Debates an Vroteebingsin Varliament.

SUGAR-DUTIES.

On the motion for going into Committee of Ways and Means, on Mon- day, Mr. MILNER Grreore moved, as an amendment, "that no arrangement of the Sugar-duties will be satisfactory and permanent which does not in- volve an equalization of duty on Foreign and Colonial sugar." He insisted upon the necessity of settling the long-suspended question of the Sugar- duties—of placing them in such a position as would not be likely to be changed for a long time to come. He set aside for the time the question of slave-trade and slavery; leaving that to be discussed on some future evening upon moral and philanthropic grounds, and calling attention for the present to a plain question of justice in taxation. It is not consistent with their duty as legislators, sitting in Committee of Ways and Means for the sole purpose of voting a supply to the Crown for the current expen- diture of the country, at the same time to take the opportunity of levying another tax as it were, which is not to be paid into the public exchequer, but is to be appropriated to a certain class of their fellow-countrymen who have not yet made out any good claim for such a favour. If indirect taxes are to be levied, he would not object to a tax on sugar for revenue purposes; but it was the second object that he condemned. To illustrate his meaning, he would take two sugars of equal value in the markets of the world, say 24s. the hundredweight: impose on one, Foreign sugar' a duty of 288., on the other, Colonial, a duty of 14s.; the one bearing the higher duty cannot sell for less than 52s.; the second, being of equal value, must obtain an equal price, and the difference in the price of the two duties goes to the grower of the Colonial sugar. Sir Robert Peel reckons the amount of "protection" to be afforded by the differential duties at 10s.; there- fore, to the price of Colonial sugar he first adds 14s. as duty, and then, according to his own statement, 10s. by way of " protec- tion he expects that next year 230,000 tons of Colonial sugar will be consumed in this country; the protection-duty, at 10s. the hun- - dredweight on 230,000 tons, amounts to 2,300,0001.; and that is the sum which the Rouse is now invited to take from the -Queen's exchequer and pay over to the West and East Indla,proprleters. It is said that the Le- gislature of this country has actdd towards the Colonial proprietors in vetch a manlier as to give them a just and equitable claim upon the exche- quer: if so,.he should-prefer a more direct mode of compensation than giving them ismonopoly. One of the allegedgrievances is want of labour: but have the East Indies oriidauritins suffered.from that want? If not, why propose to give this large sum Of money-to the Colonial proprietors indiscriminately? Barbados and Antigua are new overflowing with la- bour: they also must be struck from the list of sharers in the 2,300,0001. Want of labour must mean dearness of labour: now, Mr. Porter of the Board of Trade states' that in 1828, when slavery existed, the cost of pro- ducing sugar was 9s. 10-1d.: another good authority states that the Cla- rendon Agricultural Society in Jamaica gave a prize to the maker of the greatest quantity of sugar at the smallest cost. in 1843; and the cost was found to range between 10s. and 68. 9id.: how then can dearth of labour give to the West India proprietors claim to a protecting-duty of log.? Lord Stanley said that one reason of the dearness of labour was the com- petition of the proprietors with each other, and the neglect to give the labourer an interest in the amount of the work to be done surd the produce to be raised. Another source of difficulty is the absentee system. An English landowner lets his lease to a tenant: the absentee West India proprietor is landlord, tenant, manufacturer, distiller, and merchant, all in one; he finds that his business is unprofitable, and claims to be reimbursed out of the taxation levied on the working industry of this country ! What profit would Mr. Cobden derive from his print-works if he were to reside at Vienna and leave them to be managed by attornies or agents only intent upon filling their own pockets? Protec tion has enervated the West Indies, and nothing can secure their prosperity but better management. Lord Elgin says, that the more substitution of the plough for the hoe would make a difference of 50' per cent in the amount of production. In spite of "protection," not one of the-gentlerneu whose interests are protected ventured to invest his money in a projected railway between Spanish Town and Kingston in Jamaica: they left it to the Free-traders of this country to furnish the funds. It is said, that prac- tically we gain by some increase of trade with the West Indies: on the con- trary, the imports of sugar into this country -were greater in 1834 than they were in 1844: the exports from this country to theNiest Indies in 1794 amounted to 3,632,0001.; in 1814 they had increased to 6,315,0731.; in 1843 they had decreased to 2,882,4411. If it be said that it has long been the practice to protect Colonial interests, how inconsistent is it in Sir Robert Peel to admit cotton from India or the United States, wool from Australia or foreign countries, upon equal terms. Neither the interests of trade, therefore, or of revenue, nor principles of expediency, of political economy, or of "consistency," justify this tax. The amendment was supported by several Free-trade Members on the Opposition benches, in a strain of argument resembling or repeating that employed by Mr. Gibson. Mr. RICARDO observed that the Budget abolishes the export-duties on coal, potters-clay, and china-stone: his constituents [of Stoke-upon-Trent] were perfectly willing to take that step in free trade; but they asked why that protection should be taken from them and continued, twofold to the producers of sugar? He read the following extract of a letter from a wholesale broker most extensively en- gaged in the sugar-trade- "It is almost ludicrous to find ourselves thus travelling backward in commercial legislation: neither Mr. Vansittart nor any of his predecessors ever sought to introduce any measure more annoying or vexations in its operation than this is likely to be. Every mat or bag of sugar, say upwards of 700,000 to the port of London alone, will require to be specially examined and decided upon by a Cus- tomhouse-officer; who must stand 'test in band,' to pronounce authoritatively upon a differential duty against the importer to the extent of 17 per cent on the Ng. per hundredweight rate." Mr. Ricardo entered into a detailed calculation, showing that 'the differ- ential duties will be equivalent to 3,079,9991.: the workhonse allowance of thirty-four pounds a head per annum, the lowest average power of con - gumption in the population of 28,000,000, would give, at an equalized duty of 148 per hundredweighti (the amount which Sir Robert Peel proposed to lay on West India sugar,) a revenue of 5,950,0001.: Sir Robert Peel esti- mates the revenue at 4,000,0001., leaving 1,950,0001.: add that to the pre- vious loss in differential duty, and the total loss to the consumer of sugar is 5,029,999E; which might very well be transferred to the revenue, and is about equivalent to the Income-tax. Mr. VILLIERS expressed a belief that the Government plan was proposed in utter ignorance of the real cir- cumstances of the case; and he called for more information before giving away 2,300,0001., which might be applied in reduction of the tax on incomes, on tea, or other taxes which the country is anxious to have reduced. In the time of slavery, the Planters invariably raised the cry that they were suffering and required additional protection: Bryan Edwards states, that at that time a Committee of the House of As- sembly in Jamaica, appointed for the purpose, reported that there had been, in the course of a limited period, 177 estates sold for debt, and 55 thrown up, while at the end of that period 92 estates remained in the hands of creditors. Lord HOWICH argued, that the tendency of reducing the duty on Colonial sugar, while retaining the differential duty, would be to diminish the supply from the West Indies; since it would stimulate that demand for high wages among the Negroes and that competition for labour among the Planters which already impede the supply; whereas, by throwing the whole trade open through equalizing the duties, the market-price all over the world would rise; this, the richest country in existence would still take a largely increased amount, and the Colonial producer would benefit by participation in the extended trade. No doubt, the supply of Foreign sugar would in- crease with the demand; but that change would be gradual, and Foreign competition would be brought, with a slow and certain operation, to bear advantageously upon Colonial industry. He believed, however, that free- labour sugar would never be able to compete with slave-labour produce so long as there is a proprietary not resident in the West Indies. If the change proposed were followed up, properties in the West Indies would increase in value, and the proprietors who preferred to remain in England would be enabled to procure good prices for them. The Negroes, who were daily advancing in wealth and intelligence, would get possession of some of them by purchase and there would by this RICERS be an active re- sident proprietary. Mr. &mums said, that the present Government plan is the same as the one proposed by Mr. Miles last year; which he had incurred some obloquy by helping the Government to oppose. Taking the whole of the Government scheme, Sugar-duties with the rest, Ministers appear to have taken up a worse poration than

