likbates anb Vrottebings in Varlfament.

MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCESS AUGUSTA.

The Queen's message to the House of Commons relative to the marriage of the Princess Augusta of Cambridge with the Hereditary Grand Duke of Mechlenburg-Strelitz having been read on Monday, Sir ROBERT PEEL moved no address, thanking the Queen for the message, with the assurance that the House would immediately proceed to its consideration. Mr. Hintz, wishing nothing but happiness to the Royal pair, moved to add a few lines, stating that consideration would also be had to the state of the national finances, the distress of the country, and the privations of the people in which Wg§ §c§og4ed b7 Mr. Wu.- wan WILLIAMS. Sir ROBERT PEEL objected, that the original motion did not bar such a consideration when in Committee on the message. Mr. AGLIONBY would defer such a consideration to a subsequent stage. Viscount HOWICK would proceed no further without a statement of the views of Government. Lord Joan RUSSELL thought it would be more respectful to the Crown to receive and consider the message ; and the motion promised no more. On a division, Mr. HUME'S amendment was rejected, by 276 to 52. After some further remarks from Mr. HUME, who urged an imme- diate explanation of the Government intentions, the House went into Committee, and Sir ROBERT PEEL gave the required statements. He cited the precedents of George the Third's contingent provision for his five daughters; and the provision for the Princess Sophia Matilda of Gloucester, to take effect on the death of her father. In conformity with those precedents, he moved, that in the event of a marriage between the Princess Augusta and the Hereditary Grand Duke, the Queen should be empowered to settle upon the Princess 3,0001. per annum on the death of the Duke of Cambridge.

Mr. MACKINNON entered into some calculations to show that it would save 6,0001. to the country, and would be a more agreeable arrange- ment, to settle 2,0001. on the Princess to commence from the time of the marriage. Sir ROBERT PEEL calculated that the settlement of the nominally less amount would be actually of greater value. After a brief discussion, the amendment was withdrawn.

Mr. WILLIAMS again opposed the motion— He contended that there was no precedent in which a Princess forming such an alliance had received a farthing of the public money. The Duke of Cam- bridge receives a pension of 27,0001. a year ; he is Colonel of two regiments, each with two battalions ; during the many years that he was Viceroy of Hanover he had peculiar opportunities of realizing money; and, in fact, report did say that the Duke had amassed a large private fortune.

Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS observed, that if the Crown had retained the patrimonial revenue which that patriotic Monarch George the Third had given up to Parliament, the Crown would not have needed to come to Parliament for grants for the Royal Family. From one of the two. regiments mentioned by Mr. Williams the Duke of Cambridge receives no emoluments.

Lord Joint RUSSELL having observed, that when Prince Albert's provision was proposed Ministers postponed the discussion in ac- cordance with the wish of the Opposition, Mr. HUME moved that the Chairman do report progress. But Sir ROBERT PEEL contended, that the debate, having once been begun, should be brought to a close; and Lord JOHN RussELL acquiesced in that argument. Lord Howaca and Mr. HAWES supported Mr. HUME; and Sir ROBERT PEEL, desiring unanimity in a matter affecting the Royal Family, assented to defer the discussion till Wednesday.

The Committee was resumed on Wednesday ; when Mr. HUME opposed the motion with an amendment— He deprecated the supposition that he intended any reflection on the Queen or the Duke of Sussex ; but he strongly objected to the Queen's advisers. In 1777, in the debates on the grants to the Dukes of Gloucester and Cambridge, Mr. Fox said, " it had always been the policy of this country to make a suitable provision for the different branches of the Royal Family ; it rendered them independent of Ministers, and bound them by interest and sentiments to pre- serve that constitution under which they. enjoyed such prEeminent and solid advantages." That was Mr. Hume's principle ; but it gave no warrant for such grants as that now proposed. Did Ministers mean to ask liberal main- tenance for each of the Princes of the Royal Family? was the Princess Mary to be provided for ? Prince George of Cambridge ? If so, why not their children and grandchildren? A limit should be fixed; and the limit should be, that support should be given only to those that stood nearest in succession to the Throne. If Government wereprepared to adopt that limit, let them bring in a bill to declare that the children of the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex were entitled to grants of the kind. The Finance Accounts of this year mention the payment of 2,0001. a year to the Prince of Mecklenburg. He found that the grant was made by the Irish Parliament, in the thirty-eighth year of George the Third, in defiance of an act passed by the British Parliament in 1793, declaring that no new pension should be granted in Ireland until the Pension-list should be reduced to 80,0001. Every 2,0001. had been paid in borrowed money, at 5 per cent; so that, in the forty-five years for which the grant had been enjoyed, it had cost this country 335,000/. The act was passed by the Irish Parliament to enable George the Third to grant an annuity to the Prince of Mecklenburg, "nephew to the Queen"; which implied of course, that all who stand in a nearer rela- tion to the Throne than that of nephew to a Queen Consort may expect such grants. Now the Princess Augusta might live forty-five years after the com- mencement of the pension; and if so, the cost to the country of paying 3,000/. in borrowed money, at 5 per cent, would be 500,000/. (Cries of " Oh ! " and laughter.) He challenged the House to take the evidence of Mr. Finlaison an the subject, by means of a return showing the cost of the pension. [Mr. Hume was frequently interrupted, especially by some noisy persons at the bar; and here he protested against it, attributing it to "a new class grown up in that House, called Young England ' • known, not by their white waistcoats and white neckcloths alone, but by other characteristics."] (Loud laughter.) The House had refused to repeal the mischievous coal-duties, because it could not spare 88,0001. from the revenue; a sum which would soon be made up by taking the Duke of Cambridge's allowance, the proposed grant, and the like. It was easy to squander other people's money; but would Members pat their hands in their own pockets and pay it? By the act to regulate the Pension-list, it was enacted that every person should make a statement, in writing, of the amount of his income at the time he demanded the pension : such a declaration should be exacted from the Duke of Cambridge before making the grant. By a return which he held in his hand, the payment to the Royal Family, exclusive of payments for parks, palaces, and various other trappings of Royalty, amount to 700,000/. In 1837, the Civil List Committee recommended reductions to the amount of 12,0001.; but they had not been made. Mr. Hume recommended reductions in the numbers of Lords and Grooms in Waiting on the Queen, and Maids of Honour; and he concluded by moving,

i

" That, in the opinion of this Committee, the ample allowance enjoyed out of the public revenue—enjoyed so long by his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge—should have enabled him to make provision for his children ; and that it is neither wise nor just, in the present destitute state of the country, and in the deplorable state of the labouring classes especially, to propose to this House any grant for a dowry to her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta Caroline."

