atbatts anb proceebings in Vadiamtnt.

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Mr. Hurr moved-

" That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of considering the following resolution: That it is expedient topermit gram and flour, the produce of Australasia, to be imported into the United King- dom rluce of Canada." i payment of the same amount of duty as is now levied on grain and SRIt the He had limited his proposition, not including Southern Africa or India, in order to simplify it; but he was well aware, that if the concession be made to Australia, it must be made to other corn-producing dependencies of the Crown. Some have a strange misconception that the House is bound to legislate only for the welfare of this country alone; but in legis- lating for the Colonies, it is bound, by the relation between sovereignty and allegiance, to provide in the first instance for the advantage of the subject- colonies: a wise as well as just policy, for the attachment of distant colo- nies is only to be secured by good government. Some might assert that his measure would be another breach of " protection ": but to make their case good, they must show that the advantage secured to Australia would bear no proportion to the injury inflicted at home- which would be diffi- cult. The wheat of South Australia and Van Diemen's Land is of the finest quality; samples have been received in this country such as are seldom seen here. Both those provinces grow a much larger quantity than they can consume. Although the voyage is long, (15,000 miles,) the du climate of Australia renders the grain particularly well able to bear it. Last year, 4,000 quarters were sent over; and it had to pay a duty of Ss.- 20 or 25 per cent on the prime cost—a tax which the Australians regard as almost prohibitory. In this country, last year, on principles of sound policy, the protecting duty of Id. a pound on Colonial wool was removed: the Australians did not complain of that; but they do complain of the unjust and inconsistent policy which retains a duty of 25 per cent against their wheat, and is justified on principles of "protection" and monopoly. In 1843, the Canadians were permitted to import grain into this country at a nominal duty: in 1844, the House refused to extend that advantage to the Australians. On what plea of justice? Are they not members of the same family, subjects of the same Sovereign, obeying the same laws? Last year, almost the sole argument used by Mr. Gladstone was, that Canada had asked for the boon and Australia had not. [Mr. Gladstone dissented.] In- deed, he also said, "Don't unsettle the Corn-laws"! Why, the Corn-laws are the great unsettled question. To call them settled, might do for a smart joke at the Haymarket, but not for a reason to convince that House. This year, however, the Australians have petitioned; for as soon as they heard that doubts were expressed as to their interest in the matter, they declared it in every possible way—in Legislative Councils, public meetings, the press, in private appeals to influential persons in this country. To cite the highest authority, he read despatches from Captain Grey, Governor of South Australia, and Sir Eardley Wilmot, Governor of Van Diemen's Land; both of whom described the free admission of wheat into this country as the greatest boon that could be extended to their respective provinces. Sir Xardley Wilmot, a gentleman extensively connected with land in this Country, and for many years the representative of Warwickshire in the House of Commons, pointed to the measure as the means of retrieving Van Diemen's Land from ruinous agricultural depression and possible pauper- ism; and he observed, that, so aided, the colony could not only defray its own expenses, but "assist materially the expenditure of British funds." Ministers themselves, in fact, were not the real opponents of the motion, but the gentlemen on their side below the gangway; who dread competition from without—land thrown out of cultivation—diminished agricultural employment--paupens. ta—ohoking of the great manufacturing towns, with consequent overtrading. and a host of ills. Mr. Hatt strove to con- vince them that their fears were groundless, and that they would beuefit as much as any from the measure-

" Import corn freely from those colonies, and there would qring' up in them a great demand for land and labour. The increased demand for public land will create a fund applicable by act of Parliament to emigration; and thus the creation of this fund will relieve the agricultural districts of the United Kingdom from the burden of maintaining a population outgrowing the means of employment on the land. But this is not the whole extent of the relief which you will receive. The emigration to the Colonies of a portion of the surplus hands now burdensome to the parishes will create in the Colonies an increasing demand for British manufac- tures. This increased demand in our Colonies would afford additional employ- ment for labour in the manufacturing towns, and afford, consequently, additional facilities for the migration thither of the surplus hands of the agricultural dis- tricts; a migration, be it observed, not liable on every derangement of the foreign market to be forced back on the parochial funds for support."

He pointed to the fact, that virtually this kind of aid is extended to the United States, whose corn finds its way into the British market: we are thus fostering their strength while we are mortifying our own. Already their population equals that of Great Britain: take care that the process does not end hi reversing the comparative power of the two countries, and that, instead of being able to sweep her commerce from the seas, as in case Of war we could now do, we are in a few years unable to cope with a popu- lation double our own, because we have neglected to use the means which Providence has placed within our reach. The concession would benefit the Colonies, at the expense of no sacrifice to any in this country. Sir Robert Peel has been accused of fear because of his allusion to threatening ap- pearances in America and Ireland, when he was conciliating Ireland: the Canada Corn-bill was yielded to a disaffected colony: Australia has littered no menaces; and would he refuse her prayer?

Sir WALTER Jeans seconded the motion, as a proper compliance with the wishes of a majority of his constituents; as part of the series of mea- sures of commercial policy commenced by Government; and as tending to farm our dependencies into a kind of Colonial Zollverein, within the bounds of which we should be sure to find markets and friends.

