abates anti iproaebings in IarIiament.

INCOME-TAX.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, on the motion that the amend- ments to the Income-tax Bill be read a second time, Mr. CRAW Es Buttra made the following motion by way of amendment- " That the circumstances under which the renewal of the Income-tax is at present proposed, are such as to render it exceedingly improbable that Parliament will have the power of dispensing with its continuance at the end of three years; and that it is therefore the duty of this House to take care that the tax be im- posed in a form in which its operation shall be less unequal and inquisitorial than rrnow is."

The duration of the tax, he said, was the cardinal question upon which the case turned. Both sides of the House agreed to the bill without suffi- cient deliberation. Sir Robert Peel's supporters had been quite mastered by his energy—

At first, they seemed more averse to the tax than any others, and the less in- dined to vote for it on account of the fiscal regulations which were announced at' the same time; but at length, with that noble independence, that self-reliance,- that vigour of intellect which marked all their conduct, they came to the resolu- tion, not that they would oppose an Income-tax for a limited period, but that on no account would they consent to make an Income-tax permanent; and then they all seemed of opinion that permanent the Income-tax would be, were it not for the assurances to the contrary given by the right honourable Baronet. He had certainly never seen so large a hope hung upon so small an assurance.

The Members on the Opposition side of the House were a sharper set- a shrewder set of men; and they knew that there was no chance of the Income-tax being removed at the end of three years. Nevertheless, they were not more consistent: for, " enamoured " as they were of the tax upon property, they felt all the objections urged against the tax upon uncertain incomes, and they were determined not to submit to a permanent impost on any account, unless it were greatly modified; yet they voted in favour of the bill, without insisting on any modification! Mr. Buller dissented from a favourite opinion on his own side of the House on the subject of direct taxation; contending that the main reliance of the country must be on indirect taxation— He was aware that there was a great deal of soundness in the abstract argu- ment in favour of anincome-tax. But recollect that no less than fifty millions of revenue were raised every year and that the Income-tax was in addition to a very large amount of direct taxation. About seven or eight millions were an- nually paid in direct taxes, such as county-rates, poor-rates, and borough-rates; besides which, every honourable Member would bear in mind that the taxgatherer came every now and then for an inconveniently large amount of Assessed Taxes. Putting these together, they formed a species of income-tax of about ten per cent; and, one way or another, about one-fifth or perhaps one-fourth of the income of every, man was taken from him. That seemed carrying direct taxation as far as possible. The Income-tax would thus, at the utmost, realize from fifteen to sixteen millions annually, upon the calculation which he had made. Therefore, the main reliance of any Government must always be on indirect taxation. The first object, then, should be to mould the present system of indirect taxation into a better form and make it as permanent as possible. And, having come to this conclusion, that the main reliance of any Minister should be on indirect taxation, he might go further, and say that there was much wisdom in the old idea, that in ordinary times the sole reliance should be upon indirect taxation—that they should keep this fund raised by direct taxation for extraordinary emergencies; because a property-tax, after all, must be an inquisitorial and vexations tax. And be would say, therefore, don't put such a tax upon the people except in those great national exigences when the excited feelings of the nation would induce every man to put up with any amount of hardship to aid in a great national struggle. It was part of a great and wise policy to let the world know that such a fund was kept in store; for it would do far more to prevent aggresaion and unreasonable de- mands on thepart of foreign powers than any augmentation of the naval and mi- litary forces of the country.

A large experiment in the revision of taxation might justify an income- tax—a remission of taxes on general consumption, such as would relieve the great masses of the community, and secure the removal of the additional impost at the end of the time allowed; while their removal would need that the Minister should have a great surplus. For the great scandal of our fiscal system is the large amount of revenue raised by undue taxation on the articles of consumption by the mass of the people. Sir Robert Peel was in possession of a surplus greater than. any Minister ever had before; rt. but he frittered it away on petty objects. By the Sugar-duties, for ex- ample, accounted the most popular feature otthe present Budget, the price of British unrefined sugar (34s.) and that of Brazilian sugar (218.) are raised!* the defies to 48*.; so that, what with protection and revenue to- gether; the price oftthe poor man's sugar. is more than doubled. The price of common tea is 9d. a. pound, the duty 21. ldr The price of coffee, of amp, and of malt, is about doubled, The tax on tobacco exceeds from six to sixteen times the cost of the article. The best French brandy costs without duty 4s. a gallon; geneva, 2s.: the duty on foreign spirits is 228. 6d. Besides this enhancement of price, the preposterously extravagant duties and arbitrary regulations of our Customs cause smuggling, fraud and adulteration; demoralization and bloodshed. The effects of the excessive duty on tobacco, for instance, were these—first, that it employed a large race of smugglers; next, that nearly two-thirds of what was consumed contained some wretched deleterious substance; and then, of the remaining quantity consumed, about two-thirds came into the country without having paid any duty at all. Sir Henry Parnell and other authorities calculated that fairly to try a reduction of the duties on tobacco and spirits would involve 3,000,0001. of taxes; and that could not be un- dertaken without the large surplus of 4,000,000/ or 5,000,0001. The Minister had that surplus—he was the first Minister that ever had it in his power to give such a boon to the poor man, and deal effectually with sugar, and put taxation on a right footing. Yet he had dealt with no one great article of consumption by the poor man, except with sugar, where he had sacrificed the revenue with very little benefit to the consumer, simply for. the interest of the West India proprietor. He came forward and proposed a reduction of taxes very proper to be reduced, no doubt, one by one st any time, but which ought not to interfere with the application of the whole surplus in mass—a reduction of taxes which did not hold out the slightest hope of the revenue being restored. The "poor man's budget" would do nothing for the poor man— There were 430 articles on which the import-duties were to be remitted: he had looked through the whole of them, and he could not see what good the poor man would get from them. What advantage could he derive from the remission of-the duty on divi-diciP They did not give the poor man corn or butter, but gave him alum to adulterate bread, and lard to adulterate butter. Then came- the duty on cotton—the right-honourable Baronet was eloquent in praise of cotters and fustians. He never pretended tocombat the right honourable gentleman where: millions were concerned—they were beyond his calibre; but upon this question he could imagine a poor man dressed from top to toe in fustian—jacket, waistcoat, and trousers: the weight of that dress would be about 44 pounds, or, allowing for waste, 5 pounds of raw cotton. The duty on cotton was 5-16ths of a penny, or little more than lid. on the whole dress. He then took the case of a woman's dress: the weight of a woman's gown was about 2 pounds and 1-5th, or about. three farthings; and, allowing for two gowns in the year, there would be a saving. of lid.; or upon the two gowns and the suit of fustian, to an economical man,, just 3d. saved per annum. Nay, more, if they took off lid. on an article cost- ing 4s. 6d, and lid. on an article costing 13s. or 14s., he doubted whether the consumer would have the benefit of it As to the notion that the reductions of the Tariff would compensate for the Income-tax, that was the grossest delusion of all— He had never found any one who had made up his Income-tax in the way held out by Sir Robert Peel in imposing it. In the first place, provisions were to have been cheaper. Why, provisions had not fallen in price. (" Oh!") He confessed he had forgotten Westphalia hams. (In the midst of laughter, an ejaculation in which the word "agmculture" only was audible, escay el from some Member below the Treasury.benches.). " That can scarcely be calls d an articulate sound, though there is much feeling expressed in it. (Laughter.) There is a kind of mute expression of suffering, a wailing at the diminution in the consumption of. articles of your produce. I dare say you suffer much. Let me be your comforter. (Renewed laughter.) We who live in towns gain very little by the change—if we except Westphalia hams. But what are the advantages of the new scheme?, I went through a calculation upon the subject of sugar. I took the instance of a• family having 5001. a year: they would pay 141. 138.4d. and a fraction Income tan That is positive; there is no mistake about that. If that familyconsume 40Ibs, of sugar in a-year, they may save 251., supposing they save ld. in the pound. " But then there is new furniture, made ofdifferent kinds of wood, and the glass- duty: on these there is to be a good deal of saving. Yes, if all Englandwere composed of newly-married couples, each having 1,0001. a year, and just setting up in life, I dare say they might be able to pay the Income-tax for a year or two: (" Hear, hear!" and laughter.) It is perfect nonsense to talk of people making, up the Income-tax by the reduction in the price of.the articles affected by the new- budget. You profess to adopt a principle. of. the greatest liberality; but you exempt from its operation every article that enters largely into general consump- tion. It is something like the description given in the Marriage of Figaro of the liberty of the press at Madrid= Provided nothing is said about the govern- meat, or of politics, or morals, or religion, or any public amusement, or the-public credit, you are free to print whatever you like. So it is with the right honour,- able Baronet's system of free trade: You are free,' says he, to have any corn, butter, tea, coffee, tobacco, or in fact any thing that is raised in the united King- dom, or in any of Colonies, or-manufactured in either the one or the other; you may bring in anything you like, subject to have it overhauled at the Custom- house, and registered, and—' (Cheers and laughter drowned the end of the sen- tence.) It is nonsense to call this a Free-Us& budget; it is nothing ;less than Monopoly budget."

