1: dates anTi Vratetitings in iliarlianunt.

SIR ROBERT PEEL'S FINANCIAL MEASURES.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, presenting a petition against the Corn-law, Earl FiTzwii.i.riet said that he was about to present a peti- tion upon a subject that some of their Lordships might consider as set- tled, but which he considered as only just submitted to the practical consideration of Parliament. The petition proceeded from Kettering in Northamptonshire, a town which, though to a certain extent manu- facturing, was exposed to powerful agricultural influences. The real struggle for the repeal of the present Corn-laws appeared to him to have only just commenced— On the first day of the session be had expressed his gratitude to Ministers for having called the attention of Parliament to that subject, and be now re- peated the expression of his thanks for the measure which they had proposed : he considered it an improvement of the existing system—a small improvement indeed—a step in the right direction, though but a trifling instalment of that great debt which the landowners of England owed to the rest of their country- men. Though it was a step in the right direction, he regretted that the mea- sure was not likely to be final, as the prolonged agitation of this question was exceedingly injurious to all the classes connected with the land.

Adverting to the new financial scheme, Lord Fitzwilliam said, that of parts of the plan he approved, of others he disapproved— Ile approved of the intention to raise a revenue from the profits of land, or in other words from realized property ; but be did not approve of the duty on the profits of the tenantry ; and still less did he approve of that upon the income derived from trades and professions. He was astonished at the pro- posal—when the distresses of the commercial and manufacturing classes were so great, and so indisputable as to be made mention of in the Queen's Speech, he vies utterly surprised at the endeavour to raise a revenue from the profits of those classes. Such profits bad, in truth, little or no existence; and the im- position of a tax upon them would have no other effect but to depress them still more, and to throw an additional obstacle in the way of their revival.

Lord Fitzwilliam then presented a great number of other petitions, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws.

Lord BROUGHAM gave notice, early in the week, that he should move the following resolutions on Thursday- " I. That a direct tax upon income ought never to be resorted to unless in some great emergency of public affairs, when an extraordinary expenditure may become unavoidable for a time or in some pressure upon the finances of the country which can be sustained by no other means. "2. That such a tax ought on no account to form part of the ordinary re- venue of the state, but to cease with the necessity which alone could justify its imposition; inasmuch as, beside all the other objections to which it is liable, its inquisitorial operation being equally vexatious whatever sums are levied, the facility of increasing its amount according to the real or supposed exigencies of the public service offers a constant temptation to extravagance on the part of the Government ; removing the most effectual check upon im- #44, 't and dispensing with the necessity of seeking a revenue alori e actual deficiency in the revenue to meet the expen- ,**"%tc, ut seven millions and a half in five years, an the e next year, amounting to above two millions and a ands arising from the state of affairs in the East, may 44'conrse to an Income-tax necessary, after an attempt to increase by one-twentieth the duties of Excise and Customs had ended in ob- taining a two-hundredth part only,—thereby proving the impossibility of draw-. ing any further revenue from increased taxes on consumption, while the relief which may justly be expected to commerce and to finance from lowering those taxes cannot be made immediately available,—yet it behoves the Parliament, as faithful guardians of the people's rights and interests, to take care that during the temporary existence of this tax its pressure shall be distributed in such a manner as shall make it most easily, most patiently be borne.

"4. That, with this view, it is first of all necessary to satisfy the people that there shall be no invidious exemptions, but that the highest personages in the state shall be permitted to have their due share of a burden which absolute necessity alone could warrant the Parliament to impose. "5. That with the same view, it is expedient to make a distinction between income arising from capital of every description and income arising from labour merely ; levying a smaller proportion of the latter income than the former. "6. That with the same view, it is expedient to make a distinction between income possessed by persons who have only an interest in the same for their lives, or for some lesser term, and income possessed by persons who have an interest in the capital from whence the income arises ; levying a larger pro- portion of the latter income than of the former.

"7. That with the same view, it is expedient to make no distinction in favour of persons in the civil service of the state or of persons receiving pensions from the state.

"8. That it is neither consistent with justice nor with sound policy, to levy a greater proportion of tax upon larger incomes than upon smaller ; and that an exemption of even the smallest incomes from the operation of the tax can only be justified upon the supposition that their owners are wholly unable to pay it. "9. That while it is the duty of the people to bear those burdens which are necessary for supporting the credit of the country and maintaining the secu- rity of its widely-extended dominions, it is equally the duty of Parliament to afford them every procurable relief, by enforcing the most rigorous economy in all the departments of public service, by discouraging all proceedings which may endanger the continuance of peace, and by adopting whatever measures may best conduce to the improvement of our commercial resources ; and that it is in an especial manner incumbent without any delay to remove any income- tax, whatever be imposed, as soon as it shall appear that the ordinary branches of the revenue have recovered from their temporary depression."

On Thursday, Lord BROUGHAM brought forward his resolutions, in a long speech. He took some pains to show that the House was compe- tent to the discussion of financial measures, although it usually waived its right to originate them. It is called upon by Speeches from the Throne, and Royal Messages, concurrently with the other House, to consider grants of money. Lord Grenville, in 1812, made an elaborate financial statement in opposition to that made by Mr. Perceval in the House of Commons ; a noble Earl proposed in the House of Lords a plan of finance in opposition to that proposed by the Marquis of Lans- downe in 1807, in the Lower House ; and Lord Holland, in 1810, brought forward a motion for a Royal Commission to value tithes, tenths, and first-fruits. Lord Brougham held the same opinion which he had always held against an income-tax ; but he could not say that it was possible longer to refuse that means of raising supplies. He had been a party to the enormous but just payment for the emancipation of slaves in the Colonies, and the reduction of postage, which produced a large portion of the deficiency-700,000/. or 800,000/. and above 1,00*00/. respectively ; and that, with a large remainder, ParliameU was bound to make good. The state of affairs in the East offered no prospect of a lessened deficiency ; and they were now driven to the question, "Have we the means of meeting the deficiency ?" Lord Brougham argued to show that it could not be done by reduced taxation on con- sumption; retracing the ground travelled by Sir Robert Peel on Friday in pursuing the same argument. He then stated his objections to the Income.tax- A delusion appears to prevail, especially among the labouring classes, that they have little or no interest in the matter, for that a property-tax or an income-tax does not press upon them. There was no greater delusion than this. It required but little argument to show that the labourer was affected by the diminution of the fund out of which he was paid. When the capital accumulated, the fund of the labourer was increased; when it became dimi- nished, the fund to pay the labourer decreased in the same proportion. The manner in which the Income-tax was levied showed its effect on the labourer. You levy so much on men possessed of income : all that you withdraw from their capital—supposing them tradesmen, farmers, or manufacturers—came from that accumulation which they had made this year and would probably spend next year. The money which they paid as an income-tax was no longer an expenditure from which they could derive any direct advantage, for it was taken from them to be applied in another way—to support labour of another kind, which was not productive. If that amount were not taken from that class, it would be an accumulation which would be spent in the same or the next year. There was this most material difference between a tax on incomes di- rectly levied, and a tax levied on consumable commodities, that the income-tax so taken away was accompanied by no expenditure that supported labour ; whereas the money expended in duties on consumable commodities of necessity, at the same time that it put something into the public treasury, also put some- thing into the fund out of which productive labour was paid ; so that no 1,000/. taken by way of income-tax went to support any productive labour at all, while every pound of this thousand, imposed on consumable articles in customs and excise duties, of necessity to that extent, and perhaps to more, went to support the manufactures, trades, or agriculture of the country.

