from dating whit it was that he meant to do—whether his object was to have a fixed duty, or a diminution of

the present ascending and descending scale; but whichever of these alterna

tives was his noble friend's plan, as he saw clearly and distinctly that that object would not be carried without a most violent struggle—without causing

much ill blood, and a deep sense of grievance—without stirring society to its

foundations, and leaving behind every sort of bitterness and animosity—he did not think that the advantages to be gained by the change were worth the evils of the struggle, by which their Lordships might depend on it the change could

alone be effected. They bad seen great changes at no distant period—changes which had stirred society from the bottom, which had excited man against man, divided the whole country into parties, and left behind the deepest feeling

of discord and enmity. He for one was not for adding to those feelings by rashly adventuring to stir and agitate them ; and upon those general igrounds he felt himself justified in saying no' to the motion of the noble earl.' [ The reading of this extract, says the Morning Post, was followed by a loud burst of cheersfrom the Conservative benches which lasted for several minutes.] Viscount MELBOURNE explained ., Unquestionably I have often stated the opinion, and at the present moment I feel the same sentiment, expressed in those words of mine which the noble duke has quoted. I know that there are many reasons-'-I know there are many reasons and grounds which render the agitation and discussion of this question liable to great objections and fraught with considerable evil and danger.

(Loud cheering from the Conservative benches.) But at the same time, I be

to call to the recollection of your Lordships, that on every occasion in which I addressed the House on the subject, and whenever I opposed its discussion and consideration, it has always been on particular and temporary grounds. (Loud cheers from the _Ministerial side of the House.) And on the measure itself, I have always reserved my opinion. (Continued cheering.) 1 have always stated that I would never pledge myself to the law as it at present stands, seeing that the time might come when it would be necessary to take the question into consideration, and to settle it on another basis from that on which it at present rests." (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) As a set-off against the quotation which the Duke of Buckingham had made, Lord Melbourne read another, from his own reply to Earl Fitzwilliam's motion for a repeal of the Corn-laws " The noble lord has put his motion in such a shape as to make it not difficult for me to meet it in the only issue in which he has placed it—' that it is now expedient to consider the present Corn-laws, with a view to their alteration.' Now I am distinctly of opinion that it is inexpedient to consider the measure. At the same time, I do not mean to pledge myself to the maintenance of these laws, nor in any respect to the amount of duty. This is not a question of absolute and stubborn principle, but it is merely a question of expediency and economy, which, if other circumstances may arise, it will be necessary to consider; but at the present time and under the present circumstances, I do not think it wise or prudent to enter into this question."

Now, however, the juncture has come

" That time has now arrived—those circumstances have now arisen—when we find that it is requisite to meet the present exigencies—when we find it

necessary to take large, wide, and extended financial measures; and doing that

which will affect other interests seriously and deeply, it appeared to us impossible to leave this main and master interest unchanged under such circum stances and in such a crisis. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial side of this House.) Undoubtedly I have changed the opinion which I formerly held— (Great counter-cheering from the other side)—grounded as that opinion was on purely temporary interests." (Renewed cheering from the .Ministerial side.) The Earl of RIPON asked, whether the alteration in the Corn-law was to be upon the principle of taxation or of protection ?

If on the principle of protection, then vanished into thin air all the arguments of the Anti-Corn-law League ; then sank from under their feet all the

grounds on which appeals were made to the passions of the multitude. The

principle of protection rested on humane and consistent grounds. Those whosupported the present Corn-laws might be wrong in their opinions, but the

several grounds on which such protection was granted were those of justice and humanity, and a kindly consideration for the wants and subsistence of the poor. But by abandoning the high and generous ground of protection, and by