Mr. LIDDELL, amid interruptions which rendered him almost in- audible, opposed the amendment. Sir ROBERT Nous quoted a return which showed, that since the Crown surrendered its revenues, the nation bad received 117,000,0001. on account of those revenues, while the Crown bad received only 69,000,0001. ; a clear gain to the nation of 47,000,0001, or 616,0001. a year. If the proposed annuity amounted to a tenth part of the sum named by Mr. Hume, Sir Robert would pay the difference out of his own pocket. Mr. F. T. BARING remarked, that Sir Robert Inglis left out of the account charges of which the Crown had been relieved ; but still he supported the grant on the broad ground of that bargain. The same principle ought, however, to be acted on in respect to the reigning Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, who receives an allowance from the country, as in respect to the Duke of Cambridge—the new allowance ought not to begin till after his death. Colonel Woon (Brecon) defended the grant, on the score of the Duke of Cambridge's outlay in charity. Mr. WARD said the same reason would hold good for a grant to the children of the Duke of Sussex.

Sir ROBERT PEEL supported the original motion— Mr. Hume must recollect that the Duke of Cambridge is a member of the Royal Family, having an English dukedom transmitted in his family, but without permanent resources to support its dignity, being dependent on an annuity. The amount received by him, no doubt, is large; but so are de- -mends upon it, which make serious deductions from it ; and the House should hear in mind the devotion of the time of the Royal Family to the promotion of public objects. To the question, whether such grants were to be extended to all members of the Royal Family, he replied, that the case was peculiar. Ministers were now providing for the cue of a Royal Princess who is the granddaughter of one Sovereign, the niece of two, and first cousin of the reign- ing Sovereign- and they proposed for her an annuity of 3,0001., to take effect on the death of her father the Duke of Cambridge ; and the allowance would only continue for the lifetime of the Princess. Mr. Hume talked of referring to "preceding precedents "—(Laughter)—precedents were in favour of the motion : the allowance to the Dutchess of Gloucester and the Princess Sophia, daugh- ters of George the Third, was 16,0001. each ; to the Princess Sophia of Glou- cester, more remotely connected with the Sovereign than the Princess Augusta, 7,0001.

As to the pension of the reigning Grand Duke of Mecklenbarg.Strelitz, it was granted to him in consequence of events arising out of the French Revo- lution, when he was compelled to quit his own territories: and if the position of that family had been such as to dispense with the necessity of the provision, Sir Robert Peel should have thought it his duty to take it into consideration on the present occasion; but, after inquiries on that head, he did not consider thepositiou of that family such as to dispense with the allowance.

He continued the quotation from Mr. Fox's speech, begun by Mr. Hume- " On the other hand, the Royal Family, in narrow and dependent circum- stances, were compelled to look up to the Throne for protection and support; and, from the nature of that support, they were liable to become instruments of the Crown in forging chains for the people." And the House should re- member the altered state of the law with respect to granting pensions by the Crown : at one period the pension-list amounted to 140,0001. a year; on the falling-in of pensions in this country, the Crown could grant new pensions to an amount not exceeding 90,000/. a year, and pensions usually did 'fall in to the amount of 4,0001. or 5,0001. a year; in Ireland, the Crown could grant pensions at discretion to the extent of 6:000/. or ;7,0001.: now it cannot grant pensions for more than 1,200/. in any one year, and only for personal services to the Crown, public services, or literary and scientific merit. Mr. Hume had multiplied the true value of the annuity by 15: had its value been 500,0001., Sir Robert was satisfied that the Queen would have rejected the proposition.

Mr. HUME vindicated his calculation, amid great noise and interrup- tion. The House then divided—

For the grant, 223; against, 57; majority, 166.

When the-report was brought up on Thursday, Mr. Hum complained of Sir Robert Peel's repetition of his phrase preceding precedents," and claimed an opportunity of making good his calculation. Sir Ro- isms PEEL disclaimed the intention of giving offence, though 'he was not answerable for the laughter excited by Mr. Hume's words. A friend had told him that an annuity-office would only give 26,0001. for' the allowance proposed. Mr. Hurda said, that might be true ; but the country had to pay perpetual interest on that sum. Having found him- self entirely deserted on the preceding evening, he waived further op- position. A bill founded on the report was ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and Sir James Graham.

The Queen's message having been read in the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Duke of WELLINGTON moved a resolution, thanking the Queen for the message, and promising that the House would concur in any measure to provide suitable provision for the Princess. Earl FOR- TESCUE agreed to the motion ; but be took the opportunity of calling attention to the circumstances under which the Duke of Sussex died : the Duke had not been in the receipt of the Parliamentary grant until the age of thirty : he had never had other emoluments than that grant ; and there was reason to believe that after the sale of his effects and the payment of his just debts, nothing would remain for his widow and children. The Duke of WELLINGTON expressed respect for the Duke of Sussex ; but pleaded that he had not been in a position to acquire any knowledge relative to his different marriages ; which, though morally binding, were no marriages of a member of the Royal Family, and could not be discussed in Parliament. Lord BROUGHAM agreed that Lord Fortescue's remarks were entirely foreign to the question. The motion was affirmed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Earl of ABERDEEN moved the second reading of his bill to remove doubts respecting the admission of ministers to benefices in Scotland— The bill was the same with one which he had introduced in 1840; and he felt that, while it would satisfy neither extreme, neither the Nonintrusionists, nor those who were whimsically misnamed "violent Moderates," he bad regard to the great body of the clergy who desired to remain in the Establishment with Safe consciences, and to the contentment of the people.