The greatest mistakes prevail both for and against. Some approve of such a tax ; but on inquiry, it turns out that they mean not a tax on income, but a tax on property; and especially on Funded property. That Lord Brougham did not contemplate with much greater favour : some ten years ago he instituted an inquiry, by which he found that the number of stock-warrants was 280,000, and the number of persons receiving dividends out of the Funds 300,000; who re- ceived collectively not more than 30,000,0001., or an average of 100/. a year. Of those, 240,000 received under 50/. a year, and only 600 re- ceived more than 1,000/. a year. So that a tax on the Funds only would not merely be unjust, but would be merciless to the poor. He admitted a difference between the capacity of property and of income to bear taxation ; but he would not have incomes escape altogether ; nor could he admit the doctrine that the rate of taxation should be graduated to the amount of the income. Why should not each income, large or moderate, bear its direct proportion of the burden? See where the opposite plan would lead to— The rate was to be made in proportion to the income : the DEW of 1,0001 a year to pay 10 per cent; the man of 2,0001 a year, because his income doubled that of the man of 1,000/. a year, would be not doubly taxed at the same rate, but doubly rated, and pay 20 per cent ; the man of 4,00o1. a year, 50 per neat

—what became of the man of 10,000/ a year? On the same principle of rating he must be rated 100 per cent, and obviously his whole income must be paid away for the tax, and not a farthing remains for himself. There was no escape from this result.

It was the duty of the Legislature, however, to take care that no tax should be imposed on the lowest classes unless they chose to pay it ;

that care should be taken that no taxes whatever were imposed on the necessaries of life, for a tax on the necessaries of life was contrary to every principle of justice and sound policy. He was indeed reminded

by a cheer from Lord Radnor that there was one exception—a tax upon a commodity that should be nameless ; but with that exception, at least, it was a sin against the first principles both of justice and of sound policy. The rate of taxation should vary, not with the amount, but with the kind of income upon which it was to be levied— It was a very great fallacy to suppose there was any uniformity in the same rate applying to all incomes, where they wete of the same amount, but of dif-

ferent descnptions. "You say you impose a uniform tax; and you take

3 per cent, or 10 per cent from the landlord, and the same from tbe tenant, and you estimate the profits of the tenant ; and how do you estimate the net profits ? The profits of the farmer are to be taken at one-half his rent. But does it follow that a tenant in all cases makes a profit equal to half his rent ? Does every tenant who pays a rent of 1,000/. realize a profit of 500E? Does every tenant who pays a rent of 600/. gain a clear profit of 3001.? 1 will under- take to say it is not so. You are in search of profits ; but whilst you think you are taxing profits, you are in reality taxing capital. Suppose money laid out in improvements on a farm—that a high rent is obtained from the tenant, and that he gets high profits: if he has improved during his lease, you take his income, not at his real profits, but according to his rent. But suppose a party farms his own land, and invests money in improvements, so much this year, which is vested in the land, so much next year, and I will say he stops there : the two years' expenditure comes from his capital, and is invested in improve- ments : on what speculation 1—in hopes of reaping a benefit from it some time to come: upon this principle he laid out his capital, that in some few years to come the profits from his land would be increased, either by obtaining a greater emolument, if he retained it in his own hands, or, if he leased it, by receiving a larger rent. But the taxgatherer steps in between the outlay and the return, and says, Oh, this is not invested capital, but income and profits, and 1 tax it as profits.' Now, is that fair ? Is this income 1—No : it is taxing expendi- ture and capital : you grasp at profits, but you seize capital; you profess to take up the fruit, but you cut down the branches of the tree ; you say you only want to tax the tenant's profits, and you take capital and tax expen- diture. I take an example from the farmer ; but the same principle applies to trade. Suppose a manufacturer had erected a mill, or an ironmaster had built furnaces at a large expense, say 7,0001.: he did this not to sink the money for an annuity ; it WRB capital expended in trade to return with a profit. But in what shape returned ?—in the shape of income, not at 5 per cent; that was not the rate of interest for which his money was laid out, but to return 10, 15, or 20 per cent; and in a few years he would be able to replace the capital he bad expended. And yet, though this is capital invested, and no return is made as income, it is brought within the Income-tax, and made to pay as if it were landed estate transmitted from father to son, in which there had been no out- lay except the ordinary outlay occasioned by the wear and tear. If these are hard cases with reference to the farmer and the trader, the case is infinitely harder to the life-annuitant: you tax the life-annuitant as if he were a capi- talist ; and yet he has no power to alter his investment, nor to fall back upon his capital in case of extraordinary expenditure, but is compelled to subsist t.pon a c,tain annual income.

The objection becomes still stronger when it is proposed to levy a tax on the incomes of professional men— He could not conceive any thing more lamentable than the state to which a professional man might be reduced, from the state of his health—from sudden weakness of mind, or from a debilitated frame—with distress falling upon him and premature decay, and with his income falling short of his wants, and hav- ing no capital to fall back upon— "Optima quseque dies miseris mortalibus tevi Prima fugit; subeunt morbi. tristisque seneet6s: Et labor et dune rapit inelementia mortis."

These casualties were of the number of those which fell to the lot of the pro- fessional men ; and these matters should be duly taken into account before it went forth that you intended to impose the same tax upon his income as upon that of the landowner, the fundowner, or other capitalist. Lord Brougham's graduated scale— He made the percentage less upon those professions and upon the life estate than in the case of the tenant in fee, even though they should increase from three to four per cent the amount levied upon the one and diminish from three to two per cent the amount levied upon the other : if in the case of a profes- sional man, the clergyman, the physician, the lawyer, the literary man, they lower the percentage to two, though they should -be obliged to increase it in the case of others who had capital to deal with to four, be should still by all means counsel them to make the reduction. But it was his most confident ex- pectation that it would not be necessary ; but that, leaving three per cent to be charged upon the one, and lowering the other to two, and giving relief to the tenants, occupiers of land, and professional persons, they would still have enough to supply the deficiency in the revenue.

He believed that the produce of the tax would be larger than the estimate; for in schedules A, B, and C, there had been in the seven years ending 1814 an increase of 3,500,000L ; in the last two years the increase was about 2,000,0001.; and in consequence of improved tillage, increase in trade and the business of professions, and the relinquish- ment of 25,000,000/. of war-taxes, there must since that time have been a great augmentation of the national income. He objected to the inquisitorial character inseparable from the machinery for collecting such a tax, and especially to the substantial injury which might be done to persons in trade. After a compliment to the Queen for vo- lunteering to subject herself to the Income-tax, and a regret that so splendid a national resource could not be reserved for a period of war, Lord Brougham concluded by moving his resolutions.

The Earl of RIPON, speaking in a merely financial point of view, thought that Lord Brougham's success in opposing the continuance of the Income-tax in 1816 might have increased the subsequent financial difficulties of the country ; though he agreed that such a " splendid re- source" should be reserved for times of immediate necessity. Admit- ing many obvious truths in the resolutions and the mover's speech, Lord Ripon thought it would be very inconvenient to prejudge the mode in which a bill to come from the other House should be framed ; for it might reduce them to the ridiculous alternative of relinquishing their recorded opinion or of rejecting the bilL He contended that Lord Brougham's precedents did not justify his present course; but refrained from entering upon the topics of his speech. He moved "the previous question." On the question being put, the amendment was carried, with only a few dissentients.

