Debates anb igiroreebinas in Warliament.

THE IRISH CHURCH.

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, Mr. WARD brought forward his annual motion on the suhject of the Irish Church temporalities; in the new shape, however, of a Committee of the whole House to inquire. .[He spoke at considerable length, his address occupying five columns of the Morning Chronicle : but as it went over beaten ground, and con- sisted in great part of extracts from speeches and books, it will suffice to indicate rather than to trace his course.] He admitted that the subject was difficult and complicated :50 was Catholic Emancipation; but it was carried. If he bad seen any thing like a progressive policy on the part of Ministers—any intention to regard Catholic Emancipation as Mr. Pitt rtgarded it, namely, as the first of a great series of measures to ameliorate the condition of Ireland—Government would have had no warmer supporter than himself. But he ' ',whit,* that coubt to the belisaksiAtAx.,mowne...,ce A.,ere bad been' no legislation for irelsJa during the present sessitin : she only measure introduced, the Re- gistration Bill, bad been put off to the 1st July; Sir Robert Peel had alluded to a measure for facilitating endowments to Catholic churches, hut b0 more had been beard of it ; and, looking from measures to recent declarations, they had had from Government a series of declarations offensive to Ireland. Mr. Ward read many abort extracts from speeches by Lord Eliot, Sir James Gra- ham, Sir Robert Peel, and the Duke of Wellington, asserting the necessity of Protestant ascendancy; he surmising, however, that they would he obliged to nullify their nan declarations, as they bad done in the case of Catholic Eman- cipation. He cited many statistical figures, representing the total revenue of the Irish Established Church to be 650,753/, for a population of 750,000 Epis- copalians ; and he contrasted that disproportionate establishment with the eccle- siastical statistics of England and Wales. He glanced historically at the op- pressive conduct of the Church in Ireland, which had founded some of the most wealthy aristocratic families. All Ireland was divided into two classes—a sect of slaves and an oligarchy oft) tants—until, for a time, Ireland became a battle- field for English politicians; hut after the struggles bad terminated in the popular NeePopery" cry, the country was consigned a ith insolent apathy to a contemp- tuous neglect. Ten years ago he stood alone upon the subject ; hut there has since been a great and steadily progressing change: in proof of which, he referred to avowals ol opinion by Lord Hooick, Lord John Russell, Archbishop Vt. bate- ley, and the Edinburgh Bevil w ; and even Sir Robert Inglis admitted that the administration of the Claud] had long been characterized by neglect. Mr. Ward allowed that within twenty years there bad been great improvements; but there are still abuses. It did so happen that be still received very curious communications from Ireland ; in fact, his desk was a sort of receptacle for Irish Church grievances. He bad a placard sent him the other day—the ge- nuineness of which could not be disputed, for it was taken from uhere it had been stuck up on the malls of Kells—it was the announcement of a sale of the genuine effects of the late Venerable Thomas De Lacy, the Archdeacon of Meath; and among the " genuine effects" he found stated " forty thorough- bred horses and mares from three to seven years old "; " and also these just ly- celebrated and well-known sins, Sir Edward and Sir Hugh. Their reputation as hunters and steeple-cbasers were such as to render all comment unneces- sary." Besides the thoroughbreds, there were " thirteen capital working- horses, and five Spanish donkeys, three of them in foal." Besides all these. he had the announcement of a sale of digs in Dublin. There were " thirty couples of beagles, the handsomest and of the hest blood in Ireland"; and then "there were thirteen pair of grey hounds, mell.known in Meath." All these were the property of the same reverend gentleman. (Laughter.) Mr. Ward read a letter from the Reverend N. 31.Evoy, who had forwarded this placard, and who contrasted his own arduous labours and scanty pittance with Arch- deacon De Lacy's mode of life. Mr. \s rd admitted that Archdeacon De Lacy zaa an exceedingly kind, liberal, and popular man ; but it was the system that he comm.:nova. - He denied that the Act of Unian need he any bar to an adjustment of the Church question. There was no compact to prevent it. The Catholics were not consulted in 1829; but if there was any compact it was between those of the Tory party favourable to Emancipation and those opposed to it. At the time of the Union itself there was no compact against concession, but a distinct compact that concession should follow that act. Every assurance which could bind an honourable mind was given by Mr. Pitt to the Catholics, that, if they consented to the amalgamation of the two Par- liaments, the first step of the United Senate would be to grant Emancipation. That Mr. Pitt was sincere he proved by his resignation when he was prevented from fulfilling this engagement. He meant the Union to be what h never was, not merely an incorporation of the two Parliainents, but an amalgamation of the two people ; a virtual rescinding of the itct of Settlement, and a means of reconciling use House of Slaitover with its Catholic subjects. Domicil :Loon end the payment of the .eleitei were airiiudiy premised by Lord Corn% &Ilia. Whoever looked et the VOW debates, wauldsee these promises pervaded the whole. 'When Mr. Pitt's Cabinet retired front office, Le assured the Catholics that they might with confidence rely upon the future support of an those who retired, and of many who remained in ffice; 3 et there are men to this day who prostitute the name of Pitt by coupling it with "Protestant ascendancy." Sir Robert Peel himself clearly %resew that Catholic Emancipation must be fol- lowed by settlement of the Church question; and Mr. Ward now asked him, bow he meant to deal with this difficulty ? Did he mean to obey such advisers as the Reverend Hugh Al'Neile, who was for reimposing civil disabilities on the Catholics, or of Mr. Glover, who was for summarily converting the 7,000,000 of Irish Catholics by Government proclamation ? Would he make the Catho- lic oath more stringent ? Or did be mean to rely on the success of the prosecu- thins—did be think the partial success over the "convicted conspirators" was likely to contribute to the peace of Ireland ? There was a deep, sullen, dogged feeling of dislike to England, and distrust of its justice. There was a general belief, if O'Connell had been tried here, be would have been acquitted; that he was imprisoned because he was an Irishman and tried in Dublin. " I saw no sign of discouragement, no disposition to ask unworthy favours of the Crown, even to release the most eminent man of his age and country. They bide their time; if there should be war abroad, the struggle would be not for Repeal but separation. The sympathies of Ireland are not with us. Are those of Europe? Rush Ireland is our Poland. Not inertly Catholic Belgium, or France, but the world, condemns us. Among the rest, Prussia and Switzerland. The wisest essay on Ireland I ever read was in the Bibliotheque de Geneve,' and it urges a total change of policy as regards our Catholic fellow-subjects. In Prussia, there is the work of Venedey. How can they sympathize with Eng- lard in supporting exclusion by a code no cruel that Judge Jebb remarked, *You might track Ireland through the statute-book ltke a wounded man through a crowd; by blood '? They see us at once profuse and niggardly, voting 800.000/. a year for the emancipated Blacks, and haggling here about an annual vote of 8,000/. a year for the emancipated Catholics. The King of Prussia lays the first stone of the Catholic Cathedral at Cologne, amidst the acclamations of his Protestant subjicts; tie Queen of England cannot ad- mit a distinguished Catholic to her councils without Liverpool and Exeter Hall denouncing her as Jezebel. I call upon the House to put a stop to these anomalies, as discreditable as they are dangerous."

Lord ELIOT resisted the motion.

He doubted the necessity of a Committee on the state of the religious esta- blishment in Ireland, after the many discussions the subject bad received. The proposition, divested of all extraneous matter, was this—that the Members of tie Protestant Church bore a very small proportion to the whole people, and therefore that a proportion of the temporalities of the Church ought to be taken from it. Ile admitted the honourable gentleman's premises, but he denied his conclusions. It was not a mere question of numbers ; but the preperty of the Church was sanctioned by prescription, by the Irish Legislature, the Imperial Legislature, the Union Act, and the Emancipation Act. There ries nothing to show that Mr. Pitt contemplated curtailment of the Church revenues; while Mr. Hume, Mr. Plunket, Mr. Canning, and Lord Althorp, though claiming civil equality for the Roman Catholics, were not prepared to transfer the revenues of the Protestant to the Roman Catholic Church. If there bad been malaedministration of the Church, the blame attached to in- dividuals rather than to the system. As to the case of the Reverend Mr. De exceptional, Mr. De Lacy was an old gentleman of a be- nevolent dispos.tton, hut ul rcrer..-._-..t.r eccentric character ; and be Wag possessed of a large property besides his church preferment, all of which he spent in his own neighbourhood. It was true he kept rather more horses than was usual fur a clergyman; but he resided on his preferment, and spent the greater portion of his income in acts of charity and benevolence. Lord Eliot dwelt upon the benefit conferred in counteracting the effect of absenteeism, by the residence and expenditure of the Prctestant parochial clergy.

Mr. Ross having spoken for she motion, Mr. SHAW followed for the

other side ; and entered into elaborate statistics to show that the income of the Protestant clergy is not excessive, while much of it is returned to the country in the shape of charity. Speaking with some heat, he warned the House against trifling with the feelings of the hish Pro- testants, the bumbler classes of whom are now subject to great tempta- tion. Mr. REDINGTON commented on Mr. Shaw's statistics; observing, for example, that he admitted the existence of 81 pluralities and 10, non-residents.

The debate was adjourned about half an hour after midnight.

It was resumed on Wednesday, by Colonel RAWDON ; who backed Mr. Ward, and warned Government that foreign powers have too much to offer to Ireland.

Sir JOHN WALSH alluded to the dulness of the debate and thinness of attendance as proving the little interest taken in the subject, in or out of the House ; and while advocating maintenance of the Protestant establishment, he was favourable to provision for the Roman Catholic clergy.