"ithey occupied last year in regard to protective duties. They 'Imre grievously mistaken if they suppose that the Anti-Slavery party are /With them. They may have with them a Committee sitting in Broad Street ;or Lombard Street; but the great body of the Anti-Slavery party regard "them as hypocrites. In Leeds, the Conservative Member represents the party opposed to the abolition of slavery; the Liberal Member represents the Anti-Slavery party. The Anti-Slavery people of Bath repudiate the no- tion that they wish to tax the poor people of Somersetshire to put down slavery. Abroad also they are suspected. They talk of the necessity of • putting down slavery, while they assert that the West Indies cannot com- pete with slave-labour; and for that, in Madrid, Cuba, Brazil and America, —as by Mr. Calhoun—they are openly proclaimed to be hypocrites, who, under pretence of suppressing slavery, seek to cherish their own mono- polies. Mr. Cobden read several extracts from letters showing that resident 'proprietors, (among whom was a gentleman of colour,) have made good in- comes of 6001., 800L, or 2,000E; while absentee proprietors get into dif- ficulties. One of these letters says= The radical vice in our system is, we 'have too much land: if proprietors would only cultivate what they can properly manure, they would do well; but they grasp at large fields, and an • overseer must boast to his attorney that he has 60, 80, or 100 acres in plants." Protection, in fact, has proved as great a bane to sugar as to corn. - The opposition to the amendment was led by the West Indian pro- prietors in the House, in the person of Mr. JAMES; who took occasion to thank Sir Robert Peel for the relief afforded to the West Indies. The amendment, he said, would be the means of rendering slavery and the slave-trade more profitable than ever. Mr. Gibson was mistaken as to the cost of sugar: it can be produced at 5s. the hundredweight, but then the freight is 5s.; while from the East Indies sugar is brought home in ballast. How would Mr. Gibson's constituents of Manchester like to be forced into competition with producers who pay no wages at all? Mr. GLADSTONE maintained that the West Indies constitute an exceptional case. The searcity of labour is an important element in the dearness of sugar; so • also is the scarcity of resident proprietors: but what was the cause of that

' non-residence? The Legislature of this country: they enacted slavery; they made it profitable for absentees to cultivate sugar-estates; and they it -was, therefore, who produced the absenteeism.

Only subordinate Ministers spoke; and they contented themselves with comparatively short speeches and general arguments. Sir GEORGE CLERK admitted that protection might in some cases have been carried too far: but he pointed to the great burden of the National Debt as an impediment • to change of system; and reminded the House, that at the time of Negro Emancipation they were plainly told that they could not expect at once to enjoy the pleasure of restoring their Black fellow-subjects to liberty and of consuming cheap sugar. There was very little diminution in the pro- duce of the West India Islands till 1838; in 1841 it fell to 107,000 tons; "It has, however, progressively increased, and is this year expected to be 140,000 tons; and it would be most unjust to interfere with the planters .while struggling with the consequences of the experiment. Mr. Gibson was wrong in his account of the cost: the Negro labourers now receive, instead of 6.s. or 78. a week, as they formerly did, 28. a day; nor will they work continuously. The cost of cultivating some sugar-planta- tions has more than swallowed up the whole amount of their produce. The effect of the amendment would be to put an end to the cul- tivation of sugar in the West Indies to give to Cuba and Brazil the monopoly of produce for this country, and so to frustrate all our exertions for the abolition of the Slave-trade; and yet after all, as the price of sugar would then rise in those countries, we should not obtain cheaper sugar for the British consumer. Mr. VLLLIERS professing great personal respect for Sir George Clerk, declared that his speech was un- worthy of a President of the Board of Trade: he did not mean to say that it was not a fair average speech for a functionary of a Government, but it seemed to him to be that sort of speech which might have been drawn by accident out of a pigeon-hole where it had lain for the last twenty years, and applied in the absence of any better argument for the occasion. The amendment was also opposed by the Ex-Ministerial section. Mr. LABOUCHEBE said, that he could not pass at once from a system of exclu- sion to one of entire free trade.

On a division, the amendment was negatived by 211 to 84.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For Elevation of Duties- lldre Milner Gibson, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Miles, . Villiers Lord Howick.

,,dgainst it—Mr. James, Mr. Miles, (Bristol,) Mr. Gladstone, (all three in the West Judie interest,) Sir George Clerk, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Cardwell, (Ministers,) Mr. Labouchere, (Ex-Minister).

The motion for going into Committee of Ways and Means having been renewed on Wednesday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the following reso- lution by way of amendment- " That it is the opinion of this House, that the plan proposed by her Majesty's Government in reference to the Sugar-duties professes to keep up a distinction between foreign free-labour and foreign slave-labour sugar which is impracticable and illusory; and, without adequate benefit to the consumer, tends so greatly to impair the revenue as to render the removal of the Income and Property-tax at the end of three years extremely uncertain and improbable."

Dismissing the question of retaining the Income-tax as settled, Lord John began by restating arguments which had been used last year in sup- port of and in opposition to the proposal which he then made; contending that the present attempt to discriminate between free-labour and slave- labour sugar is illusory, because the same discrimination is not carried out its respect of cotton, coffee, copper, and other products of slave-labour; and because, although the produce of slave-labour sugar may not be received directly into this country, an additional demand for free- labour sugar here will occasion a vacuum in the markets of the world which must be supplied by slave-labour. In fact, sugar was ad- mitted last year, under the "most favoured nation" clause, from Venezuela, a slave-owning country; and the sugar itself was supposed 10 come from Brazil, Porto Rico, or Surinam. Maintain the distinction for ten years, and ingenious persons will inevitably contrive schemes for intro- ducing sugar from Brazil and Cuba. The plan, therefore, is impracticable. It has been admitted that the estimated protection of 10s. or 108. 6d. is not required by the East Indies, whence a supply of 70,000 tons is expected; it is not required by Mauritius, where there is a sufficiency, if not a redundancy, of labour ; not for Barbados nor Antigua: it is therefore only needed for Jamaica, Trinidad, and Demerara; yet the protection of 10s. 6d. is applied to all. Lord John adduced several figures, from which lie calculated that the price of Foreign sugar, the duty of 28s. paid, would be 488.3. et CokanaLangar,.dnty of 1. paid, 42a.; and that Foreign linger could not come into the British market to compete with it until the price of Colonial sugar had risen to 48s.,—which he calculated to be equivalent to a protection of 14s. The effect is, that although there is an

apparent reduction of 1 la. in the scale of duties, 68. of that will go into the pockets of the West Indian planter, and only 5s. to the consumer; the 6s.

being a tax on the people of this country. He admitted that the West In- dies have a considerable claim upon us, owing to the recent abolition of slavery; but he denied that the plan would benefit the labourers in the Co- lonies. After Emancipation, they enjoyed a considerable degree of pros- perity; but now their wages have been reduced to 7s. a week ; taxes- to support immigration-ordinances have been made to press severely on the labourers; with the rise in the price of provisions, that taxation has gone to reduce their supply of food; and attempts are making to introduce vast numbers of labourers from the shores of Africa,—entailing great dan- ger lest civilization in the West Indies should be swamped by that inroad of people in a barbarous condition. He made these statements on the high authority of Mr. ICnibb, a Baptist missionary. [This avowal was greeted with loud cries of " Oh! oh !"] Nor let it be forgotten that there are labourers in this country requiring some consideration from the Legislature. For the purpose of giving an additional advantage to the planter, you are postponing the time at which we may hope that the practice of free trade will go along with its principles. Sir Robert Peel estimates that the consumption of sugar will increase from 207,000 to 250,000 tons, and that in spite of that increase the loss to the revenue will be 1,300,0001.

If that doubtful increase did not take place, the loss to the revenue would be 1,800,000/. or 1,300,000/. Now, that sum might be saved to the revenue without making the consumer pay one farthing more, or injuring the West Indies; giving them for a time a moderate protection of about 8s., and making the duties on Colonial Sugar 10s. or 12s., on Foreign 18s. or 20s.; which would be much more likely to cause increased consumption. Lord John also suggested a different selection of taxes for remission—such as the tax on butter, and on cheese; which, by keeping up the duty on sugar, might have been remitted without loss to the revenue, without making the consumer pay one farthing more. By the present partial and impracticable plan, only a small class of the people in this country or the Colonies would be benefited, at the expense of risk to the revenue and of injury to the great mass of the population in the West India Colonies.

