ierhatiltiuilr ProrrrItinal in Varrittment.

1. IRISH CoRpoRATIoN REFORM.

The House of Commons went into a Committee on the Irish Muni- cipal Bill on Monday. Forty clauses were agreed ID, most Of thew without oppositiou. On the 6th clause,—whieh enacts that occupiers of 10/. houses in certain large towns and of 5/. houses in the second class or smaller towns, shall be entitled to vote at Municipal elections,—some rather sharp debating arose. Mr. O. F. YOUNG took occasion to refer to the proceedings before the Dublin Election Committee ; and enlarged on the monstrous injustice of the law which deprived a man of his Vote if he had not paid mi rate, which rate had never been published, and Imo,- ment of which had never been demanded. Such was the law, and be felt extreme pain at ',Mug obliged to disfranchise voters in conformity with it : he hoped that in the Municipal Bill care would be takewto protect the voter from the operation of that law.

Mr. O'CoNNELL said, that Mr. Young might be perfectly easy; for

there was no siteh law in existence as that which he bad mentioned,— although, for the purpose qf disfranchising voters, such decisions as had been dc-es lined had hero come to by a certain tribunal. This RIOnstrOUS injustice, as Mr Youog admitted it was, was conformable to no law, but had been committed for a particular purpose.

Mr. YOUNG, with much warmth, repelled the insinuation that the Committee had been actuated by improper motives, as implied in the term used by Mr. O'Connell "—particular purpose." No person, he added, could properly know the votes of any member of the Committee: for his part he had most anxiously endeavoured to perform a very pain- ful duty independently.

Mr. O'CONNELL observed, that it was unileniatge that the decision had been conic to for the " particular purpose" of excluding votes. He was glad that Mr. Young was in such good odour with himself; but sorry that his judgment was not as good as his intentions. As to the votes of members, it happened that the demeanour of gentlemen some- times left little doubt as to the side on which they voted.

Lord STANLEY, Mr. SHAW, and Colonel CoNouv, attacked the clause. It was defended by Mr. Rice, Mr. O'LOCIILEN, and Mr. O'CoNNELL; and was finally agreed to.

The 2Ist clause renders it necessary that Councillors in the large towns shall be worth 10001., and in the smaller ones 5001. Mr. O'Cost- NELL wi-bed the qm.litication to be lowered ; and Mr. GRoTE, who had opposed the principle of qualification in the English Bill, could not conAent to its admission in this. The clause was then passed.

Mr. FINCH proposed to amend clause 90th, by exempting Members of Parliament from the fine imposed on those who refused to serve corporate offices. Mr. O'CONNELT. hoped that Recorders would be excluded from set ring the office of Councillors!

Mr. O'LonoLEN promised to consider these suggestions; and the clanse was passed.

Last night, the House again went into Committee; and the clauses from 41st to 81st were agreed to, with little opposition.

2. CONSOLIDATION OF TIIE STAMP-DUTIES.

On Tuesday, many petitions in favour of the abolition of the News- paper Stamp-du y were presented to the House of Commons, by Messrs. WAKLEY, ROEBUCK, GRoTE, &AIRING, SCHOLEFIELD, POULETT TiloBtSoN, BARNARD, HUME, AGLIONRY, HARVEY, Sir RoNALD FERGUSON, and other Members. Mr. HARVEY and Mr. WaitiEr hoped that Mr. Spring Rice would go the whole length re- quired by the petitioners, and abolish the duty entirely. Mr. T. BUN- COMBE said, he understood Mr. Wakley intended to withdraw his motion for the repeal of the Stamp-duty on Newspapers, in order to give Mr. Rice an opportunity of explaining a Government measure to the House : but he objected to this proceeding, for thereby was set aside the arrangement which gave Members an °ppm tunity of bringing forward motions on the two days of the week on which Motions had precedence of Orders of the Pay. After some conversation, the House went into Committee ; and Mr. SPRING RicE proceeded to explain the measure intended to be brought Ito ward by Ministers for the consolidatiou of the Stamp Acts. After remarking on the advantage of consolidating various laws relating to the same subject, he stated, that At present the laws relating to Stamps were distributed over one hundred and fifty stalte.—Kome relating to Ireland, some to England, and some to Scotland— a bland order inr method, exhibiting a farrago of legislation, in which the most subtle lawyer frequently found himself entangled, and by which the unfortunate vie ' found himself subjected to penalties. These statutes origi- nated an the reign of Chivies the Second ; and from that titne to the present, tine system of legislating with respect to these Acts had greatly add:d to the con- fusion to which he had adverted. A party wishing to refet to them was obliged to rel'er, not through the title " Stamp," hut through some other titles, or through some other claw; of Avts not ',acing time slightest connexion with that upon which he was seeking information. He should refer to the 10th of Anne, one of the earliest of these Arts, as being strongly characteristic of the style of legislation of that day : that Act referred to the duty on tea,

coffee. on and rice, and it also referred to Mary Beecham. Now, what connwxion had this with the subject of the statute?

He proposed to repeal these 150 Acts, with the exception of two (whieh bad reference to hackney-coaches and the licences of hawkers, which had already to a certain extent beef' revised and consolidated), and to have but one Stamp-act for the United Ringdon. This Act would neressarily be long: it would contain no fewer than 330 sec- tions. The ta-lc of consolidating so many Acts, relating to so many different subjects, was very difficult; and he hoped Inc should receive the indulgence usually granted to persons attempting such a labour, and that no attempt would be made on the occasion to press upon him the neressity of repealing any particular tax. seeing that opportunities would be afforded at it future time for bringing forward propositions of that nature. Mr. Rice then alluded to the motion of Mr. Cobbett for equalizing the Stamp-duties; and admitted, that, to a certain extent, that gentleman was right in his statements, inasmuch as the operation of the Stamp-duties was unfair as regatded the humbler

class.fs.