Mr. MAURICE O'CONNEII observed, that when the Irish ask for any- thing, honourable Members on the Ministerial benches always want to give them something else. He declared the Irish to be in a state of great political excitement ; and, alluding to. the Prince De Joinville's pamphlet, he warned Ministers, that in cage of a foreign invasion of Ireland, they must rely not on the Protestants but on the Catholics to repel it.

Mr. FORBES opposed the motion, with the remark that no two gentle- men opposite were agreed as to a plan for dealing with the Established Church,

Mr. Drtios: BROWNE told an anecdote to illustrate the working of the Protestant system in Ireland— His father was a Catholic, his mother and sisters were Protestants; and the latter were obliged to go twelve miles to church, though his father paid 40/. a year tithes : they could not go to the parish-church, because they could not bear to bear the husband and father denounced as rebellious and unchristian. And what was the amount of the congregation of this clergyman of his parish, the Reverend Me. Marly ? His aggregate congregation consisted of his clerk, and he was a Roman Catholic.

Mr. Ilsanivios contended for maintaining the religion of the Church of Ireland as the religion of truth. Sir CHARLES NAPIER admitted that the salaries of the Irish clergy might not be too high, if they had anything to do ; but 2001. a year is too much for a clergyman without a congregation. He believed that the first shot fired in war would do more good for Ireland than all the speeches made in that House ; and, recommending the Prince De Join- vine's pamphlet to the attention of Ministers, he advised them not to 'wait for the experiment of 40,000 French troops landed on a dark night, but to preserve Ireland by doing justice to her people.

Here the House was about to be cleared for a division ; but as the preponderancy of Opposition Members in a very thin attendance pro- mised a specious victory to their party, Mr. BORTHWICH rose and made some discursive observations to gain time.

Mr. VERNON SMITH congratulated Mr. Borthwick on having esta- blished a reputation as one of the best of speakers against time; and he proceeded to assail the Irish Church, as a religions, not a political grievance—an Anti-Protestant institution. He thought a purely volun- tary religion impolitic ; and would abstract something from the reve- nues of the Protestant Church to afford a stipend to the Roman Ca- tholic. He would also relieve Catholics on entering office from an in- sulting oath. Sir JAMES GI:Allem was not disposed to address an unwilling au- dience at any length, particularly when he saw the empty benches, [about forty-seven Members were present,] and the apathy displayed; proofs that in outstripping public opinion, Mr. Ward had ceased to be supported by those who represent public opinion.

With respect to the oath, he agreed that as it was binding on conscience, each Member must give it his own conscientious interpretation. Mr. Ward asked what course Government intended to pursue in dealing with the Esta- blished Church in Ireland ? It had been the object of the Government, and would continue to he its object, to remove all the abuses which existed in con- nexion with the Irish Church—to purify it ; and after having removed these abuses, and after having thus purified it, it was the intention of the Government to use their best efforts to maintain it as the Established Church of Ireland. He allowed that abuses existed long after the Revolution ; but they had done their best to remedy them. Was not the Irish Church Temporalities Bill introduced by his uoble friend (Lord Stanley) when a member of Lord Grey's Admiois- bastion ; and had it not had the most beneficial effects? The most exaggerated estimates have been formed of the temporalities of the Irish Church: they do not exceed 600,000/. a year. Mr. Smith admitted that the Church was not a pecuniary evil ; and as to the right honourable gentleman's peculiar opinion that the Church was a religious grievance, on that he would join issue with him. Some Members, failing in reasons for their views, had recourse to threats. For one, Sir Charles Napier threatened war, and said that there would be no safety unless they abandoned the Irish Church: he did a great injustice to the Irish Catholics; and one effectual way to obviate the threatened evil would be to employ the gallant officer himself in the Channel. Government had been taunted with inability to do justice to the Irish Catholics on account of the ultra-Protestant feelings of their own supporters : but it must be confessed that they had not failed to carry out their plan of education in opposition to the supporters alluded to. Sir James then adverted to Mr. Ward ; criticising the nature of his materials—extracts from Hansard, history, sermons, tavern-dinner speeches, Repeal newspapers, pamphlets, and auctioneers' puffing placards! Nothing Was more ample than his premises, nothing more narrow than his conclusion—a vague motion to consider the state of the Established Church in Ireland. Reverting to former speeches, however, it was well known that Mr. Ward's remedy for the alleged grievance was, to take seven-eighths of the Irish Church revenues, and to distribute it among the religious sects of Ireland ; a plan to which the House could not accede unless they were prepared for the spo- liation of the Church. There might be policy in making a great sacrifice to insure tranquillity; but would this sacrifice do so ? In 1825, Mr. O'Connell proposed endowment of the Catholic clergy as the golden link that was to bind them to the State; and there was nothing in the Act of Union to prevent such endowment : on the contrary, the 5th article in the act seemed studiously framed to admit of such an interpretation. But that was not the question now: the real question was, should the House go into Committee to strip the Pro- testant Church of its revenues ? Sir James took some pains to show that the cases of Scotland and Ireland were not analogous, because in Scotland the Cnurch established at the Union was nat only the church of the majority, but also the church of the Scottish Legislature ; whereas the Irish Legislature was Protestant, and he contended that each Act of Uoion bound England to main- tain the Established Church of the contracting country. It Was said that there had been no measures to benefit Ireland : but since the debate on th same subject last year, an important change has been made in the Irish Poor- law ; a bill to ameliorate the franchise stands for the second reading; another bill proposes to render the Irish municipal franchise, mutates mutandts, Iden- tical with that of England ; and he was in possession of a bill, to be introduced forthwith, for the purpose of facilitating Roman Catholic endowments. This bill would empower the existing Board of Charitable Bequests in Ireland, (which would in future comprehend members in number and character calcu- lated to possess the confidence of the Catholic body,) to receive endowments for the benefit of the Roman Catholic priesthood. The Tithe Composition Act has relieved the people from an oppressive burden ; Government intended fully to carry out their intentions with respect to the county franchise ; and they have pledged themselves to increase the education-grant by one-third. At the same time, it is quite possible that the religious differences which pre- vail in Ireland might embitter public feeling and frustrate the intentions of Government. To the present motion he most offer his decided opposition. Au attack of the kind made upon the property of the Church would be the imme- diate signal for a similar attack upon the titles to the forfeited lands. (Cries of " Ole, oh 1") It might he very well for honourable Members to exclaim in that manner, but let them recollect that many things now openly avowed were as emphatically disclaimed during the passing of the Emancipation Act, as any design upon the forfeited lands was now repudiated.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that in considering the question before the House, he could not exclude from view the general state of Ireland. Ile could not think that prescription was a paramount consideration ; or, if it prevailed in the case of the Irish Church, it must d fortiori prevail against the Reformation itself, before which the Catholics enjoyed the whole of the tem- poralities. That there exist grievous grounds for complaint in Ireland, cannot for a moment be doubted, and that those causes of complaint have generated the strongest feelings of discontent is a position which no one can for a mo- ment call in question. In proof of this, he need only refer to the proceedings of the Repeal Association, and to the fact that their exchequer never was in a more flourishing condition. In their defence of the Established Church, Lord Eliot and Mr. Shaw seemed to put out of sight what constitutes the religion of the mass of the people, and to speak as if there were nothing in Ireland but the Protestant Church. But is that the present state of Ireland ; and, on the contrary, dues not Mr. Shaw's own speech show the necessity for the immediate and serious attention of Parliament 1 Out of a population of 8,000,000, 800,000 Protestants enjoy a Church revenue of 650,0001. a year. There is no parallel in Europe to such an establishment. This fact is plain and obvious, and at the same time it is one which presents a case of pressing and intolerable grievance. There exists no such case at present in Europe; and he did not be- lieve that there ever did exist such a case, unless it be that of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, under the reigns of the Stuarts, when that country was convulsed by insurrection and oppressed by tyranny and injustice. Between the two cases there are no greater differences than those which spring from the fact that the one case occurred in the seventeenth century and the other in the nineteenth. Sir James Graham, who contended that the Act of Union re- quired the Irish Church property to be kept intact, was himself a party to the

Tithe Composition Bill, which took away 300,000/. from that establishment;

and the sum went to swell the rent-rolls of the Irish lanJed proprietors. That MI was opposed by Baron Lefroy, who threatened that the Protestants would

become Repealers ; by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by Mr. Shaw ; and now Sir James Graham speaks of it as a measure brought forward by the friends of the Church I " Why, Sir, that is very consoling : having sat upon the op- posite benches, it is very consoling now to find that that hill is treated with so

much respect—that it is considered a useful measure of reform—that it is now acknowledged to be what it was intended to be. During the time I have been

in this House, I have heard measures denounced as destructive to the constitu- tion three or four times over, and yet I have seen in two or three years after- wards the constitution as flourishing and as healthy as it was before those mea- sures were passed. (" Hear 1" and a !aleph.) If my honourable friend has the

good fortune to persuade the House to go into Committee upon this subject, and his resolutions are so framed or modified as to obtain the approbation of the House, we shall have the right honourable gentleman again saying—' Do

not make any new incursions : the last measure was a very wholesome one ; it was introduced by the honourable Member for Sheffield, and do not trust the matter to any other than his friendly hands. Leave the Church in that happy,

form in which it was constituted in 1844." (" Hear ! " and laughter.) Re with still greater pleasure heard Sir Robert Peel say, that however he might respect the Act of Union, it should not be a bar to what is right and just. As

to the project, however, of Roman Catholic endowments, there arc vety serious objections to it, supposing the funds to be paid by the people of England and Scotland ; and this led Lord John to give his idea of what a religious establishment should be. "The State should give the means of religious in- struction with respect to those subjects which the State itself inter- feres with. If a man commits a breach of trust, he is sent to prison.