Sir GEORGE CLERK opposed the motion, with reasons which may be compressed into a very brief enumeration. The benefits of the measure likely to accrue to Canada had been very greatly exaggerated. He did not think that a corn-trade could be beneficial to such distant possessions. Sir Eardley Wilmot says that the price of wool has increased; and accord- ing to the accounts most recently received from Van Diemen's Land, he had congratulated the colonists on the improved value of their produce. As to corn, the colonists labour under such natural disadvantages that it would be hardly possible to import it to this country at a profit. Some samples, no doubt, have been bought up in this country at 72s. a quarter; but that was for seed. The freight is not less than 20s. The last papers that came from Australia quoted the price here at 548. 9d.; but what would the colonist say to find it 45s. or 46s.? At 588. the duty is already only Is. It is very unwise to be constantly tampering with an article of produce in which so great a proportion of the inhabitants of this country have-invested their capital. He confessed that in 1843 Government altered in regard to Canada the Corn-law passed in 1842: but that was in ful- filment of promises made by Lord Stanley, Mr. Hutt's motion was not founded on anT general principle; for he did not include other colonies. There is this distinction between the cases of Canada and Australia—that Canada has always exported corn; whereas it might be seen in papers be- fore the House that our Australian possessions took 25,000 quarters of wheat from Van Diemen's Land, 38,000 from Valparaiso, and a consi- derable quantity from Calcutta. He should on all these grounds give a direct negative to the motion.

In the remainder of the debate, the motion was opposed by Agricultural Members on the Ministerial side, on the ground that it infringed the prin- ciple of protection, and would lead to ulterior infractions. Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke rather late in the evening, and did little more than repeat and amplify the arguments advanced by Sir George Clerk. He pointed to the motions on the Corn-laws threatened, by Mr. Villiers for total repeal, and by Lord John Russell for some "cautious and deliberate arrangement"; and called upon the House to stand by the bill of 1842. He minutely recapi- tulated the circumstances under which the Canada Corn-bill was conceded; representing that Canada was in a peculiar commercial position, because it was previously allowed to import flour duty-free into this country, and a large carrying-trade on the lakes, rivers, and canals, was threatened with extinction. However, no engagement made with any colony ought to stand in the way of substantial justice. But Mr. Hutt did not propose to exact the same condition as was exacted from Canada, and impose a duty on wheat imported into Australia. If there were to be a change, he would ra- ther consider the state of the Colonies generally. In the present instance, he thought that the evil counterbalanced the good, and therefore he should give his vote against the motion. On the other side, several Members contended, that what had been granted to Canada could not be refused to Australia; the Conservative Captain Roue being of that conviction. And the arguments of those who opposed the motion were sharply criticized. Mr. LABOUCEEERE thought the plea that the agriculturists would be alarmed the worst compliment ever paid to them. It amounted to this—" No man of common sense or intelligence can suppose that any large quantity of corn can come from Australia: but I think the agriculturists so deficient in intelligence and common sense, that I am afraid to alarm them by a measure of this de- senption." Mr. F. T. BARING ridiculed the objection that the motion was limited to Australia; an argument imported from Peebles—" The vote was too small "—the boon was too small for the Colonies to receive! He re- pliedto the argument that the Canada Corn-bill WAS the fulfilment of a promise, by asking who made that promise, and how that promise could be any answer to a party now complaining of injustice? On the contrary, a promise given to one colony implied a promise to another under similar circumstances. Lord. Howica listened to Sir Robert Peel with com- passion and shame, to hear such a speech proceed from one so high is sta- tion. It was impossible to hear it, remembering what power the speake's possessed of advancin; every ars-iimmt or semblance of an argument, and to entertain a doubt AS to the real Justice of the case.

On a division, the motion was negatived, by 147 to 93; majority, 64.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGODIG DEBATE. For admitting Australian wheat at the rate of duty on Canadian corn—Mr. Hutt, Sir Walter James, Mr. La- bouchere, Captain Row, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. F. T. Baring, Mr. Bright, Mr. Ward, Lord Howick. Against it—Sir George Clerk, Mr. Darby, Mr. John Stuart Wortley, Mr. Stafforl 0 Brien, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Plumptre.

RECALL OF GOVERNOR FITZROY FROM NEW 7..E5L514D.