Having swept away the whole surplus, however, Sir Robert Peel has cut away the reliance of the Free-traders. Without a surplus, you can- not have free trade; and you obtain the remission of the duty on glass by abandoning the warfare against the protective system. The Free. traders would have been far wiser to have insisted on the ground which• they occupied in 1841 and 1842; when they rejected all manner of snoh- partial propositions. Besides, the whole calculations of the Budget are based on a- few years of good harvest and prosperity, without provision for adverse seasons and periods of depression. It is therefore- a fraud, midi*, foolish fraud, for Members to tell the country that they keep up the Ins come-tax with the hope of taking it off at the end of three years. Let them, then, put it into that shape in which it might be less injuriously con- tinued. In London it has been carried out with moderation and forbear- ance; but there are great complaints against the Country Commissioners. Mr. Buller said that he had purposely shaped his amendment so as merely to assert a plain, practical; precise, and pregnant principle, in the expecta- tion that any amendment of which the tax is capable might be proposed after his.

Mr. Gornsimar replied to Mr. Buller. He referred to the previous vote as having settled that the present. Income-tax is to be continued; and he. reproached Mr. Buller for having withheld his disapprobation till so lateie stage, though his proposition ought to have been submitted to the Mouse' on the earliest occasion. And those who assented to the tax, yet objected. to its form, were bound at least to show in what way they would amend Ai The financial scheme did not seek so much to benefit the poor by the direct- withdrawal of taxation, as by- encouraging employment in trades—in the glass-trade, for instance; a point on which Mr. Goulburn reiterated argu- ments already repeated. As to complaints against the collection of the tax, although he had been at all times open to them, he should say that commu- nications from all parts of the country prove that there has been lessobjection to its payment and less difficulty in its collection than in those of any other direct tax. It must be remembered, with respect to the several amend- ments that had been announced, that they must either subtract from the revenue or throw an increased burden upon particular classes.

Among the most hearty supporters of Government was Mr. HUME; who maintained that the Income-tax is not an additional impost, but merely an exchange of taxation. He pointed to the sweep made from the Tariff of all articles used in manufactures; and declared, that as Sir Robert Peel had expressed his determination not to accede to any amendment, there was no use in their bothering themselves further on the subject. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL subsequently remarked, that Sir Robert Peel had been called the Petruchio of Liberalism: Mr. Hume must be its tamed Catherine.] Mr. Buller obtained support on both sides of the House. Sir ROBERT INGLIS contended, that instead of merely exempting persons with an income under 1501., that sum ought to be struck off all incomes, so that a person with 2001. a year should pay a tax on 50/. only. He regretted that some portion of the surplus had not been thrown back to the country to relieve the spiritual destitution which is connected with the social ill-being of the people—in the shape, for example, of a remission of duty on legacies for purposes of spiritual charity. Mr. HAWES argued, that, without imposing the Income-tax, the estimated surplus of 1,400,0001. might be devoted to repeal the duties on cotton, coal, and glass—amounting to that sum; leaving unrepealed the Auction-duty and also the duty on the four hundred and thirty articles in the Tariff; the abolition of which would not cause any reduction in the Customs establishment. He doubted the expediency of increasing direct taxation: it is mere just and economical: but already 20,000,0001. is paid in direct, and 35,000,0001. in indirect taxes; the local rates increasing the amount of direct taxation to 32,000,0004—nearly one half of the revenue; and a heavy direct tax upon capital would be very likely to drive it out of the country. Nevertheless, he could not refuse to consider a proposition for mitigating the hardships of the tax. Mr. COB- DEN enlarged upon the inquisitorial nature of the tax; remarking, that if Members of Parliament were exposed to half the scrutiny to which persons under schedule D are subjected, it would not.long be endured. The last thing that a man in business likes to show is his balance-sheet, even to his wife or his son; and in Lancashire it is the rule to pay enormous surcharges rather than to expose affairs. As a Free-trader, he repudiated all connexion with and all responsibility for such a measure. Such a measure was not neces- sary to carry out his views with respect to free trade, though it might be necessary to keep up the Free-trade delusion of the right honourable Baronet- Sir Robert Peel often relied upon the authority of Mr. Deacon Hume: he had said, " You cannot retrieve the country unless you remove your restrictions," not restrictions upon " divi-divi;' but upon corn and sugar; and again, " If these monopolies are continued, I shall look with deep apprehension to the state of the revenue." Mr. M`Gregor had said also,. " If you want more revenue, you can get it from sugar." He did not know how Sr Robert Peel could venture to set up for a Free-trader, when he had shut against the commerce of England the two large markets of North and South America. Mr. Muwrz, while opposing the particular tax, which he acknowledged to be very unpopular in Birmingham, attri- buted the improved state of the country to Sir Robert Peel's general policy. He did not mean to say that the good harvests had not done some- thing; but this he would say, that if it had not been for the measures of the right honourable Baronet, they would have not only been now in a deficiency of revenue, but in a state of very great pressure. Lord JOHN Rusamr. was willing to continue the tax for three years; but made objec- tions to the plan of reducing taxes and omitting the large articles of taxa- tion. Mr. SHELL told the Premier, that he would have no difficulty in dis- covering other taxes to supply the place of the Income-tax, if he would only tam his ingenuity: he might, for example, take a legacy-duty on real

ProPer Some e Members, though strongly objecting to the Income-tax, opposed

Mr. Buller's motion. Lord HOWIOK could not vote for the amendment,— because he was not prepared to propose any new taxes; and therefore he could not vote to repeal an existing tax, the want of which might leave the finances in a state unsafe to public credit. Nor could he vote for a modi- fication of it which was not explained or set forth: he had a great objection to dealing in that way with taxes. It was said that there ought to be a tax upon "realized property": he had never heard a distinct definition of what was meant by "realized property." If the tax were imposed on any property, it must in justice be imposed on all kinds. How could landed or funded property be taxed while the property of the manufacturer, ship- owner, or fanner, escaped? How, in the case of either manufacturer or merchant, distinguish between interest of capital and professional income? Do not the manifold objections to taxes on income and property show that they proceed on a radically false principle? The income that a man can fairly afford to spend varies with every possible circumstance; and a tax on ssxpenditure would meet every view of the attempt to have a well-regu- lated system of taxation; for each man can judge what part of his income he can afford to spend, and on the statement of that amount he should be required to contribute to the public revenue.

Sir ROBERT PEEL answered a variety of objections. To Mr. Hawes he replied, that he could not calculate on applying the surplus of 1,400,0001. in the remission of duties to that amount, because it accrues through half- a-year's operation of the Income-tax; which, if the tax were not con- tinued, would be wanting in future years. To Sir Robert Inglis he replied, that to make 1501 the zero of taxation would be equivalent to returning 1,000,0001 to the 200,000 persons who would be entitled to the benefit of the reduction; a new process would be required to ascertain what every man's income is; and not only those having the smaller, but those having the greater incomes would be benefited, which would defeat the honourable Baronet's object. Mi. Buller's speech was against the whole policy of Government, and ought to have concluded with a motion condemnatory of the Income-tax, not one proposing a small alteration of it. If any -specific modification were contemplated, it ought to be stated: but the honourable gentleman said, " No; allow me only to make a motion which-points at some modification, which does not specify any." Sir Robert' hoped- the House would not commit itself to details before it heard the proposition, because, in most of the amendments of the existing law which had been proposed, the tendency might be suspected to be more injurious than beneficial. No doubt, sufficient money might be raised in various ways, to meet the additional estimates and maintain the public credit—for instance, by a charge of 2d. on every letter. But the question was, whether the additional sum should be raised by means of the Income-tax and the surplus applied to the reduction of taxation. The plan of reducing the Sugar-duties had been affirmed by the House; and no one had attempted to show that the remaining surplus of 2,000,0001., after deducting the loss occasioned by the reduction of the Sugar-duties, could be better applied than in the manner proposed by Government. Before the exposition of the financial scheme, many gentlemen opposite expressed themselves in favour of reducing the duty on raw cotton; and Sir Robert went on to repeat many arguments in advocacy of the selection which had been made of taxes to be repealed; contending that objectors ought to show that other taxes arc more burdensome to the people. By the increase of trade and employment, other burdens would be dimi- nished—that, for example, of the poor-rates. He concluded with a hope that the House would not enter upon such difficult questions as that of ad- justing a tax upon property and not upon income, or of finding the value of a inales life as a basis for the tax,—questions involving more inquisition than that already objected to,—but would affirm the bill as it stood.

On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 240 to 112.

Mr. MILES, urging the heavy pressure of the Income-tax on agriculture, moved the insertion of the following clause.

"And be it enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for all persons assessed under schedule (B), should they feel themselves aggrieved by such assessment, to appeal to the Commissioners for General Pur- poses, ten days notice thereof in writing being given to the Assessor or Surveyor of the district in which the property upon which he is assessM is situate: and the said Commissioners are hereby empowered to bear and determine such appeal, under the like rules and regulations as are enacted for hearing and detemuning the appeals under schedule (D), in the aforesaid recited Act of the fifth and sixth years of her present Majesty; provided that no person so appealing shall be charged by the aforesaid Commissioners more than the sum of 36d. in England, and 2&d. in Scotland, for every 20s. of the property he occupies."

Mr. Gornannus met the proposition by showing, that in taking the as- sessment at one half the rental, and excluding those who pay 3001. a year rent, the farmers already enjoy sufficient indulgence as compared with other classes. The amendment was negatived, by 196 to 92.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For Mr. Buller's Atnendment- Mr. Charles Buller, Sir Robert Inglis, Mm. Halves, Mr. Sheil, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Villiers, Mr. Mentz, Lord John Russell. Against it—Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Monck- ton Milnes, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Hume, Sir Robert Peel. Against the particular amendment, but also against the tax—Lord Howick, Mr. Warburton.