If he commits a theft, he is transported to a foreign land. If he commits murder, his life i9 forfeited. I think if the State does all there things—

if the State deems it its duty to punish cri ne—it should endeavour, by alliance or connexion with some body capable of doing it, to give the people instruction. 'Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt do no murder

You should do unto others as you would have them do to you '—this is the kind of instruction the State should provide, apart from any particular sect,

or any particular dogmas or doctrines, which may distinguish one denomina- tion of Christians from another." It may he said, why not have a man to go to a priest for instruction as he goes to a physician for advice : but twilit) dis- ease is accompanied by such pain and inconvenience that it compels men to

seek help; which is not the case with the passions and diseases that affect the immortal part. It is, however, an impediment to religious instruction if the

teachers are dependent on the people, for then they do not fearlessly pronounce the words of truth; as in America, where the accursed institution of slavery is palliated. defended, and upheld by the teachers of religion. 'file teachers of religion, especially where the mass of the people are of one persuasion, obtain

great influence, which becomes of much importance in public movements; and it is not safe to leave that influence in the hands of those who depend for sub-

sistence on the people. In this view, it appears that the Church of Ireland

does not answer the purpose of a church establishment connected midi the State ; as the Protestant teachers are widely separated from the people. It

would be of immense importance if the Roman Catholic clergy could be re- leased from dependence on the people, and united with the State ; even though their political conduct or their ecclesiastical appointments were rend 'Tea entirely free and independent. It is not at present to be expected that the Irish Catholic clergy would accept of any portion of property taken from the Protestant Church ; hut if Parliament were to avow its readiness to cut down the Protes- tant Establishment to the actual wants of the people, real progresi ioruld be

made towards the future establishment of peace and harmony. There is an exaggerated notion as to what a church establishment requires : the &amblished Church of France, with 30,000,000 Roman Catholics, has but 1.500,000i. of yearly revenue ; the French Protestant Church, with about 1,00,1,000 Souls, but 150,000/. ; and in Adam Smith's time the Scotch Church pn,,,,sea a

revenue of only 58,000/. The difference of opinion among the Opposition had

been observed : there was as much difference respecting specific plans of Par- liamentary Reform, yet all united to carry the Reform Bill. A5 tin the threats,

of course all in that House were too valiant to regard them ; et coticesstoos refused in 1779 were made to the Volunteers ; and Catholic Ent meipation, refused in 1828, was granted in 1829. Let the House go into Commit tee, and

consider what the worthy Catholic Bishops and the clergy of the Church of Ireland would agree to, upon the terms that they should have full in- dependence, and the people of Ireland all privileges possessed by the people of

England. Until that were done—until the House did what was just and reasonable, and conciliatory to the affections—they had no right to say that they had done justice to the people of Ireland.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he had only the painful alternative of seeming indifferent to an important question, or of merely repeating what he said a few months back.

He complained that Lord John Russell gave no insight as to what were the principles on which he would proceed if the House went into CO,u Mittel'. He

clever understood till that night that it was the opinion of Lord John Russell, that discontent in Ireland was justifiable until tine same rule via. applied to that country as to England and Scotland, and the religion of the majority was

made the religion of the Sate. (" No, no ") Yes, that was the snits, slice of

what the noble Lord said. Last year, Mr. Ward brought forth a specific plan for the partition of the Church•revenues ; this year he avoided intimating ale nature of his plan, or possibly it might have been difficult for the nook Lord and others to vote with him. Last year, he said that Members were not to vote with him unless they were prepared to act upon his plait. or they would he practising delusion ; and surely they would be justified now in relitsing to

practise such delusion. Some bad represented trim (Sir Robert Peel) as at- taching little importance to the Act of Union : this was income, —lie tool said,

that although he thought they were not to he bound irrevocably by the letter

of a compact if their own convictions told them that adherence to that compact inflicted wrong or injury upon a country, yet he also said—. At the .an, time, this compact is a most itnportant element for our coniidera,ioo. Nothing would have a greater tendency to lower the authority of P.irliwnent than not to keep the faith you have pledged—to make these compacts, and then within ten years to revoke them." Reference had been ititi!e to his speech in 1817, when he said it was consistent with human nature that the Roman Catholics should strive to depress the Protestant esta- blishment and raise their own. In 1821, Lord Plunkeu, the chosen advocate of the Roman Catholic body, referred to that expreloion tit sppreh 0- sion, and made a most distinct and detailed answer to it; in the most etoquent and forcible terms repudiating that " frightful imputation " tei the Ronan Catholics, and declaring that they harboured no hostility to the E4tablisliment. Those arguments prevailed over the public mind, and a great change was wrought in public opinion: Sir Robert thought that he hail a right to con- clude from that authorized declaration that the removal of Catholic disabilities was compatible with the maintenance of the Protestant EstabliMmeot—that it would not be just to act upon his reasoning as to the general principles of human nature in opposition to the solemn declaration of the Roman Catholics; and therefore, in 1829, he proposed the removal of those disabilities .It WAS his opinion that Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh did contemplate the removal of the disabilities and a separate endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy ; but there is nothing in the deb Ites of 1799 to countenance the impression that they contemplated taking the funds from the Protestant Establishment. He thought it of the highest importance that there should be an establishment in each part of the empire. He differed with those who believe it to be conducive to re- ligious heats ; for in the recent discussions on the Dissenters' Chapel Bill, he found much more animosity expressed by Dissenters towards each other than by members of the Established Church. If there be an establishment, public policy has given the preference to a Protestant one ; and be should be sorry to see the Establishment removed from the control of the Crown and the Le- gislature. Lord John Russell demanded " religious equality " : '.bat did he mean ? would he send Roman Catholic Bishops into the House of Lords ; or would he exclude the Protestant Bishops? Indeed, the principle of "religious equality" would make a total alteration in the ecclesiastical policy of the country. A partial alteration would not satisfy Ireland, but would only he a precedent for more change. When Lord Althorp brought in the bill for the extinction of ten bishoprics, Mr. O'Connell "hailed it with de- light ": ten Jean later, the Church thus reformed is addressed in harsher langunge than ever, as an " insult " to the country. " I do not refuse to enter into the Committee because I think the state of the Church perfect—because I am not willing to listen to the voice of reform—be- cause I am not willing to increase the emoluments of the working clergy; but because I think that any alteration in the amount of the revenue of the Church, say 50.000/. or 100,00W. a year, will not give the slightest satisfaction. I con- sider it infinitely safer to stand upon compact—upon the pledged faith of Par- liament—unless I am convinced that some overwhelming necessity of public policy compels a departure from it. Not being convinced that there exists that overs helming necessity, and believing that the Church is more secure, opposed as it is by formidable hostility, by retaining the present amount of its property, than by making a partial pecuniary concession—thinking also that it is desir- able to have an establishment, and that the Protestant Establishment ought to have a preference, and ought to be maintained, while I am ready to improve any details in the constitution of the Church—and knowing by the avowal of his opinions that the honourable mover contemplates the total subversion of the Protestant Church, I will not consent to raise delusive hopes by agreeing to his proposal to go into a Committee."

Mr. SHEIL had hoped that Sir Robert Peel would have spoken later, and he deprecated the charge of presumption in rising sifter him. Alluding to the declarations of Ministers in favour of Catholic endowment, be asked why they did not increase the grant to Maynooth College, which is not open to the same objections as the other measure? He pointed out em- barrassments in the proposed endowment. The Act of Union, he argued, was violated as much by the change which gave 25 per cent of the tithes to the landlords—should he call it confiscation? (Mr. Snew—" No; an allowance.") An " allowance "! he did not understeral the scholastic distinction. He read an extract from the Bibliotheque de Geneve, by M. Camille Cafour ; who as- sumed that Sir Robert Peel would slowly "regenerate the hierarchy" in Ireland, because of what be had done in Canada—that was, Mr. Sheil inferred from a reference to Lord Sydenham's writings, the appropriation of the clergy reserves, which were to Canada what the Established Church is to Ireland. He also cited other authorities against the Establishment ; averring, however, that be only desired its reduction, not its subversion : he contrasted the 17,000/. a year enjoyed by the Archbishop of Armagh, the 10,000/. to be enjoyed by his succes- sor, the 10.000!. enjoyed by the Bishop of Derry, in a community of1300,000 Pro- testants, with the 4,5001. or 5,000/. allowed to English Bishops in agreat Protestant country. He charged Ministers with delaying the new Registration Bill, from a fear of giving more power to the people, lest it should be fatal to the institution which had been productive of impediment to so many Governments. And he exhorted Sir Robert Peel to seize the opportunity of winning immortal fame, by doing for Canada what be has done for Ireland.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS rose merely to state that be should oppose the

motion, because he believed that the Protestant Church of Ireland held the truth committed to us by a gracious Providence. The mover said he only wanted the money of the Church : that was language more fitted for " the road" than the House of Commons.

In a very few words of reply, Mr. WARD explained, that his speech

last year contained no plan of operation : he had merely expressed his opinion, which he still retained, that this case of the Church of Ireland was one which ought to be investigated. He thought that no man's views upon the subject should be held conclusive.

The House divided, about half-past one o'clock in the morning; and the numbers were—For the motion, 179; against it, 274; Ministerial majority, 95. UNION OF Sr. ASAPH AND BANGOR.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Earl of Pow's moved the second reading of the Sr. Asaph and Bangor Dioceses Bill ; the object of which was to repeal so much of the Act of the 6th and 7th William -IV. as relates to the union of those sees.

Petitions from every county in North Wales, and from many counties in

South Wales and England, exhibit the feeling against the union which per- vades the clergy throughout the whole of England, and all classes, lay and clerical, throughout North Wales. Soon after the framing of the act, it was found desirable to repeal the union of the see of Sodor and Man with the bishoptic of Carlisle ; which proved that an act of this kind is not infallible. Ile reminded the House. that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the disturbances in South Wales ascribed, as the principal cause, the inefficiency of the Church in that part of the country ; and he referred to the difficulty im- posed on one Bishop of travelling and attending to the spiritual interest of the mountainous districts comprised in the six counties of North Wales. The population, it is true, is not large ; but it is rapidly increasing; it increased from 250,000 in 1801 to 396,000 in 1841; that population being spread over 3,000 square miles.