Mr. GOULBURN (Chancellor of the Exchequer) led the opposition to the amendment. In support of the distinction between sugar and other pro- ducts of slave-labour, he repeated arguments founded on the waste of life peculiar to the culture of sugar; and contended that Lord John RusseIrs proposition would give an impulse to the slave-trade. He denied that the plan was illusory, or that the introduction of a single hogshead or so from Venezuela proved the probability that any considerable amount would be brought from countries having treaties with this country including the "most favoured nation" clause. Venezuela has abjured the slave-trade, and decreed in 1822 that every person born after that year should be free. It is not true that the differential duty is a tax to the corresponding amount on this country : price depends on the proportionate extent of demand and supply. But if differential duty were a tax, the argument would apply to Lord John Russell's own proposition of an eight-shilling protecting-duty; while, by destroying the trade of the West Indies, he would throw the monopoly of supplying this coun- try into the hands of Brazil and Cuba. Mr. Goulburn denied that taxes for immigration have been laid on the Black labourers: in Jamaica there has been no loan; in Trinidad and Demerara, the tax is laid on the pro- duce, and thus falls on those who benefit by the immigration. He also denied the accuracy of Lord John Russell's calculations as to the cost of sugar under the new duties; himself calculating that the average price of Java sugar, duty paid, would be 43s. 4d.; of West India sugar, 438. 7d. Mr. Goulburn took some pains to show that the reduction in the price of sugar to the consumer would be lid. a pound. He combated a proposi- tion which he supposed Lord John Russell to have made for reducing the duty by 3s. a year. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained, that he had made no such proposal.] He adduced several instances of advantage to revenue from reductions in taxation. He insisted that the country must adhere to the Slave-trade Treaties with Spain and other countries, in order to main- tain its high character.

Mr. LABOUCHERE repeated several arguments against the proposed dis- tinction, as delusive and inoperative in practice, yet irritating to foreign countries; and condemned the Ministerial scheme as possessing no charac- ter of permanence.

Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, although out of office, claimed his continued share of responsibility for the main features of the Ministerial plan. He

could give Lord John Russell's motion and statements a negative in every

part. Lord John said it was impracticable and illusory to maintain &dis- tinction between free-labour and slave-labour sugar: such is not precisely the distinction attempted; practically, the question is, shall sugar raised in particular countries which at present carry on the African slave-trade- Cuba and Brazil—be admitted? There is no evidence that the sugar of those countries will come in under the "most favoured nation" clause. It is not to be denied that the tendency of an increased demand here is to create a vacuum in the Continental market, to be supplied by slave-labour sugar; but that tendency is qualified and restrained by numberless circum- stances. The production and price of foreign sugars depend upon the choice of markets; commanding the European markets, with equal duties, Cuba would have great advantages over Java, and would subject the British

planter, who is restricted to this market, to severe competition. But the plan will chiefly stimulate the production of sugar in Java and Manilla, without that stimulus being greatly felt by Cuba or Brazil; and as a far larger supply may also be looked for from the West Indies, the de- mand for foreign sugar is not likely to be much increased. To show that the protection afforded to Colonial sugar and against foreign free- labour sugar is really even less than it appears to be, Mr. Gladstone produced a small tin box of sugar from Java, of very white colour and very fine quality, which could well afford to pay the higher duty. It does not come to this country at all, not being needed by our re- finers, but goes to Holland. He made an elaborate calculation, and proved arithmetically, that supposing Lord John Russell's plan led. to an increase of consumption amounting to 300,000 tons, so far from saving the 1,300,0001. of revenue, it would entail a loss—at the .10s. and tfas. duties, of 1,050,0001.; at 12s. and 20*, of 1,270,0001. This is the seventh time that the question of discriminating between free-labour and slave- labour sugar has been debated in Parliament; and it has been decided by

large majorities. The junction of the Anti-Slavery Committee, and of such men as Sir Thomas Buxton, Sir Stephen Lushington, Mr. Scobell, and Mr. Sturge, with the Government, shows that the Anti-Slavery party is with them. In fact, there has been no advance out of doors in the doc- trines of the Opposition; and although the speeches that night would be well reported, very few probably would read them. The question has no great hold on public opinion. It is said that foreigners charge the English Government with "hypocrisy,"—which is very natural while a minority of

250 in the llouse of Commons reiterate the reproach: but how absurd the reproach as applied by Mr. Calhoun to the English people, who have sacri- ficed those important customers Brazil and Cuba! [Loud cheers from the Opposition hailed this admission.] It would be a great good if Cuba and Brazil could be prevailed upon to relinquish the slave-trade; but this con- tinual solicitation to cancel the solemn word of Parliament must have the most prejudicial effects on those Governments. And if our markets were opened to the sugars of Brazil and Cuba, Parliament could not in decent consistency maintain the armed suppression of the slave-trade on the coast

• of Africa.

Mr. MACAULAY understood, that if the question were decided on purely commercial and financial grounds, the preference must be given to Lord John Russell's plan: but there is said to be a "moral obligation" to dis- tinguish between the produce of free-labour and of slave-labour. He de- nied that we lie under any obligation to turn our fiscal code into a penal code to correct the vices which exist in the institutions of independent states. If that principle were adopted, our tariff would become one mass of inhumanity and injustice. But he would not keep two standards of right and wrong—swallow a gnat and strain at a camel—exclude sugar while we admit tobacco, and even forbid its culture to the free peasantry of Ireland, solely because we can obtain a revenue of 600 or even 1,200 per cent from foreign slave-grown tobacco. He agreed that such discus- „mons on the institutions of other countries do no good for their professed objects, only provoking national pride; but if it were forced upon him by the exclusion of Brazil from our trade because that country does not treat

• the Negro race so well, while the United States are admitted, then he as- serted that the state which deals in slaves is not so accountable for injury .to the Negro race as that state which has another more odious slave- trade, the domestic breeding of slaves for sale—as Virginia breeds slaves for the Western States. In Brazil, too, slavery is less hope- less- for there is less antipathy between the races, and there the Black can advance to honourable offices. Brazil submitted to the right of search: America resisted, and roused France to resistance. Lord Aberdeen relinquishes the right as respects France: Spain will expect the like concession; other countries must follow; and the right will be aban- doned, in consequence of the conduct pursued by the United States. America has even a propagandist affection for slavery, and seems to regard it as the glory of the republic. If, therefore, Lord John Russell's propo- sition would give a stimulus to the slave-trade in Brazil, Sir Robert Peel's would give a stimulus to the slave-trade in the United States; and Mr. Macaulay was at a loss to know how the Minister would reconcile that to his conscience. To show that he had no sympathy with slave-owners, Mr. Macaulay stated, that when he was a member of Lord Grey's Govern- ment, he voted against that Government on the apprenticeship part of their plan; placing his resignation in the hands of Lord Althorp, at a time when office was.of as much consequence to him as it could be to any one: isis resignation, however, was not accepted. He bantered Mr. Gladstone about an allusion to slave-grown sugar refined for exportation to Holland; likening his morality to that of a silversmith in an old Spanish tale, who would not buy plate stolen from churches, nor even touch it except with tongs, but did not scruple to melt it down for a thief, nor to take the money. And he called upon Sir Robert Peel to say when he had ever thrown the weight of his influence on the side of the Negro; quoting the Baronet's de- claration when Lord Stanley's Emancipation Bill was carried—” I shall now claim no credit for this measure; I only desire to be absolved from the responsibility." Mr. Macaulay also quoted passages formerly uttered by Mr. Gladstone, denying any distinction between cotton and sugar as re- spects slave-labour. [Mr. Gladstone disavowed these passages; and Mr. 'Macaulay accepted the disavowal.] He finished by calling on Ministers to reconcile their past conduct with their present actions.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, disclaiming any intention to cope with Mr. Macau- lay's brilliant speech, bore testimony to the statement of that gentleman about the tender of his resignation; and added, on his own part, that he -had always recorded his vote in favour of Emancipation. He proceeded with a reply to Mr. Macaulay; contending that the commercial part of the -question and the interests of the Colonies or the East Indies could not be overlooked. The East Indies are disposed to take an amount of our ma- nufactures limited only by their means of payment; which it is our policy to augment by encouraging their production of sugar. The remainder of "his speech consisted of arguments already advanced.