taking up the new ground of taxing corn for revenue, you will do that which has never been attempted in any country of the world, and which, without exception, would be the most impolitic, unjustifiable, and cruel act ever imposesl upon a reluctant Parliament. Viscount MELBOMINE—" Unquestionably it will be upon a principle of protection." The Earl of Wrticuu.ssa observed, that it was a universal axiom that no country should be left dependent on others for the necessary articles of subsistence " And is that principle to be now abandoned by placing a tax on the prime necessary of life ? If this is to be the case, in God's name let us all rise—let us rise in this House and in the country to a man, and let the higher classes do their duty to those who are beneath them—to the lower and poorer classes. Let us allow any tax to be placed on the land, but never let us submit to a tax upon bread. Let them tax our property ; let them, if they like, increase the taxation of the higher orders; but again I say, in God's name, no tax upon bread. (Loud cheering.) This tax has been threatened to raise the popular

cry of Cheap Breen'; and now, having pursued a course of policy—foreign,

domestic, and colonial—the most adverse to the interests of the kingdom, her Majesty's Government shortly intend to go to the country, by a dissolution, with that cry in their mouths, and by clamour seek support and confidence. But the people of this country are too reflecting to be thus deceived. They know that cheap bread means low wages." (Loud cheering.)

The petitions were laid on the table.

On Thursday, Earl FITZWILI1AM gave formal notice of an important petition for repeal of the Corn.laws which he should present on the next evening from Leeds. He should not enter into the subject then, but should wait till the proceedings in the House of Commons were brought under their Lordships' view. Lord ASHBURTON observed, that if they were to wait till bills founded on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new project came before the House of Lords, he believed they would never have an opportunity of discussing the subject at all. This led Lord Frrzwitiveat to make a sarcastic sally upon Lord Ashburton's inconsistency. Lord Fitzwilliam_ was ashamed to say that, when be was a very young man, he had supported the Corn-laws. Lord Ashburton at that time denounced it as erroneous and uncommercial— He recollected the noble lord, backed by the merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London, raising his voice against what he very properly called a monstrous proposition; for monstrous it was, and monstrous it would still be called by every man who had a particle of commercial blood in his veins. ("Hear, hear!" and laughter.) But he was afraid that every drop of cotnmercial blood had posed from the noble lord, since he had changed lais character

from that of a merchant and a Liberal politician to that of a great landowner and an aristocrat. (" Hear, hear I" and laughter.) Lord Fitzwilliam showed the advance of sound opinion in the increase of the minority in the House of Lords : when he first brought the question forward, he knew that the number of his supporters would be so small that he would not divide; next year 25 Peers voted with him; last year he had 42 votes ; and at the present moment he believed he could reckon upon a number between 50 and 60.

Lord AslinuaTorr said, he was not the only person who had changed his opinions : in 1815, when he voted for raising the duty on corn imported in time of peace above 60s., probably to 80s., one person who now advocates repeal of the Corn-laws, would not be content with less than 120s. He certainly did not approve of the sweeping protection afforded in 1828; and in twenty-five years his opinions might have varied : whose had not ?

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

On Monday, Lord DUNFERMLINE presented a petition from the seven suspended ministers of Strathbogie, praying the House of Lords "to apply such a remedy as in their wisdom might seem fit." Lord Dunfermline recapitulated the history of the Nonintrusion question, since the passing of the Veto Act by the General Assembly in 1834; showing that the offence of the seven ministers suspended by the Assembly consisted in obeying the imperative orders of the Civil Courts : of the acts charged by the Assembly against the seven ministers, there was not one for which they had not the authority of the Civil Courts. The next thing for the Assembly to do was, formally to pronounce sentence of deposition against the ministers. The effect of such a proceeding deserved attention— As he read the act of 1592, the benefices would be declared vacant, and the patrons deprived of their patronage. Was it not, he would ask, under the act of 1592 open to the heritors in every one of these parishes to say to the minister, "If the Court of Session suspend you from your legal right, I will not pay you one farthing of your stipend ? " Those seven gentlemen, therefore, might be called upon to bring actions against he could not say how many hen. tors, to recover their stipends. The Crown was patron of one of these benefices; and these churches being declared vacant in consequence of the deposition of these individuals, what would his noble friend do ? Would he sustain or abandon the presentee of the Crown ? His noble friend might say that he would not interfere; but he must be permitted to say that such a resolution could only endure for a very short time. How would his noble friend act ? If he abandoned the presentee of the Crown, he would side with the Church ; but at any rate, under these circumstances, he could not maintain a position of neutrality. Lord Dunfermline should have thought that the suspension of the ministers was a fact so astounding that it would have claimed the immediate interference of Government ; or at least, had he been in their place, he should have felt it incumbent on him peremptorily to demand Obedience to the law— At least he ought to have gone to the extent of declaring as his decided opinion, that he would enter into no negotiation, that he would admit no preliminary or proposition, until the law was obeyed. This, he could inform his noble friend, was the general opinion of supporters of the Government in Scotland : and he must be permitted to add, that the general impression in that country was, that all the Government patronage and favour had been conferred on those who had actively opposed the law.