On the motion for the third reading of the bill, on Wednesday, Mr. WAKLEY stated the case of Mr. John Fielden, the Member for Oldham. Messrs. Fielden had been assessed at 12,0001. profit on the average of three years ending in 1843: Messrs. Fielden appealed to the Commissioners at Somerset House, putting in a statement which showed, on the average of those three years, a loss of 24,000/.: the Commissioners wished the case to stand till after Easter; hut, in the mean time, Messrs. Fielden were again assessed, now at 24,0001. profit, and payment was demanded. Mr. GOUT, BURN promised to inquire into the case; and Sir ROBERT PEEL trusted' that the Treasury would be able to afford redress.

Mr. SPOONE'R proposed an amendment—a resolution to enable persons carrying on small businesses to make deductions from their profits for main- taining members of their own family actually employed by them as work- people. Mr. Grommmw believed that, upon the whole, the law as it stood would not press heavily upon the class of persons in question; and de- duction is allowed for bona fide payment of wages ; but deductions for maintenance could not be allowed without a much more inquisitorial power than that which is already objected to. On a division, the clause was ne- gatived, by 151 to 39.

Mr. SPOONER then moved another amendment, permitting persons under schedules D and E to make deductions from their profits on account of premiums paid for insurance on their lives: contending that it is proper to encourage forecast. Mr. Gomm:raw objected, that if the exemption were allowed, it must in justice be extended to other classes. Sometimes insurance is made in mere extravagance, as a collateral security to obtain loans of money. The amendment was negatived, by 87 to 26.

Mr. WAKLEY proposed a clause exempting landlords from the payment of the tax in respect of rent which they have not received and are not likely- to receive. Mr. GOULBURN said, that the deductions would open the door to a great deal of fraud; and the motion was withdrawn.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS moved a proviso, " that the said rates and duties shall not be assessed or taken upon any income whatever under the amount of 500/., except in respect to the sum by which such income shall exceed the sum of 1501" The amendment, said Mr. GOULBURN, would give innu- merable opportunities for fraud; and it was negatived, by 59 to 25.

The amendments disposed of, Members indulged in some parting remarks on the bill. Sir WILLIAM CLAY declared that the Income-tax was too high a price to pay for Sir Robert Peel's other measures.

Sir ROBERT PEEL admitted Mr. Clay's right to put on record his parting malediction. He made some very general observations on the necessity of knowing the peculiar circumstances of a country before you can say whether direct or indirect taxation ought to predominate. He praised the willingness which the affiuent classes had shown to subject them- selves to the tax in order to improve the condition of the working- classes. The reason why the tax was„,acquiesced in, was not from satis- faction with itself, but from a desire to, enaincrage the commutation of tax- ation in favour of those who most needed ire 41lf tub' 06:continuance of the impost for a longer period than three years, the questriin was one of which he need not anticipate the discussion. (Laughter.) Nothing could be more unnecessary than to go into such a dismission now; and therefore he would not say anything on the subject of its further continuance after the period of three years. Mr. WARD warmly vindicated the tax, and the policy of the Premier— Where were the Free-trade party to look for support in carrying out their views? Was it to the Whig party? (Ministerial cheers.) It was only a question of degree between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer. He saw no desire in the Whig party to throw themselves into the ranks of his party; but if they showed that he should be ready to fight a long up-hill fight with them. There was this difference between the right honour- able gentleman opposite and those at his own side of the Home—that Wirt the right edhonounible Baronet said he did, but at ,his side of the House they only talk. Mr. CURTEIS explained why he did not again divide the House against the bill: he wished it to go forth to the country that Lord John Rus- sell had to a certain extent sustained the character that was expected of him, and that the people, by jumbling up the one vote which the noble Lord had given against the tax, with those which he had given of a different character, might draw a favourable conclusion from it.

Eventually, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

AGRICULTITRAL DISTREss.

On Thursday, Mr. COBDEN moved " That a Select Committee be ap- pointed to inquire into the causes and extent of the alleged existing agri- cultural distress, and into the effects of legislative protection upon the inte- rests of landowners, tenant-farmers, and farm-labourers." [He set forth the reasons for the inquiry in a speech of considerable length; of which our preoccupied 'space forbids us to take more than the fastigia.] The dis- tress among farmers is asserted by the highest authority—" the farmer's friends ": Mr. Hudson avers that the farmers in Norfolk are paying their rents out of capital; Mr. Turner, that in Devonshire they are all insolvent; and, in short, throughout the South of England they are embarrassed. The distress being admitted, what is the cause? This is all confuSion. Sir Robert Peel says, that it is local and not legislative; Mr. Bankes, that it is legislative and general: Mr. Gladstone boasted nine months ago, that the new Corn-law worked well, because the price of corn was 56s. 8d.; now the price is 458., and Sir Robert Peel says that his legislation has no- thing to do with it. Mr. Cobden had heard from the highest authority on such a subject, that with another good harvest wheat would probably be as low as 35s.: what then does legislation mean, if prices are to fluctuate from Hs. to 35s.? The farmers labour under great evils, want of capital being the first: the capital bestowed on arable land ought to be 101. an acre; in all the country South of the Trent the average is not 51.: what is the cause of that deficiency, when such is the plethora of capital in every other business, that it overflows to France, Pennsylvania, or Mexico? The cause is, the want of secure tenure for land; for capital shrinks from insecurity. Perhaps also the "protection " system helps it: landlords will keep up the Corn-laws; to do that, they must have voters—they make dependent tenants—thus they do not obtain skilful intelligent farmers—the labourers are unemployed—and hence heavy poor-rates, county-rates, and such burdens, to complete the vicious circle. Mr. Philip Posey testifies to the grievous want of improve- ments and skill; Mr. Fisher Hobbs and Lord Stanley demand improvements and leases. Mr. Cobden read part of an antiquated lease still used in Cheshire, (such as he road last year,) in which the tenant is fined 201. for every acre of pasture-ground converted to tillage, 201. for every servant so employed as to gain a settlement, obliged to provide a cock and a hen for the landlord, with many more such antediluvian provisions. Why not let the tenant have a farm as a factory is let to a tenant, simply with a sche- dule of its walls and machinery, requiring him to give it up in the same state as lie finds it in. If this inquiry were refused, the Anti-Corn-law League would probably establish—even in Buckinghainshire; a model-farm, with model appurtenances, and a model lease, giving it to the absolute control of an intelligent tenant-farmer with plenty of capital, and no sporting over his land. To prove that Free-trade would benefit farmers, and therefore labourers, Mr. Cobden showed that each district. obtains a partial " protec- tion " at the cost of a general burden: the hop-growers of Kent, Suffolk, and Surrey, for instance, are "protected"; but for that they pay a price enhanced through protection for every other kind of produce which they consume rather than grow; while the burden of the hop-duty falls upon the rest of the country. He quoted the testimony of Mr. Nathaniel Atherton of Rington, and Mr. Lattimore of Wickhamp- stead—farmers of noted capital and ability—that their class would pros- per more if all grain were freely imported; Mr. Atherton basing his calcu- lation on figures. No fewer than a hundred intelligent farmers in Eng- land and Scotland belong to the Anti-Corn-law League. He believed, in- deed, that protection is throwing land out of cultivation and people out of employment. It is said that the agricultural classes are the great consu- mers of our manufae res : excepting shoes they do not consume clothing and bedding to the v ue of more than 308. a year per man—or 1,500,0001. in all; and statistical turns on the table show that they do not contri- bute to the revenue mere than 158. a piece, or 700,0001. To so low a pass ihas agriculture been brought, that there would be nothing to fear in risk- ing a change of system. An associatipp has been set up to redeem the country by the cultivation of flax: corn can hardly be grown at, a -profit,

though having a protection of 20s. a quarter; but flax is to prosper—it has a protective duty of one penny the hundredweight. Mr. Cobden undertook -to prove before the Committee, that protection has always been a failure, with wheat at 80s., 608., or now at 45s. Grant him a fair inquiry, and he would give the agriculturists—even the members of the Central Agricul- tural Protection Society—a majority on the Committee, and yet he would explode the delusion of protection so that it should not last two years after the issue of the Blue Book. •-

Mr. WODEHOUSE rose to move in amendment which he had notified; but he was interrupted by Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, who wished to state the course that Government would take. Mr. Herbe4 pronounced it idle to refer the matter to a Committee: Committees on the subject, have never produced any practical results, though they have come to very opposite conclusions from Mr. C,obden; one especially, in 1833, comprising Lord John Russell, asserted that protection was necessary, and that there had t 11 great improvement in agridulture. If it was so in 1833, how much v,„ now ; when, indeed, the evidence of the eyes proves it to the traveller? h., y Agricultural journal, too, speaks of increased_ rents and profits. As -to the lease from Cheshire, securing.to the landlord a "cock and hen " for the obsolete amusement- of cockfighting, apprentices' indentures may still be found with analogous antiquated forms,—such as the prohibition of obso- lete games; but of course it is the spirit of the contract alone which is pre- Iserved. Mr. Cobden's feeling had been betrayed in his saying " Give me the Committee and I Will blew up your protective system." If the Com- mittee were granted, however, would the Free-traders await the oracular decision of the report, suspend their agitation, and restore Covent Garden Theatre to the Muses? On the contrary, even in that House Mr. Villiers's motion would still be dismissed. Now, the agriculturists are, as a body, possessed of very delicate nerves, and extremely susceptible of alarm; and the appointment of the ComMittee would have the most paralyzing effect upon agricultural interests. As an Agricultural Member, it was distasteful to him to come whining to Parliament With applications for more assist-

awe. Parliament had given them an amount of protection, reduced, but sufficient to enable them to compete with the foreigner; and with that they ought to remain content. If they were in difficulty, they ought to put their shoulder to the wheel, and lay out capital in really improving their farms. The question at issue was one of principle, not of details: it had . been amply investigated, and was for discussion, not in a Committee, but in the House; where Ministers were perfectly ;villing to discuss it. He advised Mr. Stafford O'Brien and Mr. Wodehouse, who had given notice of anndments, not to let Mr. Cobden take them in, but to join Government in meeting the motion with a direct negative.