Mr. CHARLES WOOD followed on the other side, in a speech that may be described as almost entirely repetition. Sir ROBERT PEEL replied to several minor points raised by pervious speakers; and, adverting to some allusions to the Income-tax by Lord John Russell and his supporters, he assumed that Lord John, who con- demned without opposing, wished to be able, in 1848, to say that in 1845 he had seen the necessity of an Income-tax. Sir Robert strenuously asserted the policy of not waiting for reciprocity treaties for the remission of taxes; and he asked if 3,200,0001. of taxes could now be remitted with- out the aid of the Property-tax? He ridiculed Lord John, now ready to support now to oppose Mr. Milner Gibson, oscillating between the Opposi- tion and Ministerial benches; and asked how he could reconcile his avowed adhesion to protection for sugar with his declaration that protection has been "the bane of agriculture "? Answering Mr. Macaulay, he said that, whatever former vote he might have given, be should, under the circum- stances, always have voted as he did now, on consideration of justice to the Colonies; which he maintained to consist now in supporting the West Indies under the burdens entailed by Emancipation. He repeated the dis- tinction so often drawn between slave-labour employed on cotton and on sugar; relying, however, less on that distinction than on the fact that the two countries which encourage the slave-trade are formidable rivals of our ColoniesjAplight be thought that the slave-trade on the coast of Africa is extineVliitt it is not—it would revive on a new impulse. Two sessions ago, Lord'Palqierston described the horrors of the trade the treaties by

which Seaitiati razil are bound to suppress it, and their trade, of open

-violation- of wn laws: those things are still so. An increased British

naval force, however, on the coast of Africa, has led to more captures: in 1843, the number of vessels adjudicated upon by the Mixed Commission Court was 15; and in 1844, 35. But the captures do not indicate the ex- tent of the trade; and he feared that the exportation of Negroes to Brazil and Cuba has not diminished. Sweden, Denmark, and France, have shown a disposition to abolish slavery in their colonies- Portugal has shown activity in suppressing the slave-trade; and the Congress of the United States have rescinded the resolution forbidding the reception of petitions against slavery. He believed that it would be impossible for the United States, even for their own sake, to maintain unmitigated slavery. Ile called on the House not to decry the experiment made by Parliament, nor to detract from the moral example of this country.

Lord PALMERSTON supported his concave; his chief point being the reproach that Ministers have given up the right of search, obtained by Lord Castlereagh at the Congress of Vienna as the chief object of his mission. Without that, increased naval force on the coast of Africa is useless.

Sir. CHARLES NAPIER closed the debate; declaring that it would not be possible to make head against the slave-trade without a force on the coast of America as well as Africa.

On a division, the numbers were—for Lord John Russell's amendment, 142; against it, 236; Ministerial majority, 94.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For the Resolution condemning the Ministerial Plan of Sugar-duties—Lord John Russell, Mr. Labonchere, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Charles Wood, Lord Palmerston, Sir Charles Napier. Against the Resolution and/or the Government Plan—Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Gladstone, Fu James Graham, Sir Robert Peel.

Mr. MACAULAY. Internal Slave-trade of the United States.—" I say that if there be on the face of this earth a society which before God and man is more accountable than another for the misery of the African race it is that very republic of the United States, to whose produce the right honourable Baronet proposes to give free admission into this country. I can assure the House that I feel no plea- sure in going into arguments of this nature. I conceive that it is not the duty of Members of Parliament here to discuss abuses which exist in the institutions of other nations. By discussions of that nature, indeed, we can scarcely expect to produce any salutary effect with regard to the reform of such abuses. They are rather calculated to excite national .pride and to inflame national animosity. But the right honourable Baronet opposite turns this House into a judicature where we are to arraign and criticize the conduct of all nations under heaven, before we determine what our scale of duties shall be, and with what countries we shall or shall not trade. The right honourable gentleman forces upon our consideration questions with which, as a Member of Parliament, I have nothing to do, and which I am anxious to avoid. But how can I do so? The shopkeepers and pro- fessional men whom I represent say, 'Why are we to go on paying, probably for several years, an impost admitted fiy those who imposed it to be grievous, unequal, and inquisitorial?' The paper-manufacturer and the soap-manufacturer ask, why, if the Income-tax is to be continued, they are not to have some share of relief? The answer is, Because Brazil does not behave so well as the United States with respect to the Negro race.' Then' can I avoid instituting a comparison? Am I not ab- solutely forced to test the truth of this statement? I say, then, that there exists in the United States a slave-trade in no respect less odious or demoralizing—and, in my opinion, more odious and more demoralizing—than that which is carried on between the coast of Africa and Brazil. North Carolina and Virginia are to Louisiana and Alabama what Congo is to Rio Janeiro. In some of the United States slaves are bred: the human beast of burden is reared up till he is enabled to endure deadly labour in the Sugar and Cotton States, .with which you are ex- tending our relations' and to which he is sent to be killed. The extent of this traffic we may learn from the census of the United States of 1830 and that of 1840. North Carolina and Virginia are two of the chief breeding States. During ' the ten years from 1830 to 1840, the number of slaves in North Carolina -has been as nearly as possible stationary; in Virginia, during the &erne period, the number positively decreased; although both in North Carolina and Virginia pro- pagation was going on to an enormous extent. In both those States: during the time I have mentioned, hundreds of thousands of Negro slaves were born: the births exceeded by some thousands the number of deaths. What, then, became of these people? Look at the census of those States where we know the Negro race is worn down by a cruel labour, and where from its own re- sources it could scarcely keep up its numbers—nay, — nay, where those numbers would rather diminish. Take the case of Louiaians In 1830, there were in that State" 107,000 slaves; in 1840, 180,000. The slave population of Alabama, in 1830, was 117,000; in 1840, 253,000. • In Mississippi, during the same period:, slave population increased threefold. In 1830, the numbers were 65,000; in 1840, 195,000. That is the scale of this slave-bade. As to its nature, ask any Englishman who ever travelled through the South- ern States of America. Jobbers go about from State to State taking advan- tage of the difficulties of the planters in the breeding States; they buy slaves until they have made up their 'gang ' to 300 or 400; and then these human beings, fettered, guarded-by armed men, are driven, as you would drive (or rather as you would not drive) a herd of oxen to Smithfield, to the Southern States, to undergo the deadly labour of the sugar-mill. In Louisiana, the labour of the sugar-mill sends in a short time the stoutest African to his grave; • but still, in Virginia, Negroes are growing; up to supply the horrid trade. God forbid that I should extenuate the Slave-trade m any form; but I must say, that I conceive it may be viewed in its most horrible and odious aspect in the United States. It is bad enough that civilized men should go to the coast of an uncivilized country, and that they should there seize upon wretched barbarians and carry them in slavery to a foreign land; but that civilized men, Christians freemen, should breed the slave, and—if I must speak out the whole horrible Christians, beget the slaves they breed—that a man in liberty, calling himself a Christian, a bap- tized man, frequenting a Christian church, should see his own offspring gambol- ling about him in thew childhood—that he should watch them growing up to age, and then sell them for five hundred dollars, and eonsign. them to a life which is a lingering death,—this is more painful, infinitely more pamful to contemplate than the slave-trade of Africa."