He considered it to be a fundamental principle of the Church of Scotland,

that no man should be intruded on a congregation against the will of the people to whom he was appointed : such was the principle of every Calvanistic church in Europe : but he regarded it as a point not to be judged according to the mere will—the arbitrary and capricious will of the people, but rather as a matter capable of being explained and judged of. In that sense, however, he altogether dissented from Lord Brougham's technical interpretation of the terms "qualified person" and "ministerial qualifications," as limited to the consideration of the "life, literature, and doctrine " of the presentee. It was opposed to regulations for Presbyters in the admission of presentees recently issued by the Church of Scotland. The point was not argued in the legal proceedings before the House of Lords or in the Courts below ; but the question there discussed simply was, whether the Church had the power to divest itself of the right of judging the qualification, and could delegate to any portion of the people the right to refuse the party presented without assigning any reason. In Scotland, the candidate for holy orders is not ordained generally, as in Eng-

land, ignorant of the place to which he may be subsequently appointed; but he is ordained on presentation to a particular parish, and the Presbytery are to judge of his qualifications for the particular parish to which he is presented. The statutes say nothing of "life, literature, and doctrine," but he is to be " qualified "; and the statute of George I. says that his "gifts and qualities " are to be tried. There might even be too much learning : the preacher of Bishop Butler's three admirable sermons upon human nature would be unfitted for a congregation of illiterate ploughmen. Lord Aberdeen quoted the opi- nions of Scotch Judges who were adverse to the Veto, but who asserted that other things than life, literature, and doctrine, must determine the suitableness of a presentee,—as Lord Corehouse, who said that ignorance of Gaelic would disqualify the presentee for some parishes, a weak voice for a large church, feeble health for an extensive parish ; and none of the other Judges expressed opinions at variance with that. Therefore Lord Aberdeen would give the greatest possible latitude of objection to the people, ofjudgment to the Presbytery ; not 1Therum arbitrium, but liberum judicium. He believed that if his bill had been supported by Lord Melbourne three years ago, the lamentable transactions which have taken place in the Church of Scotland would never have happened : a declaration in favour of the bill of '1840 was signed by 400 ministers and 2,000 elder&

In judging of the " qualification," objections should be considered on their own merits, whether preferred by many or by few, or even by strangers to the parish; but in some cases, the numbers of the objectors were au important element—as objections that the minister's voice was weak, or that he did not edify. The bill, therefore, provided that the Presbytery, or Church Court to which the objections shall be referred to be cognosced, shall be authorized to inquire into the whole circumstances of the parish, and the character and number of the persons by whom the objections and reasons are preferred; and if the presentee shall be found not qualified or suitable for that particular parish, the Presbytery or Court shall pronounce to that effect, and shall set forth the sapgeatasltgarnovunadrtimorny which theirjudgment in the tfrenndeeede.ssiTtyheorfespiseci,if,Incgurtiitiye

grounds on which the judgment is founded', and their finding that the 1,:esentee is not qualified for a particular parish.

The next clause abolished the Veto, to guard against any doubt or difficulty on that point ; providing that it shall not be lawful for any Presbytery or other Ecclesiastical Court to reject any presentee upon the ground of any mere dissent or dislike expressed by any part of the congregration of the parish in which he is presented, and which dissent or dislike shall not be founded upon objections or reasons to be fully cognosced, judged of, and determined in the manner aforesaid by the Presbytery or other Ecclesiastical Court. The ap- peal, of course, in such cases, can only be to the superior Church Courts.

In judging of the qualifications of a presentee, the Church alone can decide ; and it must be to the superior Church Courts exclusively that an appeal can lie, provided only that the Presbytery acts within its competency as a judica- tory of the Church: but in cases of excess of jurisdiction, the Civil Courts could interfere, by declarator, interdict, or any other mode.

Lord Aberdeen, expressing strong sympathy with the disinterested if erroneous motives of the ministers who had seceded, declared his belief that the adoption of his bill would retain in the establishment a numerous body of ministers who are at present in a state of suspense. The parish ministers who have seceded are about 240, about one-fourth of whole number ; the unendowed ministers, about 200; in all, about one-third of the entire Church of Scotland. He did not apprehend any fatal consequences from the se- cession, which was inevitable ; for the point in dispute had ceased to be a question of Nonintrusion, and bad become one of spiritual independence,—a claim utterly inadmissible by any state which recognizes an Established Church. But the bill would tranquillize those who have remained.

The Earl of ROSEBERY considered the bill as being in no way fitted

to meet the present emergency. Without approving the proceedings of the Nonintrusionists, he thought they had been treated in an exas- perating manner; and he feared that the necessity for a wholesale filling-up of the vacancies in the Church would fill Scotland with rival chapels—church preaching against church, Protestant againt Pro- testant, until Scotland would no longer be a model of moral conduct and peaceable behaviour. He would have recommended a modified Veto Act. Lord BROUGHAM contended at some length, that the bill sub- stantially reversed the decision in the Auchterarder case : as he still held that decision to be right, he must oppose the bill ; and he would rather have the Veto Act than thus throw the power into the hands of the priests. The Earl of HADDINGTON defended the bill ; contending that it by no means gave the veto to the Church. If it were refused, he anticipated a fearful increase of the secession. Lord COTTENHAM argued at much length, that the bill was not in accordance with the present law of Scot- land : he quoted the opinion of Scottish judges and writers, and various statutes, to show that life, literature, and doctrine, constitute the real "qualifications" of a presentee. It could not allay the excitement in Scot- land ; because the claim was, to prevent persons being intruded on parishes to the majority of which they were objectionable, while the bill only transferred patronage from the lay patrons to the Church. Besides, the plan had been rejected by the General Assembly in 1840; and if it was to be so efficacious, why was it not brought forward to prevent the secession, instead of being delayed till after it had taken place ? The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the bill necessary to allay the excitement in Scotland ; while he believed that most of the objections to it would dis- appear on further examination, and others could be removed in Com- mittee : the wording, for example, was too loose and general ; but that error could be mended. Lord CAMPBELL remarked, that the Lord Chancellor, after his entire approval of the Auchterarder decision, seemed to have received Some sudden light. He would not at once re- ject the bill : in the altered position of the Church, he thought that legis- lation was no longer unsafe, but advisable ; but he could not agree that it " declared" the existing law of Scotland : unless, therefore, the words rendering it a declaratory instead of an enacting bill were struck out in Committee, and unless the civil Courts were empowered to ascertain that the Presbytery confirmed objections upon none but spiritual and canonical grounds, he should, oppose it on the third reading. [The Loan CHANCELLOR appears to have signified that such alterations should be made.] In replying, the Earl of ABERDEEN stated that the bill had been submitted to the proper authorities, and revised by the Lord President of the Court of Session. The Earl of MINTO sup- ported the second reading with a view to amendinent in Committee.

