Debates anb iproceebings in Varliament.

MAXMOOTH COLLEGE.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, some conversation arose on the procedure in respect to the Maynooth grant. Sir Cusamas NAPIER had observed the absence of two gentlemen [Mr. Fitzroy and Captain Meynell] who held office under Government from the division of last week: were they absent by design or accident; if by design, were they still members of Government; and if so, was the question to be considered an "open" one?

Sir ROBERT PEEL replied thus- . "I cannot take upon myself to say whether those honourable gentlemen to whom the honourable and gallant Member has referred were absent by accident or design. I beg to say that there has been no change recently in the members of her Majesty's Government; therefore, it is clear that there can be no removals on this account. With respect to Maynooth, I consider that to be a Government question. I consider it to be one of the utmost importance, and I shall do ev thing in my power to promote its success." [Sir Robert, says the report in Morning Post, spoke in a low voice and with some emotion in making this an- nouncement; which was received with loud cheers by the Opposition, and in per- fect. silence by the Conservative side of the House.] In reply to Mr. HUME, Mr. WARD stated how he meant to proceed with his amendment [asserting that provision for education in Ireland should be made out of ecclesiastical fiincla]— When he gave notice of his motion, he never intended that it should be made a rallying-point for all those who wished to oppose the Government measure. Though a Member of that House for twelve years, he was not ashamed to confess that ha was until today scandalously ignorant of the form in which the question was to be put. As he now understood, the question which the Speaker would put from the chair' iu case he pressed his amendment, would be, That the words to be left out stand part of the question"; and in that case be had reason tPc7ete his amendment would be made the point on which the Government measure would be opposed. He must say, that he did not wish to encourage. or aggravate the angry feeling which was rapidly rising out of doors, by procuring even a large minority fur the first portion of his amendment; and, having to choose between the loss of the Government bill, which loss he must look on as a grievous calamity, and the abtuidonment of his motion, he had made up his mind to withdraw the latter for the present. (Oosition cheers.) He would again bring it forward on whatever stage of the bill_ he could obtain a fair, free, and in- telligent expression of the sense of the House.

Mr. CHARLES HINDLEY said, that if Mr. Ward, with all his experience needed delay, there were other reasons forpostponing the second reading— He appealed to the Speaker. He wished to ask the Speaker why the Members of that House were required to put their names in the corner of every petition? Were they not by the spirit of that order required to read every petition, in order to know that the prayers of them were respectfully addressed to that House? He had not had time to read every petition intrusted to him, [pointing to a huge heap of petitions lying on the bench beside him]; he therefore could not present them. While he would not desire to interfere with the Government or with the business of the House, he asked for time to enable him to discharge his daty con- scientiously.

Sir ROBERT PEEL saw no reason for delay, and he should certainly Move the second reading on Friday. There would be other opportunities for contesting the principle of the bill- " Before we can proceed, the House must resolve itself into Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of rejecting or sanctioning the proposal I shall make with respect to the grant to Maynooth. I should think it improbable that that motion would be made before tomorrow week ; consequently there will be an op- portunity for those who are opposed to the principle of the bill again to take the sense of the House, even previously to going into the general Committee on the bill. Under these circumstances, I fhb* it will not be thought unreasonable if I force the second reading tomorrow."

STATE OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES.

On Thursday, Mr. CHRISTIE drew attention to the state of the two great Universities; moving, ' That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report is all matters _relating to the privileges' revenues, trusts, and to the state of u- cation, learning, and religion, in the Universities of &ford and Cambridge, and the Colleges of these Universities," He enforced the necessity of inquiry in a speech of great length. He first described the wealth of the two Universities and the aid they receive

from the State: Parliament annually votes 2,0061. to the two Universities, for the salaries of professors, besides several other smaller sums contributed by the Crown; he calculated, that in seven years Cambridge made 5,0001. profit, and Oxford 7,0001., by their shaft in the Bible monopoly; to

Oxford is remitted yearly about 2,7311. of paper-duty, to Cambridge 3,2431; they enjoy the privilege of copyright in perpetuity for works which they publish; the 305 livings of which Cambridge has the patronage are worth about 113,3001.; the 447 livings of Oxford, about 173,0001. As to the right of Government to inquire, he cited the Commissions issued in 1826 and 1830 to inquire into the state of the Scotch Universities. He pro- ceeded to adduce testimony to prove the necessity of changes. Dr. Pea- cock, Dean of Ely, who wrote on the subject, declared that the sta- tutes of Cambridge University, dated in 1570, were framed in reference to habits of life and a condition of society which have long since disappeared: the statutes recognize a system of physical and meta- physical philosophy, which the progress of knowledge or the changes of opinion have pronounced to be false or inadequate; they enforce with pe-

culiar strictness and earnestness a most laborious series of scholastic exer-

cises, which from their puerile character are no longer practicable. Sir William Hamilton, now Professor of Logic in Edinburgh University, has stated of Oxford, that the statutory system of the University has been superseded by the collegial system, in which all is sacrificed to the spirit of monopoly and the convenience of the teacher, while all " degrees" but the lowest are merely nominal distinctions, certifying neither a particular course of study nor proficiency in the graduate. At both Universities, the attendance of students at the classes of the several professors is so scanty, that the professorships are fast'dwindling into sinecures; the number of pupils ranging from twenty-five or so, down to six, five, two, or even to one! At Oxford, where there is a professorship of Civil Law, richly endowed, there are neither lectures nor examinations: yet the Universities claim for the degrees which they confer exclusive right to practise in the Ecclesias- tical and Admiralty Courts! In Oxford they do not even profess to give medical education: yet the University confers degrees in medicine. How- ever, while in ten years Oxford has conferred 22 degrees of Doctor of Medicine, and Cambridge 51, the University of London has conferred 33 in six years. It has been urged against the admission of Dissenters, that the Universities are seminaries of theology: Dr. Thirlwall, Bishop of St. David's, declared that that assertion is a mere fiction ; and in 1833, Dr. Pusey said, with respect to the theological studies at the Uni- versity of Oxford, that " one fortnight comprised the beginning and the end of all the public instruction which any candidate for holy orders was re- quired to attend previous to entering upon his profession. By the by, Dr. Pusey, who has been the object of attack and ridicule, has shown the sin- cerity of his zeal in the improvement of theological education by a mimi- ficent foundation of Hebrew scholarships. The Crown has founded two new professorships at Oxford; but the examination was not made compulsory,

and what were the numbers of those who offered themselves for examina- tion?—in the first half year, 1; in the next, none; and in the third, 2! It may be said, that if Oxford and Cambridge are not theological seminaries, they are exclusively Church of England places. But is it politic to at- tempt to " crib, cabin, and confine " the theology of the Universities within the limits of the Thirty-nine Articles? The result has been, that learning has burst from the fetters which encircled her, and that Tractarianism has shaken the Church of England to its centre. First of all, Dr. Pusey, dig- ging up an old statute, reorganized the Board of Heresy, and excluded Dr.