Condition of the Negro in Brazil.—" I have no wish to extenuate the evils of slavery in the Brazils; but I do say, that on the whole it is less hopeless' and its evils are not so dreadful as those of slavery in the Southern States of America. The evils of slavery are great; but the peculiar characteristic of slavery on the American continent—that which, wherever it exists, almost destroys the hope that you can ever see a free community there—is the antipathy of colour. That antipathy does not exist in Brazil to anything like the extent to which it prevails in the Southern States of America. It is well known that in Brazil there is a free Coloured and Black population comprising many hundreds and thousands of persons: they are not excluded from honourable professions • and there may be found among them physicians and lawyers, numbers who bear arms and many priests. Whoever considers the honour and dignity with which the :Roman Ca- tholic religion invests its priests, will appreciate the estimation in which these men must be held. It is by no mane unusual to see 'White penitents kneeling to confess their sins and to receive absolution before the ephitualtribunal of a Negri); nor is it uncommon to witness a Negro dispensing the euchmist to Whites. I need not tell the House how utterly different is the state of things existing in the Southern States. Fully admitting all the evils of Brazilian slavery, if I were compelled to state in whioh of the two countries I considered it probable the colt-

&lion of the African race would be most elevated eighty or a hundred years hence, I should at once reply in Brazil." Non-intervention: look at home.—" No statesman ought to omit any reason- able opportunity that comes in his way of rendering good services to another na- tion: but after all, our country is our country, and I would use that in no narrow or confined sense. I do not desire to set up one obligation against another; but this is the only way in which I will describe your duty to mankind—' Look well after that which is committed to you, and which you understand.' If we attempt more, in what a wilderness shall we not find ourselves. Look at the factory sys- tem pursued in England. We may agree that there are evils in that system which might be amended by legislation; we shall at any rate all agree that every Member of this House ought to give his mind to the subject: in the same manner we shall agree that there are great evils in the system of serfdom pursued in Russia: but could an_y good be done to the cause of humanity if the Emperor of the Russias and the British Parliament were to exchange their sympathies in these matters, and the Emperor were to take our factory-children under his special care, whilst we undertake the cause of the poor peasants on the banks of the Volga? What good, I say, would be done to the cause of humanity, if, pursuing this course—if thus extending and exchanging our active benevolence, we should say to the Emperor, We'll take none of your tallow or your hemp until you

emancipate your serfs'; and he were to say to us, take none of your manu- factures till you emancipate your factory-children.'"

Questionable effect of Intervention on Negro interests.—" I very much doubt whether the marked interference of the English Parliament would on the whole have a good effect with the South Americans. What right have we to interfere? All nations have a susceptibility of feeling upon such a point as this. No nation likes to be told We are more virtuous than you.' I feel this myself. I feel that there are many abuses in Ireland which we ought to redress: but I must confess, that when I take up a New York paper and read most furious attacks upon our country, (such, for instance, as that written by President Tyler's son,) in conse- quence of our treatment of Ireland, I feel almost inclined to retrace my own steps, and to ask, 'Of what concern is it to America?' If there be anything to be done with regard to the amelioration of the American institutions as respects slavery, we must look to this first; we must look at home first; and must wait for the cooperation of that large, enlightened, and respectable body of citizens of the United Etite_s, who hate slavery as much as we: then the object will be accom- plished. But if we throw out the right honourable gentleman's plan, we should cause many of them to turn round and quit the standard of freedom by which they had hitherto taken their stand; and slavery, which has to this time been with them a matter of national disgrace, would become rather a matter of national honour. We should thus confer no benefit on the Negro; whilst we should in- evitably inflict mischief upon our own countrymen, by making them pay higher than they need pay for the necessaries of life." Sir ROBERT PEEL. Reciprocity Treaties: a concession to the Free-traders.— " If other countries will not enter into these treaties, all that remains for us to do, is to take our own course. Without making any stipulations whatever, let us go on reducing our own duties: we may make the reductions for our own interest, trusting to the force of common sense and good example to effect that which ne- gotiations have hitherto failed to accomplish. If in this we prove to be in error, it must be recollected that in that error we do not stand alone—we are in that respect following the example set us by other Administrations. Whenever foreign countries may be induced to take that course so often and so strenuously recom- inbnded to successive Governments in this country, we shall then enjoy a double advantage; meanwhile, let us proceed as we are now doing in the important work of reducing our duties. I ask, ought we to postpone a great and important be- nefit to ourselves, merely because other nations do not see the advantages which they themselves would derive from following our example?"

MIGRATION FROM SIERRA LEONE TO THE WEST INDIES.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Sir ROBERT brows, moving for papers, drew attention to the compulsory emigration of liberated Africans from Sierra Leone. lip to the year 1844, the British Government acted npon a liberal construction of the order in Council issued on the abolition of the Slave-trade, "that when landed in any place where there is a Court of Nixed Commission, the slave should be protected and provided for." Sir Robert briefly recalled the horrors to which slaves are subjected in the passage from Africa—horrors unavoidably protracted after the capture of a slaver until its arrival in port; so that the Negroes, as Governor Nicolls said, "come out of the ships like ghosts." On the 12th June last, the Governor of Sierra Leone issued a proclamation under the authority of the Colonial Office, that allowances to liberated Africans landed in the colony would cease after adjudication; clothing and maintenance before adjudica- tion being continued as before; and that should they prefer remaining in that colony instead of emigrating to the West Indies, they must provide for themselves. Now it is extremely improbable that persons landed under the circumstances described could exercise a fair and real discretion as to whether they would remain or migrate. Among the liberated Africans is a great proportion of children: in the Progreso, in which the Reve- rend Pasco Hill, author of a Narrative of Fifty Days on board a Slaver, took a voyage, there were 213 children out of 447 Blacks: it is a mockery to give choice and option to the children, if even they could be given to the grown-up men. The Governor, in fact, withheld the operation of the proclamation as to all children under nine years of age. Sir Robert contended that the Government, having taken upon itself; by a benevolent despotism, the charge of the slaves, who have as little a choice of their own after the capture of a slaver as before it, cannot absolve themselves from the implied compact under which 52,000 Africans have been introduced into Sierra Leone and provided for. It has been said that the colony is expensive: but, taking the expenditure at an average of 10,000/. a year, is it not the fact that the revenue exceeds the expenditure? In that colony the Africans have extraordinary opportunities of education; and about one- fifth of the population are under a course of instruction. Yet, in June last, liberated African children were required, under a peremptory order of the Governor, either to be taken out to the people located in the villages, or to migrate to the West Indies; and 100 boys and girls actually did migrate. He did not object to admitting into the West Indies those who are really free; but this so-called option is like Dr. Johnson's description of a conge d'elire, which is recommending a man thrown out of window to fall softly to the ground. Sir Robert Inglis condemned also the preponderance of males who are allowed to migrate to the West Indies. He adverted to at- tempts made to obtain free labourers on the coast of Africa for Mauritius; contending that the demand would be supplied, like that for slaves, by the African kings, who possess an absolute property in their own subjects, and send them, or make inroads into other countries for prisoners of war. He called upon the House not to weigh the purse of the West Indians against the blood and lives of the Africans.

Mr. GEORGE Wirxism HOPE seconded the motion, but opposed the speech. He denied that there was any breach of faith in the proclamation of June last, which was rather a warning to the Negroes than a rule bind- ing upon Government: it was not intended to compel emigration, but to pee-

vide against the Negroes remaining in a state of idleness in the colony, alike damaging to themselves and to the colonists. The Negro was not asked to exercise this discretion until he had enjoyed ample opportunity of recover- ing his health and strength after the voyage, and ample opportunity of con- sidering the question of emigration. In one case only had anything in the nature of an extreme measure been taken under this proclangition: that was in the case of a body of 180 liberated Africans, who, so far from being forced to emigrate hninediately on landing, were not turned out of the Government-yard until they had several times refused to take advantage of the offers that were made them. With respect to children, the system is brought into operation, not at nine, but twelve years of age; and all who know how soon the Negro advances to maturity and is fit to work, will see that that makes a material difference. The real question is, whether the Africans imported into the West Indies are well treated or not—whether it is better for them to be transferred from Sierra Leone, where there is deficiency of employment for labour and great deficiency of civilization, to the West Indies where there is deficiency in the supply of labour and abundant civilization; and he contended that no greater advantage could be given to the Negro than to let him fiud himself a free labourer in a British colony. The hundred children mentioned by Sir Robert Inglis were advantageously apprenticed under special contracts, which provided for carrying out their education and training them in moral principles. The West India proprietors have lately instituted an inquiry into the causes which hinder a more extensive emigration; and they discovered them in the mauceuvres of the "old settlers," who make drudges of the libe- rated Africans, and dread lest the supply of labour should be taken from them. Mr. Fergusson, the present Governor of Sierra Leone, a gentleman of colour well known to those who take an interest in the subject, testified to the miserable condition of the unpaid and scantily-clothed servants of "the already-located liberated Africans." On the other hand, Governor Light and other high authorities in the West Indies bear witness to the comfortable circumstances, the cheerfulness, the high wages of the well- dressed African in those colonies. As to the disparity of the sexes, it is a curious fact that in the West Indies the female sex preponderates. The ordinance granting a bounty on the emigration of labourers into Mauritius from the coast of Africa was issued in 1842. It has not yet received the sanction of Government; and nothing will be approved that could in the slightest degree countenance the Slave-trade. Mr. Hope expressed his be- lief that successful endeavours to civilize Africa must be carried out from the West and not from the East. If they raised up in the West Indies a body of well-educated men—liberated Africans—they would be the most successful agents in civilizing their native country. He was fully con- vinced, that before they could adopt any effective measures for the civili- zation of Africa, they must establish a nursery in which they could civi- lize Africans, where they could instruct them in useful knowledge, impart to them the arts and sciences, and fit them to become the agents for disse- minating the blessings of civilization among their own countrymen.