The new financial measure gave rise to several observations in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Mr. RENNIE gave notice of a resolu- tion that no income-tax should be levied on trades and professions, and that ls. duty should be imposed on certain articles. In reply to Sir CHARLES LEMON, Mr. GLADSTONE said that tin had been by mistake omitted from the Tariff : the duty would be altered from 21. 10s. to 10s. per hundredweight. The smelting of copper ore in bond would be done away with, and a 5 per cent. ad valorem duty would be imposed: the precise mode of rating the duty might be a matter for future consi- deration; but the object would be to consider the market-value. Mr. FRANCIS THORNHILL BARING put a string of questions calculated to elicit a statement from Sir Robert Peel as to the machinery and mode of levying the Income-tax ; but Sir ROBERT PEEL referred Mr. Baring to the detailed statement which he was to make in Committee; claiming the privilege to develop the whole of the details at once. In answer to Mr. MILNER Gresorr, Sir ROBERT PEEL said that his impression was that persons receiving pensions from the Consolidated Fund would be liable to the income-tax.

Mr. GIBSON repeating his question on Wednesday, Sir ROBERT PEEL said that all pensions, salaries, and annuities, would be liable. And he made a statement which he was sure the House would receive with great satisfaction-

" When I, on the part of the Government, intimated to her Majesty that the servants of her Majesty thought that the financial exigencies of the coun- try were such as to make it necessary that the income of this country should be taxed to the amount of three per cent, her Majesty, prompted by that feel- ing of deep and affectionate interest which she has ever shown for the welfare of her people, observed to me, that, if the necessities of the country were such as to require that her subjects should submit to an income-tax of three per cent, it was her Majesty's wish, voluntarily intimated to me, that her own income should be subject to a similar deduction." (Loud cheers.)

CORN-IMPORTATION BILL.

When the motion was made to go into Committee on the Corn- Importation Bill, on Monday, Mr. WAR.D moved as an amendment, " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether there are any peculiar burdens specially affecting the landed interest of this country, or any peculiar exemptions enjoyed by that interest, and to ascertain their nature and extent." Mr. Ward supported his mo- tion in a long speech. He glanced at the general assumption,— as by Lord J. Russell, Lord Howick, Mr. M'Culloch, and Sir Robert Peel, that such burdens exist: but the real question was not whether the land was highly taxed or not, or whether it was highly taxed in comparison with land in Poland, but whether it was more highly taxed than all the other sources of industry and labour in this country. The landowners must show that they were sub- jected to those burdens not for their own benefit, but for that of the other classes who did not contribute to them. If those burdens were proved, they had a legitimate right to relief; if not, a double in- justice was done to the other classes. Mr. Ward entered into a long examen of the alleged burdens on land— In 1834, in a debate on agricultural distress, neither Sir Robert Peel nor any one else defined what were the peculiar imposts so levied : tithes and poor- rates were not generally mentioned; the malt-duty was slightly alluded to; Lord Spencer said that the better administration of the poor-law would be the greatest relief; Mr. Cobbett attributed the depression to the malt-tax and the standing army. In a debate shortly afterwards, brought on by the Marquis of Chandos, with a motion to abolish the malt-tax, Sir James Graham said that tithes were a burden on the land, but that burden would be lightened by commutation • that the pressure of the Poor-laws would be mitigated by means recently devised, and that the county-rates would he reduced; and so the only unalleviated burden would be the malt-tax ; but, were that removed, said Sir James, the repeal of the Corn-laws would at once be urged upon the House. The last list of burdens was given by Sir Robert Peel, in his Tamworth speech : they were poor-rates, county-rates, highway-rates, church-rates, and tithes. Now the poor-rates, which in 1818 amounted to 9,000,0001., de- creased from 6,317,254/. In 1834 to 4,576,965L in 1840. More than a third of the poor-rate is now levied on property unconnected with land. Besides, the land only bears the larger share because it is the most widely-extended pro- perty; and it even manages to part with some of its pauper population, by sending it to the towns. The county-rate, for the administration of that jus- tice which formed the security of the property upon which it is levied, and the highway-rate to construct the roads which are the streets of the county, are as properly local rates, as a rate for lighting and paving the city of London. Tithes are no burden upon land, but constitute a coproprietary right : to complain of them, were about as just as for a man holding 1,000 acres to com- plain that he could not get another farm of 100 acres adjoining his own. Church-rates only impose a burden of 506,312/. on a rental of forty millions; and one-third of that sum at least is paid by Dissenters. Besides, they form a condition in the contract when an estate is purchased. He found that the amount contributed by the land to county and poor-rates, in 1839, Was 3,608,5794 of church-rate, 237,875L, of highway-rate, 534,936/.; in all, 4,481,3901. of local taxation. Of the general revenue for the year 1840, (53,182,586/.),the Customs, Excise, and Stamp-duties contributed 45,415,33014 the Land-tax 1,817,341/. If the Land-tax were levied, as it was originally in- tended, on actual rent, it would now yield about 8,000,000/. Mr. Ward com- pared the burdens borne by the land in this country with similar burdens in other countries: in Prussia, the proportion of its contribution is to the general revenue as 26 to 51; in Austria, as 87 to 164; in France, as 58 to 120; in Belgium, as 1 to 4; while in England the land-tax is not equal to one-fourth of the single tax on tea or sugar, about one-third of the tax on tobacco, and about equal to soap. Of the Assessed Taxes, the landed interest pay as their share of the window-tax, 140,4651. (out of 1,404,6420; for dogs, game-duties, and armorial bearings, 397,000/ on hoses, carriages, &c. 275,356/.; of the Land-tax, say, 1,000,000L; in all:their contribution to the direct taxation is 1,812,8211. The 60,000 landowners, then, and 187,075 occupiers employing labourers, contribute 6,294,191/. to the revenue. Against that must be set their special exemptions— They are exempt from stamp-duties, paid by all but themselves: towards the probate and legacy duties, yielding, in 1841, 2,098,0761., they paid not a shilling: from the laws directed against the truck system, as Mr. Ferrand would be horrified to hear, they are exempt; as they may pay their labourers in kind; and there are a thousand other cases of exception. Mr. Ward read a letter from a correspondent in business near Edinburgh,complaining that towards the window-tax, which he paid, his neighbour, a farmer, paid nothing; and it WWI the same with insurances, duty on saddle-horses, andauction-duty.

A million and a half on account of the legacy and probate duties, and 500,000/. for minor exceptions, would reduce the burden on land to 4,294,191/. on a rental of 39,500,000/. In 1834, on Lord Chandos's motion for repeal of the malt- tax, Sir Robert Peel himself wished that Lord Chandos would appoint a Committee to consider the burdens on land. Mr. Ward concluded by moving his amendment. Colonel Woo n quoted a return to show that of poor and county rates (6,966,0000 in 1826, the land paid 4,795,0001., dwelling-houses 1,814,0001., mills and factories 259,0001. He regarded the Corn-law as necessary to maintain the bonding system ; and that system as the only security, in a country so densely peopled, against famine prices.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON supported the amendment, with some general arguments against the Corn-laws. Sir Robert Peel admitted that the Corn-laws caused a hide of the distress that prevailed throughout the country ; but why, without a good and sufficient reason, should they do what had the admitted effect of inflicting a lade distress upon the people ?

Mr. DARBY objected, that the inquiry was brought forward with the foregone conclusion that if there were no burdens on land there ought to be no Corn-law. If the inquiry were had at all, it ought to extend to the whole subject of the liabilities of land, including its impedi- ments—such as to the malting-trade, to the growth of tobacco or beet- root.

The amendment was supported by Dr. Bowarzia and Mr. CHILDERS ; and opposed by Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. GEORGE PALMER.

Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to the delay of his measure after fourteen nights' debating, and to Mr. Ward's irrelevant review of old debates. He censured Mr. Ward for having changed the terms of his motion ; for it stood in the Notice-paper as a motion that it was inexpedient to impose any duty on the importation of corn until the inquiry had been had ; and with the motion in those terms he should deal. He asked, then, whether the Committee should be postponed until a Committee should have concluded its inquiries and made its report ? Sir Robert admitted that among his reasons for maintaining a corn-law were the special burdens on land ; and against the dictum of Mr. Ward he quoted the authorities of Adam Smith and Ricardo; who distinctly declared tithes to be a burden on land. In fact, nearly the whole main- tenance of the Established Church is imposed on the land, and cer- tainly a very large portion of the poor-rate. Sir Robert was well aware that the consumer pays a portion of the tax imposed on any article; but a portion also falls on the producer, since taxation checks consumption : he admitted that he could not say in what proportion nor could he define the exact amount of the special burdens on land ; and he did not believe that a Committee, after every research, could do so. Sir Robert concluded by asking- " What would the country think of me if I now said Here is a very plan- foible motion for inquiry brought forward by the honourable Member fur Shef- field : I will leave the corn-trade, 1 will leave the landowners—the tenantry, all men who derive their income from the sale of corn or the production of corn in a state of utter uncertainty, and go with the honourable Member for Shef- field into an inquiry which may possibly terminate some three sessions hence?' I leave it to the country to decide whether my objection to the honourable gen- tleman's motion is not a reasonable one. To that motion I shall certainly give nay decided opposition." The amendment was supported by Mr. COBDEN ; who entered into details as to burdens formerly borne by land. He declared that the budget of Friday would recall the middle class to their political duties ; adding, "Depend upon it, they will resist to the utmost this attempt to tax their profits for the sake of upholding these monopolies." Lord WORSLEY having said a few words on the opposite side, Mr. Vrisaaas insisted that those who, night after night, advocated a fixed duty or a sliding scale on the ground of special hardens, were bound to prove the existence of those burdens. He gave a distinct list of the peculiar exemptions— The exemptions were upon the following articles: horses, servants, car- riages and carts, dogs, houses and windows, fire-insurance; and he would read the produce of those taxes during the years when they were repealed. In 1816, 281,6951.' 1819, 3,868/.; 1822, (husbandry horses alone,) 470,1081.; 1823, 52,7921.; 1824, 6,8761.; 1825, 49,6591.; 1832, 8,7101.; • 1833, 10,110/.; 1834, 52,000/.; 1835, 50,0001.; total, 985,824/4 and in 1836, a sum equal to 60,0001. a year, chargeable to the county-rate to which they were liable' was cast upon the Consolidated Fund. The amount of farming-stock insured was 51,977,7511., and on that no duty was levied; on other property duty was col- lected to the amount of 975,610/.

He cited the returns of the Marylebone workhouse to show how the Corn-laws enhance the poor-rates, by raising the cost of maintaining paupers.

Lord Howicx explained why he should vote against the amend- ment— He thought that not merely the Government, but also the people, were in- terested in preventing the public business being interfered with on Government nights, by motions which ought to come on upon those nights set apart for no- tices. The honourable Member for Sheffield had given notice of his motion for Thursday last, and there was no House : but that was no ground of complaint against the Government. Indeed, if there had been a House, it is not likely that the honourable Member's motion would have come on, because there was other business of great importance in the paper for that night. It was a pretty clear proof of the opinion of the House as to the importance of any motion, when forty Members could not be found to take sufficient interest in it and to come down to make a House on the occasion. He would have voted for in- quiry, but would not obstruct the progress of immediate legislation." Mr. WAKLEY urged Mr. Ward not to press his motion; as it was not fair to have one motion on the Notice-paper and a different one in the Speaker's hand, and it would certainly be beaten by a large majority. Mr. BUNCOMBE supported the amendment. On a division, the votes for the original motion were 230; for the amendment, 115; majority against Mr. Ward's amendment, 115.

The House then went into Committee ; and the clauses from 1 to 9 were agreed to. Sir VALENTINE BLAKE moved an amendment, to remit all duties on corn until the 1st of April 1843—with an eulogium, by the way, on the potato ; but the motion was negatived, without a division. Mr. PARKER brought forward a clause for enabling any person, on giving bond for the amount of duty on any quantity of foreign grain, to import it at the rate ruling at the date of the bond, or at the date of the vessel's clearing out of port. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that such a scheme would discourage the bonding system and stimulate mere speculation ; and Mr. PARKER ultimately withdrew his amendment. Mr. PotuariT

Scaom moved a clause to admit corn at the rate of duty ruling on the day at which the vessel in which it was brought cleared out of the port of exportation ; but that clause was also relinquished by the mover. The Committee, after a motion for adjournment by Mr. Bairrannroa had been negatived, adjourned till Tuesday. Then, however, the Com- mittee was deferred till Thursday ; and then again till last night.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND : NONINTRUSION.

Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY called attention, on Tuesday, to the state of the Church of Scotland ; pleading Sir Robert Peel's refusal to pledge himself to bring forward any measure, as one strong inducement for doing so. In a somewhat discursive manner, he glanced at the whole subject— The act of the 10th of Queen Anne upon which the right of patronage is founded, is inconsistent with the Veto Act passed by the Church in 1834; and it is impossible for the Legislature and the Government to go on year after year without attempting to alter a state of things which must not only shake the Established Church, but unsettle men's minds on the most important points of religion and morality. He quoted opinions delivered in 1840 by Lord Aberdeen, the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, in favour of Government interference. The Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts first came actively into collision in the case of Auchterarder, in which the House of Lords affirmed the decision of the Civil Court. The settlement of a minister in Marnoch against the unanimous wish of the parishioners, was followed by the deposition of the seven ministers of Strathbogie for disobedience to the Eccle- siastical Court. Men bad grown uncertain whether they should obey the law of the land; and Dr. Candlish, when on the eve of being appointed to the new chair of Biblical Criticism in Edinburgh, was compelled to make his election between placing himself in opposition to his ecclesiastical superiors or to the law of the land; and he had chosen the latter. Sir Andrew alluded to the recent case of Elgin, whence a memorial, signed by four-fifths of the parish- ioners, had been sent through him to the Secretary of State, requesting that a particular minister might be appointed : instead of which a stranger was appointed. He contended that the people had a right to a voice in these mat- ters. Two years ago the question might have been settled without difficulty ; but Government is even now powerful enough to do so satisfactorily to the people and the Ecclesiastical Courts.

Sir Andrew moved that an address be presented to the Crown pray- ing for correspondence relative to the appointment of a minister to the parish of Elgin.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied— He observed that Sir Andrew Hay was one of the most strenuous opponents of the doctrine then put forward by Sir George Sinclair, that the appointment of a minister is in all instances to be governed by the opinion of the majority. Sir James paid a high compliment to the salutary influence of the Church upon the character, morals, and habits of the people of Scotland ; and agreed that it is hardly possible to overstate the danger to be apprehended from the con- tinuance of the present state of things : but he complained that Sir Andrew, while be declared that something must be done, did not give the House the slightest inkling as to what that something is. He talked of what Lord Aberdeen said, but he omitted what Lord Aberdeen did : in 1840, Lord Aber- deen introduced a measure framed to satisfy the just expectations of all mode- rate men ; but the Moderate party in Scotland turned out to be the weakest ; and the measure, to which Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham were par- ties, was not supported. The question now to be determined is, whether the law shall be obeyed or not ; and it is the fixed determination of the present Ministers to insist on obedience to the law. He agreed with the bourabli and gallant officer that the Veto Act could not coexist with the law of patron- age; and it was the duty of the Government to see that the veto of the General Assembly did not prevail over the law of the land. Actions of the greatest importance arising out of this controversy were at the present moment pending in the Courts of Scotland; and the decision of those actions, by competent tribunals, would go far to clear up the state of the law ; so that if there were any instant of time at which it would be more particularly inappropriate than another to embark in a course of legislation upon the subject, it was the pre- sent. With respect to the case of Elgin, finding that the parishioners were divided in support of two particular clergymen, Government appointed neither, and nominated a stranger ; who had succeeded in restoring a feeling of har- mony to the parish. He agreed with what Lord Melbourne had said, and WAS prepared to stand by the law of the land.