Hampden: then the Board of Heresy turned round, convicted Di. Pusey himself of heresy, suspended him, from preaching for two years in Christ- church, of which he was a Canon; leaving him however at full range to preach where he pleased, and that was in the diocese of Exeter. Dr. Ramp-

den then convicted Mr. M'Mullen of heterodoxy.; but has not been able to prevent him from continuing a heterodox member of an orthodox College.

The University has deprived Mr. Ward of his degrees, because he de-

slaved that he signed the Thirty-nine Articles in a " non-natural " Sense ; but it has not on that account been able to deprive him of Isis functions as a clergyman of the Church of England. Puseyism Cannot be crushed by making martyrs of its votaries : let the same indulgence be *extended to every other "ism," and make Puseyism in- nocuous by depriving it of singularity. Mr. Christie exposed the ab- surdity of the distinctions of rank--the delay of seven years before a ple- beian can be Master of Arts at Cambridge, while persons of noble or royal blood obtain the degree in two years, as if there were a noble road to learn- ing!--distinctions of dress—the nobleman's golden tuft at Oxford, the game of the " tuft-hunter "—the nobleman's purple and gold gown at Cambridge —" pieta pandit spectacula cauda "—worn half a dozen times, and be- coming the perquisite of his college tutor; the fines for non-attendance in chapel, making an alternative between prayers and payments; the dis-

tinctions of table, &c. In 1837, the Chancellors of both the Universities made promises to Lord Radnor, in Parliament, that the Colleges should revise their statutes.: at Cambridge, five Colleges have done so; at Oxford, none. Mr. Christie cited cases to prove the necessity of a revision—

The. fellowships and scholarships were originally founded for the benefit of the poor: a scholarship founded by Su. Thomas Pope, in Trinity College, Oxford, ex-

pressly forbidden to be held by the .younger member of any noble family, was filled up by Mr. Hobart, nephew and heir presumptive to the Earl of Bucking- hamshire. In the case of an election at Exeter College, the candidates were re- quired to produce testimonials, and underwent an examination of four days; at the end of which time, however, to the astonishment of all, the Rector and Fel- lows announced, the election to have fallen upon another person who was not a

candidate, who had produced no testimonials, undergone no examination, and had

not even been present. One of the rejected candidates, Mr. Rowe, appealed to the Bishap-ofErseter. The Bishop could not obtain a sight of the statutes, of which

there is only one copy, and that is kept sacred,--even the Visite/. must ask per- mission to see it; but extracts were sent to the Bishop. He pronounced judg- ment, declaring that he had no power of interference; but in doing so, he implied a strong censure on the procedure. Mr. Rowe was a second-class man; the suc- cessful candidate was a third-class man, but he held Puseyite sentiments, which exist in great strength among the Fellows of Exeter College. And there hap-

pened on the same day, in the same college, another election on another founda- tion, in which the same process of testimomalcandexainination was gone through; and the election was, notwithstanding, declared to be in favour of a gentleman who could not get testimonials, having been rusticated for an offence contra bonos mores. This gentleman bore an honoured Puseyite name.

Mr. Christie appealed to the Premier, to whom all the recent great triumphs of religions liberty are owing, not to refuse inquiry. He ap- pealed even to Sir Robert Inglis himself, Member for the University of Oxford—

He must see that this question is now in a very different position from what it was when it was last agitated in this House ten years ago—when Puseyism was a name unknown—when Tract No. 90 was yet unwritten—when no one had ven-

tured to whisper even, mach less to coiturut to irrevocable print, that he sub- serThed the Articles in a non-natural sense: and his strong sense of justice must

recoil from a aritens which harbours Roman Catholic conformity proscribes Protestant Dissenters—which complacently sees college-rooms fitted up with confessionals, and shops in Oxford filled with rosaries and crucifixes to slake the Roman Catholic thirst of the Protestant youth of Oxford, but has not yet pro-

=any restitution of her old monastic cloisters, fit even for the education of a Catholic priesthood, so that you are compelled to propose additional en- dowments for Maynooth—which has no open relations with Rome, but is in close alliance with the Pope of Newmania at Littlemore—which admits Mr. Newman and Mr. Oakeley, and excludes Dr. Wiseman and Dr. Lingard.

He asked, how the Universities had fulfilled their duties as stewards of the nation's philosophical and literary renown? Once they monopolized all learning, when all learning consisted in Aristotle. And how long after Bacon's great work did Aristotle linger in the schools? How is Oxford or Cambridge connected with the Augustan age of our literature? Of whom could they boast when Edinburgh could exhibit Leslie, Play air, Gregory, and Dugald Stewart? At the present day, in speculative philosophy, the chief men, such as Mr. Bailey of Sheffield, and Mr. John Mill, a public servant from an early age to the Court of East India Directors, are uncon- nected with the Universities. In science and literature, the. Dissenting Pintestants, Dr. Faraday, Dr. Pye Smith, and others—in history, the Ca- tholic Dr. Lingard—have been excluded from the Universities, Mr. Christie

alluded to the unequivocal signs of weariness exhibited by the. Queen when she recently witnessed some of the antiquated ceremonies at Cambridge; and hoped that she had then conceived. the desire to exercise the power which the law.gives her, of infusing new life and vigour into the seats of learning.

'Sir ROBERT INGL/S (the Member for Oxford University) opposed the motion. He admitted the right of the Crown to issue the Commission: he acknowledged the wealth of the Universities: but it certainly is not on account of the enormous contributions of the State that Mr. Christie could claim the visitorial powers of the. Crown, for in no country does the State give so small a proportion of its income for the support of learning; and no abase had been shown in. the disposal of the funds to render inquiry neces- sary. The object of the present measure was to enforce ulterior measures

on the Universities. It is the preaminence of the two. Universities that attracts attention; for he defied Mr. Christie to show, within the last three centuries, any distinguished man who was unconnected with either of the two Universities. Sir Robert contended, however, that men pre not com- pelled to pass through the Universities to attain professional distinction: it is notoriously not so in law, and three out of the last six High Chancellors hid not been there: in the Church, men are admitted to holy orders from other places—as the College of Durham, and the College of St. Bees.. The cases of Dr. Hampden, Dr. Pusey, and Mr. Ward, were not sr/belated to the. University: they were decided by the Convocation; and no inquiry into the University could alter the result. With respect to Mr. Rowe, the facts were these. The statutes of Exeter College re- quire all persons to be, " ad proficiendum, in literis aptiores, in mo- nbus honestaores, in facultatibus fortiores ": in one of these requisites, he did not know which, Mr. Rowe failed; but the gentleman appointed had been examined in the previous year. With respect to the classes of the candidates, the third-class man of one year might be absolutely more proficient than the second-class man of another: you cannot tell, unless you know with whom each competed. Sir. Robert. made some passing strictures on the Bishop of Exeter for neglecting the advice given to the Colonial Jidge—to pronounce his decision without stating his reasons, for hie decision was sure to be good, while ten to one his reasons would be

bad. The pledge given to Lord Radnor has not been neglected: the Eta; totes in Oxford are in course of revision, and sixteen of the twenty-one " titles" have been revised: but though the governing body can revise, it cannot alter the statutes, a power which rests with Convocation; and unless Mr. Christie could prove the Crown to have the power of enforcing alteration, the inquiry would be nugatory. Nothing but an act of Parliament could override and overthrow the power of Convo- cation. Sir Robert combated at much length the position that an Universities are accountable for their property as having been derived from Roman Catholics: the greater number of fellowships and livings are of Protestant foundation; of the professorships, but one at Oxford, and but one in four at Cambridge, were founded by Catholics. He asked if Mr. Christie would make the attendance at lectures compulsory? and he challenged comparison with any universities as to the attainments of the graduates in classical literature, logic, history, and that most impor- tant of all subjects of human inquiry, religion. Such searching examiner tion in theology is now made before any degree can be attained, as fifty years ago would not have been expected from a candidate for holy orders The colour of the gown and the tuft, about which Mr. Christie had been so amusing, did not prevent Lord Lyttelton nor the Earl of Burlington (Chancellor of London University) from attaining the highest honours at Cambridge and Oxford; while on the other hand, humble origin is no bar to advancement—as in the instance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was a servitor in his college. No case had been made out for the motion.