The Duke of WELLINGTON opposed the measure, though reluc- tantly.

The bill was one to repeal an act of Parliament passed eight years ago : his

noble friend's arguments were very proper to have been considered at that time; but sore the act passed, several measures have been carried into execu- tion, and his noble friend proposed no machinery for effecting the objects of the act—a machinery which would no longer exist if the act were repealed. Be reviewed the history of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and of the sub- sequent act, to show that the mt asurc was quite well known throughout the country ; that the report of the Commission was adopted with the knowledge

of the Bishops of the two sees, and that it was most deliberately considered. Under the act, an order in Council had issued providing for the establishment of the Bishoprics of Ripon and Manchester, with funds for their support; and the act provided, that as two of the seats on the bench of Bishops would be vacant by the union of the area of Chester and Gloucester, and of St. Asaph and Bangor, the two new Bishops should have seats in that House. Lord

Fowls's bill, therefore, would alter the number of Spiritual Peers, and would thus make amortanic change in the constitution of the House. The Duke moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The Bishop of BANGOR explained, that the bill only went to repeal the union of the two dioceses ; and did not at all interfere with the general principles and machinery of the act. Lord Powia's statement as to the feeling against the union was perfectly correct : those who now opposed it had felt as strongly when the bill was before Parliament, hut the resistance was hopeless. As to the new bishopric, the necessity for a Bishop of Manchester created no necessity for extinguishing the ancient dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor; for funds could be found other- wise. He knew it bad been said that twenty-six or twenty-seven Prelates having seats in that House were quite sufficient to represent the Church of England ; but he begged to remind their Lordships, that at a time when the Temporal Peers were by no means so numerous as at present, the Lords Spiritual were upwards of forty in number, and besides those there were thirty or forty mitred Abbots who had seats in the House. After the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry the Eighth, he created six additional bishoprics. The diocese of Westminster had been abolished, and he professed himself at a loss to understand why Manchester should not be called into existence in lieu of Westminster rather than in lieu of Bangor and St. Asaph. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY contended that the union would be neither offensive nor injurious to North Wales ; while he could not be insensible to the claims of 2,000,000 men as opposed to 350,000 men. Under the new arrangement there would be four Archdeacons, two for each diocese ; and with this assistance, and the assistance of Rural Deans, he submitted that 260 livings and a population of 400,000 souls might be fitly managed by a single Bishop.

The Bishop of ST. Dxvin's strenuously supported the bill. He assured the House from his own knowledge, that the disregard that had been shown to Wales had formed a ground of general dissatisfaction and dis- content; and before the disturbances of last year, strong representations had been made to Government of the danger of the increasing evil. One point to which he would speak with reference to his own diocese, was the want of efficiency in tho Establishment, arising from lack of funds. In that diocese a great want had been felt of the means of training young men for the Church. A. College, as many of their Lordships knew, had been founded to meet this deficiency, chiefly out of the savings of the parochial clergy. The institution had attained some degree of efficiency, and to some extent fulfilled the purposes of the founders ; but it still far from adequately dealt with the evil. Here was another example of the manner in which Wales was treated by the Government. Something, it was true, was given annually, but not more than one-tenth of what was voted for the College of Maynouth. That grant the Government had refused to in- crease ; and no step of any kind had been taken by them on behalf of the in- stitution, or to remedy the defect he had referred to. In his opinion, not only the Government and Parliament, but the nation at large, were in the habit of estimating too lightly the importance of that portion of the community. It had been forgotten, and at the same time this had also been forgotten, that that remnant of a once powerful people were separated by but a narrow channel from seven millions of people who claimed a common origin with them, and who had not always been in the most composed state, or possessed with feelings of full satisfaction with the Government of this country. He considered this arrangement of these dioceses as a specimen of the treatment to which the Principality of Wales had been subjected, and which he had been endeavouring to illustrate.

The Bishop of LINCOLN deprecated the creation of a new Bishop without a seat in that House. The Earl of WINCHILSEA supported the motion. The Bishop of LONDON, before he could accede to the mea- sure, must have some further guarantee for the erection of the Bishopric of Manchester. He enforced arguments advanced by the Duke of Wellington and the Primate ; and expressed a fear that the language used by the Bishop of St. David's would not tend to promote the lood understanding between the people of England and Wales. Lord VI-- view believed that there was a strong feeling in the country against the establishment of a new bishopric, but not against the union of the two sees.

The Bishop of EXETER supported the motion at some length. He derived the hope of ultimate success from finding good and wise men relying, not upon argument against the measure, but upon the power to enforce their de- termination ; for where a cause had justice and wisdom on its side, it was sure to be ultimately triumphant. He thought the Duke of Wellington must be labouring under some most extraordinary hallucination ; since it was nothing so very new in the history of British legislation to repeal an act of Parliament eight years old ; and the bill would touch only a small portion—an iufinitesimal portion of that act. The act was not the result of grave and serious delibera- tion but it adopted in its preamble some fifty or a hundred recommendations by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners: so far from being held sacred, it had since been subjected to essential alterations; and Parliament should use its moat deliberate opinion. He deprecated the notion that the superintendence of a Bishop could be supplied by Archdeacons; assuming that the Archbishop of Canterbury, influenced, not by argument, but by something, more powerful even with the best of us, would be sorry on reflection for having uttered such an opinion. Was it reasonable to deprive any part of the kingdom of a Bishop's superintendence, because another part of it was without that blessing? As well might they transplant some of the Staffordshire or Kentish Earls or Dukes into Lancashire, where they were so few, or take such and such Surrey cha- rities and give them to Westmoreland. He did not see that much injury should be done by the introduction of another Prelate into the louse; and the great objection to create a Bishop without a seat would be, that it might be- come a precedent for the general exclusion of the Bishops : but great as were the advantages of having the Bishops in the House of Peers, he considered that as nothing when compared to the vast, the paramount necessity of having a due number of Bishops for all religious purposes in the Church.

The Duke of WELLINGTON explained. His main objection was, that the bill would repeal that part of the act on which the Order in Council was founded.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY explained, that with the assistance of four Archdeacons, one Bishop would be able to manage the united dioceses.

The Bishop of SALISBURY adduced his own experience in managing, in addition to his own see, that of Bath and Wells, in consequence of the Bishop's infirmities.

That union was satisfactory to no man; it was a burden which distracted his attention, and destroyed his energies ; and he had in vain petitioned to be relieved from it. Funds for the bishopric of Manchester should in the first place be sought in the Collegiate Church itself; but, if that source were insuf- ficient, he had ascertained that the revenues of fifteen out of the twenty-six sees would yield a surplus revenue of not less than 10,000/. a year; which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were authorized to apply, not to any purpose they pleased, but specifically to the augmentation of poor bishoprics.

The Earl of HARROWBY spoke against the union ; but thought that the bill might be postponed, to allow the country to express its opinion on the prineiple of the measure.

The House divided : Content, 49 • Not content, 37; majority against Ministers, for the second reading of bill. 12.

THE SUGAR-DUTIES AND THE WEST INDIES.

To the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day for going into Committee on the Sugar-duties having been read, Mr. W. JAMES spoke in deprecation of the Government plan ; adducing his own experiences as one of that unfortunate class the West India proprietors, Ile was one of those who enjoyed considerable advantages as a West India proprietor, so far as related to the management of property in the West Indies ; for be had aeon residing on his estate in Jamaica, who was perfectly acquainted with business; he had an overseer of great experience in the management of such property; he had no mortgages on his property, and he had no necessity to employ a merchant for its disposal at a cost of n per cent. Notwithstanding all thew advantages, how did he find himself? For the last three years, on an average, the price of every pound-weight of sugar to him, including its production and transit, was 4d. ; and to that was added a tax of 3d. per pound imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it arrived in this country ; making 7d. per pound the cost of the sugar to him. Now, how much did the House think he sold that sugar for ? He sold it for 64d. per pound as an average price for the last three years. Thus he lost a halfpenny per pound on an average of all the sugar sold for the last three years on his account; which was an average loss of 500/. upon every 100 hogsheads of sugar ; and that loss was upon property which, in the times when slavery was permitted in the West Indies, produced 3,000/. per annum profit; and half that amount during the period when the apprenticeship system existed. That diminution of the value of his property took place notwithstanding all his exertions to cause economical production. He had done everything possible to diminish the cost of production on his property in the West Indies: he had sent out the most improved ploughs to diminish labour ; he had, in fact, economized labour as far as was possible, and had used every means in his power to render the cultiva- tion cheap. Was it not monstrous that, under such circumstances, a tax of cent per cent should he enforced by the Government on sugar; and that an- other West India produce, namely rum, should he subjected to a tax of 400 per cent ? Let it not be forgotten that these heavy taxes were proposed by Mr. Pitt as war-taxes; and am, at the end of thiety years' peace, they are now the same amount as they were at the end of the war. How would the House feel if his honourable friends succeeded in obtaining total repeal of the Corn- . laws ? As to the compensation, their property had been taken from them and belf a-crown in the pound had been given! Mr. James quoted the words of Sir Robert Peel in 1841 against the reduction of the Sugar-duties pending the

experiment of Emancipation. It was said by some, that the change in the °pi- . nions of the right honourable gentleman at the head of the Government had been effected by the influence of' the Anti-West Indian feelings of the right honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Whether this were the case or not he could not tell ; but if it was not so, he could not ac- count for the alteration in the views of the First Lord of the Treasury, other- wise than by supposing that he had become so thorough a Free-trader as to be

• ready to sell his consistency in the dearest market in order to buy popularity in the cheapest. If the House really wished largely to benefit the people of England, then it could only be done in one way—by diminishing the cost of .production in the Colonies, and greatly reducing the tax : give the West Indian -colonists plenty of free labour, and let the tax on Colonial sugar be reduced from 24s. to 12s.