On Monday, Captain Rous, observing that he was absent in March last when Mr. Aglionby's motion was made the occasion of an attack upon Cap- tain Fitzroy, was about to reply to that attack; but he was called to order by the SPEAKER. Captain Rous then asked, whether Captain Fitzroy had been superseded? and was again adverting to the attack, when he was again called to order by the SPEAKER; on which he simply repeated his question. Mr. GEORGE WILLIAM HOPE said, that as his honourable and gallant friend had been kind enough to give him notice of his question, he was pre- pared to give him a direct answer— In the first place, he had to inform his honourable and gallant friend, that it was proposed by her Majesty's Government to appoint a successor to Captain Fitz- roy in the Governorship of New Zealand; and, as the determination to take that step had been communicated to no one beyond the members of her Majesty's Go- vernment themselves, and the nearest friends of Captain Fitzroy, he presumed it was from some one of the latter that his honourable and gallant friend had re- ceived his information. With regard to the grounds upon which the Government bad determined upon superseding Captain Fitzroy, he was happy in being able to assure his honourable and gallant Mend, that they in no way affected his honour and his character as a gentleman and an officer in her Majesty's service. Neither were they in any way connected with the charges which had been made against him as Governor of New Zealand, to which his honourable and gal- lant friend had referred. Nor had the determination of the Government been communicated to any person except those he bad stated; nor did the grounds of that determination refer to the charges which had been brought against Captain Fitzroy, in regard to those negotiations in which a slur was cast upon his honour and his character as a British officer and a public servant. For the satisfaction of Captain Rous, Mr. Hope read an extract of a despatch to Captain Fitzroy, sent out by the last mail to New South Wales, and dated April SO, 1845—" The con- cern with which I announce this decision is great), enhanced by the remembrance of the public-spirit and disinterestedness with which you assumed this arduous duty, and of the personal sacrifices which you so liberally made on that account; nor can I omit to record, that in whatever other respect our confidence in you may have been shaken, her Majesty's Government retain the most implicit reliance on your personal character, and on your zeal for the Queen's service. You will, therefore, readily believe that I have acted on this occasion in reluctant submission to what I regard as an indispensable public duty." Subsequently, by favour of a motion for going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, Captain Rous returned to the subject; enlarging on Captain Fitzroy's ability as an officer and seaman, and on his disinte- restedness in giving up an appointment of 8001. a year at the Trinity House, to accept one of 4001. a year in the colony— He hoped he might soon have an opportunity of showing how little Captain Fitzroy was to blame in his government of New Zealand. So long as an nape- ritun in imperio was allowed in that colony, it was impossible for any Govern- ment-officer to succeed there. "I say," said the honourable and gallant Member, "I shall have an opportunity of proving this when the motion on the paper comes on; but I declare before Heaven, I believe the promoters of that motion are afraid to bring it forward. I shall prove that the Directors of that Company got money under false pretences; that they induced labourers and artisans to emigrate in the expectation of being sustained and employed, and that when these unfortunate persons arrived they were left in a state of destitution." Mr. AGLIONBY made this single observation-

" I should think I was acting extremely ill towards the House if I ventured upon an answer to the remarks of the honourable and gallant Member, brought in somewhat irrelevantly. All I shall say is, he is totally ignorant of the whole subject."

Other Members let fall a few remarks. Colonel Rica TREVOR acknow- ledged the courteous manner in which Captain Fitzroy's recall had been communicated to him. Mr. Wenn censured the bringing unexpected charges against a party not before the House—the New Zealand Com- pany; and declared that no man had ever shown so much unfitness for an office to which he had been appointed by Government as Captain Fitzroy. Sir ROBERT INGLIS insisted on Captain Fitzroy's distinguished services, and the purity of his mind and intentions. Mr. Maisemx.s believed that Captain Rous would regret having charged gentlemen with having obtained money under false pretences who were as incapable of it as himself. Cap- tain Rous again rose to reply to the former attacks on Captain Fitzroy; when he was once more called to order by the SPEAKER.

Finally, Mr. HOPE repeated, that the removal of Captain Fitzroy was in no way connected with any imputation on his character. He got every credit for an anxious desire to promote the public service, and for the sacrifices which he voluntarily made in giving up a remunerative office for an arduous and ill-paid one.

THE Frwerrour, SCHEME: AUCTION-DOTLES: TARIFF.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, on the motion for going into Com- mittee on the Auction-duties Bill, the Duke of RICHMOND opposed the measure, as not called for by the country—

Under the present Auction-duties, the tenant-fanner had an exemption; and while they were asking for relief throughout the country, the Government was

repealing an act that exempted the farmers from its operation. He objected to the present bill, because the 800,000/. or 400,0001. derived fruni the present Auction- duties, if they were not repealed, might be very beseficially applied to the relief of the agricultural interest of the country. He would say, repeal the Malt-tax ; or he would relieve the land of the assize and gaol expenses, now paid out of the county-rates: which would amount to about 200,000/. or 300,000L, to be charged on the Consolidated Fund— They wanted justice to be done them. On what principle was the landed inte- rest of the country required to pay for the apprehension of every priso?er, for his maintenance in prison, and for the prosecution ? The Government paid half the expenses of the Assizes and the Sessions; but why should the counties pay any- thing towards the Assizes The county had no control whatever of this expendi- ture. The land was very pnsperly made to support a clergyman in every pariah; but why was it forced to support a chaplain in every workhouse and gaol ? Why should the expense be thrown exclusively on the land ? Ile wished the noble Lord would ask his friends the manufacturers whether they thought the bargain the landed interest at present had was a very good one ? The land had also to bar the whole expense of maintaining the wives and children of those confined in prison and of men transported. If a criminal who bad any property was trans- whom did that property go to? It did not go towards the county-rate, trans- ported, o the Crown. When recogruzances were estreated, they also went to the Crown. Was it fair that one should bear all the loss and the other take all the profit? There was not a session that did not throw some additional expense on the land, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not care how much the county-rates were burdened. His proposition had been brought forward in an- other place; but it was opposed, on the ground that it would appear to be a want of confidence in the Government For his part, as far as their agricultural ma- mma were concerned, he should be prepared to support a vote of want of confi- dence in them. He disliked those measures, because he considered them a step towards free trade, and because they tended to throw many of the meritorious labourers of the country out of employ.

He moved that the bill be committed that day six months.

The Earl of Dam:rousts defended the bill; advancing the authority of a Parliamentary Committee, which had condemned the tax as oppressive and impolitic, and as conducive to fraud and perjury. He then diverged into a defence of the Tariff; citing figures to show, that out of 234,268,000 pounds of meat per annum consumed in London, only 3,800,000 pounds were imported in 1944; while he argued that the remission of the Timber- duties, the Glass-duties, and other taxes, would relieve the agricultural interest to the extent of 200,0001. or 300,0001., to say nothing of social and moral improvement likely to be effected in the condition of the labouring- (lasses by the reduction of the Glass-duty.