Mr. Cobden's arguments were vigorously backed by Members on his own side. Lord Howica insisted on the utility of Select Committees; and in the present case especially there were many disputed matters of fact, on which a Committee might advantageously report, to say on which side the . truth lay. This shrinking from inquiry proved that Government had no , very strong confidence in their own case, and that they dared not trust the vague general assertions which passed in that House to the close cross- examination of a Committee. Mr. Herbert endeavoureclto show that there _ had been agricultural improvement: who denied it?—not Mr. Cobden. But it had been slow; and the capital, though increased, is deficient: the tenant wants both the security of tenure and the stimulus of competition. Lord Howick adverted to the restrictions of the Tariff on corn, sugar, coffee, meat, timber—on all the necessaries of life: as Parliament passes laws with the avowed object of limiting the supply, it is not unreasonable to connect the distress of the people and that scarcity of food which the laws occasion: for that Parliament is responsible, and he demandeda Com- mittee to inquire into the facts.

When he looked at these things—when he remembered that gentlemen opposite were bent on keeping up rents while they kept down wages—he could not help asking them, whether the awful words applied to the rich man in the days of the Prophets might not now be applied to the ruling classes in this country, " Behold the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth; and the cries of them which have reaped bath entered into the ear of the Lord of Sabaoth."

Mr. BRIGHT gave the debate a somewhat personal turn; contrasting Mr. Herbert's present declaration that protection is sufficient, with his regret, expressed on the hustings at Salisbury, that it is not greater; and asking, if his estates are not overrun with game? All trades, he argued, from which protection has been removed—as the iron, silk, and linen trades— have greatly improved in prosperity. And he twitted the Country Mem- bers, once so independent, with their degeneracy: elected in 1841 to keep the price of wheat at 718., they supported the Government in bringing it down, and have had humbly to apologize to their constituents. Mr. Yu.- L1ERS contrasted Mr. Herbert's contemptuous disparagement of Select Com- mittees

with Sir Robert Peel's recent advice to young Members to serve on • those Committees, as an excellent school: honourable Members "could not be better employed"—" it was an excellent way to gain character." Be- sides, inquiry would mollify what Mr. Stafford O'Brien once called "the agricultural mind"; and all those disappointed agriculturists who go about, in quite a dangerous way, saying that this Government is " worse than the last," treacherous and unjust, should be brought before the Committee.

The motion was opposed by the Agricultural Members. • Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN explained how Mr. Cobden had originally given notice of a motion to inquire into the effect of import-duties on farmers; on which Mr. O'Brien , notified an amendment to inquire into the agricultural distress; tuicLthen Mr. Cobden had incorporated that amendment in his own motion. But Mr. O'Brien disavowed the changeling: Mr. Cobden's speech betrayed an animus adverse to the agriculturists; and his Committee would not be the Farmer's Committee which was wanted. Mr. O'Brien regretted that he could not pursue his motion for a Farmer's Committee; but he learned from Mr. Herbert's intimation that if he did so he should divide in a most miserable minority—(Laughter and cheers}—and he perforce desisted. He read a number of resolutions and other documents, setting forth complaints by farmers at places throughout the country, of distress, of injury from the Tariff of 1842, &c., of neglect in not having any share in the new remission of duties, of burdensome local rates, &c.; and praying relief He thought such representations demanded inquiry; he did not. fear it; and the aristo- , cracy, who had always stood by the people, would be belying tin history of the past, belying the history of the future—(Laughter)if they refused to take into their most anxious consideration the great question of the food of the people. Mr. WoDEHousE [who also had an amendment, deprecating inquiry into the effect of taxation, unless the investigation were general and not limited to a particular class] took Mr. Herbert's advice, and simply opposed the motion. He contended that protection has not failed: there has not been a famine in this country for fifty years,—which cap be said of no other country in the world; and the labouring-classes are better off here than on the Continent. The motion would do no good, and would be viewed by the farmers of, this country, except where discontent and despair had taken away every iota of judgment—(Laughter)—as a most absurd proposition. In his reply, Mr. COBDEN denounced the dishonesty of the landlords, who attempted to fix the price of corn at 56s. or 57s., calcitlated their rents on that, and now came to Parliament to secure the means of paying those rents—

Depending upon protection, they had refused an adjustment of leases with their tenants: but if the landlords continued looking to this " will-o'-the-wisp " system of tio they must expect, t, by and by, afar ge reduction of rent. The noble

protection, tt.121:nMember for Sundirland's father, and those honourable Members from Scotland who had given corn-rents to their tenantry, must excuse him if he as- - mined a tone to honourable gentlemen opposite different from what he had been in the habit of taking, and pointed out to them what he must call a gross delusion— he had almost said the gross fraud—whish had been practised on the tenantry for the benefit of the landlords. The landowners would soon have to reduce their rents, unless they altered their system of legislation as it regarded protection. On a division, the motion was negatived, by .213 to 121.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For inquiry—Mr. Cobden, Lord Howick, Mr. Bright, Mr. Villiers, Colonel Anson. Against it—Mr. Sidney Her- bert, Mr. Stafford O'Brien, Mr. Wodehouse, Mr. George Bankes, Lord Worstey.

Poon-Lews.

On Tuesday, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD called attention to a petition from the rate-payers and inhabitants of Rochdale deprecating the intro- duetion of the new Poor-law into their- district, and praying that the peti- tioners might be heard at the bar of the House. For twenty-six years the parochial relief of Rochdale had been managed under the Select 'Vestries Act; but in October 1844, the Poor-law Commissioners issued a _letter

stating that the new law was to be introduced into the district. The Board of Guardians refused to assemble; the parochial officers would not put the law into execution; and the rate-payers, to the number of 11,600— all in the borough except 19—sent a memorial to the Secretary of State, expressing the hope that the law would not be thrust upon them. Once before an attempt had been made to introduce the law into Rochdale; but it had failed. Cithig the petition, Mr. Crawford proceeded to condemn the law as counter to the highest authorities and inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. He moved that the petition be referred to a Select Committee. Mr. FEZULAND seconded the motion, with copious references to docu- ments and bygone speeches to prove that the law had failed in its professed objects, and resulted only in mischief- Lmfl Althorp gave a pledge that the law should not be introduced into parishes which were well-regulated: have the Commissioners refused to introduce the law into well-regulated parishes? It was to raise wages: Lord Althorp stated, at that time, the average of wages in Northamptonshire was 9s.; now the labourer is well off who can obtain 7s. How has Lord Althorp's pledge been fulfilled, that man and wife, parent and child, should not be separated? The Poor-law was to eradicate poverty and reduce the rates: the increase of paupers in 1843 as com- pared with 1842—years of comparative prosperity—was not less than 112,303; the increase of expenditure was 254,5201. Under the law, crime has fearfully increased since 1836: in 1843, the increase in commitments was 8,707; in capital punishments, 889. Lord Brougham, when moving in the House of Lords the second reading of the new Poor-law Bill, said, " The time was when the English _ peasant dreaded the name of pauper next to that of felon": Mr. Ferranti would say that at present the British peasant dreaded the name of pauper more than that of felon, and fled in the agony of despair from the precincts of the work- house, exclaiming, " No workhouse ! the gaol, the gaol for me !" This was the result of this infamous law. This law had caused the South to be in a blaze of incendiarism, and produced, as Si James Graham himself admitted, a rebellion in South Wales. Scarcely a week passed in which the Coroner for Middlesex had not to hold inquests in consequence of the infanticides committed on account of the operation of this law. The day might come when this country would be in- vaded by a foreign foe: during the French Revolution, at the bidding of the Sove- reign the masses rose in one mighty phalanx, and, standing on the coast with bristling bayonets, dared the foreign foe. Appeal again to them and you will find them a disaffected and a disloyal people. (" No, no, no! ") England's infirmity will be the invader's opportunity. Sir JAMES GRAHAM had attentively listened to Mr. Crawford's speech, but could not detect in it a single novelty. Mr. Crawford was also misin- formed with respect to the borough which he represented; for the law has not been newly introduced there: it came into operation at Rochdale so early as the year 1837. A Board of Guardians had been constituted at Rochdale in that year; that Board had since exercised the right of appoint- ing Clerks, Registrars of Births and Marriages, Treasurers, &c., and of fixing their respective salaries; and exercised various other powers from that period down to the present time. There were some exceptions to this general law—the Gilbert Unions, and some local acts, for instance; but Rochdale did not come under either of those exceptions. He could not consent to the inquiry, since the question is now before a court of law: a mandamus had been moved for in the Court of Queen's Bench to compel the Board of Guardians in Rochdale to execute the law, and be responsible for the relief of the poor in that district; the Board of Guardians refused to - comply, and made a return to that mandamus; the Crown had traversed to that return; and on the 22d instant the issue was to be tried at LiverpooL The motion was supported by Mr. BRIGHT, Captain PEGHELL, Colonel SLBTHORP, General JOHNSON, Mr. PETER i3ORTHWICK, and Mr. ENT-

WISTLE. On, a division, it was negatived by 59 to 16. -

JEWISH CIVIL DISABILITIES.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the LORD CHANCELLOR mailed the second reading of a bill for the relief of persons of the Jewish religion elected to municipal offices; explaining the nature and objects of the measure.