On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, Mr. Ewald. moved as an amendment, "That it is expedient that the duties on Fo- reign and Colonial sugar should be equalized."

The question was, whether they should continue the system of differential duties at a positive loss to the country ; or whether, by abolishing monopoly, they should extend our commerce, extend the demand for our manufactures, and procure better and cheaper subsistence for the people, lie looked forward to a very great reduction in the duty on sugar finally; for beheld that it ought to be reduced so low as to place the article within the consumption of the poorer classes. Until Parliament did this it really did nothing. Let the amount be reduced to what it wan before the war, in the year 1790, when it was only 121. 4d. the hundredweight, and he had no doubt the produce of the

• duty would soon be fourfold. Under a reduced duty, sugar might be used in distillation and in breweries; releasing much malt for the consumption of the people,—the labouring classes being the real consumers in every country. Of tobacco, nineteen-twentieths is consumed by the working-classes; but, to be as extensively consumed, sugar should sell at 4d. a pound. Look at the state of our Foreign trade, which had kept increasing at a much greater ratio than the Colonial trade. It is the same with foreign countries possessing colonies : those places which kept up their colonial trade were falling off, but those which extended theircommerce with the world were prospering. Look at Liverpool, and at Bristol; which latter was bent upon fostering the Colonial system, -while Liverpool extended its commerce with the world, and particularly with the United States : see how Bristol was declining, and how immeasurably Liverpool had increased, and was increasing ; and Bordeaux declined while Havre flourished. As to the proposal to discriminate between slave and free produce, after mature consideration, he had come to the conclusion that it was almost impossible to do so; and that the only way was to allow both to com- pete openly in the markets of the world, in the confidence that the good cause of freedom must eventually prevail. Mr. James had complained, and justly, of the deficiency of labour : the planters had a right to it ; and he wished to give them labour, free trade, and full and fair competition: fur he was convinced that the energies of the West Indies would never be developed unless they had full and fair competition. Mr. James said, "Give us time "; but then be feared that they might wait long enough before the West Indian would be dis- posed to say, We are now ready to agree to the proposed change."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the proposition had already been found to be so contrary to the feeling of Parliament that it was not necessary to renew the discussion upon it, especially as Mr. Ewart had not urged anything of a novel nature. The argutnent for a large reduction of duties was beside the question of admitting free-grown sugar, and no Government could ever consent to a reduction of duties calculated to impair the revenues of the country. And he thought that a fair protection should be continued to interests which had grown up under a system of protection.

Mr. Ilium advised Mr. Ewart to withdraw his motion. No one was more anxious than himself to have cheap sugar ; but he was also anxious to do justice to those who had been placed in an embarrassing situation by the legislation of this country. What he wanted to do was to enable our Colonies to compete with others. He was not one who would ask of a man to run whilst his legs were tied.

Mr. LABOUCHERE did not think it just to equalize the duties upon Foreign and Colonial sugars. Mr. MILNER GIBSON called upon Ministers distinctly to explain what was the ground for these discriminating duties.

He might admit that there were grievances endured by their West India Colonies; be might be ready to redress those grievances; but then, it did not follow that he would support that system of protection which was now con- tended for. At present he must say, that he did not know how this protection 'was the proper way to meet the claims of the West India interest on the Bri-

tish public. He had never yet heard a statement from the Government to show how it was that they calculated this claim, and then turned it into a 10s. differential duty. In taking up the present bill, he found that it was a bill to grant to her Majesty certain duties for the service of 1844: there was not therein one word of protection to West Indian proprietors. Why link the West Indian interest with a mere vote of supply ? Why was that interest made to interfere with the trade and commerce of the country ? How was it that it justified the Government in putting a discriminating duty which was disadvantageous to the interest he represented, and prevented it from carrying on commercial transactions with Brazil and Cuba, and other places ? If the West Indian interest had claims, let the British public know what they were. If the claims were just, let them be compensated. He admitted that the con- tinuance of the differential duty would keep the article at such a price as not to enable the British consumer to use any other than free-labour sugar. The reduction would he about five-eighths of a penny in the pound. Trade and commerce were so linked together, that they would find it impossible to carry on any trade without either directly or indirectly encouraging the slave-trade. Considering the question in all its hearings, he must say that there was some- thing too transparent in the veil that concealed their pretences. Ile could not give them credit fur being actuated with the desire of putting down the slave- trade by these means, because they were not calculated to promote the object which it was said by the Government they had in view.

Here the gallery was cleared for a division ; but none took place, and the debate was resumed by Mr. CHARLES Vumerts.

Ile accused Ministers of treating the motion contemptuously by their silence. Quoting a statement that the differential sugar-tax costs the counts). 70,5001. a week, he insisted that some reason should he assigned why such a heavy tax was paid by the people at all ; and at least the principle on which it was ad- justed should he explained. The public would also desire to know what had been the results of that vast tax—whether it had produced a loyal, contented, and prosperous body of colonists? Ile remembered that, only a few years ago, the Government of the day proposed to suspend the constitution of Jamaica on account of its open disaffection and resistance to the Mother-country', and that night Mr. James had described the condition of the West Indian planters as equalling the worst sufferings and misery of the Negro slaves: that was the re- sult of protection—that was the gratitude for all that the people of this country had suffered. Mr. Ewart's motion had been called extravagant : it Was only what was proposed alai supported by all the leading men who took part in the Anti-Slavery movement ; it was tile same as that made by Mr. Cropper, sup- ported by Mr. Macaulay, and recommended by all the great and true friends of Emancipation. In 1823, Mr. Cropper wrote a pamphlet recommending a duty of 30s, on all sugars, whether produced in Cuba, in Siam, or Brazil, or India ; and he confident ly asserted in this work, that, if anybody would examine the question, they would see that free-trade was the only mode of abolishing slavery, and thereby the slave-trade. They were told that a great experiment was pending : but he contended that the great experiment of Emancipation had been made, and had fully succeeded; and the other experiment remained to try whether our West Indian affairs could not be brought within the principles of regular commerce. The great movers against slavery always had in view the abolition of monopoly to give the experiment of free labour a fair trial ; that had not been made yet, owing to these protective duties ; and the result was, that by some the Emancipation was deemed a failure. The agriculture was ex- tremely defective, and the management was extremely bad. It was hard, how- ever, to ascribe that to freedom which might be found equally bad wherever monopoly prevailed. Ile believed that interested agents put forth gross ex- aggerations as to the distresses of the West Indies. Besides, what was the case with some parts was not so with others. Mr. Gurney stated that the produce of Antigua had doubled in six years. Two years ago, Mr. Porter calculated that we paid 5,000,000!. more fur sugar than we need have paid had we bought it in the market of the Continent ; and as our manufactures ex- ported to the West Indies only amounted to 4,000,0001., we might have given that amount to the West Indies and still have been 1,000,0001. in pocket by the transaction.

Mr. GLADSTONE had no objection, although the matter had been fully discussed on a previous evening, to state the policy upon which Go- vernment had acted.

It wee, first, that the principle of protection was that by which our Customs. laws had always been, more or less, regulated ; and secondly, that the West Indies had all along enjoyed this protection, and that it had been generally conceded to them by this House. Whilst applying the principle of protection generally, he thought that the West Indian was the last interest which should be exposed to free competition ; and for this reason—that at the present mo- ment they were suffering from great scarcity of labour. Mr. Villiers referred to the opinion of Mr. Crupper in 1833 upon the Sugar-duties; but the honour- able gentleman did not seem to be aware of this great distinction between the case then and now—that then there neither existed free labour nor monopoly to the sugar-grower. The honourable gentleman had also referred to the statements of Mr. Gurney, who wrote three or four years ago, in reference to the produce of the island of Antigua : he believed, however, that Mr. Gurney's work was published six or seven years ago. The honourable Member, to give effect to his argument, should have quoted from some more recent authority. A return laid upon the table within the lad four or five days, gave the precise quantities of sugar which had been imported from the West India Colonies for the years 1831 to 1843. He found, by a reference to these returns, that from 1831 to 1834, being the four last years of slavery, the average quantity of sugar imported from Antigua in each of those years was 176,000 hundred- weight ; and the average quantity imported for each year of the four years after the abolition of slavery was 166,000 hundredweight.

Mr. VILLIERS reasserted the validity of Mr. Gurney's authority ; but Mr. GLADSToNE again met him with the recent and official returns.

Mr. COBDEN avowed his conviction that no Government could long resist the principle involved in the motion.