The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday. But it was then postponed fora week longer.

Irvin Aims Bra- The order of the day having been read, in the House of Commons, on Thursday, for the second reading of the Arms (Ireland) Bill, Mr. WY= rose to move an amendment- The state of crime in Ireland did not at all warrant the enactment of so harsh a measure ; for that could be shown on the authority of the Judges, who were far more to be relied upon than the Police, upon whose reports the Go- vernment rested. But, supposing that somiparts:ofIreland were in a disturbed state, was that any reason for placing the whole of the country under an op- pressive law of this character ? Why should Waterford, that was always io a tranquil state, be placed in the same condition of restraint as the North, where outrages were committed ? Nor would the bill have the effect of repressing outrage ; because it is not by the use of arms alone that outrages of the worst character were committed ; the worst crimes were perpetrated by large bodies of men assembling at night, and setting fire to the houses of those who were obnoxious to their dislike. Such legislation was not the way to tranquillize Ireland, any more than the pouring troops into the country. The Waterford expedition was despatched on the strength of a tale invented by one of a low set of fellows purchaseable at elections, called "Loyalists "; without consulting the local authorities, who could have given trustworthy information. Such -proceedings rendered Government ridiculous. Government were disturbing the whole framework of society.

Mr. Wyse moved a resolution, " That it be referred to a Select Committee of this House to inquire how far it is just or politic to restrict the people of Ireland in their undoubted constitutional right to posses and carry arms."

Mr. BI.Ewrrr seconded the amendment ; contending that Arms Bills, originally framed for the state of Ireland when a French invasion was dreaded, are now inapplicable ; that murder has decreased in Ireland ; and that Ireland ought to have the same laws with England. Lord ELIOT supported the bilL Repeating some arguments used in the former de- bate, he said that though murder has decreased, crimes arising from the possession of fire-arms have increased—shooting with intent to kill, for instance, has increased in the ratio of 74 to 48. He argued against the possibility of extending all English laws to Ireland, where the most efficient constabulary fails to repress crimes of violence. Mr. WARD contended that the Irish people can never be satisfied until the wishes of the people in reference to their own laws are consulted, until the right of the people to the soil is secured, and until the remaining three- fourths of the Irish Church revenues are given up : the price of peace in Ireland is the surrender of the Establishment. Sir Robert Peel had foreseen and foretold, when Catholic Emancipation was brought for- ward, that it would not satisfy the Irish people. Mr. T. B. C. SMITH remarked, that the fixity of tenure recommended by Mr. Ward was embodied in a bill introduced by an honourable Member in 1835, but not even read a first time; in 1836 it was read a first time, and only read a first time; the late Government introduced no such measure. And was it to be supposed that if the Establishment were surrendered it would satisfy the demands of the agitators? He justified the bill from the present state of Ireland. Mr. Pim:err pointed out that the measure re- vived the domiciliary visits which were discontinued in 1810, not by two Magistrates, but in the insulting shape of visits by a constable. The state of Ireland basso improved, that on St. Patrick's Day not a single drunken man was seen in the streets of Dublin ; yet more stringent measures are introduced than those abandoned in 1810. It must tend to increase the present excitement. Captain JONES observed, that an act passed in 1830 authorized a search for arms by two Magistrates or any one whom they might authorize. The bill was opposed by Captain BERNAL and Mr. Ross ; and supported by Mr. P. Brit:mimics. and Lord DUNGANNON. Mr. HUME, who had in twenty years opposed fourteen such bills, con- tinued his opposition ; contending for equal rights for Ireland and Eng- iand. If Ireland were governed on the principles of Lord Eliot, or on principles enunciated by Sir Robert Peel in 1817, it would be as tranquil in six months, as it was four years ago. Lord HOWICH doubted the the policy of such measures : they must either be inoperative, or if useful, dangerous. But he would not withdraw from Government a power possessed by former Governments, especially at a time when the mere fact of withdrawal might be injurious.

On the motion of Mr. CRAWFORD, the debate was adjourned ; Sir JAMES GRAHAM protesting against the present system of adjournments, as deranging public business.

THE EDUCATIONAL CLAUSES.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated, on Thursday, the intention of Govern- ment with respect to the educational clauses of the Factories Bill— When he introduced the bill, he explained that Ministers considered the clauses necessary in regard to the position in which the classes to be affected by the clauses were already placed by the Factory Act, which makes educa- tion compulsory. The proposition was made in no sectarian nor party spirit ; and he was bound to say, that it had been received, if not with favour, with for- bearance on the part of those usually opposed to Government ; for which he begged to tender his sincere acknowledgments. The success of the measure depended on its being received as a measure of concord and conciliation ; and it had been framed with that view : but, soon after its introduction, be found that the great body of Dissenters had insuperable objections to it. Extensive modi- fications were made to meet those objections; but in that he had been wholly disappointed. On the part of the Church, there had been great willingness to make concessions amounting to sacrifices; but it had been met in no corre- sponding spirit. The great evil which the measure was intended to counteract had not been removed ; Lord Ashley's statement as to the ignorance of a large portion of the population remained unshaken. Yet Government had been forced to the conclusion, that it would be most consistent with their public duty not to press the educational clauses of the Factories Bill during the present session. Personally, he felt deeply disappointed; but, although he had been made the object of great obloquy on the part of many who were opposed to this measure, he now sat down without the slightest ill-feeling towards any one who bad taken a part in opposing him. He would state on Monday whe- ther Government would proceed with the remainder of the bill.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that Government had exercised a wise discretion. Were Government disposed to consider, during the recess, some other plan to meet the present exigency, and to be introduced next session ?