The bill was intended to get rid of some anomalies, some inconsistencies, he might say some absurdities, in the existing law. A Jew may already hold very important responsible offices: Sir Moses Montefiore is a Magistrate for the Cinque Ports, and for the counties of Kent and Middlesex; Mr. David Salomons is a Ma- gistrate for Surrey and Kent, and other Jewish gentlemen are in the Commission of the Peace; Mr. Salomons is Deputy-Lieutenant of a county, and one of the Messrs. Rothschild is Deputy-Lieutenant of another county. Not only are Jews eligible to the office of High Sheriff, but if elected a Jew is bound to serve: the office of Sheriff is regarded in London as a stepping-stone to the post of Alder- man: if you compel a man to accept a burdensome office, it is most unjust to ex- clude him from the customary reward; and the manner in which the exclusion has been effected in the case of Mr. Salomon was still more objectionable. He had served the office of Sheriff, and was elected to the Court of Aldermen; but the Court refused to tender him the oaths; requiring him first to sign the de- claration that he would do nothing detrimental to the Protestant religion, " on the true faith of a Christian" ; which, of course, he could not do. The Court of Queen's Bench was of opinion, that, if he had taken the oaths, he might have been duly admitted and installed in his office; and that if he had subsequently neglected to sign the declaration, he would have been protected by the annual Act of Indemnity. By reversing the order. of procedure,- however, and making the declaratidn anterior to the oaths, the Court of Aldermen were enabled to exclude whom they pleased from the bench of Aldermen, or to admit those whom they favoured; virtually obtaining a hold over the election for which there was no warrant in law. At this moment there are Aldermen of the Jewish religion in Birmingham, Portsmouth, Southampton, and other places. The com- pulsion of signing a declaration has been abolished in the case of Quakers, Inde- pendents, Moravian, and Separatists; the act of abjuration (the 10th of George the First) was repealed by a temporary act—temporary because supposed to have been rendered unnecessary by the operation of the annual Indemnity Act; but setting an example which he now proposed to follow. In other countries— France, Belgium, Holland, and the United States—Jews have been admitted to the highest offices, with no inconvenient result. A less liberal policy prevails in the Austrian States and in Germany; but there also they are beginning to relax in their rigour. Prussia has set the example to the German states. There, persons of the Jewish religion are admitted to the schools and the universities, where they read lectures and take degrees. The most admirable consequences have re- suited from this proceeding; for some of the most learned men in those universi- ties—those who have most distinguished themselves in literature and science, are among such persons. Lord Lyndhurst stated that khad referred some old acts of Parliament on the subject to the Criminal Law Commissioners—such as ought no longer to disgrace the statute-book. Among others, there is one act in the reign of Edward the First, and entitled De Judaism°, where the it- ants of the particular parts of cities which were termed " the Jewries" are re- (inked to wear on their outer garments a badge indicating the religion they beiRto.

e measure was met with hearty concurrence by the Marquis of LANs-

DOWN; Lord Baotromes, and Lord CAMPBELL. The Bishop of LoNnost,

and Lord COLCHESTER, -did not oppose the bill; but declared their deter- mination to oppose any ulterior measure for admitting 'Jews to Parliament. Leave was given to bring in the bill.

NEW ZEALAND.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. Swiss moved for the fol- lowing documents-

" Copies of all Correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor of New Zealand respecting the issue of debentures and the rendering them a legal tender; of all Correspondence between the same respecting the taxes proposed in the Legislative Council of that Colony; of all Correspondence between the same respecting recent outrages by the Natives in the Bay of Islands, and the abolition of the Customhouse of that district; of all Correspondence respecting the mea- sures taken by the Governor of New Zealand to fulfil Lord Stanley's agreement of the 12th May 1843, respecting the grant of a conditional title to the lands of the New Zealand Company; of all Correspondence respecting the disallowance by the Governor of New Zealand of any awards made by the Commissioner of Land- claims respecting the Company's lands; of all correspondence relating to a pro- clamation issued by the Governor of New Zealand, allowing the sale of lands by the Natives at a less price than that fixed by the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 36."

Mr. AGLIONBY seconded the motion ; at the same time stating that he did not intend now to discuss the general question of New Zealand, which must be brought before the House on a future occasion. If it were asked why Mr. Somes and he were put forward to introduce the subject, he an- swered, because they were in a position to know more of the colony than other Members ; and they had the means of arriving at the conviction that no single office, such as the Colonial department, could possibly, under any Colonial Secretary, pay that attention to the wants and the condition of each particular colony which those dependencies required. He proceeded to trace the terms of the motion bit by bit ; illustrating each part with remarks.

He did not suppose there were half-a- dozen Members who had the least idea of the fact that the Colonial Government of New Zealand had issued paper-money or debentures to the amount of 15,0001., and had made them a legal tender, though some of them were given for sums as low as 2s. He wished to know whether that issue of debentures bad taken place with the knowledge and con- sent of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies? As great anxiety was felt on this subject out of doors, he trusted that some information would be given to them respecting it, even before the papers were produced. He wished to know whether he was correct in understanding that one of the regulations issued from the Colonial Office was to this effect—" The Governor is not empowered to pass any law without power from her Majesty's Government, whereby any paper bill or debenture would be circulated or used, or any alteration made in the circulating medium of the colony" ? Now, if that rule were established and acted upon, he would wish to know whether any authority had been issued from the Colonial Office authorizing the issue and circulation of these debentures. He would also ask, whe- ther that portion of the regulation of the Colonial Office which required the Governor of every colony to send home minutes of all proceedings in the Council had been com- plied with by Governor Fitzroy; and if so, whether these minutes would be produced ? fhe House had a right to know what taxes it was proposed to levy in a colony. What would they think of a tax which proposed to levy as much as 10s. on every sheep imported into the colony; thus imposing an effectual barrier to one of the principal means by which the prosperity of the colony could be extended? Again, there was a tax on the dogs used in herding the sheep; also a most unjust and impolitic measure. But that was not all: instead of seeking to promote cleanli- ness and health and morality in the colony, the Governor actually proposed a tax of one pound sterling on every room that would be found in any house over and above three rooms; thus forcing the family and their labourers and servants to reside together. This tax was only withdrawn on the opposition of the Legisla- tive Council. There was a feeling in the colony that the Government was in- clined to show undue favour to the Native inhabitants, to the prejudice of the settlers; an imyression which had been greatly strengthened by Governor Fitz.. roy's conduct in relation to the massacre of Wairan. In passing, Mr. Aglionby alluded to the spontaneous production by the Colonial Office of letters by Mr. Willoughby Shorthand, late acting Governor of New Zealand, Mr. Busby, late Government " Resident," and Mr. Dandeson Coates, Lay Secretary to the Church Missionary Society; correspondence, the vehicle for covert attacks on the New Zealand Company, which the Colonial Office became the means of publishing, as if with official sanction. That was the mode every one adopted who had a shot to fire against the New Zealand Company; and presently after there came forth from the Colonial Office a paper, not word for word, but as nearly the same in substance as suited the purpose of the Office at the time. He briefly alluded to the recent outrageous attack by the Natives at Russell, and the insult to British women. As Mr. Hope had announced an amendment on that part of the motion respecting the means taken by the Governor of New Zealand to fulfil Lord Stanley's agreement with the New Zealand Company of the 12th May 1843, Mr. Aglionby would postpone what he had to say on that point; but there was much further information on that subject, for which he intended eventually to apply. By the 5th and 6th Victoria, c. 36, the price of land was fixed at not less than 20s. an acre: but now it is reported that, under a proclamation by Captain Fitzroy, sales have taken place at much less price: although the right to sell land was formerly declared to vest in the Crown, the settlers have been permitted to purchase it of the Natives at any price, only adding a payment to the local Govern- ment of 10s. an acre. Have fresh instructions on the subject been sent out ? Was the House aware that that there were now between sixteen and seventeen thou- sand of their countrymen in New Zealand, in a state of the greatest distress? He begged the House to remark that this distress was not confined to the Company's settlements, but was equally prevalent and severe in Auckland, with which the Company's agents had nothing to do. This state of things had arisen from the acts of the local Government: its proceedings had destroyed the hopes of the Company, and almost ruined one cf the most promising and beautiful of our colomes.