At all events, delay is dangerous— He though that, under the circumstances, the time had come when something should be done. It might be said, "We will wait until the Assembly meets ": but could any man wish that by such an assurance the Assembly should be induced to take the one last and desperate step? He therefore asked noble friend, why he did not at once give some firm and specific assurance which would operate so as to encourage them to support the law ?

Viscount MELBOURNE did not intend to say whether he agreed or not in the very strong opinion which Lord Dunfermline had expressed ; though, unquestionably, a great collision had taken place between two bodies in the State-

"In contests of this nature, the part which I should always take is perfectly clear; but at the same time, it is unnecessary for me to declare it on the present occasion. But when my noble friend requires me to state distinctly that it is the full and entire intention of the Government to maintain and support the law—to maintain civil rights-1 cannot have any hesitation whatever; I cannot have any doubt in giving him that assurance, and making that declaration, in as decided terms and in as firm a manner as it can possibly be made. But when my noble friend goes further, and asks me, provided the General Assembly take those measures against these gentlemen which are apprehended in the petition, whether I would then introduce a legislative measure to settle the question upon that point, I must be understood to give no answer."

It might sometimes happen, in a mixed constitution such as ours, that one power in the state might break out of bounds, and contentions would ensue as to the limits of jurisdiction ; and great inconvenience would necessarily arise : but it would be a question, whether the inconvenience which would arise from making an alteration in the frame of the constitution would not be still greater. Lord Melbourne had not concurred in Lord Aberdeen's bill, which went considerably to affect the rights of patrons ; nor could he agree to the present petition. He was not sure that it would have been politic to break off all connexion with the dominant party in the Church

" Perhaps it would have only increased their violence; and perhaps they would have said, 'We are utterly neglected by the Government, and we have therefore nothing to do but to follow our own course.' My noble friend has also said, that the stream of patronage of the Government has been directed to those who held the opinions of the dominant party in the Church. I do not know much myself about the patronage of Scotland. It is not very large—it is not perhaps of any very great importance—and possibly the persons who may have been preferred may have held these opinions ; but I apprehend that it was not on account of those opinions that they were so preferred, and I should think that those who appointed them were not aware of the opinions which they held on the subject.' The Earl of ABERDEEN said, that the hardships of the petitioners had been very much aggravated since the petition which he presented last year. The immediate question was none of patronage, or opinion, but of law. With respect to the disposal of patronage, Lord Aberdeen thought that the appointment of Mr. Candlish was a direct proof of complicity on the imrt of Government—

Lord Normanby had maintained that it was necessary to establish a Professorship of Biblical Criticism in the University of Edinburgh; and yet when it was discovered that Mr. Candlish, a prime agitator in the Chun*, who ought never to have been thought of, was actually arrayed against the laws, the noble Akar* became he would not appoint him, would not fill up the appointment

at all. Lord Aberdeen believed the opinion of all her Majesty's Ministers was in accordance with his own respecting the proceedings of the General Assembly, although they were not very candid or ingenuous in stating them ; nor did they afford to those who were suffering on behalf of the law that moral support even which they might so readily afford them. The Marquis of NORMANDY explained, that candidates for Government patronage in the Church were selected by a leet ; and no one was put upon the leet because he was of Nonintrusion principles. With respect to Mr. Candlish— After all that had been said before, he was somewhat surprised that his case was now revived. He had never said that it was " necessary " to establish the Professorship ; though, when a vacancy arose, he thought it a good opportunity of carrying out the recommendation of a Commission that had sat seven years back. But on consideration, he did not think, looking at the state the Scotch Church was now in, that it was a favourable moment to create a new Professorship so intimately connected with the doctrines and practice of that Church.