Other Peers objected to the measure, on 'grounds similar to those ad- vanced by the Duke of Richmond. The Earl of Mattesestrav declared that the reduction of the Timber-duties would be a heavy blow to the agri- cultural interest—

The noble Earl had talked of that measure as if timber were not the produce te this country: did not the noble Earl know that in a bad year, when the seasons were unfavourable, the landed proprietor might redeem his loss by a fall of tim- ber? And as to repairs, why, wretched and poor indeed must that estate be which was obliged to go abroad for timber for repairs.

Lord MONTEAGLE objected to the bill, as selecting for remission a tax which does not appear to be oppressive, since it has been increasing from year to year, to the extent of 50,000/. in ten years. He also objected because the supposed surplus revenue has vanished; for Government have been disappointed in obtaining an excess of 2s. 4d. on 75,000 tons of the higher classes of sugar, which formed part of the calculation on which the surplus was estimated.

On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 33 to 15; and the bill passed the Committee.

The motion to go into Committee on the Customs-duties Bill was met by the Duke of RICECKOND with the amendment that it be committed that day six months; which was negatived without discussion or division, and the House went into Committee. The Duke of RICHMOND moved to omit some of the articles specified for reduction of duty. But this amendment also was negatived; and the several clauses of the bill were affirmed.

SPEAKERS LN THE FOREGODZG DEBATE. For the Duke of Richmond's Amendment to retain the Auction-duties—The Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Mahnesbury, Lord Beaumont, Lord Monteagle the Marquis DE Normanby. Against it—.The Earl of Dalhousie, the 'Earl of Winchlisea.

FIELD GARDENS.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. Wnmrsis COWPER moved to go into Committee on his Field Gardens Bill pro forma, in order -to make certain alterations in it. He intended to meet objections raised 'by the Home Secretary, by striking out certain clauses relating to advances

• out of the rates. Other clauses relating to enclosures, similar to some in Lord Lincoln's Enclosure Bill, might be struck out hereafter, if Lord Lin- coln's bill should be adopted.

Mr. ROEBUCK said, that the bill had better be disposed of at once. He strongly objected to it as a supplemental poor-law, which farmers might use to beat down wages. He contended that the labouring population must depend for subsistence upon wages; and that if the measure were carried, it would tend to bind the labourer to the soil, and to introduce the depraved cottier system of Ireland. He moved that the bill be com- mitted that day six months.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM objected to refusing so usual a course as the Com- mittee, in order that the author of a bill might alter it. He acquitted Mr. Cowper of any intention to lower wages; but he pointed out how the bill might be used, by those who at once employ labour and own cottages, to lower wages and raise cottage-rents in parishes where allotments are allowed.

Mr. ROEBUCK withdrew his amendment. The House went into Com- mittee; the amendments were made; and the bill was reported as amended.

MAYNOOTIL

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day having been read for receiving the report of the Committee on the Maynooth Col- lege Bill, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved the following resolution; argu- ing that for the State to enforce payment for purposes of religion, which is entirely a matter of conscience, is tyranny- " That any provision for the separate or exclusive education of any particular religions denomination, or for the support or endowment of any religious sect or sects by State grants, or funds raised by compulsory assessment, whether under the name of tithes, rents, ceases, taxes, regium donum, or under any other name or form whatever, is a violation of the rights of conscience, detrimental to reli- gious truth, and aangerous to civil and religious freedom; and that all such esta- blishments, grants, or endowments, now in existence in the United Kingdom, ought to be discontinued, with as little delay as may be consistent with a due re- gard to the rights of those who have life-interests in the same." He added, that if the House should affirm his proposition, he should then bring in a bill, by the first clause of which he should appoint Commis- sioners; by the second he should make a provision that on a certain day— say the 1st January 1849—all the revenues of Bishops, dignitaries, and ministers of the Established Church, not arising from private endowments or voluntary contributions, should be received by the Commissioners, or paid into the national fund; and that every regium donum after the decease of the present recipients shall cease and determine. It was his object to abolish all State grants for ecclesiastical purposes. The motion. obtained little support. Several Liberal Members argued, that while aid is given to other denominations, it cannot be withheld-from Roman Catholics. Sir ROBERT Imam contended, that the Established Church is not a sect, but the great depositary of the religion of the State. Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that originally Maynooth College comprised S. lay SCh001, and the Roman Catholics did not wish it to be for themselves only, but M include Protestants: the Government did not act on that suggestion,

but suppressed the lay school. Mr. Burke wrote to prove that it is better for persons trained to celibacy and the service of the confessional to be edu- cated apart, rather than with those who might ridicule such observances. There is nothing in the present bill to prevent the education of laymen at Maynooth; though he could hold out no hope that such would practically be the case.

On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 141 to 2; and the report was received.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For Mr. Crar-ord's Amend- ment—Ms. Sharman !Crawford, Mr. Hindley. Against it—Mr. William Williams, Sir Robert Inglis, Dr. Bowring, General Johnson, Mr. Hume, Sir Robert Peel.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.