Mr. GOULBURN (Member for Cambridge University) followed with simi- lar arguments against the motion. As a member of the Government, be objected to resorting to commissions to gratify individual curiosity or indi- vidual difference of opinion; for putting upon trial implies censure in the first instance: and although the methods of education at English and Con- tinental Universities may be fair subjects for deliberation and comparison among literary men, they do not warrant the interposition of Parliament. Such an inquiry would unsettle the minds of the professors, disturb the studies of the scholars, and perhaps produce even lasting ill effects. Nos have improvements been neglected at Cambridge: certain oaths have been abrogated, and an inoffensive declaration substituted; and the statutes are undergoing revision.

Among the opponents of the motion was Mr.. ALEXANDER Hose, who characterized Mr. Christie's speech as being more adapted to the leading columns of the Examiner or the Spectator than to the House of Commons; and then he enlarged on the " danger" of sending down a Commission paid to find fault. Mr. Hume did not know whether Mr. Christie would appear in the Spectator or the Examiner; but Mr. Hope might consider himself lucky if he did not occupy a conspicuous place in Punch.

On a division, the motion was negatived, by 143 to 82.

SPEAR,FRS IN TUE FOREGOING DEBATE. For Irsquiry—Xr. Christie, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Wyse, Mr. Hume, Lord Palmerston. Against it—Sir Robert Hoar Inglis, Mr. Alexander Beresford Hope, Mr. Gonlburn.

AUCTION-DUTIES.

The House of Commons went into Committee upon the Excise Acts, on Monday; when Mr. GOULBURN brought forward the repeal of the Auction- duties; reiterating reasons cited for it by Sir Robert Peel in hie financial statement

The report of the Excise Commission pointed out the Auction-duties as the first that ought to be repealed, or at least greatly modified. The tax is particu- larly oppressive on those least able to bear it. In two cases that recently came under his observation, two estates of nearly equal value (say 100,0001.) were taken by devise and sold. In one case, the property was encumbered to the extent of 90,0001., liabilities, which had to be met by the proceeds of the sale: the duty paid on the whole amount was 3,000/4 leaving about 7,0001. for the vendor. The other estate was without any luau/it/ranee, and the owner of it put it up to auction with the objeet merely, as he stated, of estimating its value: he, however, evaded paying the duty of 3,000/ upon it by withdrawing it from the sale, and then disposed of it by private contract. The tax hae been felt to be so op- pressive that Parliament have allowed forty-one classes of exemption; so that out of 45,000,0001 of property annually transferred by sale at auction, 37,000,000/ is exempt. Yet the property exempt from the tax is not exempt from the restric- tions entailed by the tax: the auctioneer must give the same notices, the same catalogues, and the same bonds, as in the case of property that would ultimately pay the duty. While the tax produces 300,0001., 50,0001. is paid in the Iection. The greatest evil is the general combination among all classes to evade the impost; which. is generally successful—especially by those who might boat endure it. For example, cattle sold on the fanner's own land are exempt frau duty; and large farmers hire land in the immediate vicinity of towns in ardor that cattle may be sold. upon.* which of course the small farmers ciniset do. At present, the auctioneer takes out a general licence on paying 51.; but Leis obliged to take out special licences for the sale of particular articles, so that his licences will often cost him SOL in the year; and he is subject to other burdens-- annual bonds to the Excise, providing two securities for the payment of duties, &c. From all these burdens he will ROW be exempt, on taking out a general' licence at a cost of 151.

In reply to Mr. DAWES, Mr. GOULBURN added, that M a fawn only the member actually selling need take, out a licence.

Mr. BANEES opposed the motion. He could suggest more efficient relief for the same sum of money than that proposed by Government, especially as burdens of the most serious nature are about to be imposed on the landed interest: the bill to regulate the fees of Justices' Clerks will augment the county-rates; the Parochial Settlement Bill will increase the poor-rates. Sir James Graham has referred with triumph to the apparent diminution of poor-rates: but that appearance is fallacious; for the farmers now employ more labour than they actually require, rather than send those they em- ploy to the Union Workhouse. The establishment of lunatic asylums, Mr.

Mackinnon's bill for abolishing smoke, and the projeoted museums of art, will all throw additional expense on the county-rates. The local rates

are a great burden on the poor, especially to such as do not belong to the

parish -in which they live. In a parish near Dorchester, for instance, lives a blacksmith, who rents a tenement at 51. a year: he earns about 5s. a

week, on which both he and a sickly daughter have to live; and he bas

been assessed to the poor-rate at 2s. or 2e. 6d. Mr. Bankes had very slender hopes of being able to effect a change of opinion on this subject in the occupants of the Ministerial bench; but with respect to the Opposition

he had better grounds of hope, for with Lord John Russell originated lise principle of giving relief to the county-rate. He appealed to the members- of the Anti:Corn-law League, in whose sincerity of purpose he put fa faith; urging the manufacturers to support a measure that would increase the prosperity of the agriculturists, upon which they allege their own to depend. The proposal of remission does not give universal satisfaction;

for of 4,000 auctioneers in England, only about 500 pay for a larger licence than the Si, general licence. Mr. Mussmu GtnsoN acknowledged the concurrence of interests men- tioned by Mr. Bankes, but could not think his proposal a modest one. The "agricultural interest" comprises labourers, farmers, and landowners.

The rates do not press severely on the labourer. When the farmers com- plain of them before Magistrates, they are always told of such burdens, that they axe mere portions of rent, intercepted on its way from the pocket of the tenant to the pocket of the landowner. Mr. Bankes's proposal, there- fore, was simply one to add to the rents received by the landed proprietors.