For instance, he would take the taxes on Conveyancing: Inert be found that the duty paid on property of less value than 20/. was Si. per cent., and between 20/. and 50/. the duty was reduced to 2/. 17s. Id. per cent. but when they rose in the scale, they were still ntore struck with the inequality of amp, for na sums between 40001. and 5000/. the charge was only is.. per The duty in the decreasing scale went much further ; and no addition to this, the saute duty was charged on all property between 60,000/. and 80,0001. ; consequently, there was no charge on the sum between 60,000/. and 79,999/. He would proceed to Bonds: the duty on bonds of 250/. was 41. per cent. ; OD those above 5000l. the duty was reduced to 5s. 4d. per cent ; and OD bonds above 12,500/. it was reduced to 2s. 4d. per cent. The scale stopped at 20,0001. ; thetefore the bond for 40,000/. will subject to the same duty as that of 20,000/. The state of law on this point was inconsistent with justice ; and he was sure that the House would not allow it to continue as it was, unless it was found that no remedy could be applied. RPM the statement he had made, it would appear that the duty on a bond for 40,000/. would be about Is. 3d. per cent. ; on a bond for 4000/. it amounted to 4s. per cent. ; on one of 1000/. it was increased to 20s. per cent. ; and on one of 100/. it would be 30s. per cent. He then stated the remedy he proposed for this injustice- lu Conveyaneing,-where on smaller sums the duty was 5/. per cent., and sums between 1000/. and 2000/. were subject to the charge of only 16s. per cent.,-he proposed to take the general average, and make one uniform charge. As for taking a fluctuating scale, lie thought it would be extremely doubtful whether they could frame one that would not be liable to objections : he should propose, therefore, that they should take a uniform scale of 1 per cent. on all deeds of this description. Ile did not think that this change would moduce an addition to the amount of taxation. The amount would be as nearly as pos- sible the same; but telief would be afforded as regarded the smaller conveyances, and therefore, probably, to the holders of small property.

There was considerable hardship arising out of the existing law re- specting the duty paid on property going by descent. The administra- tor to an estate was compelled to pay duty on the whole of the property, although perhaps debts might nearly absorb it ; and such was the opera- tion of this part of the law, that he knew individuals who refused to administer to an estate in consequence of it, mid abandoned their claims, thus giving the revenue that to which it was not entitled. Ile believed that the new Act would remedy this evil entirely.

He next came to the duties on Bills. With respect to bills of long date, he would make no alteration ; but with respect to short bills he had to propose an alteration which he thought would put an end to what was an evasion of the law, the practice of giving letters of credit. He intended that, in the new scale, bills drawn at not more than seven days' date should pay a merely nominal duty. A reduction of the stamp-duties on Apprentices' Indentures would also be made- At the present moment, when there was no premium, or when there was one of less than 10/. the duty charged on the indenture was 20s. He did not feel himself called upon to enter upon a discussion of the law of apprenticeship, or on the expediency of the present system ; but felt, that as long as it was on the Statute-book, they should afford facilities to persons to make engagements of the kind. Ile proposed, therefore, that in all cases where the premium was less than 20/. the duty payable should be 5s., and that in all other cases the stamp-duty should be 20s.

The duty on Bills of Lading he would lower from Gs. to 3s. and that on Charter-parties from 35s. to 5s. On Leases, the reduction would befrom 20s. to 2s. 6d. on rents, of 201.; and from 3/. to 1/. where the rent was 300/. a year. In this way the ad valorem principle would be applied to leases. On Administration Bonds under 1000/. the present duty was 20s.; he proposed to lower it to AS.; and he would put an end to the system of allowing discounts on the duties on Administra- tion-bonds; which discounts generally went into the pockets of pro- fessional men, and did not benefit their clients. The duty on Insurances of Fanning Stock he would entirely abolish,-notwithstanding he rendered himself liable to the ridicule of those who had termed former budgets the Tile Budget, the Taxed-Cart Budget, and the Shepherd's- Dog Budget, because the taxes on carts, tiles, ani dogs, had been taken off by the Ministers who brought them forward. He did not believe that, except as the operation of the bill became more equitable, an in- crease of taxation would arise from any of the alterations he proposed : but when the bill was before the House, it would doubtless be com- petent for any Member to signalize himself by moving for an addi- tional duty. Ile dwelt upon the impolicy of legislating bit by bit on financial matters ; and declared that it was not his intention to call upon the /louse for any vote, until in April next he should have an opportunity of laying the whole state of the finances before it. He did not mean therefore to ask for a vote upon the subject of the Newspaper-duties; but he thought it only fair to state what he intended to propose in April. Ile could not consent to the total abolition of the duty, not- withstanding his respect for the petitions of the people, of which so many had been that night presentedThe present Stamp-duty ou Newspapers was 4d. minus a discount of 20 per cent. 'When lie was called upon to reduce the whole of this duty, he would ask, did not the State do something for newspapers ? The State undertook the duty of conveying newspapers, free of postage, to all parts of the country ; therefore a certain portion of the present Stamp-duty should be regarded in the light of payment for services rendered, rather than in the shape of a tax. In- deed this part of the subject had made such an impression on the minds of many honourable gentlemen who had attended to it, that they recommended, as a substitute for a stamp-duty, a postage-duty. This had often been sug- gested: but, after the fullest consideration that he had been able to give the subject, he was satisfied that the plan would be found to be impracticable, be- cause he believed that by casting on the Post-office the duty of levying this charge, and all the consequent duties which would be found to proceed from the state of the law, that it would materially interfere with the general correspond• ence of the country. Ile said that this stamp-duty should be regarded partly as a tax, and 'unity as the payment for the postage; and this opinion he was prepared to maintain. Ile must also say, that he thought it unjust that because he lived in London he should be able toobtain information free from duty, while those at distant and remote districts would have to pay largely for it. He in- tended, therefore, to propose that there should be a stamp-duty of Id. on a newspaper, instead of the present one of 4d. He would argue the question fairly against the gentlemen behind him; and would take the question in all its bearings, and he would make the best case he could against the extreme views eutertained on the subject; and he trusted that the House would go with him to the extent he proposed. He could not help adverting to the state of the law as bearing on personal liberty. He stated last year, that as long as the law WU in its present condition, no effort of his should be wanting to administer it for the protection of those who had embarked their capital in newspapers. The honourable Member for Finsbury, much to his honour, said that he never would sanction a breach of the law ; but he begged the honourable Member to recollect, that it was the Chancellor. of the Exchequer's bounden duty to en- force the law, when he knew that the breach of it was to the detriment and Injury of other individuals who submitted to it. He had been subjected to many attacks for enforcing the law ; but while he felt it to be his duty to enforce it, he regretted the state of it, and intended to take that course which he thought would prove a remedy. He felt satisfied, that as long as there was a high duty on newspapers, and even when they made the law as sti ingent as they possibly could, they could not effectually put down the breach of it on this point, without looking to the cause which produced it.