Sir JAMES GRAHAM should say, that the Government were not pre- pared to go on with the measure; but he would rather defer giving a more definite answer until Monday.

CORN-LAWS.

Several petitions against the Corn-laws having been presented to the House of Commons on Tuesday,,Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, amid some irdoical eheering, paesented one from the Kent meeting on Pen- enden Heath ; at the same time observing, that the meeting was re- spectably brit not numerously attended; and that he agreed generally in Ilk prayer for agricultural protection, but not in the representation

that the Corn-law of last year was injurious to the agricultural interests, or that the Canada Wheat Bill was just ground for apprehension.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved for a Committee of the whole House, "to consider the laws relating to the importation of foreign grain."— No class, is satisfied with the present law : the great majority of the manufacturing interest seek for total repeal or fixed duty ; the commercial interest are generally in favour of a fixed duty ; the agricultural interest crave more protection, seeking on Penenden Heath, in spite of the inclemency of the weather, shelter from the inclemency of the Ministers' legislation. Sir Edward Knatchbull said that the meeting was not numerously attended: this, considering the doctrines recently promulgated, was fortunate, because otherwise Sir Edward might have been deprived of his commission as a Ma- gistrate. (Loud Opposition cheers.) The severity of the season, however, brought the numbers within that compass that now constitutes a legal meet- ing. (Laughter.) Lord John proceeded to discuss the peculiar views of the agriculturists ; con- tending that no class has a right to seek protection against foreign competi- tion on the score of disproportionatete taxation ; and he pointed to the export of 36,000,000L of unprotected British manufactures, which have to compete in the markets of the world with untaxed manufactures, to show how needless it was. He would leave to all classes the free exercise of their industry, with no other protection but that of superior skill and talent. Another reason why farmers deprecate diminished protection, is the operation of the Tariff: but Lord John denied that it had caused any material reduction in the prices of agricultural produce, or any real injury to the agricultural interests. The consumption of butter and cheese, the duty on which was not lowered, has considerably diminished ; the cause being the diminished means of consumption among the industrious classes ; a fact which proves that the best protection to agriculture is whatever promotes manufacturing industry. The Tariff, how- ever, was open to the objection which be had urged last year—the timber- duties had been needlessly lowered, while the sugar-duties, the source of great complaint, were untouched. Much derangement had been produced in the timber-trade, without corresponding benefit to the consumer. The consump- tion of glass and bricks ought to have been favourably affected by increased consumption of timber : but the excise-duty on bricks has fallen from 524,0001. in 1841 to 300,0001. in 1843; and on glass, from 966,0001. to 766,0001.; a fur- ther indication of diminished means of consumption. Lord John retraced the history- of the Corn-laws, to show how unavailing was every attempt to fix the price of corn. He quoted figures from Lord Monteagle's speech on the operation of the present law, to show, that in the six years ending 1842 the foreign corn imported under the sliding scale, in the harvest mouth, was 65 per cent as compared with the average importation of a whole year ; while the proportion of Colonial corn imported in that month, under a practically fixed duty, was but 30 per cent. In 1842, the farmer was exposed to competition with 2,900,000 quarters of foreign corn imported : during seven months of the year the price was 61s. 5d.; at that time importation would little have injured the farmer, but only 463,791 quarters were imported : in five succeeding weeks, the importation was 2,161,699 at 50s. 10d.; and that continued to he the average price for the remaining five months. It is the Coro-law, in fact, that makes the " reckless speculators," who are looked upon as a sort of horrible animal. Sir Robert Peel admitted last year, when de- fending the law, that the effect of the law had been damaged by the criticism of Lord Palmerston ; who, availing himself of an admission by Sir Robert, that the law might be very materially affected by the state of the weather, con- tended that a bad harvest would render the law inoperative. This reminded Lord John of an observation of a friend, who, when Regent Street was first built, said, that it might be a very good street, but for two circum- stances—first, that he did not think it would bear the weather, and secondly, that it would not bear criticism. (Laughter.) Lord John recurred to the history of the Corn-laws; showing, that between 1773 and 1790 there was very little change of price compared with the fluctuations under the sliding-scale, and that the restrictive policy of the present time has by no means the antiquity which gives it a prescriptive claim to maintenance. In 1791, the duty ranged from 6d. to 2s. 6d.; and such was the policy till 1804: in 1800, the system applied only to five, six, or seven millions of the population : as the population increased, Parliament applied a more restrictive system ; and now, a system of restriction is applied to seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen millions, that was unknown even in the reign of Charles the Second. But, since the general election, Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues have admitted the argu- ment of an increasing population. [A Member—" The Paymaster cf the Forces has not admitted it."] (Laughter.) That is very true, the Paymaster of the Forces has not admitted it. (Much laughter.) Let them, then, make an adequate alteration on some sound and intelligible principle, and not attempt to do it by some contrivance regarding Canada, affecting to introduce corn from some country from which they had ascertained that no corn was likely to come. Mr. Webster mentioned a presumed inclination in this country to admit Indian corn ; but the benefit from that must be small, inasmuch as it is not the habit in this country to consume Indian corn : let something be done upon a more enlarged principle. In the words of Mr. Webster, ' either warm us or cool us, either freeze us or burn us ; but do not heartlessly attempt nothing." The agricultural interest share much the same feeling: they want the Corn-laws to be settled in a way that is likely to last for a time. [31r. GLADSTONE—" Last for a time!"] " The right honourable gentleman takes hold of that phrase, but let me tell him that I am much more for final measures than he is—I am rather an advocate for ' finality.'" (Cheers and laughter.) Not that Lord John found fault with the declarations of Sir Robert Peel, who said that upon the present law the country must rest for a time. [ Sir Rorizar PEEL—" Then you too would scorch us and freeze us !"] In some quarters, however, it was said that they were to have a corn-law which could only be altered in the revolution of ages. ("No, no! ") But he did not regard a measure of the kind as being immutable, like a constitutional measure.