He believed that it was brought forward in consequence of a "pressure from without," which the honourable gentleman could not withstand. The Agricultural Members have let " grease " and "lard" slip through their fingers, and this motion was an effort to be restored to lost favour. They were suffering from having tampered with the constituencies—

They were now suffering for saying that a policy would be pursued which never could be maintained, and which the present head of the Government had never said would be pursued. On the contrary, he had heard the right honour- able gentleman, in Opposition, express the Free-trade principles which had been ex- pounded by him when in power. He remembered the right honourable gentleman, as 1839, saying that "the Corn-law formed no element in the value of the land? And what was the consequence of such and similar declarations? The Conser- vative politicians in the manufacturing districts sought support for him on prin- ciples the very opposite of extreme protection proclaimed among the agriculturists. They then said, that the right honourable gentleman, if he obtained power, would go much further for free trade than he had done. The Agricultural Members, for their own purposes, promised " protection"; whilst the Conservative manufacturers, Who were in favour of free trade, at the same time said that he would go much further than he had done. Now the consequences were coming upon those Agri- cultural Members. He advised them, if be might be allowed to do so, that the Corn-law and the protective system would not last; that neither this Minister nor that Minister would adhere to that policy which they had thought fit to pro- pond for electioneering purposes,

The people might prefer a great bill of indictment against the landed interest, the landlords—

They told them of the National Debt, and of the amount of taxes which should be raised to pay the interest of that debt; but they never told them how much they had got of those immense sums of money raised, and which constituted the National Debt. The huidlords got the whole of the purchase-money for corn, timber, provisions, and the other necessaries of the war—articles purchased at high prices, and that brought extraordinary profits into the pockets of the land-

lords. The landed interest got a peat proportion of that debt in-the shape of large profits. Instead of accumulating capital, they chose to live upon it: they

put mortgages upon their property; and now the country was called upon to keep

up the price of corn to pay the interest on those mortgages. The landed interest had got monopolies of various kinds. The Church was theirs; the greater pro- portion of all the pickings of the Court was theirs. They had the advantage of

returning Ministers; they kept them in power; and, through that power, they had tKe whole of the Diplomatic service at their command. Their acres grew not only wheat and barley; they also grew places, pensions, and sinecures. The mere possession of acres was the great qualification for forming Administrations; and it was certain it obtained for them places and pensions. They were to see now whether the day might not soon approach when the mercantile interest would seek to be placed on the same level of -clety with them. Mr. STAFFORD O'Brunts reproached Mr. Gibson with attacking the Church and the Court. There is no proof, when vacancies occur, that the

Agricultural constituencies are disgusted with their- Members. However, he saw no practical good likely to arise from Mr. Bankes's proposition. In fact, the proposition was nothing.more than to take this money and throw it on the floor of the House for a general scramble; in which the agricul- turists were not likely to succeed.

- Mr. FRANCIS Trroatirms, BARING contended, that the remission of the Auction-duty was not the best way to dispose of the 300,0001.: it does not so seriously affect the poorer classes as the duty on soap. The average cost of soap to poor families in Yorkshire, Norfolk, Gloucestershire, and Wiltshire, is 2 per cent on their whole expenditure: the price paid by the poorer classes is 471. a ton, on which the duty is 141. 14s., or more than 30 per cent. The control of the Excise over the manufacture of soap is such as to interfere with every improvement. The Commissioners of Excise Inquiry proposed the remission of id. out of the present lid.; a sacrifice of 250,0001. would enable the House to effect that remission. In 1837, when Lord Monteagle proposed to take off the duty on newspapers, Mr. Goul- burn made a most conclusive speech against taking it off newspapers, and for taking it off soap. Without therefore adopting Mr. Bankes's ground of resistance, Mr. Baring would negative the motion to repeal the Auction- duties.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM denied that the bill for regulating the fees of Jus- tices' Clerks, or the Parochial Settlement Bill, would increase the county- rates; and he treated as absurd Mr. Bankes's proposal to postpone the re- mission of a tax on account of some future and contingent burdens which he thought likely to fall on the agricultural interest.

The motion was also supported by Mr. HUME and Mr. MONTAGU GORE; resisted by Mr. DARBT.

Lord JowN RUSSELL regarded the question before the House to be, whether Government had made the best selection of taxes for remission. According to Sir Robert Peel's statement, if the present motion were carried, the surplus revenue would be reduced to about 90,0001. Mr. Ewart intended to propose a reduction of the duty of 50 per cent on butter and cheese, which would involve a sacrifice of revenue to the extent of 100,0001. or 120,0001.; but if the present motion were carried, Lord John should feel obliged to vote against Mr. Ewart's motion. Mr. Gladstone had admitted that the duty on butter and cheese could not be defended; but he said that Govern- ment had not proposed their reduction because they did not possess an ex- cess of revenue which would justify such a measure. Of course, if they could afford to redqce those duties, they would have the right honourable gentleman's concurrence. Lord John thought that a surplus revenue of 290,0001. would not be too great a "margin" to allow for adverse times; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should propose a reduction of the Soap-duties, he would not promise his vote, because he did not like to see the surplus revenue reduced • to so , low an ebb. If the House should de- termine to remit the Auction-duty—which he would not defend—he should not be disposed to vote for any further reduction of taxation this session. Sir ROBERT PEEL concurred, and counted upon Lord John Russell's Aid in resisting proposals for further reduction of taxes. Sir Robert re- sninded the landowners,. that if the present motion was rejected, Lord John Russell would be at liberty to vote for reducing the taxes on-butter and .cheese. Mr. COBDEN remarked, that he had never said anything so severe ita that to the country gentlemen. He knew that he had said that there ought to be placed up an inscription over the door of the House, to the effect that " Here are dealers in corn and cattle, who allow no competition on the other side of the water"; but he never said to the country gentle- men, " You are a set of cheesernongers." Sir Trrostas DYKE Amass) warsly reproved Mr. Cobden for misinterpreting a jocular remark; and Mr. LABOUCHERE maintained that he had taken the remark not in 4 jocular but in a serious sense.

The House divided, and the motion was negatived, by 167 to 30; ma- jority, 137.

Mr. Bunn objected to raising the charge for general licences from Si. to 151.; and he proposed 71. 10s. After a short but active discussion, Mr. Gousinfax agreed to a compromise, and the cost was fixed at 101.

The Committee agreed to a resolution proposed by Mr. Gotrusuass for reducing the duty on home-made sugar to 14s. the hundredweight; and the House resumed.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.

On Tuesday, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, with a brief introduction, moved the following resolution, the same that he moved last year-

" That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, representing, that in the opinion of this House it is desirable to obtain authentic information upon va- rious matters connected with the agriculture of the United Kingdom; that this information is altogether deficient, so that at this time even the extent of land under cultivation, and the amount of its produce, are subjects only of vague conjecture• that the total absence of all statistical knowledge in reference to this important subject has at various times proved detrimental to the public interests; and praying her Majesty to devise some measures for supplying to Parliament, from tune to time, statements of the breadth of land under cultwas tion for each species of produce respectively, with the amount of produce derived from the same, together with such information as will exhibit, as far as prac- ticable, a perfect view of the agricultural capability and production of the United Kingdom?

Sir GEORGE CLERK admitted the importance of the subject, and the de- sirableness of obtaining the information; but it would be extremely difficult to procure accurate returns. The late President of the Bond of Trade (Mr. Gladstone) applied, last autumn, to the Poor-law Commissioners, and through them to the various Boards of Guardians; but the reply was, that the Boards found so many difficulties placed in their way as to be unable to make any satisfactory returns.