In the HOMO Of COIMBORS, OR Monday, Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FnENCet moved, that the Irish Great Western Railway (Dublin and Galway) Bill be permitted to proceed, in spite of the Standing Orders. This motion gave rise to a discussion. Mr. ESTCOURT opposed it, because the promoters of the bill had violated the Standing Orders in at least a hundred instances; and Mr. Sruurr said, that the errors were quite evident on the face of the drawings and documents, without requiring the examination of a single witness to expose them. Mr. REDINGTON contended, that in this case the rigid adherence to the Standing Orders would impede a great public benefit; while there had been no complaint from the proprietors of land on the line. Lord PALMERSTON hoped, that if the Standing Orders were dis- pensed with in this case, they would also be dispensed with lathe case of the Mullingar, Dublin, Longford, and Sligo Railway Bill, should any violation of them appear there. Mr. WARBURTON thought, that if so; a retrospective effect might also be given to the rescinding of the Standing Orders, and that the rejection of all previous measures on that score might be reconsidered—that the Standing Orders might in fact be thrown over- board altogether. Sir Tames Fussraerrrx (Secretary for Ireland) sup- ported the motion- but without wishing his vote to influence that of any other Member. Among those who opposed the disregard of the Standing Orders, were Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Sir ROBERT INGLIS. Eventually, the motion was affirmed, by 97 to 81; a result announced with great cheering from the Opposition.

Later in the evening, Mr. Wansunrox called Sir Robert Peel's attentioa to the fact that Sir Thomas Fremantle had voted for the violation of the Standing Orders; remarking, that if such was to be the conduct of the Administration, "chaos was come again." Sir ROBERT PEEL could not control the course of a member of the Government on a private bill, and presumed that Sir Thomas Fremantle had acted in accordance with his sense of duty- " One of the gentlemen principally interested in favour of the bill in question solicited my in :taierence in support of it: my answer was, that- the Standing Orderrr Committee was a most pure and impartial tribunal, and that I had the greatest confidence in its decisions; and I positively declined to interfere. I know that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade said, that though this was a private bill yet that it had been usual for one of the members of the Government to at- tend in his place and support the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, and that he would himself come down to the House and do so. My right honourable friend has acted on his own view of the caseoind with what he has considered in accordance with his duty."

Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE repeated, that he did not wish to influence any other vote, and that he did feel it to be a matter of great importance that there should be a railway communication between the East and West of Ireland. Members connected with Ireland supported his view; others expressed displeasure; and Mr. LABOUCHERE characterized Sir Thomas's conduct as an unfair means of courting popularity in Ireland. The con- versation dropped without coming to any practical conclusion.

On Wednesday, Mr. FITZSTEPHEN Frisson moved for leave "to bring in a bill for making a railway from the Great Southern and Western Rail- way near Naas, in the county of Kildare, to the town of Galway." Mr. WARBURTON pointed out that this was the bill for which the recom- mendation of the Standing Orders Committee had been set aside; and, alluding to a hint thrown out by Sir George Grey, that he should propose an inquiry on the subject, Mr. Warburton moved that the debate be ad- journed, in order to an inquiry before the further consideration of the motion. Sir GEORGE GREY said, that the notice he should give when the proper time came would be, that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire whether and how far the rules and standing orders of the House which were now applicable to English, Scotch, and Welsh Railways, should be also applicable to Irish railways. Mr. FRENCH suggested, that the in- quiry might be taken between the first and second reading of the bill. Sir. ROBERT PEEL supported that suggestion. After a conversation the amendment was withdrawn, on the understanding that the second reading would not be moved until the Committee should have reported; and leave was given to bring in the bill.

On Thursday, Sir GEORGE GREY moved the appointment of his Commit- tee; and, with some chaffering as to the nomination of particular persons, it was appointed.

Mr. HUME gave notice, that on the 22c1 instant he should move a call of the House.

On Monday evening, Mr. SOTHERON reported from the Committee on the railway bills comprised under letter Q, that Mr. B. Escott had not attended the Committee. Mr. Escorr explained, that he had stated to Mr. Creed, an officer belonging to the Committee of Selection, that he had- been appointed on two Public Committees; which was quite as much work as he could attend to. Mr. Lanoucimaz and other Members maintained, that the being appointed to a Public Committee does not exempt a Member from serving on a Railway Committee, the attendance on which is compul- sory; and Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that Members on Public Committees go out of town without being missed. Mr. HUME insisted that Public are as important as Railway Committees. Upwards of a hundred Members were • absent; and he thought that it might be desirable to have a call of the House, which might compel Members to attend on Committees. Sir Joecri. TYRELL suggested, that Irish Members should be made to take a fair share of business on Committees. Captain BERKELEY followed this up with the remark, that Members who attend the Repeal Association had never been summoned on any Committee. Lord CASTLEREAGH asked, whether the Sergeant-at-Arms could not be sent over to Ireland to compel the attendance of Members? Lord Gusievitr-a Sosumsar replied, that Mem- bers disobeying a call of the House might be given into custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms; which Lord CASTLEREAGH said was no answer to his question; but he did not obtain any more precise. Sir Gacci0E GREY moved that Mr. Esc,ott be directed to attend the CoMmittee Q next (14: suid the House was cleared for a division., but none took place, Mr. EscOrt promising to attend.