Mr. Fox MAULE was prepared to do the same; but he took a very different view of what actually is the law. He traced the history of the various statutes which gave the Church of Scotland its distinct, inde- pendent spiritual jurisdiction— In 1567, the General Assembly addressed certain articles to the Scottish Parliament, forming the basis of the act of 1567; which declared, "that there is na other face of kirk, nor other face of religioun than is presentlie by the favour of God establiscbeit within this realme; and that their be no other jurisdiction ecclesiastical' acknawledgeit within this realme, other than that quhilk is and sal be within the same kirk, or that quhilk Bowes tbairfrae con- cerning the premisses." This act was repeated in the act 1579, and was affirmed in the act 1581; and the act 1592, upon which the Church founds her spiritual jurisdiction, repeated all preceding acts. The last act bound the Church to receive and admit qualified ministers presented by lawful patrons; and the next act of the same year enabled the Civil Courts to give the stipend to the patron if the Church should refuse his presentee. 'Decisions in the case of CulrOss in 1748, in the case of Donee in 1749, by Lord Preston- grange and Lord Karnes, declared that there is no law in Scotland to compel a Presbytery to ordain a presentee; and that the minister authorized by them is de facto minister of the parish. Inconvenient as it might be to have one man drawing the stipend and another performing the duties, such is actually the law of Scotland. The later acts of James, which followed the act of 1592, en- deavoured to restore Prelacy: they were rescinded by the act 1649; that was rescinded by the act of Charles IL in 1662, establishing Episcopacy ; the act 1691 restored the Presbyterian religion, with all its privileges ; and that re- mained undisturbed till the act of Anne, in 1711. A deep-laid conspiracy to overturn the Protestant religion in that country, hurried through the House of Lords, without time to consider the arguments of Mr. Carstairs, the minis- ter deputed to oppose it : it was read a second time, committed, read a third time, and reported, all in the same evening.

Mr. Maule was not yet prepared to vote for the abolition of patron- age ; but he desired to see the Veto Act, or something tantamount to it, become the law of the land. The late Government had brought in no measure for the settlement of the question, but they had studiously con- sulted the wishes of the parishioners : with the present Ministry, ex- cepting the case of Lochlee, there had been a studious indifference in all cases to public opinion.

The motion was opposed by Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE; who declared that the people never had any right to an absolute veto. Mr. A. CAMP- BF.LL supported the motion ; and warmly defied Sir James Graham to enforce the law.

Mr. Camino:a BRUCE opposed the motion ; referring at some length to the case of Elgin ; where he declared the majority to be opposed by all the property and intelligence of the parish. He gave an instance of the working of the Veto-law-

In a parish where the population exceeded 1,700 souls, six old men consti- tuted the heritors ; only three of those six men were able to write their names; yet, according to the Veto-law of the General Assembly, those three old men were empowered to reject the presentation of a minister against whose moral character, intellectual attainments, or Christian doctrine, no objection was made by any of the tribunals or authorities that were competent to have done so.

Sir ANDREW RAY suffered the motion to be put and negatived without a division.

Mr. A. CAMPBELL then moved for a Select Committee "to consider the constitution and principles of the Church of Scotland, and to inquire into the causes of the collision between the Supreme Courts of that Church and the Supreme Civil Courts." The motion was supported by Mr. COWPER, who, as an English Member, felt the want of information on the subject. Sir JAMES GRAHAM objected, that the motion was to inquire into "principles" recognized by the act of Union. Mr. MAULE, understanding that the Committee could do no more than con- sider the statutes with reference to the Church of Scotland, shoulkdivide in favour of the motion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL cited the opinion of Lord Cotteuham, expressed on Lord Aberdeen's motion, that it would only be a waste of opinion to legislate on the subject ; and he referred those who desired information to the multitude of pamphlets which have appeared. If Mr. Campbell saw a chance of quieting the disputes in the Scottish Church, why did he not bring in a bill for the purpose ? Mr. CAMPBELL did not do so because he thought a bill would not be fairly treated : he wished for calm investigation. The motion was rejected, by 139 to 62.

PROHIBITED MARRIAGES.

The adjourned debate on Lord Francis Egerton's motion for leave to bring in a bill to amend Lord Lyndhurst's Act of 1835, was opened, on Wednesday, by Mr. PETER BORTHWICH ; who went over and an- swered the chief objections to the measure ; contending that the pro- posed law was not inconsistent with Scripture or morality.

Mr. Cinema, on the same side, said that where such men as the Archbishop of Dublin and Dr. Pusey were at issue as to the effect of such a measure, it proved, what Sir Robert Inglis denied, that there is a doubt about the matter.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER, also in support of the motion, addressed him- self particularly to the disturbance of domestic relations which it was said the bill would create among the middle and lower classes, with whom unions between widowers and sisters-in-law are both common and natural— In the case of a cottager, what woman so fitly as the wife's sister could ful- fill the duties of a mother ? Neighbourly charity could hardly be expected to undertake such duties ; and, although the Howie was necessarily without sta- tistical details, there was no doubt that among country-people the marriage of the widower with the wife's sister was an ordinary mode of providing for the care of the children.

In fact, such unions cannot be prevented : they can only be rendered injurious— Supposing the inclination to exist between two parties, what would be tha consequence of prohibiting marriage by law ? The parties would dispense with the ceremony altogether, and they would thus in a manner be compelled to unite without the sanction of the law. It was very unwise in the Legisla- ture to require more preliminary conditions as to marriage than were absolutely necessary. At present, if a marriage of the kind took place in ignorance, the penalty did not fall upon the father or mother, but upon the innocent children. In the higher classes, large properties and fortunes were often involved in questions arising out of such irregular unions. Mr. Buller appealed to the law of Christian Europe and of the White population of America. He observed that the bill would invade no privilege ; whereas the prohibitiou of such marriages invades the reli- gious liberty of those who desire to contract them. There is no extent to which people may not go in reference to what are called the prohi- bited degrees—

Lord Coke had referred to a case where a marriage was annulled because the husband had stood godmother to his wife's cousin. (Laughter.) He had made a mistake; the case did not go quite so far, but the marriage was an- nulled because the husband had stood godfather, not godmother, to his wife's cousin. If any one had proposed then to alter the law, the argument of the honourable Member for Oxford, whom he could fancy living in that time- (Laughter)—would come to this : he would say, "Where will you stop ? Here is a marriage to be allowed between parties in the tenth degree; you will very soon demand the legalization of marriages in the ninth degree; and there will be no ending till you come to the last terrible degree, which fright- ened all men, marrying a man's grandmother.

Mr. Gomm:ran would not consent to draw a distinction between the morality of the higher and lower classes ; and insisted that the bill would create domestic dissension. He attached little weight to the pe- tition of the parochial clergy, for it emanated from the clergy of the diocese of Norwich alone. He thought even that the mere discussion of such a measure was injurious, as it tended to raise doubts respecting the possibility of certain marriages ; while much of domestic happiness depends on the impossibility of some marriages and the indissolubility of others : the legislation of 1835 even had augmented the number of such marriages, by drawing attention to the subject. Mr. BROTHERTON supported the motion ; and mentioned several in- stances of the marriages in question.

Mr. VERNON SMITH opposed the bill.

Mr. O'CoNsinu. thought that it would not have a moral tendency. Such marriages were never heard of in Ireland.

Lord ASHLEY said that the practice of the Continent did not bear upon the subject, because there the marriage-tie is less strictly regarded than in England ; and he cited the law passed by the Council of France, in the presence of Napoleon, in 1804, which imposes such restrictions upon the marriage of a widower and sister-in-law as to make it almost impossible. Lord Ashley asserted that the clergy of England and the wonien are opposed to the measure.