Viscount MELVILLE observed, that the General Assembly had no power to enforce their own decrees of deposition : they could only proceed by humble petition to the Sheriff, who in Scotland was a judicial officer, to issue his process to enforce their decrees ; and it would certainly place the Sheriff in an awkward position to execute a sentence which had been overruled by the Civil Court in Scotland, and by that House, as he might probably soon find himself in his own gaol. But Government had only to instruct the Lord Advocate to protect those gentlemen who were suffering for their obedience to the law, and to appear before the Sheriff to prevent any process issuing. The Marquis of NORMANBY would be glad if the matter were so simple, but feared it was not.

On Thursday, the Duke of ARGYLE introduced a bill, of which he bad given notice, for the better regulation of patronage in the Church of Scotland— It went, he said, upon the fundamental principle of the Church of Scotland, of which he sketched the history, that no minister should be forced upon the people; a principle that had been violated by the act of Queen Anne restoring the rights of patrons. The Duke read letters from some leaders of the dominant party in the Church, showing that they would be content with his bill. Dr. Gordon wrote to him to explain, that the Nonintrusion Committee of the General Assembly had never thought of demanding the abolition of patronage ; and that they considered that his bill was quite in accordance with the principle of two bills which they bad prepared on the subject. The Committee itself passed a resolution, adopting Dr. Gordon's letter as their own ; Dr. Chalmers likewise gave in his entire adhesion to it; and Mr. Candlish, who entertained AntiPatronage views, said that the passing of "a sufficient measure of Nonintrusion" would necessarily supersede the agitation against Patronage, "and diminish the probability of its abolition ": the Anti-Patronage party therefore fully concurred, he said, in the Committee of Assembly's two bills.

The Duke warned the House, that if some such measure were not passed, a great part of the Church of Scotland would secede from that body. The Earl of ABERDEEN thought that the bill would have the effect of legalizing the Veto, in a manner more objectionable and odious than in the original form. According to the bill, by having the power to object to the call, Dissenters from the Church would be enabled to interfere, and deprive the Presbytery of its rights. The measure would have no effect in satisfying those who sought the abolition of patronage.

The Earl of Rommel/. objected to discussing the bill before it was printed. Lord DUNFERMLINE thought it contained the seeds of further agitation. The Marquis of BREADALBANE averred that such a measure alone could save patronage from destruction. The Earl of HADDING• TON remarked, that the agitation on the subject in Scotland was chiefly clerical ; and even that was declining. The Earl of RODEN supported the bill, in gratitude for the support which he had received from Scotland in the question of National Education. The Marquis of NORMANBY objected to a discussion on the first reading of a bill : no one was pledged either to the principle or details of a measure by not opposing it at that stage.

The bill was read a first time.

CHINESE WAR.

In reply to Sir ROBERT PEEL, in the House of Commons, on Thursday, Lord Joan RUSSELL said, that official accounts received from China described a preliminary arrangement which had been entered into by the Plenipotentiaries of the two Powers ; but it had not then been ratified by the Emperor of China, and indeed had not been finally coneluded between Commissioner Elliot and the Chinese Plenipotentiary. That arrangement had been generally disapproved of by this Government; and conclusive orders had been sent out with respect to the future proceedings. He could not say whether hostile proceedings would not be recommenced. In answer to Mr. HUME, Lord Joax added, that Captain Elliot had been recalled, and that Sir Henry Pottinger had been appointed in his stead.

THE CAROLINE AFFAIR.

Mr. Hunn moved, on Thursday, for copies of official correspondence between the United States, Great Britain, and British North America, relative to the destruction of the Caroline steamer.