MEDICAL REFORM.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved that his Physic and Surgery Bill be recommitted, in order that he might

make in it some alterations rendered necessary by the irreconcileable dif- ferences between the College of Surgeons and the "General Practitioners." Be explained the intended alterations—

The general practitioners are a very numerous and very powerful body; and if the complete constituent power in the College of Surgeons were transferred to them, he feared that in a short time the elected Council would reflect only the general practitioners, who would supplant the surgeons; whereas to the pure surgeons" has been assigned the great duty of teaching the highest branch of

this noble profession' and it is by the College of Surgeons that the bounds of science are extended. At the same time, he allowed, that although the objections urged by the general practitioners against the College may be exaggerated, yet

some of the precautions which they desire may sightly be granted. The gene- ral practitioners state, with respect to placing the examination of persons in their own station in the power of the surgeons, that it is the interest of the surgeons to degrade the general standard of the qualification of general practitioners; and that

as the level of the general practitioners was reduced, so the comparative heads of the profession would be exalted. Some precautions ought to be taken against such

an abuse of power and authority on the part of the College of Surgeons. I have come to the conclusion that it is indispensably necessary to maintain the in- terests of the generakpractitioners, and to secure the dignity of that portion of the profession by the maintenance of a high level and standard of qualification for

this branch of the profession; and that it is upon the whole expedient to incor- porate the general practitioners." The charter would be granted by the Crown,

according to the Royal prerogative, by his advice. This 'decision will give great facilities for attempting to introduce some alterations, and for securing what are objects of great public importance: the connexion between medical students and the incorporated colleges needs not be dig-solved; and the entrance into the profes- sion may be by one portal only, whatever the future destination of the student. Be contemplated three colleges,—the "College of Physicians," the "College of Surgeons," and the "College of General Practitioners." He proposed to form a Board, composed of (say) six members of the College of Physicians and six Mem- bers of the College of Surgeons, as Examiners before whom every candidate for admission into the profession must present him'self, at the age of not less than twenty-two. "The control of the curriculum of education would be exercised by this Board of Examiners. Then! propose, that the general practitioners shall ap- point another Board of Examiners, composed exclusively of general practitioners; and if a student of the age of twenty-two seeks to become a general practitioner, the Examiners of the Colleges of Surgeons and of Physicians would grant the per- mission to go before the Examiners of the College of General Practitioners. With regard to the Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians, I propose that at the age of twenty-six the student may also go before another Board of Examiners: if he seeks to become a surgeon, he shall go before the Examiners of the College of Surgeons at the age of twenty-six; and if he seeks to be a physician, he shall at that age go before the Examiners of the College of Physicians." To the charter of incorporation for the general practitioners full concurrence has been given by the Apothecaries Company; who have handsomely surrendered all the powers which they hold under the act of 1815. He proposed, therefore, to repeal the Apothecaries Act; and altogether to abolish every vestige of that system of five-years apprenticeship which has been thought so very objectionable, and so injurious to the character of the general practitioner. The powers of prosecuting unlicensed practitioners he should pre- serve intact, and transfer entire to the new College of General Practitioners. The new College must be represented in the Council of Health: "I propose, therefore, that two of the College of General Practitioners, chosen by the Council, shall be members of the Council of Health. I must also say, that I think upon the whole I ought to supply an omission which I have hitherto made, and that the Univer- sity of London ought to he represented in the Council of Health. I propose, that either the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor of that University shall be a member of that Council." The bill contained a clause exempting the Universities of Oxford end Cambridge from its operation; the effect of that clause being to leave to those Universities such power of granting degrees as they now enjoy, so that their

graduates would be entitled to practise throughout England and Wales., but ex- cluded from practice in the Metropolis and within seven miles around it, by the

privilege of the College of Physicians. "lam happy to say that an arrangement Us now been made between those bodies. It will still be necessary to retain in The bill a clause exempting the Universities from the operation of the measure; but practically, the agreement, while it lasts, (and! hope it will be permanent,) will render that clause inoperative. The agreement between the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the College of Physicians is this—that after a party shall have graduated in medicine and obtained the degree of Doctor in either of those Universities, he shall, if he think fit, (and the temptation is great to induce him to think fit) come up to the College of Physicians for examination; which, on obtaining their diploma, will open Metropolitan practice to him: and at that examination assessors from the Universities are to be present and to take part in it." One clause enabled the Council of Health not only to decide what institutions are to be considered "public institutions" within the meaning of this act, but what form of testimonial shall be necessary to qualify the office-bearers in them

'whether they shall be physicians, surgeons, or general practitioners: "I think, that upon the whole that is an invidious power to vest in the Council of Health.

I am disposed, therefore, to omit that provision, and to leave it to the operation of

public opinion and to the various hospitals and institutions, to decide which of the three classes or of the particular candidates is best entitled to their con-

fidence." There is some difficulty in immediately giving strict effect to the ob- ject of the bill, because, while prospectively there will be only the three classes— physicians, surgeons, and general practitioners—retrospectively there are certain distinctions in different parts of the United Kingdom; for instance, physicians

entitled to a licence to practise intro 'trim, or a licence to .practise ultra urbe. "Due facilities, however, will be given to parties now exercising limited rights to

practise under restrictions, which it will be possible for them easily to remove under the new charter: but in case of their not choosing to avail themselves of those facilities, I propose to introduce into the registers particular mode, by which they will register their existing right, and retain it intact, nothing taken from it, nothing added to it; but during their lives they will be entitled to the full enjoy- meat of the exact privilege taey now possess. For instance, a physician licen- tiate practising lbeyond the seven miles may register as a licentiate extra urbe; Scotch physician now practising in England will retain his existing legal right, but acquire no additional one by the new act." He proposed to prevent all am- biguity as to titles: simulation of unlicensed designations would be a misdemea- nour, and the title of "doctor" would be reserved to members of the College of Physicians.