There was one new tax in his Bill-

That was the Transfer-duty on shares of Joint Stock Companies. If they were transferred for a valuable consideration, there was an immediate charge. He did not propose to meddle with this, but he intended to add a very email ad valorem tax on the first issue of the shares. He did not wish to male this tax interfere with any useful projects. No one was less opposed than he was to the exertions of capitalists for objects which often were of national imp' t ; and he felt bound to say, that but for these companies, many of the most im- portant undertakings that had had such important and beneficial effects on the country would never have been carried into operation. Therefore he said that he had no wish to interfere with them ; but he did not conceive that the small duty which he intended to propose would be considered objectionable on that ground. Certainly he did not conceive that it would operate in any degree to check an. useful undertaking ; but it might have some slight effect in transactions ore different kind. Ile alluded to those shares which were brought into the mar ket when ten or fifteen ahilllings had been paid on them, and which were advanced to a preminin, and which were often matter of collusion. His proposal, there- fore, would be for the benefit of parties wishing to engage in bona fide tions- actlionist. With respect to Ireland, (except as far as the Newspaper-duties were concerned,) it was intended to preserve the relative proportions of tax- ation now existing, so that Ireland would receive the full benefit of all the reductions : with respect to newspapers, the duty would he uni- form. Mr. Rice, in conclusion, expressed his obligations to Mr. Wil- liam Ord, Mr. Tyrwhit, the barrister, and to Mr. Timm, Solicitor to the Stamp-office, who bad devoted themselves to the subject, for the assist- ance he had derived from their labours : to them nearly the whole merit belonged of the measure which it had fallen to his lot to bring forward.

The Chairman then put the following resolution, which Mr. Rice handed to him-

5, That the several Stamp- duties, Allowances, and Drawbacks now in force, shall be repealed ; and that in lieu thereof the several Stamp-duties, &c. named in the schedule hereinafter recited shall be put in force."

Mr. GOULBURN concurred with Mr. Rice as to the advantages of consolidating the Stamp Acts, but very much preferred his own plan for effecting that object. He had proposed, in 1830, to divide the schedule of consolidated duties into ten branches; which would have been more convenient than the present plan. Indeed, to term the pre- sent very lengthy schedule "a consolidation," seemed very like the abridgment of Blackstone's Commentaries by a friend of his : the Commentaries were in four folio volumes, but the abridgment reached twenty volumes. [A Member here asked-" Was this an Irish friend ?" Mr. Goulburn replied-" No, an English one."1 He went on to state objections to the course adopted by Mr. Rice ; w ho, he said, had.departed from his own rule, in pledging the Governineut to the reduction of the Newspaper-tax, before he had opened his Budget. He also thought that the Irish ought to be offended because they were not to be taxed as heavily as the English : they would feel themselves degraded by the distinction in favour of the English !

Mr. E. L. BULWER was of opinion that the total abolition of the Stamp.duties was desirable: he observed, however, that the present course of Mr. Rice justified the withdrawal of his motion for the re- duction of the duty to one penny last year, in reliance upon the asu- ranee of the Chancellor of the .Exchequer that his object would be forwarded by abstaining from pressing his motion to a division.

Mr. ORD remarked, that Mr. Goulbum's observation about the abridgment of Blackstone's Commentaries applied to his own scheme rather than to that of Mr. Rice ; for, while Mr. Rice's bill con- tained only 330 sections, Mr. Goulburn's schedule had 456.

Mr. T. BUNCOMBE complained of the length of the discussion ; which, be said, would interfere with other motions fixed for that night.

Mr. HUME and Mr. WAKLEY hoped that the Stamp-duty on News- papers would be totally repealed.

Mr. WAKLEY said, he should certainly divide the House on this point, when the subject regularly came before them.

The resolution was agreed to, and the House resumed.

3. Dery ON SOAP AND TALLOW.

Petitions were presented on the same evening, by Mr. HANDLEY, Lord SANDON, Colonel SIBTHORPE, and Mr. MILES, for a reduction of the Soap-duty.

Mr. HANDLEY then moved a resolution, that the House should re- solve itself into a Committee on the Customs and Excise Acts, with a view to consider the expediency of repealing the Excise-duty on Soap. He did not consider that the pledge of Ministers to reduce the duty on Newspapers would be satisfactory to a large portion of the rural population, who were excluded by the Chancellor of the Exche- quer from that relief from taxation to which they were entitled. lie therefore felt it impossible to act in compliance with the wish of Mr. Rice to withdraw his motion, which was for a reduction of the duty on soap, and an augmentation of the duty on foreign tallow.

He wished to repeal the duty on soap, amounting to 600,000/. per anntm,- and would raise the duty on Russian tallow imported into this country to 101.& ton. This would realize a revenue of 320,000/. per annum ; leaving roily 280,000/. to conic out of that surplus of which the Chancellor of the Exche- quer had talked so largely, and which therefore might he expected to be real.zed.

He knew it would be said, that this would raise the price of candles ; but, looking to the amount of duty that would be taken off soap, tne actual increase would be very trifling indeed. Ile was particularly anxious that the matter should now be decided, because, inasmuch as the tallow freights did not leave Russia until July, this would be the proper period for carrying the principle into effect.

Mr. POULETT TriosisoN was prepared to oppose Mr. Handley's motion, even if could be proved that the revenue was able to afford the reduction he proposed ; because he believed that the proposition %%mild not be advantageous to the country at large, or to those particular classes whom it was intended to benefit.

Mr. Handley's motion went to this extent-he wishedto get nil of the whole Excise-duty upon soap, and proposed to make up the loss consequent thereon by the imposition of a fresh tax upon tallow ; which would make dr: whole tax upon that article 101.; and he stated that the result of that would he a loss if about 2.50,0007. to the revenue, whilst the consumer was to gain by it about 300.0001. Now he (Mr. Thomson) was prepared to prove that the consumer would not be benefited by the proposed charge; that the landed proprietor would not be benefited ; and that the country would also lose. The consun9- tion of tallow in this country was 155,000 tons : of this 5.5,000 tons were foreign tallow imported, and .here were 100,000 tons home produce. Take, then, the revenue on the plan of Mr. Handley, supposing his plan to be carried into effect, and that 55,000 tons was the quantity at present imported : suppose that so nnwh should continue to be imported, (and -he was prepared to show afterwards that such would not be the case, but supposing the same quantity should still come into the home market,) the duty upon that would be 550,0001. From that they should deduct the amount of the ditty at present imposed, 171,000/. ; and there remained then the sum of 379,0001. as to probable revenue. Mr. Headley proposed the repeal of the Soap-duty, which he said was about 600,0001. That was the duty in 1834; hut the net amount of the duty, de. during the drawback, was 736,000/. Mr. Handley had added a charge for collection ; but they all knew from experienm, that where the Excise existed for certain purposes the reduction of officers would be nothing like the large amount or equal to the difference which his honourable friend had stated. De- ducting then 379,0001. front 736,000/., the loss to the revenue would be35a,000/., according to Mr. Handley's plan. But according to that statement, he sup- posed that there would be no falling off in the import of the article: now he was not right in assuming that ; on the contrary, the natural result of imposing where there was 3/. a ton duty an additional 71. a ton, would be an addition to the price of the article 20 per cent. There was every reasou for calculating, when that was (lone, that there would be a falling off of 15,000, or 20,000 tons. That would reduce the revenue still further : it would increase the loss of the revenue, as stated by Mr. Handley, 250,000/. ; but by hint (Mr. Thomson) 350,000/. This was to be regarded as a question of revenue; and as a loss to the revenue of such a sum they had to look to it.