Mr. AGLIONBY, who supported Mr. Hope's general position raised an- other question: he asked, who were the parties to whom Mi.. Hope had alluded as having impeded civilization at Sierra Leone? In this country they are commonly suppcsel to be the missionaries; who are also sup- posed to have retarded the progress of another colony—New Zealand. He asked Mr. Hope if he had seen a circular, which he now read, addressed. by Mr. Dandeson Coates, the lay Secretary of the Church Missionary So- ciety, to several influential constituencies, in various parts of the kingdom? The circular requested, on the part of the Committee of the Church Mis- sionary Society, that the person addressed would transmit, or present through some influential medium, the enclosed pamphlet to the Member for —, and also use his influence to induce such Member to oppose the recommendations of the Select Committee on New Zealand in the ensuing session of Parliament, and thus enforce the just claims of the aboriginal New Zealanders to their lands. Mr. Horn replied, that he did not allude to the missionaries, but to the " old residents" of Sierra Leone; and he declined to enter into the question of New Zealand. , After seine further remarks, the motion was agreed to.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. Against Migration/rem Sierra Leone to the West Indies—Sir Robert Inglis. For Migration—Mr. Hope, Mr. Aglionby, Lord Sandon, Mr. Hutt, Mr. John Stuart Wortley, Mr. Mangles, Sir Thomas Dyke Acland. MEDICAL REFORM.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Sir Jiates GRAHAM reintroduced his bill for the reform of the medical profession. He intimated that he had profited by the discussion which he had intended to elicit in laying his bill before the public last session : and he explained the altered state of the measure.

The first provision of the bill of last session, to which he proposes to adhere, is the establishment of a Council of Health which shall have the superintendence and control over medical and surgical education; and which shall constitute a Board, the seat of which shall be in the Metropolis, so as to be easy of access to the Executive Government, in order to assist the authorities with its advice upon all questions affecting the health of the people at large. The second object of the bill is to abolish all monopolies of the medical profession, and to secure to all me- dical practitioners equal kcilities of practice, as well as to afford the security to the public of an equality of attainments on the part of the medical practitioners. In the bill of last. year he proposed to repeal the statute of Henry VIII., 14 and 15, e. 5, which gives to the members of the College of Physicians the exclusive right of practiswg as physicians in the Metropolis and within seven miles of it. "I do not now propose to repeal that act entirely; but I do so only 60 far as to exempt from its penalties all physicians who shall be registered according to the provisions ot the proposed measure; and I have also framed a clause whereby the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge will be exempted from its operation, and their graduates will consequently be secured in all their pr sent privileges. There exists, I am sorry to say, both at Cambridge and Oxford a greatjealousy respecting their privileges; and they have not as yet consented to foregetheir rights and to come within the operation of the proposed measure." Negotiations for a different arrangement, however, are in prolgess; and should they come to a practical conclusion, the bill might be altered in Conunittee. He last year pro- posed to repeal the Apothecaries Act: after mature deliberation, he had come to the conclusion that it would not be expedient totally to repeal its "A great com- plaint made against the measure proposed by me last session that. I gave no additional security against empiricism, and that I abolished the penalties already in force. In the present bill, whilst I propose the partial repeal of the Apothe- caries Act, I shall leave the full exercise of the powers to enforce penalties un- touched. The Apothecaries Company will still be allowed to prosecute all those practitioners who shall not be registered under this bill, and who shall practise without being licentiates of their body. I confess, Sir, that I do not attach much value to the enil r.ement of these penalties, but lam content to leave the power." He would also impose an additional restraint, by making it a misdemeanour for rues unqualified person to assume the title of "physician," "eurgeon," "apothe- cary," "doctor," or any other title recognized by the hllL "I propose also to re- peat so much of the Apothecaries Aet as remures the examiners, who will here- after be conjoined with physicians in the examination of licentiates in medicine, of necessity tobe members of the civic Guild of Apothecaries of the city of London The exammere are now part and parcel of a civic guild, the admission, to which may he by purchase or by inheritance, without any medical knowledge or ems:Me nation. In lieu of the present provision I propose that the qualifiestion for an examiner shall in future be, an apothecary of ten years' standing, who shall be in practice as an apothecary or a licentiate in medicine of ten years' standing; anti- cipating that after the lapse of ten years the examiners will, in fact, be licen- tiates in medicine under this act, and that under the general name of 'licentiates,' the examiners will be general practitioners?' The College of Physicians attach great =Z.:ce to the university education, which requires a protracted period of study; refer° the physician could not, as he now proposes, enter into practice until he is twenty-six years of age. He will be required to have stadied three years at an university, one of those years at least to be passed in a foreign university. The same objection does not apply to surgery, and the age fixed for the qualification of sesnrgeon is twenty-five; but no one ellen be qualified as a surgeon unless he shall previously have passed the examination as a licentiate in medicine and sur- gery, It-was objected to the bill of last year, that there was no direct provision foc.an examination in midwifery: he proposes that henceforth it shall be neces- sary:to make provision in all parts of the United Kingdom for an examination in midwifery, and that there shall be in the registration a distinct mark that the party .has undergone an examination in midwifery, and has so passed. With re- spect to the composition of the Council of Health, he thought that it would have been better to leave the whole appointment to the Executive Government, acting on-its responsibility: still, having proposed a mixed scheme of nomination an election, OD the whole he adhered to the original proposition. But in reserving to the Crown thonomination of six members of the Council, he begged to state dis- tinctly, that.any advice which he might give to the Crown would be given with a knowledge that a portion of the Council must be general practitioners and a por- tion must be country practitioners. An omission in the original bill would be supplied, by inserting power to remove a person from the register for gross mis- conduct, ,conviction of any criminal offence, or obtaining admission on the register by false or simulated testimonials. Another alteration was occasioned by Ins er- roneous supposition that the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow had power to grant licences for practising medicine; and having ascertained that such is not the case, he withdrew the provision for conferring that power; giving it in &Wend solely to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in Edinburgh.

gir Jamee stated that he-had anxiously considered the petition from the general pmotitioners, requesting a separate charter of incorporation. He had departed from his intention of repealing the Apothecaries Act, and ho hepecl that other alterations in the measure would induce the general prac- titioners to withdraw their request. He would not anticipate a discussion on the new -charter granted to the College of Surgeons—he WAS fully aware of defects in it; but there were difficulties in forming a constituency fir the Council by introducing the new element into the College, the order ofgaellows, "Reserving to myself the right of advising the Crown to grant a charter of 'incorporation to the general practitioners, and stating that I. shall be ready to give that advice if I shall deem it desirable I may say that I am most anxious to sustain the station, the honour, and the attain- ments of thoseeneml practitioners. I believe them to be one of the most useful bodies of men in this country. They will have an opportunity of considering the changes I have made, and to review the requisition they have made for a new charter of incorporation. I shall be delighted if the result shall be that they will withdraw that requisition, and, as a conse- quence, form a close alliance with the College of Surgeons,—a great and noble institution which, with all its defects, has produced some of the most eminent and best surgeons in Europe."

Mr WAKLEY accepted Sir James Graham's statement with great satis- faction, in the hope. that the difficulties which beset the subject would be amicably-and finally arranged. Ile requested that the second reading of the bill might not be fixed for an early period.