Mr. G. W. HOPE protested against the course adopted by Mr. Aglionby, in bringing forward the subject of New Zealand bit by bit, instead of raising the general question at once; and especially in intimating that Lord Stanley had been guilty of a breach of faith towards the New Zealand Company, without at once proceeding with the charge. Threats of im- peachment, and all sorts of insinuations, had been published in news- papers throughout the country. Why not come to the proof ? Mr. Aglionby said that information was wanted: the subject was already noto- rious enough; there was an inquiry last session; and as an instance of the notoriety the matter had attained, he might mention the Supplement to the Spectator containing a condensation of the Committee's Blue Book, circu- lated by the authority of the New Zealand Company. [ Mr. C. BULLER denied that assertion.] Well then, without that authority. But at all events, the Blue Book contained every information to enable Mr. Aglionby to make good his threat, if he could do so. He therefore hoped that the friends of the New Zealand Company would either substantiate or retract these charges. [Mr. C. BULLER was understood to say, that he could sub- stantiate them.] Mr. Hope then replied categorically to Mr. Aghonby's questions-- He stated that an unusually long time had elapsed since they had had informa- tion from the colony. But he could assure them, m reference to the first para., graph of the motion, that the debentures issued had been disallowed, and would be withdrawn. No report of their having been made a legal tender had been re- ceived by Government. As to the taxes proposed in the Legislative Council of the colony, no minutes had been received; and he could give no information on

- the subject. Circumstances that he could not account for had left them fors long time without intelligence from the colony. With respect to the recent out- rages at the Bay of Islands, all he at present knew was, that troops had been sent from Sydney to prevent a recurrence of such disturbances. As to the di'uillow- ance of the land-claims of the Company, Government had as yet no information. Respecting the fifth article of the motion Government had received some informa- tion; and when the time came for proposing his amendment, he would be pre- pared to state the reasons. It was not true that, in respect of the murders at Wairau, the Governor had taken an ex parte statement from the murderer: on

- the contrary, he had taken it from those who were the opponents of the murderer—from the Magistrates of Wellington. The letters (from Mr. Short- land and Mr. Busby) had been moved for, not by Government, but by Mr. Kemble; Mr. Shortland having been violently attacked: and as to Mr. .Coates's letter, the instructions to Captain Fitzroy, which were said to be a transcript of it, were sent off the day before the letter was received. It so happened that the instructions and the recommendations contained in the letter concurred. Did it follow that they were wrong? On the contrary, did not this concurrence of views between persons acting without any communication give strong evidence that they were right? With respect to the remission of the right of preemption, the object of Government was to insure a certain sum of revenue concurrently with the sale of lands. Lord John Russell, when Colonial Secretary, had directed that waste lands should be bought by Government and sold again. But when the Government upset-price was fixed at 20s., the Natives, who sold originally to Government on terms so much lower, and who were gradually be- coming moreenlightened, perceived the difference, and asked, why should not we get a profit as well as Government ?—why should not we get the 208. an acre? And they began to decline selling. That plan thus failed, and Govern- ment was left without funds—without the opportunity of buying and selling at -a large profit. Then the Natives said, if the Queen will not buy herself, why ,prevent others from purchasing? And Captain Fitzroy permitted them to sell to individuals, on the condition of a payment being made into the exchequer of ' 108. an acre—half the Government upset-price of land. He was ready to pro- - duce all the information which he possessed upon the subject.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER observed, that Mr. Hope had been exceedingly indignant about matters that were not before the House, and exceedingly indifferent about matters that were before it. He insisted on the right of Members to bring forward complaints on matters connected with the Colonies in whatever manner they thought suitable. It was not wonder- ful that Lord Stanley was annoyed at them; but as some consolation, full -opportunity should be given to his honourable deputy to defend him as he - best might, on some future occasion. Certainly, Members on the Opposi- tion side of the House would not let- the report and evidence of .the Com- mittee sleep. On no fewer than five out of the six points upon which he had been interrogated, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies professed entire ignorance; and as to the sixth, he would not give the information he admitted he possessed.

Now was this a decent answer on the part of the representative of a greatisnb- lic department, upon whose conduct the interests of so important a portion of the state depended? Was it decent, that when six clear and most important ques- tions, affecting great interests, the welfare the safety, of many thousands of our fellow-subjects, were put to that department, its representative in that House should get up and coolly state himself entirely ignorant of the subject? And observe, these were no new matters—no subject that had never yet been touched upon—no topic which had never yet suggested inquiry or comment; very far from it.

He would call the attention of the House to more important questions, -connected not merely with the subject of New Zealand, but with the govern- ment of our Colonies generally—

The question of New Zealand was that of our Colonial government at large; 'its history only a striking illustration of the entire ignorance of the whole subject of Colonial government which pervaded the whole Colonial administration, abroad and at home. There were gentlemen in the House who bad been kind enough to lend him their attention when, twoyears ago, he brought before Parliament the ques- tion of systematic colonization: he had then, as he would now, expressed most em- phatically his conviction that our. Colonies might be rendered most valuable to the Mother-country, but that no colonization could be beneficial while the affairs of our Colonies were administered in the manner in which they now were managed. In former days, when the people of England knew how to colonize—when they sent out those coloniesevhichwere the origin of the greatness of the United States—the colonists whom they: sent out carried with them their safeguard, their birthright, their right to representative government—their right to administer their own af- fairs—their right to tax themselves. This was the case with all our American Colonies; this the secret of their success. Look at Rhode Island, for instance: why, when that colony did not count its population by hundreds, it enjoyed its . representative government. Since that time we had introduced the system of Convict Colonies, and of governing our Colonies by despotic rule: -we had deprived them of self-government—and a precious mess we had made of it. What a government was this of New Zealand ! All its laws were made, all its taxes imposed, by a Governor nominated by the Crown, and a Council nominated by the Governor. How was that Council composed ? Of the Attorney-General for the colony, the Solicitor-General for the co- lony, and the Colonial Secretary—three clearly dependent members, and three nominally independent members, the Governor having the cas • -vote;

and the effect of this had been that all the unpopular measures been regularly carried by the three Government nominees with the Governor's casting- vote. By way of extreme liberality, Governor Hobson tried the experiment of having a gentleman from Wellington, and placing him upon the Legislative Council; but as it turned out that this gentleman had an inconvenient knack of voting against the Governor's propositions, he one day received a communication from Governor Hobson, informing him that be had issued a new commission; and on looking over the names he found he had not placed him on the list,—a very clear hint that his services were no longer required at the Council-board. 'Captain Fitzroy, the new Governor, was less roundabout in his proceedings; for he wrote to a gentleman telling him most distinctly that he held his situation at the Board merely at the will of the Governor and that the Governor allowed no opposition to his will. There was no disguise about the matter, none at all; it was to all intents and purposes a perfect despotism. In

i

some despotic countries the government is administered wisely, as in Prus- sia and British India; the despots set over the people, from the highest to the lowest grades, being well trained to their duties. But is that the case with our free despotic Government of New Zealand? He very much doubted whether the quarter-deck was the best possible school of diplomacy; and, therefore, when he found an officer of the Navy placed in such a positioil, and conducting himself with the greatest incompetency, he thought he had a full right to complain of the :selection of such a man for such a pest. -Let him take a glaring instance. He was about to speak of a question offieance in the presence of a great master of the currency question: of course he alluded to the right honourable Baronet at the head of. the Government,and not to the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Home Department, wbo, though he had written about currency, was /30 authority on the subject. (Laughter.) But he was speaking in the presence of the right • honourable Member for Tamworth, a great practical authority : he -would appeal to -the right -honourable honourable Baronet, whether it was not astounding that, under the administration of a man supporting all kinds of the soundest views generally with reference to the currency, there -should be suffered a Go- vernor of a colony of Great Britain who WAS scattering his assignats in every direction 'around -him ?—for such they were most completely—an absolutely In- controvertible paper currency, which at this time of day was . a perfect mon- strosity. Here in England, we had gone-to the most inconvenient lengths for the purpose of returning to a gold currency; and even when .paper-money was more general, care had always been taken to limit the amount for which it should. be issued. At one time that limit was IL; now it was M. Yet, in the teeth of all the present Government had done, we found the Governor of New Zealand issuing a paper-currency unheard-of in the world's history, except in the memo- rable case of the shin-plasters of the United States: they,' indeed, went so low as Is. 6d. Captain Fitzroy's currency was not quite so humble as that; but it was very little better, for his notes were for 5s. and 28.—an inconvertible currrency, which, inconvertible as it was, was forced upon the poorest of our fellow-subjects in-the colony in payment of their wages. „Imagine the effect of intelligence arriving in the colony that the Government at home had de- -dared that these notes should not pass current: for, be it remembered, the whole of these debentures, to the extent of 15,0001., had been issued by the Governor in the face of 2,0001. worth of bills.already dishonoured by the Government at home. Ima�me the utter depreciate:on which, upon such intelligence, would involve the whole of these 5s. and 2s. notes. There would be some small speculating capi- talist buying up the whole at a penny or twopence apiece; and when the Govern- ment at home came at last to sanction its Governor's proceediw, as doubtless it would, we should have to pay 2s. and -58. for that which had keen bought up at Id. and 2d. It was most scandalous, most monstrous, that a Governor of one of our Colonies should be thus permitted to trifle with the commonest principles which sound reason and common sense dictated and enforced at home. it was perfectly clear to him, that A man who did not understand that he ought not;to issue 2s. notes or bs. notes under any circumstances, was unfit for any place of the -slightest responsibility—was not only an ignorant and incompetent man, but, moreover, a mischievous and daegerous man. Had he desired to ruin the creepy, he could not have done worse than tout a tax of 10s. upon every sheep -and 11. upon every head of cattle imported. 'But, doubtless, his patrons at home would say that he had been actuated by " the best possible intentions." Then again, as to his .precious customs-regulations ; never, certainly, since the time of the simpleton in Hierocles, who imagined you could draw water from-the bottom of a tub without lessening the quantity of water at the, top of the tub, hid such a simpleton-proceeding been heard of as that which Captain Fitzroy had been guilty of, under the extraordinary supposition that, by abolishing the customs-duties at one of- the ports of New Zealand, he should in no way lessen the customs-duties at those ports where they were retained. That was done to conciliate the Natives in the neighbourhood of the Bay of Islands, after their attack upon Russell; [which Mr. Buller narrated.] The Duke of Buckingham, or some other great agricultural light, somewhere or other, lately made use of an odd phrase, but, unlike most of what fell from the leading agricultural Dukes, pregnant with meaning. He was complaining of the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Government, and of the Queen's Speech, and snaking a great la- mentation that neither the one nor the other had made any mention of agricultural distress: " They treated us so badly," said the noble Duke " they treat us no better than if we were o -colony! " This was how the lords and gentlemen of Parliament spoke of our Colonies: us the most forcible illustration of the lowest depth of indifference, it was mid, you neglect us as though we were a colony! Mr. Hope treated the, subject of the proclamation about land as if. there were no grievance; yet a grievance there was of the most serious cha- racter— By. the 5th and 6th Victoria, it was enacted that no waste lands in the Anstra lien Colonies should be sold for a less price than IL per acre. The question was asked, can lands held by Natives, and sold by them, be considered as waste lands ? He thought there could be no doubt of this upon the mind of any person who had read the 23d section of the Act. Yet the very protection which the Act ex- tended to the Natives the Governor had chosen to take away, by setting aside the right of preemption in the Crown—a right which the Crown had always asserted in these colonies, and most-justly and humanely; for, by reserving to itself the right of making the purchase in the first instance from the Natives, it prevented their ignorance and simplicity from being imposed upon by unprincipled specu- lators. This was the rule acted upon - in the United States, as,derived from this country; and acting upon this role, and under the. Act of Parliament, the Go- vernment were called upon to take care thatno land was purchased for less than a Yet here came the Government's Governor, Captain Fitzroy, and by a Awl. stroke of his pen altered the price at which land should be sold, -and threweall the common lands into the hands of land-jobbers, at not.20s., but.10s.