The gain to the consumer had been stated at 300,0001.—though it was admitted that there would be a rise in the price of candles : there would also be a rise in the price of tallow used for machinery.

He had stated that the home produce of tallow amounted to 100,000 tons; that of foreign importation to 55,000 tons. Now how WWI it dist' ibuted when it came into consumption ? According to the best calculations made, it ap- peared that the amount of tallow consumed in soap was 25,000 tons. The total amount of soap charged was about 67,000 tons ; and the calculation was that about 11 cwt. of tallow was used to every ton of soap. The amount used in candles was 115,000 tons. The amount used by machinery, hides, and other purposes, was 15,000 tons. Thus, they had 1:10,000 tons upon which Mr. Handley proposed to raise the duty, and 25,000 tons upon whick he proposed to take it off. Now, these 130,000 tons, upon which Mr. Handley proposed to increase the duty by the amount of 61. 16s. (which, together with the present duty of 34 4s., made 10/.), according to that increase, would produce 884.000/. He then added, of course, the proposed amount of duty oil the 25,000 tons of tallow used in soap, being 250,0001. front nhich lie deducted the present amount of duty, 170,0001., making a total 1,064,000/. Now, he took his estimate of the Soap-duty at 736,000/. ; which being deducted front the previous sum of 1,064,000/., produced a balance of about 330,0007., ; which sum was lost to the consumer, instead of his gaining 300,000/. Then if the revenue were to submit to this loss of 330,0001., the loss, as he had shown, would be to the consumer. If a difference were to be made, Mr. Hand- ley should propose to raise the duty from 101. to 16/. a ton ; for even suppos- ing the amount impotted to be as it was at present, instead of any falling off taking place, that increase would scarcely be suffieient to secure the revenue from loss : they would even be obliged to go beyond it, and raise the duty to 20/. a ton, in order to have any chance of preserving the revenue from loss.

Now, how would the agriculturist be benefited by raising the tax on tallow?— In a few years, when expectations would be raised, when calculations would be formed, and when operations would be entered on with reference to it, those very gentlemen who were now urging it on, and endeavouring to induce the House to create the proposed substitution would come forward upon thosa, principles which they had always advocated in other respects and which they would be then prepared to advocate, and loudly call fur a repeal of the tax upon candies, and for a repeal of the tax upon the raw material, which was largely made use of in the manufactures of the country. Ile had, he would say, never heard a more extraordinary proposition than that of raising the duty upon the export of soap to 10/., when it was well known it could not be exported at 01.

He trusted that, under the pretence of transferring a tax from one article to another, the House would not break down the present system.

Mr. HawEs contended that Mr. Thomson's free trade principles on this occasion ought to be departed from—

The whole amount of the Soap-duties at present was 1,670,000/. Of this

sum, a considerable .portion did not reach the Treasury ; and on that ground the propriety of reduction might be urged, even according to the principle acted

upon by the right honourable gentleman in the case of raw cotton—that a re-

duction of Excise-duties for the purpose of imposing a small Custom-duty was a desirable measure. The injurious operation of the present system of Excise- duties, with respect to soap, might be sufficiently estimated from this one fact—

that of late years, notwithstanding the great reduction in the price of the raw material, and the great increase in the population, the trade had remained stationary. With reference to smuggling, the course which he wished to see adopted would not have any injurious effect. At present the amount of soap actually made was double the amount of that which was charged and which paid the duty.

Mr. F. BARING said, that the evidence given before the Commis. sioners proved that there had been an increased consumption of soap consequent on the reduction of duty—that the poor consumer had a much better and more economical soap. He wished Irish gentlemen to consider how their constituents would be affected by the proposcl Change—. In respect to the English consumers, the case stood thus: they would be called upon to pay a high price for candles, but would have an equivalent in the reduction of soap. But how was it in Ireland ? Ireland at present paid no duty on either soap or candles; but it was now proposed to add a duty on both, Without any equivalent. Mr. WARBURTON said, there are two questions— First, whether the Excise duty on soap should be taken off; the other, whe- ther an additional duty should be put on the importation of tallow for the pro- tection of the English agriculturists. Here, then, was a measure for an addi- tional tax on tallow from foreign countries; two-thirds of the tallow consumed being home produce, and only one-third foreign. What would be the effect ? Why, the agriculturists would gain 700,000/., and the Government would only obtain 380,0001. This was the kind of measure he expected at the beginning of the session. He suspected the object of the agriculturists was to get relief for themselves in this way. But so long as the agricultural interest !aid, " give us relief by taxing the rest of the community,' so long he would bold up his voice against them, and say it was unjust towards the rest of the community. So far as the motion related to taking off the excise, he con-

curred in it ; bat he world not be deceived by limiting up the two ipiestionr. The distress of the agricultural interes: did not affect stock-farmers; it affect.d wheat-growers.

Mr. RICE reminded the House, that he had not asked for any vote respecting the reduction of the Stamp-duties ; he had only given notice of what he intended to propose. With respect to the Soap-tax, as every other tax, he hoped that the House would wait till after Easter for his statement ; and surely, gentlemen who professed to be friendly to the agricultural interest, would wait for the report of the Agricul- tural Committee, before deciding on what course they should adopt as to a reduction of taxes.

The effect of the proposed measure would be, not to raise the price of foreign

tallow only, but of all tallow, and to take 2s. or 3s. out of the pockets of the people, and return only is. into the revenue. And this single interest had, a few years ago, been relieved of the whole duty on candles, and half the duty on soap. For that interest he felt respect and sympathy ; but he must look to the welfiire of the whole country : and he thought it was not to the advantage of that interest, in the eyes of the country, to come forward with a proposition by which they alone would be the gainers. It had been said that the measure would act as a remission of rent to the extent of 10 per cent, to the occupiers of land. Either the occupiers of land were entitled to that abatement, or not.

If they were entitled to it, this would be so much in the landlord's pocket ; and if not, the landiords would get it ; so that the whole effect of the measure would be to ad,', to ate rental of certain landlords.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that the complaint against Mr. Rice was, that he had pledged, not the House, which he could not pledge, but the Government, to a reduction of a tax ; although he could not know what would be the amount of available surplus, or whether there would be any surplus at all ; and although he refused, for this very reason, to give a pledge to another suffering class, who called for relief. Mr.