The argument, that because the monopoly had enjoyed the protection it must be maintained, might be applied to every improvement ; and he laid bare the principle upon which the monopoly rested. The information might have its effect elsewhere, though it would not in that House. The Government proposed, in brief, that the West India proprietors should receive 10s. per hundredweight for their sugar more than the growers of any other part of the world-10s. per hundredweight more than they could get in any other part of the world. This was equivalent to a tax of two millions upon the people of England : and for whom, and on what grounds? Because the West India proprietors were in distress, and could not cultivate their estates. This might be a very good plea for a farmer to appease a body of creditors, or as an appeal to the generosity of private friends; but it was not a ground to come to the country and ask them to make the West lodian estates profitable to their owners at the expense of the working-people of this country. But what was the benefit of this monopoly to the working Coloured population of the West Indies ? The White population of the West Indies amounted only to about a tenth of the population; yet the landed proprietors cried out still for the im- portation of more labourer& Then, what other ground was there upon which this monopoly could be claimed? Was it on account of peculiar burdens? No: they itsd ■.o army to support, they'it t no excise, no stamps or taxes. Mr. Cobden seed passages from the journals of the House in November 1640: when a resoln- thin was passed forbidding any monopolist or projector from sitting in the House; and in the January following, four gentlemen. Mr. William Sandy's, Sir J. Jacob,

idr. Thomas Webb, and Mr. Edmund Windham, were ejected under that reso- lution. Now, he wanted to know the distinction—the difference in operation— (constitutionally he knew very well what it was) between a monopoly granted by Charles the First to a creature of his Court. and a monopoly granted by Par- liament to any body of men, in opposition to the interests of the public at large ? They could not compensate his constituents for the loss they sustained from the monopoly in sugar, by giving them any monopoly in return ; they could give them no quid pro quo—(" Hear, hear!" aada laugh frees Lord Stanley)— an wages for what they took from them in the high price they were now made to pay for their sugar. It was admitted on all sides, that they could not legis- late to increase or keep up the rate of wages: therefore, in increasing the prices to the labourer of the articles of consumption, they inflicted a grievous ar justice upon the whole labauring classes. It would be fur the interest of the West Indialis to join with the Frce•tratlers in demanding a low and equal rate of duty on the import of sugar from all parts of the world ; as that would give an impulse to the trade of the West Indies, and would place it upon a sound bottom : capital, and intellect, (which he feared was as much required as any- thing else,) would flow in, and with it that prosperity which hail vainly been sought under a sj stem of protection.

Mr. PATRICK MAXWELL STEWART stated some of the specialties of the case, unit complained that the West Indies were victims to the legis- lation of this country.

Mr. Cobden had admitted that the proof of especial burthens on land would entitle landowners to that extent : now, grant a committee of inquiry on the question before the House, and he would prove, to the satisfaction even of Mr. Cobden, the special burden which pressed upon the West India interest. Was it a principle of free trade to place a colony without labour in competition with other countries where a supply of labour was unlimited?

Mr. BRIGHT pursued the Free-trade arguments in support of the amendment ; pointing to the actual results of protection us proof of its nugatory and mischievous nature. He proposed that, instead of con- tinuing the protective duty of 10s. a hundredweight, which would yield 1,250.000/, that sum should be given in cash to me West Indies, so long as deficiencies of labour or any other special burden existed, by a direct vote of the House ; which he calculated would save 790,000/. a year on East India and Mauritius sugar.

Mr. BERNAL, opposing the amendment, defended the planters.

He denied that the object of the planters was to reduce wages and lower the condition of the labourers. He denied that the experiment of Emancipation had been attended with complete success. It was effected without the neces- sary steps of precaution which ought to have preceded it. In this country it took centuries to effect the change from serfdom ; while in the West Indies they have been required at once to consummate a change as great. To a cer- tain extent the experiment hail been successful. It was as he had foreseen and predicted beforehand : no revolt had broken out, no atrocities had been corn- muted; but there bad Liven a time of silent and negative resistance. The West India population bad facilities for keeping from labour which our working classes did nut possess. The nature of the climate rendered the former inde- pendent: his food grew spontaneously, and he wanted little clothing or firing. Could they, under these circumstances, expect that a population just emerging from slavery would set themselves very steadily and perseveringly to work ? The system of cultivation was rather complicated, soda continuity of labour was required. The Negroes, however, would frequently only turn out three or four days in the week, and that even in the very essential time of the year. What, then, were the West India proprietors to do? The labourers were quite independent of them. He had seen forty or fifty of them attending church mounted on their ponies. How were they to deal with such a people? They bad not a population dense enough to render those who did work dependent upon employment.

Mr. ROEBUCK regarded the question in an abstract point of view. Be contrasted the suffering state of the English labouring population with the thriving condition of the Negro population ; and asked why the English people should he taxed for the benefit of the bankrupt absentee proprietors ? It was said that the planters were unrepreseuted in that House: but, estimated by their importance—compared with the English people—a fraction of a Mem- ber would suffice to represent them. Be denied that the West Indian pro- prietors had been forced into their present position. It was not England in its collective capacity that originated the slave-traffic; but a set of individual adventurers, who took possession of the islands, followed the example of ex- portation from Africa set by the Spaniards—infected the West Indies with that nefarious trade, carried it to our North American Colonies, and spread the devastating spot and plague all over that portion of the globe. The islands Lava been the scene of dreadful wars, of great eommotions, and of great expense to this country, and have rendered us nothing in return ; and Eug- land would lose nothing if they were swept away.

Lord SANDON addressed himself mainly to Mr. Roebuck's argument. They heard much of the importance of the Brazils in relation to the trade and commerce of Great Britain : were the Brazil& for one moment to be considered of more consequence to us, viewing the question upon cormnercial grounds, than the West Indies? Why were the West Indies so lightly estimated in reference

to this question? Had not the West India proprietors formerly contributed three millions annually towards the support of this country ? Was the mag- nificent 20,0c0,000/. which had been so much talked of, and which was granted as compensation to the holders of slaves on the passing of the Emancipation Act—was it an ample compensation to those who received it ? Let the House look at the facts of the case. Were they aware that the West India proprietors who received that money have been ruined since its receipt ? Has that compensation left the West India proprielors as it found them ? It was no compensation to the \Vest India proprietors at all. Most of those who heard him bad some acquaintances connected with the West India Colonies : he asked them if those estates, obieli 3 ielded them incomes before the passing

of the Emancipation Act, produced any at that momeut ? In one parish in Jamaica he had heard of no less than eighteen estates having been thrown up and abandoned. Was this compensation ? He went on to contend that the policy of this country, having such au estate on the other side of the Atlantic, should be to carry through the experiment in progress. As to the origin of the slave-trade, it was directly encouraged by Queen Elizabeth's Govern- ment. He suggested that Parliament should give to the West ladies, what had been given to Canada, the benefit of the credit of the Mother-country in aid of free immigration.

Mr. WARBURTON, looking at the way in which the former gift of Pauent bad been acknowledged that night, was not for bestowing any such gift as Lord Sandon invited. According to the account given by Mr. James and Mr. Bernal, the West India proprietors were in such a state of penury and destitution, that they could not be reduced to a worse condition ; and there was therefore no reason shy the people of this country should be denied the enormous advantage which would result from free trade in sugars.

Mr. IrlacLEAN insisted that the West India slave-trade was actively promoted by Charles the First and James Duke of York; while Ju-

maica repeatedly protested against it. He asked if Canada was repre- sented by " a fraction of a Member "; Mr. Roebuck having been its representative ? And he contended that sugar as much merits protec- tion as corn.

The House divided: For the original motion, 259 ; against it, Sit; majority, 203. The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

IMPORT-DUTIES.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord MONTEAGLE drew attest- tion to the whole subject of Import-duties ; moving for a Select Com- mittee to inquire into the effects of the uties at present existing, on the commerce, revenue, and general prosperity of the country.