in a dispute -about land originated the Wairau massacre—

He could hardlyrestrain his feelings when his thoughts recurredlo that hornide scene. Heknew and most deeply valued one of the victims—Captain Wakefield; than whom no British officer of. our times gave greater ,promise of doing, honour -to his country. That such ,a roan should have perished in such a way, wider rsuch.circumstances, as the result of such gross mismanagement And inefficiency on the part of those who were most preposterously set. over him, was perfectly unendurable; and almost equally unendurable was it that such a man as Ceptam Fitzroy should be seen taking advantage of his death to attach discredit to his memory.

He could not understand why it was that a gentleman like Captain .Fitzroy felt himself; when he went to a distant colony like that, as Gover- nor, relieved from the reponsibilities and decencies which usually charac- - terize the intercourse between one gentleman and another—

An example was afforded by his conduct towards a gentleman in New Zealand named Dillon—a gentleman of high character and honour. Captain Fitzroy taxed Mr. Dillon with writing in a newspaper; and Mr. Dillon stated, upon beiog so taxed, that he had-never done so in his life. What was the answer of Captain Fitzroy to Mr. Dillon when he denied having so written?—he said that the statement of Dillon-was not-true. It might be said that these were paltry matters: they were not, however, paltry-nratters ; and it was not because Captain Fitzroy was Governor of New Zealand that he was to insult every gentleman vrho came under his authority. It was not a paltry matter to show those who em- ployed Captain.Fitzroy how completely he mismanaged the proceedings arising from the Wairau affair, and to prove that, without any necessity, and in the most delicate point,. he had wounded the feelings and susceptibilities of the Europeans - who- were residing there.

Mr. Buller illustrated -the -vicious government of New Zealand -Wits excessive expenditure— He found the large expenditure in the-colony of 36,0001. per annum among a ppooppulation of 14,000 persons,—that is, two and a half times the expenditure of Great Britain: they had 14,000 persons in New Zealand governed at an expense of 36,0001. annually, whilst in Prince Edward's Island, with a population •of 47,000 persons, the expenditure was only 12,0001.: but then, Prince Edward:a Island had a representative government. Captain Fitzroy found a great ex - -tun in New Zealand; and-he stated when - he arrived, that the greatest calamity swhieh a -good,_Governor ought tosavoidrwas that of subjecting tae officers:of She 'reavernmentle a decrease of their salaries; accordingly, he laid a tax upon stock, ltpon the importation of cattle, upon three-roomed houses, upon sheep-dogs, and issued'three and five shillings assignats, for the purpose of , paying the workmen theirwages: but in addition to that, he gave the finances of the island the ad- vantage of abolishing the customhouse in one port out of three or four, in order that he might equitably and efficiently collect the revenue Why did he mention this? It was not to hold up Captain Fitzroy as a monster, for the execration of that House; it was not for the purpose of impeaching him; but it was in order :that the House of Commons might be able to estimate him at what he was worth, 'merely as a very foolish and incompetent man. Why, he would ask, did the Government intrust a population of 14,000 persons in New Zealand to the incom- petence of such a man? He did not wish to dwell on the folly' f his conduct— lie was notdisposed to be hard on human infirmities, or to blame him for any defi- -oiency of intellect: but he could not avoid saying, that a man who evinced such infirmities, and who displayed such a deficiency of intellect, ought not to be sent to a distant colony as a Governor; and if employed at all, it should be at home, where the proper steps might be taken immediately after the first act which indi- cated such an infirmity or deficiency of intellect. He did not mention those cir- cumstances with a view to any punishment, even though it might be merited, or with a design of warning other Governors, even though that might be required; but he did it solely for the safety of the colony, which could not be safe for an tour under the influence of such utter incompetence as that of its present Go- venior. 'Really, the Government, after hearing of the conduct of the Governor, ought to send out a keeper for Captain Fitzroy, and his successor, in the same ship.

Several Members started up successively to defend their personal friend, Captain Fitzroy. Colonel Rica TREVOR objected to Mr. Buller's making charges on partial information, while it would take at least ten months to obtainthe answer to those charges from New Zealand. Colonel Wool) pro- tested against the epithets " foolish and.incompetent"; appealing to Captain ',Fitzroy's skilful services in dangerous surveying-voyages. Sir WALTER JAMES indignantly -resented the indecorous language applied to his near relation, an absent man, on the authority of newspaper statements—

What did -the honourable Member for Liskeard mean by saying that Captain Fitzroy got rid of all the decencies and courtesies of life ? Would the honourable Member aver that if Captain Fitzroy were present—(Afinisterld cheers)—would the honourable Member bring forward any one fact to bear out that statement? "Hear, hear!" and cries of " Yes" front the Opposition benches.) The only ring which had been brought forward as a support of that charge, was a state- ment that he told a gentleman that a certain statement he made was not true.

("Hear, hear!" and a laugh from the Op n benches.) He could almost

the honourable Member to bring any case during the whole course of

Captain Fitzroy's life in which he had been guilty of conduct unbecoming a gentle- man and an officer. If, acting as a mediator between the Natives and the settlers, between whom there wawa hostile feeling Captain Fitzroy leaned to the Natives, _his chivalrous generosity might induce him to lean to the side of the weak and defenceless. If ever there was a man of chivalrous generosity and high-toned reeling—if ever there was a man characterized by his regard for truth, for in- tegrity, and the best qualities of social life—he would not there speak of his judg- ment, for every individual was liable to.errors injudgment—but if ever there was any.one on whom he could lay his finger as remarkable for public worth and private virtue, it was Captain Fitzroy. Sir CHARLR8 NAPIER observed, that a man might be a good nautical surveyor and yet make a precious bad Governor. He thought the Govern- ment had committed a great mistake in sending out Captain Fitzroy as Governor to New Zealand; for he was better calculated to fill another office: his-plan to pay the National Debt with debentures entitled him at least to be kept at home, to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he were not appointed to that office. Sir Charles could bear his personal testimony to the -merits of the unfortunate Captain Wakefield; than whom there was not a better or more gallant officer in the -service: he regretted his untimely end; and he also regretted that, instead of shaking hands with his mur- derer, they had not executed him

A Ministerial Member, whose name is not stated, bore testimony to Captain Fitzroy's high integrity and amiable qualities; but added, as a re- lation of Mr. Dillon, that Captain Fitzroy's conduct in that affair had been, be would not say ungentlemanlike, but it was not of that .character which is generally adopted between gentlemen. It was quite true that Captain Fitzroy said he would not believe the statement of Mr. Dillon to the effect that he did not write letters in a newspaper.