Rice bad entered on a premature discussion, and had pledged the Go-

vernment to a certain course, as decidedly as if he had proposed a vote. Mr. Handley had not made out a prima ficie case in favour of his motion : if he had, he would have been fully justified in bringing it forward and pressing for relief.

But although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself to one

alteration, the principle was so open to public inconvenience, that lee could not consent to make an exception in favour of this proposition. He adhered to the principle laid down by 3Ir. Rice, and condemned his departure from it ; and although he thought that all the interests of the country had a fair and equal right to the consideration of the House, without any positive pledge of relief being given to any one in particular, he should nut vote for the principle of this question, because he thought the whole subject should be considered com- prehensively, and Mr. Handley had not shown a prima facie case. Ile saw no sufficient peculiar case of hardship—no case so strong as to justify a departure from the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pursued on former occasions. Was it a special case in respect to foreign tallow ; or one which came within the general rule, to the policy of which he considered him- self bound to adhere? There was already a protecting duty on soap. He could not consider such claims until he knew what the surplus was. Even then, the question he still had to consider was, the policy of a protecting, duty on tallow. When he considered the country front which foreign tallow came, and its commercial relations with this country, and that tallow was almost the only article Russia could supply in return for our manufactures,—when he looked at the quest ion with reference to the hanil-leom weavers, who worked by candle-light, and when he knew not that the proposition might not increase the price of candles, on these combined considerations he could not give his vote in favour of the motion.

Mr. HANDLEY, in reply, admitted that his object was to relieve the agriculturists.

The House then divided—

For the motion 125 Against it 195 Majority 70 4. EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, the Bishop of EXETER moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the opera- tion of a new system of Education in Ireland, and whether it would be expedient to extend it, as recommended by the Commissioners in their Second Report. The Bishop delivered a very long speech in support of his motion. He reprobated in strong language the conduct of the Commissioners, and utterly denied that the system could be properly called a national one, as it was such as no sincere Protestant could approve of, although it answered the purpose of the Catholic priesthood admirably well. To extend the influence of this system, a regularly increasing grant of public money was required by the Com- missioners, till, at the end of nine years, the stun reached 200,0001., which was then to be voted annually as a permanent fund for educating the Irish poor. He did not object to this amount, if it were really to be employed in disseminating sound religious instruction ; but the House ought to be satisfied by inquiry that such would be the disposi- tion of the fund before sanctioning such an outlay. Now be con- tended, that the education which would be given under the present system was not a religious one. He disputed the grounds on which the Commissioners rested their assertion, that it had proved generally' acceptable to Protestants and Catholics. They pretended to have had applications for schools from 140 clergymen, but lie found that the number was in fact only 80, as many had applied for more than one school, and had their names written over and over again, while others had been dead for three years; and one of the 140 had been removed from the ministry twenty years ago. The schools established on the re- quisition of Roman Catholic priests alone were 713, while only nine resident clergy of the Establishment had applied for schools. The Catholic had received 65871. in salaries for teachers ; the parochial resident clergy only 66/. He thought that these facts, among others, proved that the Protestants did not approve of the system. The Bishop then complained that twenty-four schools were under the superintendence of nunneries, and that there was an altar in one where mass was performed. Subsequently, to be sure, the altar was removed by an order from the Board. In another of these schools a dinner was given to that arch-agitator the so-called Archbishop of Tuam, Dr. M•Hale ; and in the school under the immediate patronage of Lord Lansdowne's agent there was a copy set for the boys—no doubt by the master, in these words : " God be with the poor fellows who were hanged at Maryborough," thus teaching children to sympathize with

VI0h. tO. b of the law. A. to the Scripture exnacts, a monk told a per- son 11 Dublin that they o ere rejected with scorn ; and in the Gospel of Luke, which was professed to he given entire, ten verses were omitted from the first chapter. The peraons who published what they facetiously termed an improved version of the New Testament, lett out altogether the chapter to which these verses belonged, thus mark- ing their sense of its importance. Yet this was the chapter mutilated by the Commissioners. Roman Catholic catechisms, too. were taught in these schools. The Bishop said he thought he had stated a suffi- cient number of facts to justify the inquiry he solced for, and declared that it would have gi% en him much greater pleasure to have been able to speak in favour of the system.

Lord MELBOURNE admitted that he was unprepared to follow the Bishop of Exeter into all his details ; but he would resist his motion, on these grounds

Thatthe appointment of a Committee would tend to no good, but to much evil—to disturb the system of education satisfactorily (as he believed) esta- blished in Ireland—to revive religious auimosities and dissensions, and to inter- rupt a plan of proceeding which bad received the sanction he believed) of every public man in the country, and been adopted by every Government which had existed during the period of the last five years. Their Lordships must con- sider the quarter whence this proposition came, and the effects %Aid) would be produced upon the public mind in Ireland, when it was seen that a Committee of inquiry, whose labours were to be devoted to the improvement of the existing eystem of education, was appointed at the suggestion of one of those who were tbe strongest 111111 inost vehement opponents of the system when it was first pro- posed. Oa that ground alone, he thought it would be highly impolitic in their Lordships to accede to the mofion which had been made on that occasion.

He did not deny, that before adopting the recommendations of the

Commissioners to the full extent,—though it was intended to propose I larger grant this year than the last—it further imaiiry, some closer in- vestigation, would be necessary. He believed that the hostility of the clergy was fast wearing Envoy ; and as to the alleged misconduet of cer- tain schoolmasters, the Board had sufficient authority to remove them from their places. The Bishop had complained of schools being kept in nunneries : some doubt had been felt by the Board whether they ought to be allowed ; and application Was made to Mr. Stanley (now Lord Stanley), who sanctioned the establishment of these schools.

In conclusion, he would only repeat, that the existing system of education in Ireland was one which had been approved of by almost every Government which bad existed in this country for many years past. It was introduced by his noble friend in the other House, certainly and unquestionably- a decided friend of the Protestant religion and the Church Establishment ; it was adopted by the late Government, who placed that estimate upon the table which their Lotd- ships voted last year for the support and maintenance of these schools ; it was entirely approved of by the present Government; and he tlenight their Lord- ships would act most unwisely if they were to inteifere with its further pro- gress by adopting the present motion.