Mr. CHARLES WOOD condemned the interference of the Act of 1835 'with a state of things virtually sanctioned by practice.

Sir WILLIest FoLLErr corrected some misapprehension as to the law of 1835—

Such marriages had always been illegal in this country : they had not only been prohibited by the Canon law, but by act of Parliament. The bill of Lord Lyndhurst was introduced to alter an anomaly in the law, which stated that those marriages must be declared invalid in the Ecclesiastical Courts, but that they could only be declared void during the lifetime of the parties. The same Jaw which prohibited the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister, also prohibited marriages between a father and daughter, a brother and sister, and an uncle and niece ; for they were only voidable through a process in the Ec- clesiastical Courts : the Common Law Courts could not take up the inquiry, but the matter must be first questioned in the Ecclesiastical Courts. He himself was the person who introduced the prospective clause ; and he assured the House that he had never regretted having done so. By that clause, it was enacted that, whenever parties married within the prohibited degrees of con- sanguinity, it should not be left to other persons to adopt proceedings to ques- tion the marriages, but that they should at once be declared void and invalid in themselves. Before that time, any interested person might take steps to destroy a marriage and bastardize the issue ; and any person who merely wished to extort money might institute proceedings against the parties. Surely this was a state of the law which ought not to be allowed to continue.

Mr. WAIELET argued for the bill, with a smile at Lord Ashley's re- course to the Revolutionary Council of France for an authority. Mr. HARDY gravely explained that Lord Ashley's argument was a fortiori.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON briefly replied. He had not first raised the question : the burden of doing so was shared by Henry the Eighth and Lord Lyndhurst. He called upon the House to decide, not as politicians, but as jurors, on a question of life and death to some of their fellow subjects.

The House divided ; and refused the motion for leave to bring in the bill, by 123 votes to 100.

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS.

Mr. EMERSON TENNENT moved, on Wednesday, the second reading of his bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to copyright of designs for ornamenting articles of manufacture. He remarked upon the disproportion between the encouragement given to art, preeminently so called, and art applied to purposes of utility. If a sculptor makes a bas-relief upon marble, he can claim an exclusive right for fourteen years, or twenty-eight if he live so long : if he chases the same design on a cup or a wine-cooler, it becomes a " design for manufactures," and can only claim three months' protection. He alluded to the superiority of Continental countries over England in manufacturing taste, attribut- ing it to the encouragement of greater protection : in France there has been a general law of copyright since 1787; in this country, the only law of copyright for manufactures down to 1835 was an act of 1794, which conferred a copyright of three months upon printed linens and calicoes ; in 1335, by one bill, Mr. Poulett Thomson extended that act to printed silks and woollens ; and by another be gave various periods

of protection, extending in the case of manufactures in metal to three years, to several other articles of manufacture. Suggestions made since that period had given rise to the present bill— In compliance with those suggestions, its objects were—to consolidate all the laws upon this subject in one act ; to place thc manufactures in glass and earthenware, which had but twelve months' copyright, upon the same footing as manufactures in metal; to extent the term of copyright for paper-hangings, carpets, and shawls, from one year to three; and, lastly, to extend the copyright

for printed designs from the original term of three months to nine—a pro- position which has met, for a time, considerable resistance, but to which, be was induced to believe that some of its leading opponents were now disposed to withdraw their opposition.

The °pigments of the measure are those who systematically pirate the inventions of others, and those who have some vague apprehen-

sions as to the effect of any change upon the economy of trade. lie was, however, fortified by the Report of the Select Committee of 1840, which recommended that copyright should be extended ; and the de- moralizing effect of piracy would be better understood by explaining the system which it is the object of the bill to check— A design, which might cost its ingenious inventor some 20/. or 301., which it may have taken some months to produce and to engrave, and bad involved the necessity of many unsuccessful experiments before it was exactly suited to the cloth, might be copied by the pirate in a few moments, with the aid of a sheet of tracing-paper, and produced as speedily on inferior cloth, and in infe- ferior colours so speedily as to enter the market almost simultaneously in com- petition with the original from which it was stolen. The mischief inflicted upon the original producer by this indefensible system was almost incredible,

since its effects are felt in every process of his trade. Not only is he undersold in his own markets, but the character and reputation of his house is under- mined by these spurious reissues of its productions ; and the confidence of his customers is shaken by finding these cheap imitations offered in direct compe-

tition with the more costly original in their hands. The pirate, in fact, has infinite inducements to this unlawful traffic : he runs no risk of failure in hie

speculations, since he selects only the successful patterns of his neighbours, who have to bear tip loss upon those which are unsuccessful ; and not only has he all his designs supplied to him at a trifling cost, but be enters the market at

the very moment when they are in full demand, and has thus an instant return for his capital invested. The House, he was quite certain, were not aware of the ruinous extent to which this system was carried on kr certain houses at Manchester, which was the only district in the kingdom in which piracy was known to exist.

Mr. Tennent explained at considerable length, that in linen and calico manufactures, the term of three months does not extend the pro- tection of the original producer over a season, nor to the period neces- sary to send to distant markets. The effect is, that we are not only de- pendent on France for the finer manufactures, but a regular trade exists in importing designs from Paris; whereas the bill would enable the ma- nufacturer to employ native talent, with benefit to himself. The mea- sure, in fact, is a necessary accompaniment to schools of design.

Mr. WILLIAM Wn.r.aams opposed the motion. The report of Mr. Tennenes Committee in 1840 proved that originality in the making of designs is completely exhausted; and now the common mode of making them is to recompose them from old designs. To call such common property new, and to protect it, were an absurdity.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON supported the bill.

Mr. SHEIL opposed it at some length. He said that he thought the period of protection might be extended to six months ; but to restrict English copyists for nine months, would merely give an unfair ad- vantage to foreign copyists. Another effect would be to prevent mer- chants executing orders for particular goods; for the original producer would dictate his own terms. In France there are fifty-eight registries ; in this country there was only to be one, and all designs would have to be sent to London for registration ; which was impossible.

Mr. MARK PHILIPS contended that an international copyright should precede such a measure ; for with the difficulty of defining originality, an innocent person might suffer for having purchased in Paris a design which was simultaneously purchased in Lancashire : he would consent to six months' protection.

Similar views were maintained by Mr. Monnisox, Mr. J. HEATH- COAT, and Mr. BROTHERTON. Mr. HENLEY utterly opposed the bill. Captain FITZRoy supported it. Mr. GLADSTONE said that the sense of the trade seemed to be in favour of the bill. As to the registration of de- signs, the organization of the register-office might be extended.

The bill was reads second time, and committed for the 13th of April.

LITERARY COpYRIGHT.

Lord Mahon's Copyright Bill was read a second time with the

understanding that the discussion on its principle should be taken in Com- mittee. Lord MAME presented four petitions in its favonr,—from authors, from eminent publishers, from eminent printers who had op- posed Sergeant Talfourd's bill, and from the stationers and booksellers of London, who had also opposed that bill.

POOR-LAW: GILBERT Ihnows.

Mr. Thomas DUNCOMBE, moved on Thursday, for the appointment of a Select Committee "to inquire into the administration of relief to the poor in parishes incorporated under Gilbert's Act, or subject to the pro- visions of any local act ; and to report whether it would be expedient or just to repeal those acts for the purpose of instituting in lieu thereof the Poor-law Amendment Act." In 1834, Lord Althorp said that the Poor- law Commissioners would not interfere with parishes that were well regu- lated under local acts ; and a clause was introduced into the Poor-law Amendment Bill, preventing alteration in those parishes, except with the consent of two-thirds of the Guardians. Mr. Duncombe under- stood that in the bill to be introduced after Easter, Ministers intended to introduce a provision to dissolve the Gilbert unions and parishes under local acts. Charges were brought forward against the Guardians of ignorance, and of receiving sums of money for their services ; but those charges were manufactured for the occasion.