Not, replied Sir JAMES GRAHAM till after Easter.

- Leave was given to bring in the bill; which was accordingly brought in and read a first time; to be read a second time on the 7th April.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM also obtained leave to bring in a bill to confer new darters on the Colleges of Physicians in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, and-on the College of Surgeons in Edinburgh.

DEODANDS.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord CAMPBELL moved the first reading of a bill to abolish deodands. He explained the anomalies of the pre- sent law: The maxim of the law is," Omne movens ad mortem Deo dan- dum eat:" all chattel goods causing death are to be forfeited to the Crown; not by way of punishment, because in case of culpability the death becomes an affair of murder or manslaughter, and the law of deodands does not apply. The application of the forfeiture is most absurd. If the cause of death be a sword used by one man and taken from another without his leave, leis forfeited. Ifs man fall from a horse, the horse is forfeited, if he were to fall from the horse into a mill-course and be killed by the water-wheel, both wheel and horse would be forfeit. If a man climb up a waggon and fall, the wheel will be forfeit; if the waggon be moving, waggon, horses, and all must go; if it be a stage-coach, coach, horses, and passengers' laggaget If a man fall from a ship in salt water, there is no deodand; if in fresh water, the ship, its furniture, and cargo are deodands. But nothing fixed to the freehold—a door, for instance—would be deodand. By the old English law the chattel was to be sold, and all the money was to be spent in masses for the soul of the deceased. While the law has been aim- bushed in the Catholic countries of Europe, it is retained in this 'Protestant. country! Coroners' Juries attempt to give a different turn to it, and to con- vert it to punishment for carelessness, by imposing a deodand: but if there bb-no carelessness, they impose no deodand; so that, whether they impose ORO ,or not, they practically pervert the law. In France and other Conti- nental countries, and in Scotland, the law gives compensation to those who suffer from the death of an individual. Lord Campbell hoped that this bill would be allowed to go on simultaneously, with one introduced by Lord Lyttelton, to give compensation to those who suffer by accidents the result of negligence. After a short conversation on the question whether a bill ellecting the revenue of this Crown could be introduced without the consent of the Sovereign, or elsewhere than in the House of Commons, the bill was reed a feet time.

COURT OF SESSION IN SCOTLAND.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. WALLACE made his annual motion for the purpose of drawing attention to the way, of performing biednesain the Court of Session; moving for leave to bring in a bill to re-

dues the number.of the Supreme Judges and to increase the judicial power- of the County Judges called Sheriffs. He repeated his old arguments,— the greeter proportionate amount of work done by the Judges of England or Irele.nclas compared -with the work-done by the thirteen Scotch Judges;, the small amount of business. got through in the Second Division of the Supreme Court; the excess of vacations over sittings; the number of ap- peals frora- the Court of Session to the House of Lords-813 inthirteen months, or nearly three-fourths of the number for the whole United King- dom..

The LORD-ADVOCATE referred to the Cornmitte,e of 1840, of which Mk, Fox Maule was Chairman, and which had settled the miestion of reducing, the Judges in the negative; the Committee being unanimous, with the, single exception of Mr. Wallace himself. ThesJudges have a great deal of' labour at their chambers: what with that and going the circuit, there ia scarcely any cessation of businem at all. Mr. Fox MAME generally. sups ported that view; but suggested that Government might devise the merinos. of better apportioning the work in the two divisions of the Court of Session:

The motion was withdrawn.

GAME-LAWS.

On Thursday, Mr. Barony moved for a Select Committee- to inquire in to the operation of the Game-laws; supporting the motion with a speech of great length: The Select Committee of 1828, acting on- the-advice. of sieves ral poulterers, recommended that the sale of game should be legalized: Some poulterers, more straightforward than the rest, warnectthe Committee that the poacher could always undersell the landowner, who has to pay, the expense of rearing the game; and the result has justified that warning_ by the increase of poaching; while the present system is productive of other evils. Mr. Bright read several statements, obtained in reply to personal,„ inquiries of his own, from newspapers and other sources, to show the mjnrys , inflicted by game on- tenant-farmers near preserves: one farmer reckoned,: the. damage upon 108 acres at 204L; ;another, with 600. acres, .70 sit which run along a preserve, reckoned his loss in five years at 300/e , another said that he had counted in his field eighty-three blares -4- one time, and that to keep them was as much as to keep twenty-threese sheep; and Sir Harry Verney declared that, in some districts of Bucking- hamshire, the game destroy three-fourths of the crops. He had no wish - whatever to interfere with the rights of property: but it is not proper to "ex, ercise rights so as to entail grievance and wrong on neighbours; which done by this incalculable destruction. Sometimes the food is insufficient'. for the people, who are forbidden by the Corn-laws to seek it in foreign countries; yet large quantities of game, kept up for mere amusement, ag, • gravate the scarcity. Farmers who have expressed to Mr. Bright great', fears-of free trade, have at the same time admitted that their fears would ' be much mitigated if game-preserving were abolished with the Corn.. laws. Other sufferers are the holders of allotments. Mr. Bright cited" the case of 'Lawrence Eborn, and other poor people, who have been heavily fined and imprisoned for infringement of the Gameslaws,— cases which he rightly described as already well known through the news-,, papers-' and he dwelt on the temptation held out to a man in want, or to ; idle boys, by the abundance of game in some districts. In fact, the in- fringement of the Game-laws, which rim accounted tyrannical, is considered by the poor scarcely a crime; and that feeling is strengthened by the sym- pathy with which they meet from their own and the middle class. Some poachers in Suffolk have even established a society for mutual protection to fee counsel out of the subscriptions. Nor is it after all so very eke; . that there is any real right of property in game. You will see men de- scribed as "notorious poachers," but "upright in other respects"; and one, has been mentioned who was so upright that he was often intrusted with' his own commitment, carrying that and himself to gaol! The guarding of' game leads to innumerable scenes of violence: in ten years ending 1843,.: forty-two gamekeepers were killed; in 1844, there were recorded in the newspapers, which do not report all the cases, nineteen affrays, thirty-one - persons being grievously wounded; and the gaols are crowded with poachers. Mr. Bright animedverted on the system of battee-shooting; , advising gentlemen to go to Leadenhall Market and stuff, their guns muzzles into a basket of game, as equally pleasant and creditable. He, 'avowed that, although perhaps more than three-fourths of the Home were, sportsmen, and many were game-preservers, he had no fear that.theyrwouhE refuse him fair play. He suggested no remedy; only seeking thorough, and impartial inquiry.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM highly complimented the moderation of Mr. Bright's , tone. (This was acknowledged generally by subsequent speakers.) The . subject had already been forced upon the attention of Government, and-he thought that inquiry would be politic. At first he considered that the law, of 1831 worked well; but the increase of crime had made him doubt it.. The inquiry, would probably awaken to a sense of error those who have pushed to an unreasonable extent the pride and vanity of battues. The.

practical evils alleged principally relate to the excessive preserving of hares and rabbits: and one advantage of inquiry would be to dissipate exaggeras, tions. It at all events promised to be amusing: for he should like much to see the witness who could prove that eighty-three hares consume as much, farm-produce as twenty-three sheep; and he should like to see the honeeti poacher who went to gaol with his commitment in his hand. [Mr. Banana —" He is deacL1 Of course, then, he is out of court. With respect to the excessive penalties, .,Sir James stated that he had already looked to that s. and in all cases where . there were errors in the commitment.or where the, penalties were cumulative, he had caused the punishment to be remitted: Several other Members concurred in the motion. Mr. COBDEN followed: up Mr. Bright's allegations more brieflys but with less moderation. Mr. WAK.LEY mentioned a remedy for poaching, which he had tried success, fully, and recommended to others: catching an incorrigible poacher in his, grounds, he told the man that he could only believe that he did it from want, and that it he went to the house he should have a joint of meat whenever he wanted it. Asking if he was in earnest, the man warmly, vowed that he never, would poach again.