Lord John proceeded to expound the principles on which he would act ; combating the doctrine of those who contend that all restrictive duties are inconsistent with free trade. If a duty is imposed on any produce at home, such as that on malt, it is only justice that the foreign importer should pay the same. Peculiar burdens borne by the land act as indirect duties on corn, and merit a countervailing burden on foreign corn. Nor should protection be hastily withdrawn ; as both Adam Smith and Ricardo argued. If the House went into Committee, Lord John would propose a moderate fixed duty on cora. Mr. GLADSTONE—" What would be a moderate fixed duty ?"

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—" My proposition would be for a moderate fixed duty ?"

GLADSTONE—" Of what amount? "

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—" That is a question which I will answer if the right honourable gentleman will go with me into the Committee. (Cheers and laughter.) 1 will then endeavour to show what system would be a compromise likely to be satisfactory. to the majority of the House and to the different parties in the country." He admitted that the Crown ought to be enabled to provide for meeting cases of extreme scarcity, when • it would be necessary to relax even the moderate fixed duty—( Cheers)—but it would bee very rare case. Lord John concluded by saying, he was content that Ministers should have the credit of changing the Corn-laws, but a change there must be. Mr. GLADSTONE rose in the hope of inducing the House to reject the motion— If Lord John Russell would invite discussion on the timber-duties, he would show him that his own elan was opposed to his own principles. He challenged bins to prove that the Tariff' had injured the trade in Canada: it was noto- riously the fact that the measure had afforded great relief both in Canada and New Brunswick ; if there had been distress, it bad been occasioned by a glut in the market before the passing of the new Tariff; and the change had pro- duced some temporary distress in this country, from the necessity of getting rid of large stocks of timber on baud.

To the beginning and end of Lord John's speech he had little objection : Lord John was prepared to defend a corn-law on the score of peculiar burdens on land ; he had recommended a compromise of interests ; he had abandoned the charges against Sir Robert Peel, of not meaning to give permanency to the law of last year : permanency, he said, was not to be expected in a case of fiscal legislation, as in the case of a great constitutional question. But Mr. Gladstone apprehended that the course proposed would not be just towards those interests which were affected by the measure of last year. He did not alone mean the important change that had been made in the Corn-law, but also the changes made as to the admission of foreign live cattle, of fresh and salt provisions, vegetables, and many other articles of consumption ; all of great importance to the agricultural body. To these changes the parties most deeply interested gave consent; although they might have opposed them, they yet afforded every facility; and he could nut but consider it a gross injustice to those parties who had embarked their capital and their labour under the exist- ing law, now to make a further change to a fixed duty, the permanency of which the noble Lord himself admitted he could not guarantee. He would not even venture to state what it was, but postponed his details until going into Committee; which lie knew was as good as postponing it to the Greek kalends. Mr. Gladstone defended the new law. He denied that under it the corn only comes in at stated periods, as cinder the old law : last year was no test, because the harvest was abundant, after scarcity was expected. The fluctua- tions charged against the old law were not alleged against the present. Bri- tish shipping now conveys the greater portion of the corn imported into this country. The present law at least does not injure the revenue. It does not affect the currency, for the coffers of the Bank were full. He questioned, indeed, whether a " moderate fixed duty" could he fixed—or any fixed duty moderate ; whether there was any element of permanency in it. Lord John spoke of the Canada Corn Bill as an evasion ; but if there were any con- trivance in it, it must he a relaxation with reference to American corn ; and he asked how the late Ministers would have adjusted the question of Canadian corn under their corn plan of 1841?

He argued against further reduction of the Corn-law as reducing rents ; and the consequence, on Ricardo's theory of rent, would be to throw inferior lands out of cultivation, and thus to throw capital and labour out of em- ployment. He also contended for the ancient custom of dealing with corn on peculiar principles, and restrictively ; going back to the time of Richard the Second. Lord John talked of the necessity of " settling" the question : on the 7th February Mr. Ewart gave notice of a motion that the present Corn-law had not settled the question, and that a settlement without delay was essentially necessary,—meaning, no doubt, total repeal; that motion was deferred from time to time, in order to permit Lord John to introduce his motion for an indefinite something which he called a moderate fixed duty, which could have have no such effect as to " settle " the question. Mr. Gladstone contended against the injustice of breaking the contract implied in the new law, by proceeding, with their present experience, to assent to a measure which must lead to a low fixed dnty or total repeal.

From this point the debate proceeded with little novelty either in respect to the general subject or the special motion. Mr. LABOUCHERE, Sir WILLIAM CLAY, Mr. AGLIONBY, advocated the principle of a mo- derate fixed duty ; Mr. HUME, Mr. EWART, and Mr. CHARLES VIL- LIERS supported the motion solely as a step to total repeal ; Mr. Vil- liers calling upon Lord John to abandon all compromise, and unite with those who sought to remove all duties upon the food of the people. Mr. WODEHOUSE opposed the motion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL brought up the rear of opponents— He sarcastically approved of Lord John's concealment of his details until going into Committee, as a disclosure might produce a sudden explosion, that the mover would find very inconvenient. His fixed duty was to be removeable by the Crown in bad seasons ! To apply his Regent Street simile, he admitted that his own structure would not bear rain, and if he got into Committee he would find that it would not bear criticism. Sir Robert made much of the con- flict of opinion on the opposite side ; and, repeating some of Mr. Gladstone's arguments, he boasted that if wheat fell from 61s. to 52s., chiefly in consequence of the abundant harvest, the price of oats had varied less in the last six months than at any former period. He did not propose the present law as one absolutely final, but as one to be maintained until experience, facts and evi- dence, proved that it ought to be relinquished; since there is great inconveni- ence and danger in constant alterations of laws of the kind. The House divided— For the motion, 145; against, 244; Ministerial majority, 99.