Sir 'ROBERT PEEL admitted Mr. Buller's right to pronounce a judgment on the -political conduct of Captain Fitzroy ; but nothing could justify his saying that Government ought -to send out a -keeper; and even with re- spect to the paper-currency, it -would mot -be -just to condemn a man in a distant colony upon newspaper information, and without official details. Such details as the Colonial Office was in possession of should 'be fully given; nothing should be kept back. Meanwhile, he had ono hesitation in saying that no circumstances would make the issue of inconvertible paper a wise one. He dissented strongly from the doctrine that a naval officer is disqualified for civil administration. He-had seen instances to the con- trary; .and he proceeded to defend the appointment in question-

& was true that the appointment was made upon the authority and on the sole responsibility of his noble friend at the head of the Colonial Department; but his noble friend had been influenced in making that appointment by no other

motive.than a desire to promote the interests of the 'c service, and particu- larly to advance the welfare of an infant colony. What interest could his noble friend have had in appointing Captain Fitzroy, except that he considered the selection as one which would give general satisfaction, and promote theinterests of the colony? What object of a party nature could he have had? It-was not a very easy matter to get a good Govemor.for the colony. The post was not one of a,ition for distinguished men: but here was-a man of high character—one who bad mot only.distinguished himself in active service and in the scientific attain- ments of his profession, but who was well _known for the kindness of his disposi- tion, the liberality of his views, and his high.honour and integrity, who was will- ing to go to a distant part of the world to undertake a civil office; and his noble friend having appointed him, the New Zealand Company appeared not to entertain different views as to the selection. In proof of this, Sir .&bert Peel read a letter from the Company, highly applauding the appointment of Captain Fitzroy, and his abandonment of a 'lucrative office here under a sense of public duty and a benevolent desire to become an instrument of good to both races in New Zealand. Sir Robert believed the New 7..land Company only did justice to Captain Fitzroy ; ,and he must express his belief, moreover] that in relinquishing a geed civil appointment and_a seat in-that House, and in going out to New Zea- land, upon an inadequate salary, to take upon himself the charge of that colony, that n tcr was only actuated by a sincere desire to do good to his country and his fellow-creatures. Well, then, if such wer •r e ,case, before such a man was condemned—condemned whilst absent in a distant colony—was he not justified in asking them to hear what he.had to allegein.his defence ?

Be made allowances for _Mr. Buller's feelings, knowing:how sincerely im:deploried, how much he had reason to regret, the loss of his gallant-and -lamented friend; butlie.must _not be surprised at the warmth with which

Captain Fitzroy's friends -stood forward to defend him: they did not seek to vindicate the acts done by him in his official capacity. And -Sk Robert promised a defence of-Lord Stanley— He must say, that his duty to a colleague who had been unjustly condemned, had induced him to read the correspondence, and to make himself master of tie) subject as far as he could from the papers • and he hoped the honourable gen- tleman would not delay in bringing under the consideration of the House what every one had expected would be the first subject of discussion, the relation be- tween the affairs of New Zealand and the Colonial Office. When that discussion should take place, he would be prepared to take his part in it, and to vindicate his noble friend; and he thought that, in common justice, the honourable gentle- man would feel it his duty to bring forward that motion, should he determine to persevere in it, at the earliest period consistent with his own convenience. The conduct of Captain Fitzroy might show that his noble friend had made an unwise choice; but this was a very different question from that raised by the report of the Committee of last year. His noble friend had laid upon the table all the despatches' and did not shrink from any inquiry. He would not say anything to anticipate that discussion; but the period had arrived when, if the honourable gentleman still contemplated his motion, be ought to bring it forward, and enable those who represented his noble friend in that House to vindicate hint.

Lord Howicx said, it was clear, after what had fallen from Sir Robert Peel, that the whole conduct of Government and of Captain Fitzroy must ultimately be brought before the House in such a shape that tho House might express an opinion on it; and therefore lie should for the present withhold the expression of his own opinion.

Sir Robert Peel had complained without adequate cause, as be thought, of RI expression which fell from Mr. Buller--that a keeper ought to have been sent out, as well as a successor in the Government." Sir Robert Peel was hypercri- tical: Mr. Buller, feeling strongly—but not more strongly, in his opinion, than the subject deserved—on the misgovernment of Captain Fitzroy, in a speech not less distinguished by its moderation and temperance than its ability, had not said one word, that he had heard, attaching blame to the motives of Captain Fitzroy. What his hor.ourribl.: friend condemned—and it was new to him that a Member of that House was not at liberty to make such a complaint—was the judgment which Captain Fitzroy had shown. So far as they knew, it was utterly impos- sible to say a word in vindication of the Governor's conduct; and their informs-. tion was based, not cn mere newspaper assertions, but on newspaper reports a the Governor's own speeches, proclamations, and legislative proceedings. Sir Ro- bert Peel had spoken of Captain Fitzroy's feelings: let him remember that it was not merely Captain Fitzroy's feelings that were to be considered, but the welfare and very lives of 14,000 or 15,000 British subjects, which were now in the utmost peril from the utter disorganization of the Government. Mr. MANGLES accounted for the letter from the Company, by explaining that they hailed any change in the government of New Zealand, as :it seemed certain to be for the better: and they wrote under a gross decep- tion by the Colonial Office; for they did not know that at that very time Captain Fitzroy had in his pocket the instructions from Lord Stanley ex- plaining away his agreement with the Company. The Company had ap- pealed to the only tribunal open to them—Parliament; a Committee had given a verdict in their favour ; but Lord Stanley had contumaciously set that verdict aside.

Sir ROBERT Nous defended Captain Fitzroy's conduct to the Natives; whom he represented as holding their lands by the undisputed right of thirty generations, and standing upon a footing of equality with any European nation ! The report of the Committee he characterized as a one- sided report; nothing in it of importance being carried by more than a majority of one.

When the several parts of the motion were put seriatim, Mr. HOPE pro- posed some verbal alterations in the terms of the motion, to prevent the admission of " an agreement" between Lord Stanley and the New Zealand Company. After refusing certain terms, the Company accepted the offer that was made, and instructions were given how it should be executed; bat whatever directions were given in the matter were by favour of the Crown, and under no " agreement."

Mr. BULLER insisted that there was such an agreement. The negotia- tions alluded to closed with a suggestion by the Company, and the accept- ance of that suggestion by Government; signified by Mr. Hope, on the 12th May 1843, in these words- ' Lord Stanley directs me to state his assent to these proposals; and to inti- mate farther, that he will be prepared to issue to the Governor of New Zealand instructions to the effect proposed in your letter, for effectually settling the ques- tion of the Company's title to land in that colony." Whether the honourable gentleman called that an agreement or not, was for himself to decide—(Cheers)— but he must say, that the assertion that it was no " agreement " belonged to peculiar style of reasoning—what one might call the Colonial Office style; and if any gentleman could refuse for a moment to call what he had just read an ment, he must quarrel with the English language in its ordinary terms. (17i cheering.) The honourable gentleman said that the instructions which Lord Stanley had issued on the 26th June 1843 were in perfect accordance with the agreement. [Mr. G. W. HOPE—" With the promise."] Promise! He must take the honourable gentleman's own words; and when he said that Lord Stanley directed him to state his assent to the Company's proposals, and to intimate further that lie would be prepared to issue instructions for the purpose of se the Company's title to land in the colony, Mr. Buller did not know what si cation such terms might have at the Colonial Office, but he regarded them as the distinct terms of an agreement; and he had a right to come forward and ask the Government how that agreement, or promise, if the honourable gentleman liked that better, had been kept?

However, the proposed alteration in the terms of the motion was not seriously opposed. Accordingly, after a good deal of disputation, for the words " fulfil Lord Stanley's agreement of the 12th of May 1843," were inserted the words " in pursuance of Mr. Hope's letter "; and the words " at less price than that fixed by the Act of 5 and 6 Victoria, cap. 38," were omitted; with some minor verbal alterations. The motion was then affirmed.

THE JUSTICES' CLERKS BILL was discussed, on Wednesday, on the motion that it be read a second time. Sir Jmints GRAHAM stated the principle of the bill to be the substitution of fixed salaries for fees; in the belief that justice is better administered by public servants with stated salaries; than by those who receive fees for their duties. Several Members raised objections to the measure, principally onthemound that it would ,deter the best lawyers from acting as clerks. Eventual]

April. the bill was read a second time; to be committedon the 14th RAILWAY LEGISLATION. At an early sitting, tl.is week, the House of Com- mons have proceeded with Lord Granville Somerset's bills for the consolidation of clauses in railway and other private bills.

The following Members were appointed for the Committee of Classification on llailwayBills--Sir Robert Harry lWghls, Mr. Fox Mauls, Viscount Mahon, William Somerville, and Mr. Wilson often,'

PREVENTION OF SMALL On Wednesday, Mr. MACKINNON moved the second reading of his Sin die Prohibition Bill; which encountered a world of difficUlties and objections. The Earl of Liwcots stated, that measures of a similar nature were contemplated by Government; and he wished the second read-

ing postponed until after Easter. Accordingly, Mr. MACKDINON deferred it till the 2d April.

GAME-LAWS. On Monday, Mr. BRIGHT moved the appointment of the follow- lowing Members as a Select Committee on the Game-laws—Mr. Bright, Mr. Bur- roughes, Lord G. Bentinck, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Cnpps, Viscount Olive, Mr. W. Mackenzie, Mr. Villiers, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Etwall, Mr. Grantley Berkeley, Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. G. Cavendish, and Mr. Trelawney. Mr. £a.avanc BEiray.py objected, that the Committee was not likely to be impartial; as many of the Members were of Mr. Bright's opinion, and six were active Anti- 'Corn-law Leaguers. He made two motions, to substitute Mr. Gregory for Mr. Bouverie, and Lord Palmerston for Mr. G. Cavendish. Sir JAMES GRAHAM de- clared that he had never been met in a fairer spirit than by Mr. Bright: Sir James had suggested the nomination of Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. Grantley Berkeley, and six Members on the Ministerial side of the House; so that Mr. Bright had actually consented to place himself in a minority. Mr. BRIGHT said, that only four were members of the League, and only three of them active members. The two amendments were successively negatived, by 100 to 13, and 65 to 39; and the original motion was affirmed.