In the desultory conversation, rather than debate, which ensued, the expediency of endeavouring to procure the returns was enforced by several of the Liberal Members; while the difficulties were urged by those on the opposite side, and especially by some Agricultural Members. Mr. GLAD- STONE stated, that Lord Sydenham had failed to obtain similar information through the clergy: some of whom had made very good answers to the questions put, some defective answers, and some no answers 'at all—pro- bably on account of their other avocations. He thought that the first question to be' considered was, whether they could ascertain the breadth of land laid under each of the principal articles of agricultural produce; to which he did not see any insuperable difficulties. He would advise an application to the Poor-law Guardians on that subject. By speli h step they would manifest their confidence in them, and do much towarlis die= arming jealousy and dispelling suspicion as to the intentions of the State.

Having been counselled to leave the matter in the hands of Govern- ment for the present, Mr. MILNER GIBSON asked, whether Ministers would say, that if they found any great difficulty in striking out a plan, they would grant him a Committee to discuss the practicability of the different plans? Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the Executive Government might be able to mature plans more conveniently than a Committee; but if, upon further consideration of their exertions, Mrs Gibion should be of opinion that the plan could be better worked Out by a Committee, he would have no objection to the appointment. - The motion was withdrawn.

LETTER-OPENING AT THE POST-OFFICE.

On Tuesday, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved for leave to bring in a bill to secure the inviolability of letters passing through the Post-office. At the outset, he declared that he should abstain from every personal application; as it was with the system alone that he was now going to war. The COm- mittee of the Lords stated, that the power to open letters had been fully re- cognized in the Secretary of State from a very' early period, and expressly in the statute of the 9th of Anne c. 10.; but he had the best authority for stating that the existence of a law to justify the exercise of that power had never been proved. All that was done by the act was, to relieve the servant of the Post-office from a misdemeanour in detaining or opening any letters. It left the legality of the warrant totally and entirely untouched, just the same as in the case of a constable who produces his warrant is exonerated from all responsibility as to the legality of that warrant. The act of the 1st of Victoria also left that part of the law untouched. And though letters might have been stopped in the Post-office, there was no proof that at former periods private letters were opened, and forwarded after the exami- nation of their contents; there was no proof that such a system of fraud and forgery had been practised by former Governments. Any utility de- rivable from the practice, in checking treasonable plots, must have been- destroyed by the recent exposure; for no man would be such an idiot or fool as to send correspondence of that kind through the Post-office. Such a power exists in no other free country—not in Belgium, France, the United .. States, Canada, nor in our Colonies: it is preserved only in England, Ire= land, and Scotland. Sir Robert Walpole said, it was a power to be exer- cised only in a time of great commercial danger. Lord Sidmouth refused to open the letters of a fugitive banker's clerk, who had committed forgery: he considered the Post-office as so sacred that he would not allow even the superscription of a letter to be seen.

He could not give a stronger instance of the demoralizing effects which the

exercise of such a power had on those who were engaged in the Post-office, than a notice which was put up in the Post-office some months ago, after the discovery that some letter-carriers had opened the letters addressed to certain sporting gentlemen. The offenders were simply dismissed. Here men committed an offenee for which the law awarded the punishment of transportations but the Post-office authorities, in consequence of . the exposures which had taken place, were afraid of the consequences of a prosecution. - The defence, or. rather the plea in mitigation, which those letter-carriers would set up,in case of a prosecu- tion, would be, that they had. only dene,what their superiors had done..

Dr. BO RING seconded the motion; and in 'doing so, asked. Sir. James Graham if he had made further inquiries into the vague charges against Mr. Mazsini, and was, prepared to make reparation to:that gentleman? Sir James GRAHAM had made some inquiries: he had been informed, from a high quarter, that Mr. Mazzini had threatened a prosecution against

the Nor:item, and also against another paper; but that such prosecutions had not been instituted. When he received any further information on the subject, he would make a full statement of its nature to the House. Mr. Duncombe had placed the question in the fairest light before the House, and many of his positions had Sir James's entire concurrence. He agreed that the law must either be unaltered or wholly abrogated; and he admit- ted that the power was odious, and to be viewed with great jealousy: but he altogether dissented from the position that this power was first given by the statute of Anne- lle maintained that the inverse of the statement made by the honourable gentleman on that point was the fact. No doubt, the opening of a letter was a great moral offence, and one exciting the strongest feelings of disapprobation against the persons so violating confidence. But until the statute of Anne it was the prerogative of the Crown to open letters; and it was notorious that the Go- vernment, whenever there was a grave suspicion, did without hesitation open the letters of the suspected parties; and until the statute of Anne, so far from its being a legal offence, the opening of letters was not only not a Misdemeanour, but was not even the ground of 'a civil action. It was under the statute of Anne, as it was now under that of Victoria, a misdemeanour to open letters except under the warrant of a Secretary of State; and he conceived that if those statutes were repealed, the effect would be that the opening of letters would not only not be a misdemeanour, but would not be an act cognizable by law. Great improvements had taken place in the practice with regard to such warrants; and lie promised further improvements— Since the time of Lord Sidmouth, in 1806, all warrants were carefully pre- served; and no Secretary of State could now issue a warrant without three per- sons as well as himself being cognizant of the issue; and as a check upon the exercise of that power by the Secretary of State, there was kept in the Post-office a copy of the written warrant. He did not think this a fit subject for enactment; but so far as regulation went he should be willing on the part of the Government to adopt a rule; and he had no doubt that those who had preceded, and those who should follow him, would consider it a proper regulation to make the practice with regard to political warrants similar to that with respect to warrants in cri- minal cases, and to leave upon record the reasons for the issue of every political warrant, as was at present done in the case of criminal warrants.

With respect to the practice of other countries, there is in France, and every country in Europe except England, a check upon admitting foreign- era; and if when they were admitted they were guilty of misconduct, there was a power of removing them. He did not ask for the renewal of such a power in this country; but the Government should have some check upon their correspondence, if this country was made the focus of intrigues and plots for the disturbance of the peace of Europe. He reluctantly opposed the motion.

Lord Joint Russeam did not quite agree either with Mr. Duncombe or Sir James Graham. He thought that there was great force in Mr. Dun- combe's observation, that this power, having been questioned in the House and in the country, would never again be of the same utility as in former times: but he had come, after considerable investigation, to the same con- clusion with Sir James Graham as to the law on the subject, and he thought that parties should not be Snowed to carry on treasonable correspondence through the Post-office. He understood that Lord Radnor had prepared a bill which would give to the Crown the power of opening letters after in- formation taken upon oath, and that Lord Denman had sanctioned that pro- positioni to such a measure he should be prepared to give his vote.

Lord llowicx believed that the power of opening letters might safely and even usefully exist, provided the system of secrecy were abolished; and a clause to that effect might be introduced into the bill at a subsequent stage. Under the present system the danger of abuse was greater than the advantages that would result from its use. The present system of forging seals and of defacing post-marks were, what Mr. Disraeli had said of ano- ther subject, an organized and legalized hypocrisy. He was told that the power was exercised openly in foreign nations. In Austria particularly, letters which are opened are refastened with a Post-office seal.