REPEAL OF THE EXPORT-DITTY ON COAL.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, when the order of the day for, going into Committee of Ways and Means was read, Viscount HowleR moved an amendment, for a Committee of the whole House on so much of the Act of the.5th and 6th Victoria, c. 47, as related to the imposition of a duty on the exportation of coal. The failure of a House on Thursday, and the appropriation of four nights in the week by Government, obliged him to bring forward his motion in its present form, as an amendment— Had the object of the tax which he sought to repeal been to check the ex- portation of coal, from the dread of exhausting the supply, it would have been quite successful. But it was calculated that the supply would last for 2,000 years. For its professed objects the tax was a failure. Sir Robert Peel, when he proposed it, calculated that it would yield at least 140,0001. a year additional revenue, and that the export would not materially decrease : it was also alleged that the tax would afford protection to native industry, and that the coal-trade assented to it. All those positions were erroneous. A committee of the trade had requested Lord Howick to call attention to the subject, andpetitions had been presented from the Town-Council and the shipping interest of Sunderland. The tax had materially checked the export. When it was imposed, the ex- port was increasing: in 1841, the export was 1,500,000 tone ; in the last half of 1842 it was only 598,000 tons; showing a falling-off on the half-year of 152,000 tons. It might be said that there was a forced exportation just before the duty took effect, in order to evade it ; but that would not affect the com- parison between the first quarters of 1842 and 1843 ; and whereas in the first quarter of 1842 the export was 389,000, in the first quarter of 1843 it was 129,000. To show how little the tax can be said to protect native industry, Lord Howick asked if coal-mining is not native industry : and he read extracts of various letters from the coal districts ; one stating that numbers of men and boys were discharged, and thrown on the parish for relief; another, that orders had been received from France, but limiting the price so that the coal-owners could not pay the duty, and therefore could not fulfil the orders; a third, that the export to Marseilles had fallen off in consequence of the improvement in French coals, although Sir Robert Peel said that the superiority of our coal would command markets ; a fourth, that the British coal-dealers have alto- gether lost the Dutch and German markets. Moreover, the regulations for the collection arc onerous, and increase the expenses of the trade ; while com- petition had already brought the price of coal so low, that a very small increase or decrease in the price affected the market, and thus the coal-owners cannot bear even so small a charge as the duty. Nine years ago the export-tax had been repealed in order to create a trade; it had been created, and now it is destroyed.

The operations of the coal-trade are such that capital once invested in it cannot be withdrawn : where foreign capitalists, therefore, are driven to invest capital in Continental mines, the market once lost to us could never be reco- vered, because those capitalists would continue working at reduced profits rather than withdraw their capital. The case of the Sicilian sulphur-trade furnished an example: Naples was supposed to have a monopoly of the trade ; it imposed an export-duty ; a substitute for Sicilian sulphur was discovered in this country, and the British market for sulphur was lost to Naples. To the distress produced by the coal-tax Lord Howick attributed the discontent and combination among the workpeople in the coal-districts; whose wages have been reduced twenty or thirty per cent, and who threaten strikes and turbu- lence. Freights have fallen in consequence, and the shipping interest com- plain of injury. Even manufactures suffer ; for ships which took out coal were able to bring back, on better terms than they now can, timber, tallow, and other bulky materials used in British manufactures. On the other hand, coal exported was little used for foreign manufactures, for manufactures depend, as in England, on coal produced at the very spot ; but it was used for gas, navigation, sugar-refining, and household purposes. Was it worth while, for a revenue of 100,0001.—or, excluding the customary produce of the old tar (12,000L) of which nobody complained, only 88,0007.—to retain a tax that did so much harm P Sir Robert Peel had abolished export-duties, which, singu- larly enough, produced in the aggregate just 103,0007., because they were against his principles to discourage any branch of British trade by export- duties ; though those taxes had never been alleged as a cause of distress : a Conservative Government thus hastily making changes for the very sake of change ! Lord Howick concluded by making his motion.

Mr. GLADSTONE opposed it— He began by saying that a great many of Lord Howick's propositions and principles were such as he needed to take no pains to discuss, as they were not disputed, but might be taken for granted—such as the proposition that if they restricted one branch of trade it had an effect on other trades, and that a trade was less difficult to retain than to regain. The tax was not justified on the assent of the coal-trade ; and if taxes were justified on such grounds, the House must be prepared to part with many others. The coal-tax must not be taken on its own merits—singled out to consider whether it was desirable to part with it if they could : but it must be regarded with a view to the re- venue ; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that it was his inten- tion to abstain from taking off taxes imposed for purposes of revenue. Govern- ment calculated on a revenue of 140,000L from the new duty, without any serious diminution of the trade ; and in the main, experience confirmed the anticipation. Lord Howick derived his calculation of the revenue from a re- turn for nine months, to which he added a quarter more : but that was not fair, for the export of the two summer quarters is double that of the winter quarters: Mr. Gladstone calculated the produce of the year at 114,000/. instead of 140,0001.; a sum which the revenue could not afford to lose. He contended that the export had not decreased ; for, excluding the year of forced export, 1842, it would be found that the export of the first quarter had increased from 236,000 tons in 1841 to 259,255 in 1843. The British Consul at Brest stated. that contracts with the French Government had been hastened in 1842 to evade the new duty, and he added that the importation into France had not really decreased. if the export to Holland had decreased, it was attributable to unusual depression of trade in Holland, to the new exclusion of Dutch re- fined sugar from Germany, and to the preference of the quality of Belgian coal for some purposes. The mildness of the winter was another cause of de- pression in the coal-trade, for it had seriously injured the home-market : the importation of coals into London amounted in 1840 to 2,566,000 tons; in 1841, to 2,909,000; in 1842, to 2,723,000. Mr. Gladstone quoted many figures to show that the price abroad had not been much raised ; and, admitting that freights had fallen, he attributed it to the general depression of commerce. He claimed a further trial of the tax, in order to a more mature and correct judgment.

Mr. HODGSON HINDE, Lord H. VANE, Mr. BELL, and Mr. LABOU- CHERE, supported Lord Howick ; Sir GEORGE CLERK opposed the amendment. Sir ROBERT PEEL argued against the notion, that every tax not exceeding 100,0001. a year might be abolished ; and imputed a falling-off in the export of coal to the United States to the import-duty of 8s. a ton imposed by the American Government. Mr. LIDDELL, pronouncing the motion most ill-timed and imprudent, would still support it.