Lord HARROWRY was in favour of the inquiry; but would not ad- vise the Bishop of Exeter to press his motion— After the refusal of this Committee, it was utterly impossible for tbe Go- vernment to propose that any thing should be given Irmo any iOnd, much less from the funds of the Protestant Church in Ireland, to support a system of edu- cation into which they did not dare let the House inquire: Lord Psussur addressed the Douse, but in a low tone, and with his hick to the Gallery ; so that the report of his speech was necessa- rily very meagre and imperfect. Ile defended the system, which it was the obj st of the Bishop of Exeter to arraian. He contended that it had not had a fair trial, for one single day. The Bishop had criticized the statement of the Commissioners that 140 clergymen had made application for schools; but the Board bad asserted no such thing— The Bishop as perfectly aware of what was stated ; he knew perfectly well that what the Bum ii stated was this; that amongst the applicatimis winch had been made to them for relief under this system there were the signatures of 140 clergymen of the Established Chinch. So there were; that statement of the Board was not only substantially, but literally true, because, although the names of some of those elogymen were three and even four times over, yet in every iptance the duplicate signature had been to a separate and distinct application. lf they had described the number of the Protestant clergy in favour of the pro- position as greater than it actually had been, they had done the same thing with respect to the other denominations of clergy ; so that the proportion remained the same, aml the question was not substantially affected.

He had already said that the Board had not had fair play, and he would now advert to some circumstances which proved that it had not— It was a matter of public notoriety, that there had been meetiugs in the north of Ireland, consisting of many thousands of persons, who were told that the sacred Word of God had been mutilated, and that attempts were making by the Board to deprive them of their Bible. Was that fair play ? Under such cir- cumstances, could it be said that the experiment had been fairly tried? The Noble earl opposite ( Lord Roden) who was not so hostile to the existing system when his noble friends were in office as he was at present, had addressed some of these meetings, the very persons composing which had their Bibles in their hands. They were exhorted

To put their trust in Providence,

Anti keep their pooder dry."

At a numerous and respectable meeting of Orangemen, in the county of Tyrone, Mr. Brere in the chair, the following resolution was unanimously agreed to: " That as Protestants, reprobating the new system of National Education, we will not (he begged the house to observe the candour and piety of the declara- tion) listen to any clergyman who supports it." So, the Dissenting clergy in the North of Leland, who depended on their congregations for subsistence, were told that they would not be listened to in their pulpits if they supported the new system. Again he asked, therefore, if the system could he said to have had fair play.

He would say one word in vindication of the Catholics from the cbarge that they did not reverence the Scriptures— What the right reverend prelate had said, meant that the Roman Catholics denied the authority of the Holy Scriptures, or it meant nothing. Now of this heves sure, that no Roman Catholic, either in Irelaed or anywhere else, would deny the authority of the Holy Scriptures. On the contrary, they held them to be the very essence of Christianity—the revealed word of God. It was true that, for their explanation, they called in aid from other sources; and in that einmisted all that was imputed to thens—which amounted to this, that they did not consider that the Holy Scriptures, without any comment or explanation, were fit to be put in the bands of the people.

Lord RODEN denied that he was less hostile to the system of educe- tiOn in Leland, when the late Ministry were in power, than he was at

present. He regretted that the Bishop of Exeter would not press his motion.

Lord WINCIIILBEA said, it was generally understood that Ministers bad made certaio conditions with the individual by whose aid they were maintained in office— The first of those conditions was the surrender of the Protestant Church, to be taken away piecemeal; the second was the maintenance of a system of National Education on a principle which must eventually make all the Pro- testants of Ireland members of the Catholic Church ; the third was, the placing of the whole of the Police and Magistracy of Ireland in the bands of the indi- vidual in qustion.

Lord MELBOURNE denied the existence of these conditions, or of any condition or stipulation whatever. The Bishop of EXETER expressed his extreme satisfaction at this declaration ; and withdrew his motion.

5. WAR IN SPAIN.

Lord ABERDEEN last night called the attention of the Peers to the atrocitiessolionitted by the contending parties in Spain. He particu- larly mentioned the murder of Cabrera's mother, a poor old woman, infirm and helpless. The person who received orders to put her to death had some compunction, and wrote for the confirmation of his orders to the Captain-General of the province ; from whom he re- ceived instructions to fulfil his orders. It' the wildest times of the French Revolution there was probably 'nothing worse than this. Cabrera bad already murdered four ladies in revenge for the minder of his mother ; and as the Queen's commandant had threatened to shoot five for each one the Carlist shot, the latter savage had proclaimed his intention of retaliating by putting twenty to death for every one whom the Royalists slaughtered. Lord Aberdeen reprobated the sending of the British auxiliary corps into Spain, and the supplying of military stores with such profusion. It certainly never was intended that these supplies should be granted to aid the Queen of Spain in carrying on such savage warfare ; and it became important to know what steps Alinisters bad taken to improve and soften the character of this un- holy contest. Ile would therefore move for copies of the corre- spondence between the Government and his Majesty's Minister at Madrid, showing what efforts hail been made to mitigate the sangui- nary character of the war in Spain.

Lord AIELBOURNE entirely concurred in the reprobation expressed by Lord Aberdeen of the atrocities to which he referred : but it was taking a too favourable view of the human character to say that they were almost unparalleled in %warfare. lie believed that, in Spain espe- cially, war had never been carried on in a civilized manlier. The brightest pages of our own history were but too often stained Ivith murder aud bloodshed. Lord Melbourne observed, that although it bad been asserted that the Elliot Convention had entirely failed, such was not the case, for exchanges of prisoners had been made wider it. It was true that Minn had confirmed the order for shooting the mother of Cabrera, and in revenge the wives of four of the Qiieen's officers had been shot. The moment that Government heard of these atro- cities, they instructed Mr. Villiers to make strong representations on the subject to the Spaaish Minister ; but Mr. Villiers had not waited for these instructions, having himself immediately stated to M. Men.. dizabal the sense he entertained of such barbarities ; and the conse- quence was, that the General was dismissed from his command. He had no objection to the production of the papers moved for ; but he must warn the House, that they could give but an imperfect idea of what had been done by Ministers in this matter. In the mean while, be should protest against the notion that peculiar blame was to be at- tached to the partisans or Governinent of the Queen of Spain.

The Duke of WELLINGTON admitted that he had sent arms and am- munition to Spain for the aid of the Queen ; but contended, that Lord Melbourne, by sending troops, had lost all influence with Don Carlos, and the power to mitigate the savage character of the war as it was carried on by the Carlists.

The motion was then agreed to.

6. OCCUPATION OF CRACOW. 6. OCCUPATION OF CRACOW.

Sir STRATFORD CANNING last night addressed the Commons in

speech of considerable length on the occupation of Cracow by the Three Protecting Powers, as they were called. Ile contended that this pro- ceeding was in direct violation of the Treaty of Vienna; and though in this Instance the victim was but a small state, it behoved England to see to the due performance of treaties to which she was an influen- tial party. There was not the slightest pretence for this outrage on a dependent state ; and there was reason to believe that it was delibe- rately resolved upon as far back as 1833, though no notice of such an intention had been given either to this country or to Cracow.