On a division, the motion was negatived, by 161 to 78. SPEAKERS IN TUE FOREGOING DEBATE. For Mr. Duncombe's Bill—Mr. Duncombe, Dr. Bowring, Lord Howick, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Hume. Against it .-Sir James Graham, Lord John Russell.

INTERMENT IN TOWNS.

On Tuesday, Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the Mechanics Institute of the working-classes of Manchester, which stated that the peti- tioners worked hard, lived hard, and died hard; and that they considered it hard indeed that their families should be put to an enormous expense for interring them, yet that their remains should notwithstanding be desecrated. He then moved the following resolution- " That in the opinion of this House, the practice of interments within the pre- cincts of densely-populated districts is injurious to the health of the inhabitants, also frequently offensive to public decency, and to social and religious feelings, and that some legislative enactment should be framed to prevent the practice, with due regard to vested rights." The first to draw attention to interment in towns were the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They said, that the practice of burying in churches and chancels was injurious in some instances, offensive in others; that in some cases the walls of the fabric were weakened; that they had been found to affect the health and life of the inhabitants; and that it would be much better that the practice should be discontinued, so far as it could be effected without trenching on vested rights. A Committee had been nominated by that House in 1842, and they had reported unanimously in favour of dis- continuing the practice. Before that Committee, Sir Benjamin Brodie de- dared that the crowded state of the grave-yards was the cause of fever in the metropolis; and Dr. Chalmers mentioned that typhus was not only generated in the immediate neighbourhood of the grave-yards, but often through the towns. Sir James Graham thought that interments in large towns were innocuous; and he appointed a Commissioner to inquire into it—Mr. Chadwick; who reported that all such interments generate impure air, and are attended with bad consequences. If the House wanted proof of the bad consequences, it might be found in a letter which he had received from Mr. George Brace, Principal of Clement's Inn-

" Within one-eighth of a mile from Lincoln's Inn," said Mr. Brace' " and abut- ting on St. Clement's Inn, is a building known as Enon Chapel, now used by what IS called a Temperance Society, in the morning for an infant-school, and at night as an assembly-room for dancing. The building measures less than sixty by twenty-nine feet; and the part occupied by the living is separated from the place of interment—a cellar—by an indifferently-constructed wooden floor, the rafters of which are not even protected with lath and plaster. From 1823 to 1840, it is stated and believed that upwards of 10,000 bodies were deposited in the cellar; not one fiftieth part of which could have been crammed into it in separate coffins, had not a common sewer, contiguous to the cellar, afforded facilities for removal of the old as 'sew supplies arrived. In the cellar there are now human remains; and

the stench which at 'times issues through the floor is so intolerable as to render it absolutely necessary that the windows in the lantern-roof should be kvt° pen. During the summer months a peculiar insect makes its appearance- and in the adjoining very narrow thoroughfare, called St. Clement's Lane, densely inhabited by the poor, 1 need scarcely inform you that fever, cholera, and other diseases, have prevailed to a frightful extent. Over the masses of putrefaction to which I have alluded are children, varying in number from one hundred to two hundred, huddled together for hours at a time; and at night the children are succeeded by

persons who continue dancing over the dead till three or four o'clock in the morn- ing. A band of music is in attendance during the whole night, and cards are played in a room adjoining this chapel charnel-house. The Police have declined to interfere, alleging that the building does not come under the description of a place of amusement, as defined by the act of 25 Gawp IL c. 36." The number of persons buried in the United -Kingdom is 1,000 a day; in the Metropolis 1,000 a week—equal in twenty years to 1,040,000 per-

sons. Now, how is it possible, within the precincts of London, in twenty years to have that number crammed into their grave-yards without danger to the health of the inhabitants? If he carried his abstract resolution, he should bring in a bill on the subject.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion—

Let them remember, that whilst they had been occupied in mere party squabbles, inquiries directed by themselves had proved the people in the towns to be living in filth, in squalor, and in misery, that were almost incredible had they not been so distinctly proved. It was discreditable to them, as a nation of civi- lized and Christian men, that these things should be. They were shocked at the descriptions of the inhabitants of savage nations putting each other to death; but how much more shocking was it to think, that in a civilized country like this, as it had been proved by facts which could not be contradicted nor denied, that by their own ignorance and apathy they were causing the death of thousands of their fellow-citizens.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM feared, that from what appeared to him the ex- aggerated views entertained on the subject, he should disappoint his honourable friend. It was because he was alive to the importance of the subject, and especially to the wants and feelings of the humbler classes, that he hesitated to pledge himself to such a measure as that suggested.

With regard to the feelings of the poor, it is no easy or safe matter to declare at once by act of Parliament that people should no longer be buried in those places in which the remains of their kindred lie. The customs of foreign countries are not applicable to the question: in foreign countries, there was no hesitation on the part of the people in large cities to adopt means for the more rapid decomposition of human remains—burning, lime, and other things, are had recourse to for that purpose—which in this country. would not be tolerated. But, indeed, he was not prepared to admit that the public health was endangered: for all that had been stated, he believed it

was an undoubted fact that there was no metropolis in Europe in which, looking at the density of the population, the public health was preserved BO well as in London.

He had the authority of the Bishop of London for saying, that when Dr, Blomfield was Rector of Bishopsgate he resided in the rectory, which was

mediately contiguous to the churchyard; and that during that period, bimse]f, hia wife, and family, which was a large one, never enjoyed more perfect health. Then again, there are the rectories of St. James's and St. Giles's, both contiguous to

churchyards; but he did not believe any complaint of ill-h6alth on the part of the residents as resulting from that contiguity had ever been beard. Again, in the immediate vicinity of that House there wee a-chnrcliyerd; but he had never heard that the houses in Great George Street, or the other homes near St. Margaret's Churchyard, were unhealthy; on the contrary, he believed there was no part of the Metropolis in which the health of the people was so well preserved. In reference to the Spafields burial-ground, he had thought it necessary to institute a prosecution; and that matter was now pending. The law too, would be found strong enough to grapple with the case of Enon Chapel. With respect to the suggestions that had been made the Ecclesiastical Commissioners reported only against interments in Churches; and the Sanatary Commissioners glanced incidentally at the subject, but did not propose any specific remedy. Mr. Chadwick proposed that burials within the precincts of towns should be prohibited; that the office should be taken out of the hands of private individuals, and conducted by Government, the expense to be met by a parochial assessment. Nothing had more con- vinced Sir James Graham of the extreme difficulty of dealing with the subject than those very propositions which Mr. Chadwick had made. It had been said, that among the most determined opponents of any change was the Church: on the contrary, he believed that the Bishop of London had turned his attention to the subject with the view of introducing a measure directly to accomplish the object of Mr. Mackinnon's bill; but he felt that the utmost caution was necessary in dealing with the question. He wished that, instead of moving an abstract resolution, Mr. Mackinnon had at once introduced his bill, to which full attention should be given; though Sir James must certainly oppose the adoption of any such resolu- tions.