He would postpone the further consideration of the bill till the middle of June, and as soon as possible he would lay on the table the new charter of incorporation; so that plenty of time would be given to the country to consider the measure. He had done his best to settle the question; and if he failed now, he should despair; which he did not yet do, having, with some inevitable exceptions, the concurrence of the physicians, surgeons, and general practitioners.

• In reply to Sir WILLIAM CLAY, Sir JAMES GRAHAM gave an outline of the charter for the Colla funeral Practitioners—

He proposed that the Council should consist of forty-eight members; that the qualification should be fifteen years of general practice; that the constituent body voting for the election of the Council should be general practitioners of ten years' standing; and with regard to the Council, that there must be the double qualifi- cation for the last fifteen years of membership of the College of Surgeons and also of the Apothecaries Company. Mr. Havvea thought that Sir James Graham had taken a liberal and satisfactory view of the question ; but he insisted on the necessity of making the Board of Examiners strictly impartial; the best security for which would be, to prevent the teacher's being in any case an examiner. The Board should be perfectly independent of schools and pupils.

Mr. WAKIEY averred, on the contrary, that the altered bill would cause very great dissatisfaction. It complicated instead of simplifying the law. No person would be allowed to practise as a general practitioner unless he had undergone a second examination before this new Board.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM interposed. Any person passing the neceraery ex- amination in Ireland or Scotland before the Joint Board of the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons of the two countries respectively, should be entitled to be registered as a general practitioner throughout the United Kingdom; and no power was transferred from the Apothecaries Act of prosecuting parties so registered for practising.

Mr. Wamter—Then, of what value would the new charter of incorpora- tion be to the general practitioners? It would be the mockery of a benefit. The going before a joint board of physicians and surgeons, of which the general practitioners are declared unworthy to form a part, would degrade them. After some angry comments on the way in which 12,000 or 14,000 members of the College of Surgeons are excluded from the franchise in that body, he denied that the bill would put the general practitioners on an equality with the College of Surgeons ; and he called upon the Minister to alter its charter. He denied that the "pure surgeons" monopolize all the talent and skill in their profession— Why, there is hardly a country-town in England that has not a Brodie in it, with the same amount of talent, but with less opportunity. He undertook to say that the surgeons of this country are the first body of medical practitioners in the universe. In London, the arrangements of society separate the medical men into different divisions; but in the country, ifs surgeon has a difficult case, one which requires promptitude of action, decision, knowledge of anatomy, and pathology, and operative surgeiy, has he the means of casting off his responsibility on some distinguished " pure " of London? Can he send for Brodie or Liston, or any other man, to take the responsibility from himself? No; he is called on to act at the moment, and at the moment lie does act in a skilful and scientific man- ner. The operations which many of the country surgeons have performed are never surpassed in skill by the first men in the Metropolis. Many of those men have been in practice twenty or thirty years; yet, under the provisions of the charter of 1843, they find young men, who have had their diploma only four or five years, exalted to the position of Fellows, while they, notwithstanding their ability and success in their profession, feel themselves disgraced and degraded by comparison with those Fellows. Those country surgeons are not only capable as surgeons, but they are physicians; they are complete medical practitioners—they know their business thoroughly. For those men the right honourable gentleman was going to provide a second Apothecaries Hall. Mr. WARBURTON pointed out some objections in detail, which might be removed in Committee. Ho asked, if the general practitioner would be admissible to all situations now held by the licentiates of the College of Surgeons?

Sir JamEs Gitastarz answered that they would.

After a few more remarks, the House went into Committee; and, with some further discussion, Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved his amendments. Alluding to the College of Surgeons and its restricted fellowship, he ex- plained, that prospectively, every man, on attaining the age of twenty- six, was to be entitled to present himself for examination; and, if he passed that examination, to have the right of admission to the fellowship of the College. The bill was reported with amendments, and ordered to be recommitted on the 9th June. SPEAKERS

no THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION. For the bill RS amended— Sir James Graham, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Warburton, (partially,) Mr.Acland, Mr. Mac- aulay. •etAgainst it—Mr. Wakley, Mr. F. H. F. Berkeley, Colonel Thomas Wood, (Middlesex.) Izmir MEASURFS. Presenting two petitions to the House of Lords, on Tues- day, in favour of the Land Commissioners' Report, the Earl of DEVON expressed a hope that no great delay would occur in introducing a measure founded on the

report. Every communication that the Commissioners had received pointed par- ticularly at one measure as of a paramount importance—that was some measure which should secure to industrious tenants the benefit of compensation for the im- provements that they made on the land which they occupied. If some measure of this kind were introduced, it would do much to strengthen the industry of the

people of Ireland. Lord Srazztey replied, that although Government had not yetliad time to consider all the matters in the report, they had not been idle. He agreed with his noble friend, that the giving of compensation to the tenant for im- provements made on the land would do much to improve the social condition of the people of that country. The Government had directed its attention to this subject. A measure was now in a state of forwardness; and he should be able, he believed, to lay that bill on the table of the House immediately after the approach. ing recess. In the other House, replying to Mr. EDMUND BURKE ROCHE, on Monday, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that in addition to the Irish measures already before Par- liament, and one founded on the report of the Land Commissioners, Government had prepared a measure on the subject of Registration and Municipal Corporations in Ireland. The Municipal Corporation Bill was founded on the principle of= the same equality of franchise with respect to municipal corporations in

which exists in this country.