Carrara PECHELL supported the motion, with a defence of the Brighton Guardians from similar charges.

Sir JAMES Gamiest observed, that there was no motion more spe- cious than one for inquiry— The question might easily be postponed through this session and the next, and even the one after that. A short bill to continue the Poor-law Commis- sion might be passed session after session, and the great measure which the Government had promised to bring forward might be escaped. But it was not his intention to pursue this course: he had notified to the House that, on an early day after Easter, he should introduce a measure for continuing the Poor- law Commission, and for making such alterations in the means adopted for. am horatio8 the condition of the poor as he thought advisable; he therefore refnsea to enter prematurely on that discussion.

It was not certain whether even the Poor-law Act, by the combina- tion of the 15th and 52d clauses, did not include the Gilbert unions within its provisions ; but at all events, out of fifty-five such unions, all but twelve had voluntarily placed themselves under the general act ; they had paid off an aggregate of 20,000/. out of a debt of 35,000!.; and the others remained as mere obstructions to the administration of the general act. One of the effects is to deprive these unions of the benefits of the Vaccination Act, which has proved extremely beneficial : in the first quarter after its passing 608 children died of the small-pox, and that number progressively decreased to 68 in the fourth quarter. As to the Brighton Union, he bad heard of hot luncheons, of wine, of a sum- mer-house built in the workhouse-garden, and of a large bill for liquors ; but he would not press that matter now. He would oppose the motion.

Mr. WAKLEY supported it; calling on Members on the Ministerial side, who bad so nobly fought against the Poor-law, to come forward and assist him now : " he looked in vain for the energetic gentleman the Member for Knaresborongh, (Mr. Ferrand,) who felt so warmly for the misery of the lower classes. Others who spoke for the motion were Mr. CoLvite., Mr. R. YORKE, Mr. HARDY, and Mr. STUART WORTLEY. Sir ROBERT PEEL took part with Sir James Graham. On a division, the motion was rejected, by 108 to 41.

CUSTODY OF LUNATICS.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET introduced to the notice of the House, a bill to provide for the more effectual inspection of houses licensed by Magistrates in Quarter-Sessions for the reception of insane persons in England and Wales. He briefly reminded the House of the state of the law, under which licensed asylums in the Metropolitan district are subject to visitation by a Commission consisting of two barristers, five medical men, and fourteen unprofessional gentlemen, whose services are gratuitous ; while in the country such houses are licensed by the Magistrates and visited by the local Magistrates. He did not intend to abrogate the latter practice ; but to add the supervision of two London Commissioners, lawyers, who should receive fixed salaries for making circuits in the country, so as to visit each house once in four months, and each house in London four times a year. He would also reduce -the time allowed for the discharge of patients : instead of requiring ibur days' notice for the special visit of the Commissioners and there visits with fourteen days between each, he would require only twenty- four hours' notice and only two visits.

Mr. WARLEY objected, that the measure was a small measure, and that it did nothing towards removing the variety of bad systems which prevail in the Three Kingdoms. And he particularly objected to lawyers being appointed as visiters, instead of medical men, He hoped Lord Granville would fix the reading for some distant day, and he (Mr. Wakley) would then ask the House to take up the whole question. Mr. HAWES concurred with Mr. Wakley as to the smallness of the measure ; but thought it might lead to an increased knowledge of the system pursued in the asylums. It was supported by Lord ASHLEY and Mr. Wrzia. Leave was given to bring in the bill.

OPIIIM-CoMPENSATION.

Mr. LINDSAY moved, on Thursday, for a Committee of the whole House on the 7th of April, to consider an address to the Queen praying the Queen to take into consideration the claims of the British mer-

chants whose opium had been destroyed, with a view to advancing in compensation the balance of the money received from China after de- ducting the gratuity to the captors of Canton. Mr. Lindsay recapitu- lated the circumstances under which the merchants were induced to deliver the opium to Captain Elliot, who acted as the representative of Government, and who had even compelled the surrender of opium which was sailing out of the river. The Duke of Wellington bad ex- pressed his approval of Captain Elliot's conduct, and the late Govern- ment had promoted him from being Superintendent to be Minister Pie.. nipotentiary. Compensation had been given to an American merchant for his house and furniture, and even for his personal inconvenience. Sir GEORGE STAUNTON seconded the motion ; vindicating the legality of the opium-trade, and insisting that the Chinese themselves regarded the payment at Canton as the first instalment of the compensation. Sir GEORGE LARPENT followed on the Same side. Sir CHARLES Na.. PIER put in a word for the rights of the gallant men who had obtained the money. The Citairentson of the EXCHEQUER did not consider Government pledged to the payment demanded. Lord John Russell had stated that the objects of the expedition against China were to obtain reparation to British subjects for insult and injury, indemnification for their loss, and security for the persons and property of merchants trading to China. But the war is not yet finished. The proper destination of the ransom obtained is to devote it in prosecution of the war which is ultimately to obtain the compensation from the Chinese themselves. Another neces- sary preliminary would be to ascertain the value of the opium seized; which be feared bad been much exaggerated, for he saw it sometimes valued at 500 dollars the chest, and sometimes 1,200 dollars ; and it would also be necessary to ascertain whether the merchants had not actually derived a profit from the very destruction of the drug. Lord PALMERSTON was of opinion, that had the Government with which he was connected been in office, they would have recommended Parliament to apply the money towards the payment of claims of the merchants. The motion was supported by Mr. MARK PHILIPS, Mr. Jona ABEL SMITH, Mr. JARDINE, and Mr. CHARLES WYNN. Sir ROBERT PEEL stood up for the oft-forgotten interests of the people fa resisting the demand upon the public money ; glancing at the probable expense of the Chinese war and the deficiency in the revenue. Lord JOHN RussELL gave the motion a qualified support. On a division, it was negatived, by 87 to 37.

MISCELLANEOUS.

MIXED MARRIAGES IN IRELAND. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Lone Cam-mm..14n said that the Select Committee on the Marriage- law of Ireland had resolved that further proceedings on the Marriages (Ireland) Bill should be postponed until the return of the Judges from circuit ; the Committee meanwhile continuing the consideration of other matters referred to them. In a case of bigamy which came before one of the Judges on circuit in Ireland lately [Judge Perrin] similar to that which gave rise to the bill, a special verdict had been found by direction of the Judge; in consequence of which it would be referred to the Court of Queen's lench in Ireland, and might ultimately come be- fore that House. Next day, Lord Lyndhurst read a resolution by the Presbyterian General Assembly of Ireland, expressing anxiety that Parliament should delay legislation on the subject until the law should have been ascertained by an appeal to the House of Lords.

Pormasaes OF SALFORD GAOL. In the House of Commons, on Tues- day, Mr. THOMAS DUNCONBE stated, that he had received letters from the Reverend Mr. Macartney, the Roman Catholic clergyman who was appointed by the Bishop of Lancaster to attend Salford Gaol, and from Mr. Roberts, the Master of the Salford Union Workhouse and some time Master of Salford Gaol, confirming the statement which he had made in the debate on prison-discipline as to the controversial ser- mons preached by the chaplain of the gaol, Mr. Bagshaw. Mr. Ma- cartney quoted the testimony of prisoners, examined by himself sepa- rately, and willing to confirm their evidence on oath. To a congre- gation consisting one-third of Catholics, Mr. Bagshaw preached against the real presence ; and one man was so excited, that on two Occasions he violently interrupted the sermon, although he was punished the first time. Mr. Bagshaw also prevented the Catholic prisoners from seeing their priest. Mr. Roberts was the person to whom one of the prisoners put the request that he would ask Mr. Bagshaw to preach "that sermon" over again, as it would make the Catholics in his ward "as mad as blazes.' Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, on the part of Mr. Bagshaw, "dis- tinctly denied" the charges which had been brought against him. He happened to be present when two prisoners requested to see the Catholic clergyman ; but it was clear, from their own statement, that they did not wish to see him as a minister of religion. He allowed the two pri- soners, however, to write to the priest ; but no answer was returned to their letter.