Other Members insisted on the difficulties of dealing with the subject, and objected to the dogmatical terms of the resolution. Mr. HAWES forcibly dwelt on the difficulties which would arise from vested interests, and from the opposition of the clergy or Dissenting ministers. Dissenting ministers do not charge fees at all for burial; and being enabled to inter the

dead within a short distance of their own residences, they can do it without inconvenience. But if they were to compel these ministers to go three or four, or in some instances as many as fourteen miles, in order to perform their duties, they would be involving themselves in expenses which it would be difficult for the Legislature to provide for. Among the stoutest supporters of the motion was Lord Manow, a mem- ber of the Committee on the subject; who said, that while its difficulties had not been exaggerated, its importance had been underrated— For his own part, he could conceive no subject more essential to the health and wellbeing of towns. It was said that other measures for the purpose of pro- meting the sanatory condition of large towns were under consideration--measures for the insarernent of better draining and ventilation than were at present en- joyed. These were certainly great advantages; but they were trifles in compari- son with the subject before the consideration of the House. What was the use of introducing a better system of ventilation, if the air which they sought to make available had just passed over an infectious churchyard? What was the use of taking measures for the introduction of a better supply of water, if that water came to them corrupted and tainted in its course? He did, therefore, maintain, that the question was of the greatest importance to the health of towns and he could not Clunk that the difficulties in the way of the measure propw. were insuperable, when he recollected that this was the only capital in Europe where the system at present in use was suffered to prevail.

After the debate had proceeded for some time, Mr. Turmas Dmecowsz moved an amendment, putting the proposition in a simpler form- ' " That interment within the precincts of the Metropolis, and large cities, is injurious to the health of the public, and demands the serious attention of Parliament."

Mr. MACKINNON said, that if he had brought in a bill without a resolu- tion, after incurring 'expense by consulting legal gentlemen on the provi- sions of his measure, he would have been met on the threshold with tech- nicalities and objections of detail; whereas the resolution would elicit 'a decision on the broad fact of necessity for a change. He withdrew his own resolution, in favour of the amendment.

On that the House divided ; and the amendment was carried, by 66 to 49.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For resolving against interment in .towns—Mr. Mackinnon, Mr. Hume, Dr. Bowring, Lord Mahon, Lord Ebrington, Mr. Peter- Borthwick, Sir Robert Inglis Mr. Dmicombe. Urging difficulties—Sir James Graham, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Hawes, the Earl of Lincoln, Sir George Grey. On Wednesday, Lord EBRINOTON recurred to the subject. A Committee of the House, last session, reported thus on St. Margaret's Churchyard- " That it appeared, from evidence and from previous reports, that St. Marga- ret's Churchyard could not consistently with the health of the neighbourhood be used an longer as a burying-ground; that Mr. Atkinson had stated, that the effluvia from the graves there had been the cause of three men's deaths, and that the opinions elicited by former inquiries as to the noisonie and deleterious effluvia which proceeded from this churchyard are confirmed by the evidence of the Speaker, Dr. Reid, and Mr. Vardon, just received by the Committee ; which was to the effect that the Sjieaker could not bear his windows open when the wind came from the drains whichpass through. St. Margaret's Churchyard; and that Mr. Vardon had often observed an offensive dazzling vapour hanging over the churchyard early in the morning, which did not hang over the neighbouring pavement. The Committee go onto say, that the discontinuance of interment there is the only mode of remedy- sag these evils, and preventing the increase'of the dangerous consequences above adverted to and unanimously recommend that Parliament -should interfere for the urp of preventing burials in the churchyard of St. Margaret's:" Lord Ebrington wished to ask, whether the Government intended to 'bring in any measure hi conformity with the recommendation of the Corn- ea:blot? No answer was given to the question.

THE PEGIENSY OF RAILWAY SPECULATION.

In the House of Leads, on Monday, Lord BROUGHAM moved for returns showing the number of railway bills passed in the last ten sessions, distin- guishing those passed in each session ; the number of railway bills now pending in Parham:rat; the number of railway bills upon which the Board of Trade had reported favourably; the amount paid by the subscribers on the shares of the railway bills that had passed; and the sums per cent divided by the different railways already authorized by act of Parliament, on their respective-shares. His reason for calling their Lordships' attention to this subject was, that he was one of those who regard with the greatest alarm the present phrensy of gambling in railway-shares. It can be com- pared only to the speculation of 1825 and 1826; when Lord Liverpool, then Prime Minister, thought it necessary to warn the great body of his fellow- sethjects, that whatever the result of those speculations might be, the spe- culators must look to their own resources only, and must expect no assist- ance from Government. After the crash, Lord Lauderdale said it was no wonder that a mercantile convulsion had taken place when, in 1825, no leas-than 17,000,000/. sterling had been withdrawn 'from the mercantile employment of the country. Now it has been calculated, that if the 240 and odd railway bills now pending in Parliament were passed, not /7,000,000/, but 130,000,0001. would be required in the course of two or three years for these.speculations ; and by conferring extraordinary powers on the speculators, without which powers none of these speculations could by omy possibility be undertaken, Parliament makes itself a party to these extravagant systems of speculation. To show the extent and mischievous effect of those powers, Lord Brougham told some anecdotes-- Before the railway business was so much multiplied before Parliament, he knew an instance of a railway that was to pass near an ancient mansion in the West-of ringland. The, speculators or managers of this railway came to the proprietor of that mansion to procure his consent to the sale of a portion of his lands; and when he-asked them how much they meant to pay for fifteen acres of his ground over which the railway was to pass, they said they would not tell him until their bill was passed into a law, but that then they would give him what they might think just. The proprietor objected to be left at the mercy of the other party, besides having to consent to the nuisance of having a railway within a quarter of a mile of his house. They answered, that they did not care whether he con- tented or not; that the :railway Department of the Board of Trade had already reported in favour of the line; and that it would -be worse for himself.if he offered them any opposition. In another instance, a threat was held out,to a neighbour- ing proprietor, that.if he offered any opposition to the railway passing near his lawn, or within half a teener of a -mile of his demesne, where his family had been established since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, they would probably have it go through his kitchen-garden. In such a case the proprietor had no resource. He might be told that he could go before a jury; but jurors were now in nearly all instances mixed up with these railway speculations, and in almost every case they were known to give actually less than the companies offer in the first place. Therefore, for the gentlemen concerned to tell the proprietor who opposed them to go to a jury, and a certain other coarse expression, were nearly synonymous. (Lmghter.) He knew several instances in which the most ruinous consequences were likely to accrue to private individuals in consequence of this mania of speon- dation. In one case, a respectable clergyman, having collected about 5,0001. as a inswieion for his family, forwarded it all to a friend in town with a peremptory in to bay railway-shares with it; being, as he said, determined to qua- druple the means of support for his family in a short time. In another case, a gentleman who had 2,0001. sent it to the same friend, with instructions to borrow, if possible, 3,0001. more for him, and then to buy railway-shares for him with the whole amount. The Earl of DALHOUSIE said that every information should be given that lay within the reach of the Railway Board; but that would not in- elude the prices of shares and the amount of dividend. With much that Lord Brougham said he quite agreed— He believed the various lines submitted to Parliament this year would extend to about 7,400 miles; which would require some 140,000,0001. or 150,000,0001. of capital for their construction: but it was impossible to suppose that Parliament would sanction anything like that extent of railway speculation; and at all events they might rest assured that the subject alluded to by the noble and learned Lord would undoubtedly receive the attention of Parliament. He also knew of hard- ships. A gentleman bad been solicited to become a member of a provisional committee of a railway: he consented, and his name was entered in the adver- tisement-list of the company: the shares were, he believed, at a premium, when it occurred to the gentleman to-inquire into some of the details of the plan: he accordingly saw the section of the line, and found that the railway would pass within forty yards of the windows of a house: that house was his own: on in- sir ing of the engineer how this could have come to pass, or whether it was pox- le line could have been at all surveyed, he was told that they had surveyed one mud of the line and the other end of the line, and that on these two data they had founded their prospectus and subsequentproceedings. Hemight mention, is addition, that the railway in question was in Ireland. Lord ASHBURTON deplored the present feeling on the subject of rail- ways; a gambling which affects every family, all the institutions and in- dustry of the country. In proof of the derangement which it causes, he instanced the iron-trade-