Lord PALMERSTON said, that the original sweeping demand of the Three Powers for the expulsion of all Polish residents in Cracow, who could be claimed as their subjects, had been mitigated. The terms of the Treaty of Vienna justified them in demanding the expulsion of persons from Cracow whose names were given and whose offence was proved. But in this case no sufficient justification had been offered for the violent measures adopted towards Cracow. He had received no official communication on this subject from either of the Three Powers. He had written to English Ministers abroad for information, but had not yet had time to consider their answers, so as to enable him to take any steps on the subject. He could not avoid observing, that the selection of Austrian troops for the occupation showed good feel- ing and discretion on the part of the Three Powers.

Sir H. VERNEY and Lord DUDLEY STUART expressed their abhor- rence of the conduct of Russia.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, the Three Protecting Powers were three plundering powers, who had been guilty of the grossest violation of treaties.

It had indeed been suggested by the noble lord as a circumstance in mitigation, that Austrian troops had been marched into Cracow instead of Russian. This reminded him of the story of a Spanish nobleman who, having been sentenced to be hanged, complained that to carry such a sentence into execution on his person would be a violation of the rights of nobility ; whereupon it was decreed that he should be hung by a silk rope instead Of a hempen one. This country felt deeply with respect to Poland—

A feeling for the sufferings of Poland WAS working in the mind of the public

all over Europe ; and the despots with their armed power little knew what might be the consequences of the wrongs they were perpetrating. A moral effect was in operation from city to city and town to town ; and it would be. found that this power of Russia, which resembled a monster with its arms of steel and its front of brass, but its feet of clay, along with other despotic powers which were attac‘ied to it, would meet with a fate which would serve as an ex-

ample to the rest of the world.

Mr. Hume asked what was the use of having Ministers at Berlin and Vienna, if the moment they beard of this transaction they bad not sent information of it to Lord Palmerston, who said he could not act for want of information, lie hoped that when the papers were laid on the table, the House would declare in the plainest manner its sense of the conduct of the guilty parties.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not agree with Mr. Hume. He thought it impolitic to pass a strong resohrion, unless the House was pre- pared to go further. Declarations, not followed up by distinct acts, did not add to the dignity or reputation of a public assembly.

The discussion was soon afterwards closed.

7. MACCLESFIELD SMALL DEBTS BILL: IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

Lord STANLEY moved the third reading of the Macclesfield Small Debts Bill, on Thursday.

Mr. ROEBUCK presented' a petition, signed by 6000 inhabitants of Macclesfield, against the bill. He remarked, that one of its clauses continued the principle of imprisonment for debt, which the House of Commons had declared against; and he should therefore move that the bill be rt ad a second time that day six months.

Lord STANLEY complained of receiving this unexpected opposition on the third reading of a bill which had gone through its regular stages, and been discussed in Committee, and was approved of by the persons locally interested in the matter. The clause objected to only gave the Commissioners the power of imprisonment for seven days ; and should a general measure for abolishing imprisonment for debt becoma law, no doubt it would override this and similar local acts.

Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. Hawes, and Mr. Hume opposed the bill ; and the House divided on the question of the third reading: for it, 92; against it, 4:3; majority, 49.

It was then moved that the bill do now pass.

Mr. HUME moved an amendment, that the clause empowering the Commissioners to imprison debtors be struck out.

A stormy discussion ensued. Mr. E. J. STANLEY contended that the clause ought to be retained. Sir JOHN CaanmEss would give his vote heartily against the clause : he hoped the House would not stultify its former decisions against imprisonment for debt. Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. Ilume, and Mr. MAct.eax, all addressed the House ; and then another division was taken : for striking out the clause, 74 ; for retaining it, 97.

The question was again put that the bill do pass.

Mr. Waltnewrox moved an amendment, that the debate be ad- journed to Moullay next ; on the ground, that though the bill had been read a third time, it had not yet been printed.

Mr. GROTE and Mr. Ewaier supported the motion for adjournment; which, on a division, was rejected, by 130 to 74.

The main question was put for the third time, that the bill do now pass.

Mr. BOF.BUCK again moved the adjournment ; which was again negatived, by 128 to 53.

The motion for passing the bill was again put, and an adjournment to Tuesday next was moved.

Mr. .HUME supported this amendment ; and was proceeding to complain that when lie applied for the bill, he was told it was not printed, when he was interrupted by Sir CIIARLES BURRELL remarking that "he saw strangers in the Gallery."

The Gallery was cleared; a division took place ; and the motion for adjournment of the question to Tuesday was rejected, by 141 to 43.

Again the main question was put, and again the adjournment of the House was moved.

Lord STANLEY expressed his regret, that by this proceeding a stop should have been put to all public and private business ; but would now

vote himself for the adjournment. Several other Members, however refused to give way, and divided the House again ; when the adjourn-

ment was carried, by 166 to 20, and the House broke up, at ten minutes before eight.

[The Times states, that during the exclusion of strangers from the Gallery, a sharp discussion was carried on between Mr. HOME, Lord

JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. J. A. MURRAY (the Lord Advocate), and Sir ROBERT PEEL. Mr. HOME is reported to have complained bitterly of

the conduct of Ministers in leaving the House instead of voting with him and his friends in the division— Why were they not present to show what their real opinions were? Where were they? [Here Lord J. Russell was seen in the Gallery, having come out of the Library to listen, amidst cries of " He is in the Gallery !"1 Yes, let them come down, I say, and give their opinions, and not run away is they had done. As for the Lord Advocate for Scotland, he was ashamed of him—there never WM such inconsistency of conduct in any man. He voted for the aboli- tion of imprisonment for debt in Ecotland, and for its continuance in England. What was the difference between a journeyman in Paisley and an operative in Macclesfield? [Here the Lord Advocate came into the House, and seated himself exactly under Mr. Hume, who struck him accidentally on the head, amidst the loudest laughter, repeating " Where is he l—oh! I see—now let him explain."] Mr. MURRAY and Lord Jot's; RUSSELL both said a few words in explanation, but they are not given.

Mr. .Huste accused Lord Stanley and his party of excluding the public.

Lord STANLEY retorted, that Mr. Hume obstructed the progress of public business, and he wished his constituents could witness his conduct.

.Sir ROBERT PEEL said, Lord John Russell had acted wisely in

withdrawing, when he saw the course which Mr. Hume and his friends were pursuing— The noble lord, however, had not been absent from the House; he had been inhaling a much purer atmosphere, and philosophizing from the heights which he now occupiei over the folly of their proceedings. ( Cheers and laughter.) The Member for Middlesex aeccused the Lord Advocate of inconsistency ; hut was he guilty of no inconsistency himself? How did it happen, that when the Irish Municipal Reform Bill was under discussion, the honourable gentleman had allowed the principle of imprisonment for debt to be ingrafted on It ? And if he had made no objection to those provisions of the bill, what became of his assimilations and analogies?;

It must be remembered that this account of the proceedings with closed doors is taken from a Tory journal.]