Lord JOHN Roams, objected to the inconvenience of producing such correspondence during the progress of negotiations. He thought that Mr. Hume did not know precisely how the matter stood— The Government of the United States had made a complaint against certain Canadiaas; the Canadian Government made a counter-statement ; and the United States sent a rejoinder to the British Government, hut did not press for a final answer. It was hoped that the subject would have dropped here ; and so it would, but for the unfortunate arrest of Mr. M‘Leod.

Mr. HUME said, that the papers would prove the very reverse of Lord Palmerston's assertion that the American Government did not persist in demanding an answer to their communication of 2d May 1838— Mr. Forsyth, the United States Foreign Secretary, distinctly said, that Mr. Stevenson, their Ambassador here, would not press for an answer, because Mr. Fox, the British Minister at Washington, had told him that one would be sent direct from this country. On a subsequent night, Lord Palmerston said that he had sent an answer ; while he had never sent any up to that hour.

'Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained, that Lord Palmerston had since informed the American Minister, that the British Government justified the destruction of the Caroline. The reply to that communication had not been received.

Sir ROBERT PEEL supported Lord John in the reserve which he deOared to be necessary ; but wanted to know the position in which

Mr. M`Leod now stood ? Lord JOHN said, that Mr. M`Leod's counsel had succeeded in removing the case to a Federal Court; and he trusted that the Government of the United States would do that in a Federal Court which he understood they could not do in the District Court.

The House was cleared for a division ; but the motion was negatived without it.

MISCELLANEOUS.

PUNISHMENT or DEATH. The House went into Committee, on Monday, on Mr. FITZROY KELLY'S bill for abolishing punishment of death in certain cases. The preamble of the bill and the first clause, after a brief discussion, were postponed. Clause after clause was then opposed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and rejected. Mr. KELLY, after these defeats, proposed to abstain from proceeding with his bill, until after the Governnunt should have dealt with their own bills on the same subject. The Committee adjourned to Monday the 17th. COUNTY CORONERS BILL. Mr. PAKINGTON'S County Coroners Bill was recommitted on Wednesday ; when several amendments were made in it. Among them, was one to remove from the bill words restricting persons qurlified as Parliamentary voters from voting for a Coroner, if they did not reside in the district for which he was to be appointed. Another amendment enforced such a restriction on persons qualified as voters for Coroners. An amendment, proposed by Mr. HUME and supported by Mr. Fox MAULE, to qualify every person to vote for Coroner who shall have been six months rated to the poor, was rejected, by 63 to 4S. At the instance of Mr. WARLEY and Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. PALINGTON undertook to introduce a clause to compensate Coroners whose existing interests would be injured by the bill. POOR-LAW. In reply to 3Ir.War.Tne, on Thursday, Lord Jolts: RamSELL said that he should proceed with the Poor-law Act Amendment Bill on the 17th. Mr. WALTER intimated, that he should then make a motion to arrest the further progress of the measure. IRISH POOR-LIW ADMINISTRATION. Lord GLENCALL moved, in the House of Lords, on Monday, resolutions declaring that Mr. Stanley, late Secretary to the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland, had been guilty of contempt of the House ; and ordering that he attend at the bar On Friday the 14th instant. On a representation by the Marquis of NORMANBV, that Mr. Stanley was in a state of nervous excitement

which might have serious consequences if he were compelled to be personally present, the resolutions were altered, so as to state the reason why further measures were not adopted in the case. The motion was agreed to.

DRAINAGE OF TOWNS. On Tuesday, upon Lord NORMANDY'S motion that the Drainage of Towns_Bill should be read a third time, the Duke of WELLINGTON required that the city of Oxford should be exempted from the operation of the measure, as its provisions could be carried into effect by the civic authorities under a local act. Lord LvsrononsT claimed a similar exemption in behalf of Cambridge ; and Lord RIPON for Birmingham. A clause was introduced to exclude all such towns as had already local acts. One or two other amendments were made ; and the bill was then read a third time, and passed. Similar amendments were made in the BOROUGHS IMPROVEMENT Brix; which also was passed. PROHIBITED MARRIAGES. Lord WHARNCLIFFE gave notice, On Thursday, that on that day week he should call attention to a petition on the subject of marriage within certain prohibited degrees, with a view to an alteration of the law.