Within the last year or eighteen months, iron had" risen 300 per cent in the market; and thenence was that all the iron manufactures of the

country were destroyed. manufacturers found tompetitors in Belgitmi and in America. Another effect was, that innumerable foundries were opened for supplying the rails for these lines; and as these would be again thrown oat of employment when the article came back to its ordinary price, the effect would be most ruinous.

The motion was affirmed.

REPRESENTATION COEXTENSIVE wrrn TAXATION. The Menu% of Tice; MANBY announced, on Monday, that he should shortly introduce a bill for at- tending the elective franchise to all persons who pay the Income-tax. They would make an admirable addition, of an enlightened and independent body, to the constituently. IMPORT-DUTTES. hi Committee on the Customs-duties, (Import BIB, Op Monday, Mr. SPOONER proposed an alteration postponing the operation of the change for a year, in order that the glass-manufacturers might prepare for it This motion was negatived -without a division, and the remaining clauses were agreed to. IMPORT-DUTIES no INDIA. Mr. Hum moved, on Monday, for the draught of an act recently promulgated by the Government in India to alter the fm duties in that country; and he asked, whether the measure originated with Sir Henry Hardinge or the Home .Govermnent? Lord Joownme did not oppose the motion; and he confessed that the measure was in the first place adopted by the Board of Contrdl. The cause of adopting it was, that it Was necessary to make up the deficiency in the revenue occasioned by the removal of the transit-duties in the Presidency of Madras, and the removal of other taxes in the two other Presidencies. The question was, whether they shouldmake op the deficiency'by increasing the taxes on the ryots and small farmers, who already were so"heavily taxed, or by imposing. duties on articles only consumed by the higher class of natives, and more particularly the British residents in India. FIELD GARDENS. The second reading of the Field Gardens Bill, on Wednes- day, was opposed by Mr. lasccrrr, as arbitrary and oppressive. The Field- Wardens to be- appointed under the bill were armed with the most preposterous powers. The rights of the owner of land seemed utterly thrown aside: he WAS neither to be allowed any discretion as to what rent he was to have, nor what quantity he was to let to a man; for the Warden, or the Commissioner under the Enclosure Act, or the Quarter-Sessions, was arbitrarily to set a price on the land; and, moreover, no man was to be permitted to have more than half in acre. Mr. Cowren defended the measure. The objections urged by Mr. Escott would be much better considered in Committee; and, so far was the bill from being compulsory, that it would depend on the choice of parishes to adopt it or not. The motion was supported by Mr. filowcwrois Maims, Sir Jan= GRAHAM, Lord JOHN Mmeraes, and Mr. JOIE( STUART WORTLEY; 'opposed by Mr. Boo-exam, and Mr. Bnoenerr Damson. On a division, the second reading was carried, by 92 to li3.

latest CONSTABULARY. Ira the House of Lordsn -Monday, the Marquis of E NeRMANRY revived a debate which was had before Easter, on the appointment of Major Priestley to be Sub-Inspector of the Constabulary; -Colonel M`Gregor, the Inspector-General, having recommended a Mr. Browning.. Lord Normanby had contended that that appointment did a wrong to Mr. Brownrigg, who had been recommended for promotion, and was counter town arrangement which the Mar- quis had-established, that a certain proportion of the promotions should be made on the recommendation of the Inspeotor-General. In that former debate, the Duke of Wellington represented -Lord Normanby as having himself been the first to departfrom that arrangement, by revoking two out of every three of the appointments placed at the disposal of the Inspector-General: in consequence of truth -slights it was that Colonel Shaw Kennedy resigned. The Marquis, moving for returns to illustrate his position, new declared that representation to be erro- neous. Lord STANLEY and the Duke of WELLINGTON maintained thatit was substantially correct; but the question was scarcely advanced by this retracing of beaten ground. Lord NORMANBY having attacked generally the Ministerial appointments in Ireland, as factious, Lord STANLEY took 'invasion to complain, that while Ministers, by introducing measures of extreme liberality, have run some risk of losing private friendship and political support, the noble Marquis thought it the best time to charge them with bigotry ! The returns, somewhat extended by desire of Lord Stanley, in order to prove that Lord Nonnanby had not observed the rule now urged, were ordered. Mn. AGLIONBY AND THE TIMES NEWSPAPER. On Wednesday, MY. AG- bromBy made an explanation in reply to the Times, which had made charges against him, on the authority of a -letter by Mr. Carrington. The Times objected that Mr. Aglionby, a shareholder in the New Zealand Company, should sit as -one of the Committee on New' Zealand; that he should have seen witnesses under examination; and that he should have seen Mr. Carrington between his examina- tions, in order to induce him to vary his evidence. Mr. Aglionby now explained. He had objected to sit on the Conunittee, but was urged to do so in order to .a full inquiry. He wished to do it without a vote, but was told that that would be contrary to practice. He had never seen Mr. Carrington to induce him to alter his evidence. Though he often met Mr. Carrington between May and July, it was on the subject of Mr. Carrington's own affairs: Mr. Carrington over and over again sought interviews with him on a demand which he bad made upon the Company. He took much trouble in this matter, and was most anxious that Mr. Carrington should meet with full justice. Mr. Carrington himself certainly did frequently introduce the subject of his giving evidence, and hinted—with what purpose he knew best—that he could say what would prejudice the Company. Mr. Aglionby always answered that he had nothing to do but -to tell the truth. Mr. Carrington was originally employed as a surveyor by the New Plymouth Company; after that .body- joined the New Zealand Company, and when the esta- blishment was reduced, Mr. Carrington was discharged. He then applied to a Mr. Barrett for a letter written by Colonel Wakefield, the Company's Agent in New Zealand, which he supposed to contain statements tending to show that the Company had not completed its purchases at the time stated or in the manner. This letter, he says, he obtained and brought to England, with a view to secure himself. Finding that the Company considered his demands to be exorbitant and untenable under his agreement, he went to the Colonial Office and to the Land and Emigration Commissioners. He was then called as a witness before the Com- mittee, by the honourable the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. In reference to a point mentioned by Mr. Carrington, Mr. Aglionby certainly referred him to the Appendix to the Twelfth Report of the Directors for an explanation; and that was all he knew about it