THE TRUCK SYSTEM. Mr. FERRAND moved for a return of copies of all the convictions in the counties of York and Lancaster, by Magis- trates in Petty Sessions assembled, of persons who have been guilty of illegally paying the wages of their workpeople in goods instead of the current coin of the realm, since the 1st day of January 1835, contrary to the provisions of the Act 1 and 2 Will. IV. c. 37. He averred that the first person whose name was appended to the declaration against him read by Mr. Villiers carried on the truck system, and that others were not manufacturers, while others again were foreigners ; and he read a circular addressed to the workmen in several manufactories, calling upon them to sign a declaration stating the falsehood of his charges ; but no such declaration had been made. The motion, se- conded by Colonel SIBTHORPE, was agreed to.

An irregular conversation was raised on Wednesday, by Mr. VII: who asked the Speaker whether he could read a declaration from ffilitufacturers in Yorkshire denying Mr. Ferrand's allegations ; and the SPEAKER told him that he could not. Mr. CoBDEN said that he had been alluded to by Mr. Ferrand as compelling his work people to pur- chase milk produced by his own cows : now it is generally the custom on print-works to keep cows for the convenience of procuring dung for a part of the process ; but being near a large town, no cows at all were kept in his print-work. Mr. Cobden said that if Mr. Ferrand would persist in dealing with personalities, he should not be afraid to meet him in any way he pleased. Mr. STUART WORTLEY retorted, that

Mr. Cobden himself had spoken of agriculturists as monsters and daemons. Mr. COBDEN said, he had only spoken of their legislation. Lord Howicx was surprised that Mr. Wortley did not see the difference between charges against large bodies for public conduct and charges against individuals for positive infractions of law. Mr. FERRAND un- dertook to prove that the distress of the workpeople arose, not from the Corn-laws, but from the tyranny of their masters. Mr. VILLIERS ob- served, that he was prevented by the rules of the House from giving the only answer he could to Mr. Ferrand; and so the matter dropped.

Mr. SCHOLEFIELD took an opportunity of saying that he should on some future evening have to ask the indulgence of the House whilst he read several communications he had received from Birmingham on the subject of an address to Mr. Ferrand, which had been mentioned, and which pretended to have come from the working-classes of Bir- mingham—

A grosser imposition luid never been made upon an individual, and through that honourable Member upon Parliament, than the pretence that an address of the kind had been voted at all: he meant to deny most positively that the working-classes of Birmingham had met or passed any address of thanks to the honourable Member for Knaresborough.

BONDED Ilona. Mr. Herr obtained leave, on Tuesday, to bring in a bill to permit biscuit, or flour and biscuit, to be substituted for foreign wheat in bond ; Sir ROBERT PEEL intimating that he merely suffered the bill to be printed and circulated, without at all concurring in the measure.

ST. MARYLEBONE Peanut BILL. When the second reading of the St. Marylebone Parish Bill was moved, Mr. MacKinnon stated that two points of objection had been omitted—one clause relating to the salary of the Treasurer, and the other raising the qualification. Sir BENJAMIN HALT contended that there was no reason for the introduction of the bill ; and he moved that the bill be read that day six months. Mr. WARLEY, Sir CHARLES NAPIER, and Mr. LEADER, supported the amend- ment. Mr. HARDY opposed it. On a division, the second reading was carried, by 206 to 131.

Butner- IN TOWNS. Mr. Mama:Neon moved the appointment of the following Select Committee, to improve the health of towns by pre- venting interments within their precincts—Mr. Mackinnon, Mr. D'Eyncourt, Lord Ashley, Colonel Fox, Mr. Thomas Duncombe, Mr. Evelyn Denison, Sir William Clay, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Ains- worth, Mr. Beckett, Viscount Mahon, Mr. Cowper, Colonel Acton, Mr. Kemble, and Mr. Vernon.

GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND SPAIN. HI the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord ABERDEEN, at the instance of Lord CLANRICARDE, ex- plained that Government had not altered their first opinion respecting the etiquette question in Spain. They thought that the pretensions of the Regent and the French Ambassador might have been waived in favour of a compromise ; and that while the Queen received M. de Sal- vandy's credentials in the Regent's presence, the latter might have answered them. Advice to that effect had been tendered and accepted at Madrid in a spirit of sincere friendship ; it had indeed been anticipated by Mr. Aston, with that excellent sense which distinguishes his con- duct ; but the Spanish Government, acting on a clause of the Constitu- tion which invests the Regent with sovereign authority, had finally refused M. de Salvandy's proposal, and be left Madrid before the advices from this Government had been received. Lord Aberdeen believed that the Spanish Government had put a conscientious interpre- tation on the article of the Constitution ; but it was to be feared that the affair would impede the renewal of diplomatic intercourse between Spain and the Northern Courts of Europe ; though he trusted that that renewal was only delayed.

Sir ROBERT PEEL gave a similar explanation in the House of Com- mons. Lord PALMERSTON availed himself of the opportunity of ex- pressing his conviction that the Spanish Government were right in the view which they took of the question.

QUARANTINE-LAWS. Dr. BOWRINO called the attention of the House of Commons, on Tuesday, to the quarantine-laws, urging further inquiry. Those laws entail great injury on the commercial community by delay, increased freightage, and the loss of markets : it had been estimated that in the Mediterranean alone the cost to trade is equal to two or three millions sterling every year. He pointed out several anomalies in the law— Egypt is half-way to India, and is never free from plague, and there are no quarantines nor lazarettos in India ; yet India never suffers from plague. Quarantine establishments 'are sometimes merely political tools ; as when Mr. Wood, the British Consul at Damascus proposed establishing quarantine to prevent the constant intercourse of French steamers with the Syrian coast. The history of the plague is replete with absurdity, ignorance, and superstition : it has never been carried from Egypt to Arabia, though in a single year (1824) ten thousand Egyptian pilgrims went to the Holy City : it is always present in the districts round Cairo; but it never ascends the Nile higher than As- souan : the troops never carry it into the wilderness: cotton even has been brought to England from places where the plague was raging, in ships with the plague on board, without any of the expurgators of those bales being attacked : attendants in lazarettos never catch it.

Dr. Bowring moved for an address to the Crown, praying that in- quiries on the subject may be continued with a view to negotiations for the modification of the quarantine system ; and for correspondence on the subject. With the concurrence of Sir ROBERT PEEL, the motion was agreed to.

WAR IN INDIA. Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, on Thursday, that rein- forcements for India were in process of being sent over to India, and a supplementary estimate would at the proper time be laid upon the table ; but he could not then enter into the details.

AUSTRALIA. On Monday, Lord STANLEY stated, in reply to Sir GEORGE GREY, that in a day or two his bill to regulate the disposal of Crown lands in the Australian Colonies would be laid on the tab)," and

that it was his intention to bring in a bill to regulate the Govern t of South Australia.

THE EASTER RECESS. Sir ROBERT PEEL mentioned, on Monday, that the House would adjourn tomorrow week, (the 24th,) to tin. Monday week following.