On a division, the numbers stood thus— For Lord Howick's motion, 124; against it, 1p87; majority, 63.

CORRUPT BOROUGHS: SUDBURY.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Colonel RUSHBROOKE moved the issue of a writ for the Borough of Sudbury.

Mr. TUFNELL, remarking that before the House of Lords, only one witness had been called in support of the bill passed by the Commons for the disfranchisement of the borough, and quoting evidence to show the existence of general corruption in that borough, moved as an amendment, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for an effectual inquiry into bribery and corrupt practices alleged to exist in the borough of Sudbury."

Mr. CHARLES WYNN suggested a different course— The case was a most extraordinary one. An Election Committee of that House had unanimously voted that gross bribery had taken place in the borough of Sudbury, and recommended to the House that a bill should be brought in to disfrancise it. A bill was accordingly brought in : no petition was presented by any party to be heard by counsel against it; Jr person appeared to oppose it ; and it passed that House with apparent unanimity. The bill was sent to the House of Lords, and there he found the case bad entirely miscarried. Their first duty, then, appeared to be, to inquire into the reason for this different decision of the two Houses. In the first place, he saw the two counsel who, as counsel for the petitioners against the return, bad established the case against the borough, acting as counsel against the bill and defending the borough. If be looked a little further, he found that the two gentlemen who bad been retained to defend the sitting Members in the Commons were the counsel who were employed against the borough in the Lords. This did seem the oddest choice that could be made. He had made some inquiry, and he found that the bill was not intrusted to the petitioners against the return, but that an agent was employed for that purpose by the Treasury. After seeing that the counsel employed had completely crossed hands, he looked at the witnesses who had been examined, and be found that there was but one witness called before the Lords who had been examined before the Election Committee. Stress had been laid upon the caution given to the witnesses that they need not criminate themselves. In courts ofjustice it frequently happened that appeals were made by witnesses against giving evidence which might criminate themselves; it was common for witnesses so to excuse themselves from giving evidence; but it was no ground why, having given evidence, a witness should perjure himself by saying that he knew nothing of a transaction of which he knew all.

What he would suggest was, that a Committee should be appointed to in- quire into the reason for the difference between the witnesses produced before the Lords and Commons, and why material witnesses examined before the Commons were not examined before the Lords. if any one believed that there bad been collusion, and that the parties on both sides had agreed not to produce the necessary evidence, that circumstance called for serious inquiry ; and it might prove necessary to bring in a fresh bill.

Colonel RUSHBROOKE cited the belief of a respectable witness, that the majority of electors in Sudbury would not be influenced by bribery ; repeated the statement of counsel to the House of Lords, that general bribery could not be proved ; and urged Sir Robert Peel not to oppose the issue of the writ.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, however, agreed with Mr. Wynn's suggestion ; stating by the by, that the Treasury had given every facility for the prosecution of the bill— If evidence had not been summoned in consequence of the two parties in Sudbury agreeing, the fact was most important ; and if the evidence should show an agreement between the parties to suppress testimony, it would not only warrant the Rouse in passing a particular bill relative to the borough of Sudbury, but also to give a more extended general power.

Lord Jome RUSSELL concurred. Mr. TUFNELL withdrew his amend- ment, in favour of the one which Mr. Weiss moved. Colonel Runt- BROOKE withdrew the original motion. Mr. Wynn's motion was carried unanimously. The House ordered that the writ should not issue before the 10th July.

MISCELLANEOUS.

ECCLESIASTICAL UNION OF IRISH PARISHES. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord MONTEAGLE, moved for papers respecting the .A.rchdea- conry of Armagh; the aggregate income of which is 1,0001. The parish of Al• loloo contains 3,000 Protestants; and the Commissioners recommended Mk on a vacancy in the office of Archdeacon, the parishes should be separated from the other in the Archdeaconry, and the living given to the perpetual curate. Go- vernment had called upon their predecessors to act in the same way in the case of the Deanery of Down. The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that in the case of Down, the person appointed was the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and he was appointed just after the report of the Commission; whereas the present appointment was that of a clergyman known only for his merits. The Lord Primate had recommended the disunion of the parishes ; but the revenues had been reduced from 1,7701., which they were at the time of the report, to 981/. ; and, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Lord Primate assented to the appointment. The Marquis of LA.NSDOWNE condemned the union of parishes, as the opprobrium of the Irish Church ; and called to mind that the late Ministers had retraced their steps when the error was discovered in the case of Down. After a short discussion, the papers were ordered.

IRELAND. Mr. &erre O'Barnst has given notice, that on Tuesday the 27th instant he will move the following resolution, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to inquire into the causes of the discontent at present prevailing in Ireland, with a view to the redress of grievances, and to the establishment of such a system of just and impartial government as shall for the future leave no ground for well-founded complaint on the part of the Irish people."

Sir VALENTINE BLAKE has given notice, that on Monday next he will move a resolution that Ministers have committed a breach of the privileges of the House by preventing meetings to petition for Repeal of the Union.

PROPOSED ASSASSINATION OF O'CONNELL. In reply to Captain BERKE- LEY, on Tuesday, Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE said, that Mr. Mayer was an extra-clerk in the Customhouse at Gloucester; but as soon as it was known that his examination had resulted in his being ordered to find sureties for his appearance to answer a charge of misdemeanour such as he was accused of, it was intimated to him that there was no longer any occasion for his services.

Tax SUGAR-DETIES BILL was read a second time on Thursday ; but the discussion in Committee is deferred to Thursday the 22d instant.

CANADA WHEAT BILL. In the Commons, on Thursday, the order of the day for the third reading of the Canada wheat bill, having been read, Colo- nel SIBTHORP moved that it be read a second time that day six months. Af- ter a short discussion, the second reading was carried, by 150 to 75; and the bill passed. Mr. HUME took the opportunity of eulogizing Sir Charles Begot, the late Governor of Canada ; regretting that he did not survive to see the effects of his wise measures. The bill was carried up to the House of Lords.