THE ROYAL ASSENT was given, by Commission, on Thursday, to the ens toms-duties Bill, the Auction-duties BM, the Railway Clauses Consolidation BM andthree cognate measures, and to several other public and private bills of less note. SLAVERY. In Committee on the Navy. Estimates, on Monday, Viscount PALMERSTON raised a general discussion on the Slave-trade; averring that it is increasing, that British subjects, (Negroes) taken from British possessions con- trary to law, are detained in Cuba and Surmam; and that it is useless to employ cruisers on the coast of Africa without maintaining the right of search. Re urged the necessity of destroying barracoons on that coast. 'Ministers had said that that would be inconsistent with the rights of nations • a right which Eng- land forgot in Scinde, for talking of the Ameers Sir Robert Peel said, that the law of nations was not applicable to the rude ;zarbarians of India; and France forgot the right in Tahiti. Sir ROBERT PEEL deprecated an untimely discus- sion without notice; repudiated the argument that because international law had been broken elsewhere it could be broken in Africa; denied that it had been broken in Scinde, or that he had ever said so • contended that it would be better to obtain the consent of Native princes for destroying the barraceens; anticipated

success from the renewed efforts of our cruisers; and promised to inquire into the case of British subjects said to be detained in Cuba and Surinam.

On Wednesday, Lord PALIIMESTON asked whether, in pursuance of the 9th article in the Washington treaty of August 1842, between England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, steps have been taken, by joint representations from the Go- vernments of Great Britain and the United States, to cause countries in which mar- lets for slaves exist to close those markets; and whether, in pursuance of the 17th article of the treaty of December 1841, between Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia, the maritime powers which have not joined in that treaty have been invited to do SO? Sir RoBERT PERL replied, that several conferences had taken place be- tween Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett, to consider whether the joint representations should be made literally together, or separately; and it was decided, on considera- tions of national pride, that the representations would probably be more effectual if Uiade separately. Representations were accordingly made to Brazil, by both Eng- lish and .American Ministers. With respect to the second question, he believed that no vessels belonging to Belgium, Greece, or Hanover, are engaged in the slave-trade; nor are their flags used in the promotion of that traffic. No doubt, it would be very desirable that all the maritime powers of Europe should unite to put it down: but there are considerations connected with the refusal of France to ratify the treaty, which are judged to form obstacles in the way of representation being made to the three Powers alluded to.

THE CALUDOTIOUS CHARGES AGAINST MR. MAWNL On Wednesday, Mr. BOUVERIE asked Sir James Graham, whether he was prepared to withdraw the charges that he made against Mr. Mazzini about five weeks ago of being im- plicated in procuring one Gavioli to assassinate Emiliani, an Italian refugee, at Bodes in France? Sir James GRAHAM said, that he was not aware at the time of a fact which Mr. buncombe mentioned in his reply, that Mr. Mazzini had euccessfully prosecuted the Moniteur for republishing the' libel. He had since, through the Foreign Office, caused inquiry to be made in France, and he had re- ceived the answer only on Tuesday evening. "I am bound to state to the honourable member for Kilmarnock and to the House, that the account I received P511t, resting upon the statements of the Judge who tried Ostia, and the hirosecutor, in answer to the inquiries made at my request, are explicit, full, !Ind direct, that in that trial no evidence whatever was produced which inculpates Mazzini in the case. I am bound, therefore, to state, that if I had known at the time I made the original statement the facts of the trial—much more, if I had known what was the impression of the Judge and the Public Prosecutor, who I conceive are the best authorities in this matter—so far from making that state- ment, I should have religiously, abstained from doing so. By the statement I then Made, a public injury was inflicted on Mr. Mazzini; and therefore, now knowing the facts I have just detailed to the House, and which were unknown to me then, I think it due to Mr. Mazzini to make the only and best reparation in my power— which is, that the statement I have now made shall be as public as my former atetement. I can only add, that I hope this. explanation will be satisfactory." Mr. THOMAS Dtriecosinz was sure that Sir James Graham's apology would be eatiafactory to Mr. Mazzini and the other Italian exiles resident in this country. Tem CORFU Arrant- On Thursday, Sir CHARLES NAPIER read a letter .frem Corfu, defending Lord Seaton from the charge of inhumanity in not prevent- tilg the fatal expedition of the brothers Handlers, or apprising them of their danger. Lord Seaton positively did not know of it. When the Foreign Consuls told him that the expedition had started, he did not believe that those persons could have been guilty of such madness. He refused to send a ship after them, because he would not risk collision between a British vessel and men on the high sea who had hitherto committed no offence. A boat demanded by the Consuls he could not refuse; and indeed it would bare been useless to do so, as they could themselves .bave hired one. The boat was not a steamer, but a sailing-boat Sir Charles Napier expressed regret at having densared Lord Seaton under a total misappre- hension of the facts.

Tim RECESS. The House of Lords adjourned on Thursday, until Friday the lath instant, for the Whitsuntide halydays.