As precedents to justify his motion, be instanced the Committee to inquire

into our Foreign trade obtained by the Marquis of Lansdowne in 1820, and by Mr. Hume on Import-duties in 1839. The present time is favourable for revision. As the Income-tax will evidently be maintained for the full five years, it will most likely in that period produce 26,000,0001., instead of the estimated 11,000,000/4 and thus there will be a large surplus revenue. Such a revision is absolutely necessary to develop the wealth and prosperity of the country—the comfort, and therefore the moral and intellectual improvement, of the people. Import-duties are of three classes: first, those imposed for revenue,—which are unobjectionable; secondly, those imposed to countervail peculiar burdens, and to prevent the admission of an unburdened foreign article to compete with the burdened article produced at home,—to which also no Free-trader would object, though be would carefully see that they did not exceed the necessary amount; and thirdly, protective duties,—which raise prices to the consumer by means uf a tax that never enters the exchequer, embarrass legislation, and are mixed up with party-division& For example, but for party-spirit, no jury of twelve men would ever gives% verdict in favour of the sliding-scale. The declared objects of Sir Robert Peal when he introduced the Tariff were, first, the removal of prohibitory duties; secondly, the reduction of duties on raw materials required for our manufac- tures, which in no case were to be more than 5 per cent; thirdly, the reduction of ditties on articles in part manufactured; fourthly, that the duty on manu- factured articles should nut exceed 20 per cent ; and fifthly, the reduction of duty on Colonial produce. The first object of his Committee would be to ascertain how far the declared intention of Government had been carried out. How had it been with respect to the duty upon raw materials? The duty on cotton is 8 per cent upon the raw material,—that is, a duty was imposed to this extent upon the weight of the raw material sent from abroad for the em- ployment of our cotton-trade; and we export it in a manufactured state abroad, in the shape of yarn or other goods ; and the price to the foreign con- sumer includes the duty upon the raw material we first imposed, without any drawback at all ; a departure from the avowed principles, which alone would justify the inquiry. Great advances in the right direction have recently been made, especially in the total removal of the duties on both Fureigu and Colo- nial wool, and in the reduction of the discriminating duties on coffee and cocoa ; but a fair inquiry would enable the Legislature to apply similar prin- ciples to other important articles. Some protective duties are manifestly ab- surd,—as those on the cotton and woollen goods of countries to which we ex- port the two kinds to the value of eighty and of eight or nine millions sterling, respectively : but other countries who could never compete with us in those manufactures, refer to our tariff as the source of our prosperity. A writer on the Spanish tariff says that the object of protective duties is to eubstitute delsrer for cheaper art icles,—just what we do in the case of sugar. The profession is, that we are to exclude slave-grown sugar, of which a single pound consumed would make us answerable before God and man; but only let the price of free sugar rise so high as to exceed that of the taxed slave-grown sugar, and we may eousume any amount of the prohibited sweet I Tue real reason, however, is to maintaimt the monopoly of the West Indies. By the change of the Timber-duties, re- pealing the duty on Colonial timber but leaving a heavy tax on Baltic timber, we substitute an inferior for a better article, lose 1,000,000/. of revenue, acid have destroyed our trade with the Baltic. Mr. Deacon Hume estimated that the removal of protective duties would largely increase the trade in timber and brandy, and would in each case add 1,0110,0110/. to the revenue; and in fact, when Mr. Pitt reduced the duties on foreign spirits by one-lialf, the consump- tion was quadrupled. Lord Monteagle collected a great number of facts so show the Al working of protective systems in all parts of the world. France is estimated to lose by smuggling 3,000,000/. a year. The quantity of silk goods entered in France for exportation to England has been stated at 3,500,060 pounds a year; while the quantity on which duty was paid in this country was only 1,875,000 pounds. The discriminating duties on Irish wool and cattle produced wounds still unhealed ; and the two titctions of the Auti-Corn-law .League and Agricultural Protection Society are the offsprina' of misplaced pro- tection. In the United States, importation was practically free tram 1769 to 1807, and the consumption per head of the population was more than butte= dollars: in 1816 the protective system was introduced into that country and completed in 1828, and in 1830 the consumption per head was but tour dollars. This was followed by the Compromise Act, and Nullifie.atiors," dis- sension between the Northern and Southern States, and contiuually decreasing importation of manufactured goods. To show how inoperative is protection in fostering manufactures, Lord Monteagle referred to the silk and linen trades, which languished while protected and began to flourish alien no longer so; and he cited many instances of greatly increased consumption, without counter- vailing injuries, which had resulted from reduced duties,—as the increase of 1,164,40111. in the revenue which followed the equalization of East and West India Sugar-duties, without "ruining" the Went Indies. He thought haled shown that some of these duties should be at once and absolutely condemned; but he did not ask them to condemn any thing; he only asked for dispassionate inquiry. The Earl of DALHOUSIE complimented Lord Monteagle on the ability of his speech ; and agreed with his principles, but dissented from lus proposal. He denied that the precedents applied; for in 1820, after a long war, in which this country monopolized the trade of the world, and duties were heaped upon duties without arrangement or principle, inquiry was loudly called for ; and in 1839 the mere lapse of time recommended a new revision. But only two years have elapsed since our whole commercial system was revised; and as the public would expect inquiry to be followed by practical results, the greatest disturbance in trade and commerce would be induced, and that too at a time when commerce is recovering from depression and disturbance. As to the sur- plus revenue, it arises from the Income-tax, and fortuitous monies from China and elsewhere; and how would the public excuse Government, if a large portion of revenue were given away on the wesurnption that the Income-tax would be continued ? Lord Monteagle rightly quoted Sir Robert Peel's principles ; but be omitted the qualification which accompanied them, that be was bound in the first instance to remove those duties which involved the greatest pressure. It is true that the duty on raw cotton slightly exceeds the prescribed 5per mot.; but important considerations of revenue prevent its reduction_ The change in the Timber-duties Lord Dalhousie defended as conferring an important boon on the Colonies. Ministers are not the advocates of proluoition, or of high re- strictive duties ; they have declared their belief that restrictions are not favour. able to commerce, aud that it is their duty toretnove them as farwais consistent with existing interests that have grown up under a restrictive system. And they have effected important relaxations; in 1842 removing duties to the extent of 1,200,0001., and this year 450,000/, including the abolition of the Wool-duties. He hoped the House would place confidence in Government, and give a fair trial to their experiment. The Earl of CLARENDON followed up Lori Monteagle's arguments with others to the same effect ; complitnenting Lord Dalhousie on the ability of his speech, and gathering that he spoke against his convictions in not going further. He urgently demanded repeal of the Corn-laws, as the great fiscal abuse ; no class being so extensively, protected as the agricultural interest. Lord COLCHESTER appealed to the protective duties of 20 and $0 per cent which have caused the prosperity of our cotton and silk manufac- tures, and argued against dependence on foreigners instead of our Co- lonies, as pleas for discriminating duties.

The Duke of RICHMOND was surprised to hear the agriculturists de- scribed as having it all their own way, when no interest is so much ne- glected or so taxed. He would have voted for the motion in order to an inquiry into the special burdens on land, only that would seem to cOnatenance Lord Monteagle's Free-trade arguments. Free-trade means reduction of wages, and to that he objected. He would not lessen the existing protection, but would protect all alike, manufacturers and all, to the extent of their burdens of taxation. He heard with regret the speech of Lord Dalhousie ; who, with his great ideas of free trade, would perhaps repeal the Malt-duty ? The Duke, however, confessed that he hardly agreed with any one in that House except Lord Colchester, though be believed supported by a great majority in the country.

The Earl of WICKLOW concurred in almost all Lord Monteagle's views, but could not support the motion ; as, so late in the session, it could produce no practical good, and must disturb the vast commercial transactions of the country.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE advocated the inquiry ; rendered doubly necessary by the commercial rivalry into which foreign nations, like Prussia, have engaged, in imitation of our own prohibitive policy. Touching upon the Sugar-duties, he strongly urged the necessity of free Negro immigration into the %Vest Indies.

The Earl of WINCHELSEA. considered free trade incompatible with our artificial state of society and the hostile commercial policy of fo- reign countries.

The House divided; Contents, 75; Non-contents, 184; majority against Lord Monteagle's motion, 109.

THE GOVERNMENT BANK REFORM.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, the order of the day was read for the second reading of the Bank of England Charter Bill ; on which Mr. HAWES moved this amendment-

" That no sufficient evidence has been laid before this House to justify the proposed interference with banks of issue in the management of their circula- tion!, He perfectly agreed in the principles of the bill of 1819 as respects the con- vertibility of notes at the option of the holder, and to all that Sir Robert Peel bad said as to the gold standard of value: but it was necessary to consider the grounds why it was proposed to give convertibility more force than by the bill Ot 1819. The object of the present bill is to make the paper circulation con- fdrm more closely to the gold circulation, which was declared to be prevented by the unlimited competition in the issue of paper. He denied that unlimited competition ; for the convertibility of each note into gold at the will of the holder is a natural and sufficient check on unlimited competi- tion. The report of the Bullion Committee alleged as the consequences of an over-issue of paper the difference between the Mint-price and market-price of gold, the high prices of commodities imported, and the unfavourable state of the exchanges ; and it recommended a more limited issue of paper. Mr. Hawes contended at great length that those conclusions were erroneous. There was no foundation for supposing that the price of commodities which we exported for gold was then higher in this country than in any other part of the world ; and if we had had the means of increasing that export, we might have imported gold sad restored the exchanges. The high price of gold, in fact, was caused by political circumstances ; and there was no proof whatever that it was the consequence of over-issues. England was, in fact, the cheapest country in the world when gold was 25 percent above the Mint price: sugar was cheaper than it is now. The two things were quite independent of each other. This was tested by a return for the period from 1834 to 1843, exhibiting the bullion in the Bank of England, the circulation of the Bank, the circulation of the Country Banks, the total circulation, the rate of discount, the excess of notes over bullion, and the rise or fall of price for fifteen of the most important articles of consumption. Mr. Hawes elaborately analyzed this return ; showing that the prices rose and fell without reference to the fluctuations in other matters, and even without any consistency among each other, some rising and some falling simultaneously in every conceivable way ; whence he inferred that the change of pricewas not produced by variations in the circulation. Those who made that assertion advanced not the smallest proof of it. Again, he referred to America, where the people became mad with speculation, small paper•curreney WU issued, and cash payments were even suspended in some States : cash pay- ments were enforced by law, small notes were abolished, our law of 1819 was virtually introduced, and that sufficed to restore the cm rency. He was con- vinced that the effect of the plan would be to substitute small bills of exchange for promissory-notes, thus establishing a more dangerous kind of paper-cur- rency than that which exists; while any commercial crisis, pressing upon securities, would induce the Bank to get notes into its hands by whatever rhesus, and would lead to commercial difficulties unprecedented i even n 1825 or 1839. A drain of bullion produced by the operation of our Corn-laws, like that of 1839, might close the bankiog.department of the Bank ; and must in fact help repeal of the Corn-laws. To the establishment of a single bank of issue he had insuperable objections : it would introduce party politics into banking management, and wuuld entail all the evils that have been experienced in America.

MT. HASTIE, who seconded the amendment, apprehended the worst consequences from any commercial crisis under the new system-- in December 1838, the bullion in the Bank was 9,000,0001.; in September 1839, 2,000,000/. : if with a circulation of 22,000,0004, based on 14,000,000/. of securities and 8,000,000/. of bullion, 7,000,000/. were abstracted in nine months, what would be the effect of such a violent collapse?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER remarked, that Mr. Hawes's objection was directed against the principle and integrity of the mea- sure, and he had better have moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Hawes referred to the Report or the Bullion Committee; and because be found that the price of sugar was less at the time of that Report than it was vw,, he impugned the accuracy of the opinions contained in that Report. Bat were there no other causes beyond the price of bullion tending to make sugar cheap at that time? The supremacy of the British Navy at Wet time prevented sugar from entering almost every port of Continental Europe. This was so much the case, that when the British army entered the South of Prance; the cry was, " The English and sugar!" The honourable Member adhered to the bill of 1819; but he seemed to have forgotten all that had taken place since—the many commercial crises-1825, when the country was nearly re- duced to a state of barter. The object of the present plan is to make gold and paper fluctuate according to circumstances, as nearly as possible in the mea- ner that gold would naturally fluctuate were it the sole circulating medium; rendering the fluctuations gradual. The single bank of issue is the basic of the measure, designed to calculate exactly the gross amount of the issues. It is most effectually guarded against Ministerial interference with the hitting by the weekly publication ofaccaunts. The Country Banks acknowledged that they did not regulate their issues by the exchanges, but by the demand tor accommo- dation; and while the Bank of England was using every effort to remedy the evil by contracting its issues, the Country Banks were counteracting its efforts by a totally different principle. As to the withdrawal of 7,000,0001. of bullion, the answer is, that the operation on prices and exchanges would be so gradual that such a diminution of specie would be most unlikely to occur.