Last night, Lord STANLEY moved that the bill do now pass. lie avoided any remark upon the proceedings of the previous night.

Mr. Hume still protested against the imprisonment for debt clause, but would not further continue his opposition. Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. WARBURTON took the same course.

Mr. HARVEY contended that the bill was as objectionable then as cm the previous :day, and would divide the House against it. Judging from Mr. Hume's course of proceeding, he should have almost sup- posed that lie was leagued with the Tories to prevent his motion ott the Pension List from coining on.

Mr. WARD declared his intention of voting with Mr. Harvey.

A division then took place ; and the bill was passed, by 203 to 56.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

CARLIST PRISONERS: LORD LONDONDERRY. In the House of Peers, on Monday, Lord LONDONDERRY expressed his intention of postponing a motion of' which he had given notice respecting the in- terference of this country in Spanish affairs, in consequence of a letter being produced so late as the previous Friday, which Lord Melbourne, "in his usual off-band way," bad said could not be found, and which related to the twenty-seven Carlist officers, on board the Isabella Ann, which was captured by one of the Queen's vessels.

Lord AIELBOURNE said, this was a very insufficient reason for post- poning the motion. The letter had been mislaid, but had been re- covered and notice of its being laid on the table was, at his desire, given to Lord Londotideiry. Anybody could read the letter in five minutes and consider it in ten. Lord Londonderry was a difficult man to please : he was angry last week because the letter was lost, and now he was angry because it was found.

The Duke of WELLINGTON considered himself implicated in thiS matter, personally and in character ; and lie wished to know what course Lord Londonderry intended to take ?

Lord LONDONDERRY delivered a speech of some length in reply UP this query' respecting the treatment of the Carlist °Ricers, who had. been sent from Cortina to Cadiz and from Cadiz to Porto Rico.

The Duke of WELLINGTON repeated, that the character of the late as well as present Administration was concerned in this question ; and he wished Lord Londonderry would say what he was driving at ?

Lord LONDONDERRY complained that the Duke did not treat hire with as much " affection " and kindness as he was wont. He found no fault with the Duke, whose admirable despatch he very much ap- proved of; but he thought the present Government had not acted na the spirit of that despatch.

The Duke of WELLINGTON wished that Lord Londonderry would make a distinct motion instead of a speech : "let him bring forward a specific motion, and hear what I have to say on the point."

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY—" I beg leave, with your Lord- ships' permission, to withdraw my notice of motion!"

The notice Was withdrawn accordingly.

DORCHESTER LABOURERS. In reply to a question from Mr. Wax-s LEY in the House of Commons on Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that the King had granted a free pardon to the Dorchester la- bourers.

FACTORY ACT. Mr. POULETT THOMSON had leave, on Monday, to bring in a bill to amend the Factory Act. With the concurrence of Lord ASIILEY, it was read a first time.

TRADE WITH PORTUGAL. Lord PALMERSTON mentioned, on Thurs- day, in answer to Mr. EMERSON TENSEST, that

The commercial treaty between Great Britain and Portugal expired, accord- ing to notice, on the 30th of April last. Negotiations were now pending for another commercial treaty with Portugal. If those negotiations should fail, and if the Government of Portugal persevered in enforcing the recent tariff, it would be for his Majesty's Government to submit to Parliament the expediency of adopting measures which would prevent any foreign power from enjoying commercial advantages in her trade with this country which she denied to us.

CARLOW INQUIRY. Mr. HARDY gave notice last night, amidst much laughter, (in which Mr. O'Connell joined heartily,) that on the 20th of April he should call the attention of the House to the Report of the Carlow Inquiry Committee.

MILITARY FLOGGING. Last night, Lord JOHN RUSSELL laid ots the table of the House of Commons the Report of the Comniissiont on Military Punishments.

The Commissioners report against the abolition of flogging at home or abroad, in time of war or peace.

Major FANCOURT gave notice, that he should press his motion on this subject when the Mutiny Bill was brought forward.

MEDWAY NAVIGATION BILL. On the motion of Sir EDWARD ENATCHBULL, this bill was read a second time, on Thursday, by a ma- jority of 55 to 46.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Sir JOHN HonnousE, on Tuesday, presented the Report of the Commissioners appointed to select plans for the new Houses of Parliament : and then moved,

"That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Ma- jesty would be graciously pleased to have an inquiry made as to the best mode of proceeding in conformity with the report of the Commissioners, in such a manner as to his Majesty may seem desirable."

Mr. HAWES said, that this motion took the House.by surprise : no- tice of it should have been given— It did not seem, after all that had been done, that any plan had been selected. There was only the hula of a plan ; for the Committee chosen to select one of the four plans preferred by the Commissioners had not yet made their report. The House, therefore be repeated, was taken by surprise. Ile wished to know if any evidence had been taken before the Commissioners ; and if so' whether that evidence would be laid before the House? And be also wished to know, whether the four selected plans would be submitted to public view ?

Sir Join; HOBIIOUSE denied that there was any intention of taking the House by surprise— The object of the present motion for an address was to ascertain the probable expense of carrying out the plan that might be selected. If Mr. Hawes wished to see the evidence, the Commissioners could have no objection; but he thought it would be better to reserve it until the subject was brought to a final conclusion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL approved of the report of the Commissioners— These Commissioners had been appointed to review the various plans that had been sent in, and to make selections from them. They had accordingly examined with much care and attention no less than ninety plans, and had well weighed the merits of each. From this number they had selected four plans, as the four best entitled to a preference for their combination of architectural beauty and their interior arrangements and accommodation. The Committee that had been appointed to consider these phins further confirmed the decision of the Commissioners, and considered the four that had been selected as justly en- titled to the preference given to them. The Committee would not, however, recommend to the House the adoption of any of the plans until the expense of carrying it out should be first ascertained. He thought that the inquiry to as- certatu this could best be made by the responsible advisers of the Crown ; and he therefore arproved of the present address; and he hoped the House would be unanimous in adopting it.

Mr. Hawes asked whether Mr. Barry's plan would be exhibited ? Mr. SPRING RICE said, there would be no difficulty on that point : either the plan or an engraving of it might be exhibited.

Mr. HAWES still thought that evidence ought to have been taken, and laid before the House; and the country would be of the same opinion.

The address was then agreed to.

On Thersday, the House of Peers, on the motion of Lord LANS- DOWNE, voted a similar address to that proposed by Sir John Hobliouse in the Commons.