Sir WILLIAM CLAY heartily, Mr. HOME hesitatingly, supported the

Mr. WODEHOUSE reluctantly opposed the Government, for he re- garded the measure as leading to the total removal of the Country. Banks ; and Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed it as tending to lower prices.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER supported Mr. Hawes.

Be maintained that the motion related not to the whole bill, but only to the part concerning the issues of bank-paper. Unfortunately, throughout the whole of these debates it had never been distinctly laid down what was the practical object proposed from this interference with the circulation of bank-paper. Some confined it to one object—the large issues of paper by Country and Fri.. vane Bankers endangered the convertibility of the paper of the Bank of Eng- land. That was a simple and intelligible object, for which, by the way, much was to be said. From one of Sir Robert Peel's phrases it was to be inferred that he expected, by checking improvident speculation, to put an end to all the evils which the present banking system inflicted on this great commercial country. If not, why did he read the long and fallacious list of failures of Private Banks? But the present law appears to do all that could be done by legislation to put the circulation of the country on a sound basis ; while the proposed plan would drive the people to more unsafe kinds of credit. There is an obscurity in the use of the word " money " : money is a commodity having an intrinsic value ; paper-circulation is only an easy form of credit. Gold and silver are commodities depending for their value on the proportion of supply and demand. Paper, on the other hand, depends for its value on the value Of gold and silver, which it represents. Viewed as a form of credit, it stands itt the same light as bills of exchange, checks on bankers, and the simplest forms of credit. By checking the issue of bank-notes, you do not check the desire to ; you only drive people to a different form of credit. Bank-notes form hut a very small portion of the whole paper circulation of the country : in 1839, while the Bank-notes were 26 or 27 millions, the amount of bills of exchange was 132,123,000/. How is it possible—assuming that you are able to keep down the issues of bank-notes—to keep clown the amount of bills of exchange? On the contrary, by putting an end to the one you tend to multi.. ply the other. Of three millions a day that pass through the clearing- houses, 200,000/. only is in notes. Over-speculation is not thus to be reme- died—it lies deeper than legislation ; and of all forms of credit the bank-note is the safest. Sir Robert Peel had very liberally borrowed his principle from the Political Economy Club ; only he chose that upon which the Members all dish agreed, instead of such as they were all agreed upon, like the repeal of the Corn-laws.

Mr. MASTERMAN supported the bill; but hoped it would be modified, especially as it bore hard upon the Country Bankers ; and the merely arbitrary limit of 14,000,000/. might not answer the purpose required. Mr. WA.RBURTON thankfully supported the measure, as far as it went.

Mr. DARBY pleaded for some relaxation of the plan in favour of Country Bankers. Mr. G1SBORNE opposed the bill, because he thought it injudicious to restrain and direct the credit of the country by act of Parliament The first question was, should everybody who had commercial transaction' be permitted to trust whom he would ? The negative of that question was the principle of this bill; but he maintained the affirmative of the question. On, the point that excess of paper is alleged to depreciate gold, he put forth a ca- rious argument : excess of paper-issue does depreciate gold, and in like manner every furm of credit prevents the appreciation of gold—whether it be a bank- note or a bill of exchange. Sir Hubert Peel had given a clear definition of a " pound ": he should have been glad to bear his definition of "money." It is merely a medium of barter ; and with a perfect form of credit, a gold cur- rency might be altogether dispensed with. Sir ROBERT PEEL replied to various points raised by different speakers ; remarking that all the opponents of the bill seemed to argue for the abandonment of a metallic standard.

He was astonished to bear it asserted in 1844, that under the Bank Restric- tion Act paper was not depreciated. Not depreciated! Is it then untrue that prices were not raised during the war ; or is it true that the restoration of cash payments made no difference in engagements already contracted ? Mr. Hawes. said, gold would have commanded as great quantities of commodities abroad as ever, and he referred to various articles to show that prices had not risen: but a hat a fallacy it is to attempt to draw any inference from such instances. Al- derman Wahl:mien used to remark, " While you required the same amount or taxes, the price of cotton goods has fallen off." But surely, with the im- provements in machinery, with the reduction of the price of the raw material, and with the great command of capital, it would have been marvellous if there had not been a great decrease of price. What inference can be drawn, then, with respect to the currency from prices of particular commodities? If Mr. flawea's doctrine were true, the bill of 1819 and its author would have escaped much obloquy. With reference to America, Mr. Galatia and Mr. Webster both bore testimony, that while the Central Bank of the United States existed the currency was better controlled ; and Mr. Webster said that such a bank was necessary to checlt over-issue, even although paper might be convertible on demand. It is true that the Bank can maintain the convertibility of its own notes, even in a commercial crisis ; but at what a sacrifice! It had been said that the Bank of England might too much restrict the issues : but that is provided against ; for if paper were to become of more value than coin, any one could take coin. To prove that the Bank can amply supply any want of circulation, Sir Robert referred to several large towns—Birmingham, Gloucester, Manchester, and others— where the local circulation is very small, and the Bank supplies nearly the whole. He gave Mr. Gisborne the desired definition of "money." "B money, 1 meant either the coin of the realm, or that species of paper credit a promissory-note, which, passing from hand to hand, and not reqoiriug any per- sonal guarantee beyond the credit of the issuer, supplies the plow of money.* After snuffing to the fraudulent misdeeds of some Joint-Stock Banks of issue— one lost its capital (250,0000 and 40,0001. more, four tnoaths after it de:daunt its profits to be larger than ever—as showing the necessity of interference and control, he referred to the Report of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, to prove the effect on prices of an ill-regulated currency : in 1836-7 alone, the

loss on capital at Manche ' ster in cottou, wool, linen, silk, and hard-ware, was estimated at 40,000,0001. Ile did not expect or desire that the bill would prevent all speculation; but speculation depending on undue issues it would prevent.

In a little more discussion, the measure was supported by Mr. WIL- LIAMS, opposed by Colonel SIBTHORP and MT. MUNTZ ; MT. PLUDIPTRE -would not obstruct it in that stage.

On a division, at half-past one o'clock in the morning, the numbers were—For Mr. Hawes's motion, 30; against it, 185; majority for the bill, 155. It was then read a second time.

MISCELLANEOUS.

O'CONNELL'S WRIT OP ERROR. In answer to Mr. CHARLES BULLER, on Tuesday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the writ of error in the Irish trials had ;privet!, or would arrive in London in a few hours • and everything would be done by Government to expedite its progress, lie trusted that it would he head I,, tune for the Judges to proceed to their respt.ctive circuits within ten days of their usual period of departure.

AGRICULTURAL INCENDIARISM. In reply to Mr. MiLtirr: GIBSON, on Wednesday. Sir JAMES GRAIIA31 said that the extensive iticendiarisin in Suf- folk, Norfolk, and E-sex, had engaged the most Serious attention on the part of Government ; who had communicated with the Lord•Licutenant and the Magistrates. Many tires, however, might be the work of one man, and the effect of personal malignity; and he did not believe that the peasantry gene- rally were implicated in the crime.

DON CARLOS. In reply to Mr. BORTIMICH, on Monday, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated that an informal proposition had been made to our Government, that the son nt Dun Carlos should be married to the Queen of Spain, in order to the tranquillity of that country ; and at the same time it was said that DOH Carlos was prepared to make concessions ; but it was not stated what those concessions were to be, nor whether Don Carlos was willing to waive on behalf of himself or his sin all claims to the Spanish throne. In reply to Lord PALMERSTON, Sir ROBERT PEEL added, that the proposition had been made known to the Spanish Government ; but in such a way that it was utterly im- possible for them to think that the English Government approved of the project MOROCCO AND ITS ENEMIES. On Thursday, the Earl Of CLARENDON asked for some explanation respecting the hostilities with Morocco, threatened by Spain and France: observing that Morocco has always maintained the most friendly relations with this country ; that Gibraltar depends for its previsions upon Tetuan and Tangier, which it is therefore desirable to have in possession of a friendly power ; and that the differences had been imputed by part of the French press to the intrigues of the British Consuls in Barbary. The Earl of ABERDEEN said, that Morocco had invited British mediation in the dispute with Spain, which arose out of many intricate mutual complaints; and after some demur, Spain bad consented to that mediation ; the French Minister at Madrid urging the propriety of doing so. De disbelieved the report that a "holy war" had been proclaimed by Morocco against France; the skirmish that had occurred was quite a trifling affitir, and little likely to lead to regular -war: at the same time, the Emperor Abd-er-Rahman rules the most fanatical Mussulmans in the world, and it is doubtful how far he can keep them in check. The assertions of the French press were as unfounded as that of the English journals that France had fomented the dispute between Spain and Morocco.

BUSINESS IN THE COMMONS. MillisICIS have lately been importuned to fix days for proceeding with various important measures, which they have shown some hesitation in doing. Among the days named, however, are the following—

Monday next, for the Committee on the Dissenters' Chapel Bill; Thursday week, tin. the Committee on the English Poor-law Bill ; the 1st July, for the second reading of the Irish Registration Bill, when the sense of the House weal be taken ; the Committee on the Irish Municipal Bill to follow.