Mr. VERNON SMITH agreed in condemning ,the working of the laws; but deprecated inquiry as needless and hinted at a new law of trespass as -the' proper remedy. He wished that, , instead of agreeing to inquiry, ,Govern- ment had taken the responsibility, byintroducing a practical measure.. Many agreed to the motion for investigation but dissented frons,M.' Bright's reasons. Among the most amusing of this class, was Mr..HintaY BERKELEY; who asked if Government would give up the .revenue-hrws haeausethey cause smuggling, a crime very, like ppaching. If lases were to be repealed direetky a crime against -them is committed, lt would be WV. ing like the sagreclous Dogberry, who says, when the watch ask, "If we know. a man to be a thief shall we not Ley hands OH him? "—" The moat peaceable way for.you, if you do take a thie4 is to let him show him- self what he is, and steal out of your company," Mr. Berkeley imputed some.of Mr. Bright's allegations about destruction committed by pheasants to his ignorance of ornithology; and he loudly complained of the " dis- g-uisting fact " that both agriculturists and sportsmen are "denounced classes." Alluding to a petition from Ruislip, he said he could tell Mr. Bright that "his friend Jenkins" had gone round to the public-houses on Saturday collecting signatures. And he compared the Game-laws of this counts.), with the more stringent laws of the United States; where for shooting a deer out of season a penalty ,af twenty-five dollars is imposed— for a..musk-rat, a creature worth as much as a hedgehog, a penalty of one dollar.

Sir ROBERT PEEL came last into the discussion. He heartily agreed to the inquiry, but avowed that he looked to a moral and social rather than a legislative change. There could be no possibility of returning to the system when the licence to kill pine was limited to certain ranks, and when the sale of game was forbidden. At the same time, to abolish pro- perty in game and let anybody destroy it, would occasion lawlessness and insubordination. Landowners would do well to consider it a moral duty not to keep. up excessive preservation of game, and also to allow their tenants to destroy it or derive some enjoyment from it; and tenants should make more strict stipulations on the subject.

The motion for a Committee was affirmed.

Si'EAKEREi IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE, FOT Inquiry and against the Game-laws—Mr. Bright, Mr. Hume, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Cobden. For Inquiry but not against the Game-laws—Sir James Graham, Mr. Darby, Mr. Francis Henry Berkeley, Captain Rous, Mr. Liddell, Mr. Aglionby, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Grantley Berkeley, Mr. Bickham Escott, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Adderley, Mr. Wodehouse, Mr. Colevile. Against Inquiry and against the Game- laws—Mr. Vernon Smith.

OBSERVANCE OF TILE RUBRIC.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Earl FORTESCUE, presenting pe- titions, drew attention to the dissensions in the diocese of Exeter on the. subject of Rubrics. He related the history of the matter: Bishop Phill- potts's pastoral letter ordering the use of the surplice in preaching; the fer- ment which it occasioned; the subsequent letter retracting that order; and the continued agitation to abolish the use of the surplice even where it had previously excited no dislike. The Rubrics it is in some points impossible to obey: the increase of the population, for instance, would make it absurd to require the Bishop to lay his hand on the head of every separate child in the ceremony of confirmation; many persons are of opinio that the use of a white gown is not more necessary to sound doctrine or discipline, and that the Rubric requiring its use may as well be violated as the one neg- lected by the Bishop. The penalties, however, on a Bishop or other cler- gy-man for infringing the Rubrics, are, for the first offence, forfeiture of one year's emoluments; for the second, deprivation of promotion and one year's imprisonment; for the third, imprisonment for life. The petitions which he presented, from Exeter, Altringham near Exeter, and Southmolton, com- plained that obsolete forms and usages had been revived, and prayed that Parliament would revise and alter the Rubrics; a prayer which he cordially supported. A fourth petition, from the Reverend Dr. Carwithen, repre- sented the difficulties under which a clergyman is placed, between the obli- gation to fulfil the Rubrics and the repugnance of the laity. He moved that the petitions be printed.

The Bishop of EXETER, as a Spiritual Peer, demurred to the right of the House to a defence from him: but he made a further statement. He de- scribed how, on complaints against individuals and the declaration of clergy- men that they felt bound to obey the Rubrics, he had been compelled to interfere; and how he had taken counsel of the Chapter of Exeter: two- thirds of that body advised the issue of the pastoral letter' representing that the people would bow to his authority; but he had been disappointed. He cautioned the House, that many persons, even including some clergymen, are desirous of altering the Prayer-Book; some portions of the Liturgy have been violated and set at nought, as being too closely allied to " Popery "; and he had been obliged to proceed against more than one individual, to concect that error. He felt, therefore, that there were grounds for im- pugning the practice of setting the Rubrics aside. The petition at South- molten was adopted at the suggestion of Lord Fortescne ; and Dr. Phillpotts felt it to be no small advantage to meet Lord Fortescue face to face, and to have the opportunity of asking what this is all about?--(Laug/iter)— to deem what are those "obsolete forms and usages" to which the peti- tioners referred. [Lord FORTESCITE-4 The use of the surplice, for in- stance."] The Bishop went on to say, that he had only read one speech on these matters, not having time to read the newspapers- -(A laugh)—and that was a speech by a Judge in the Court of Bankruptcy, one of the highly gifted class comprised in the denomination of barristers of five years stand- ing. (Laughter.) He it was who advised the petitioners of Exeter also to apply to the Queen in Council on the subject of their grievances. In a long speech that gentleman stated that the Queen would he advised by the Arch- bishops and Bishops, all of whom belong to the Privy Council! (Laughter.) He added that they were styled "Right Reverend" on that account ! (Laughter.) And be said that the Queen was the proper person to whom to apply, because of the supremacy in the Church which at the Reforma- tion was transferred from the Pope to the Sovereign. Such, however, was not the case. The "supremacy" of the Pope was an usurpation; and when that was taken away, the Crown only recovered the temporal power which it anciently held at common law: the clergy alone are the holders of the purely spiritual supremacy. Dr. Phillpotts, with a sarcastic allusion to Dr Carwitheu's "state of nervous excitement" at not knowing what to do; denied that there is any single rubric that cannot be obeyed according to the Air letter of the law; and he avowed his willingness to abolish the penalties, imposed at a time when there was substantial dread of change: but he cautioned the House against further interferege,e. In 1641, that House, then comprising men as earnest in their support of the Liturgy as any now, resolved themselves into a Committee of Religion; within two months after, the effects of their interferen :e with the Liturgy were felt in the punishment of those who fell under its operation; in three years, the House agreed with the Commons to abolish the Book of Common Prayer; and when the Liturgy was abolished, the House of Lords itself was done away with by, a vote of the other House. He looked, indeed, to no such result at the present time; but the House would shrink frora a course the PRritni$,Of which their strict constitudoual duty was far from imposing,on

them. He explained the proper course if interposition were necessary; XV' observed that he did not think it so in the present case.

'ITo her Majesty in Council belongs the privilege of originating laws and le- gelatines which shall be binding in this respect- But in such cases as thee • which we are now eonsidering, there have been significant warnings of the RR- happy effects resulting from hasty and ill-advised alterations and innovation* - The invariable rule, as far as my apprehension guides me, has been for the Crown to issue its commission for an assem-bly of divines, in order to consult them, as 'to take the advice and opinion of that body on the subject of initiating any mee, sures affecting the forms of the Liturgy. The Crown always laid the matter be- fore the Convocation; and after the Convocation had decided upon it, Perliamea

was applied to, in order to give their decision the suppeit ot law: Paufiamerit' always left it to the spiritual mstructers of the Church,—not to the laity, but te those who were appointed by the Divine Head of the Church—to propose, and the lay members of the Church were to signify their assent or dissent; and in the Ar- mor case it had the force of law. I do hope, that if at any time proceedings of this kind are necessary, they will originate from the Crown."

Lord BROUGHAM agreed in all that had fallen from the Bishop, with single exception: "I hold the power, of Parliament 6 be paramount in

every matter—that over everything in the country, spiritual or temporal,

the jurisdiction of Parliament extends. But it is useless to discuss that point; and he would not be able to convince use, any more than I should

be able to convince hien, as he is spiritual aud I am lay." He rejoiced to

find that there were no matters of greater moment to divide the Church. At one tineellinforms iii question were of substantial importance: now W# think differently, and to revive what has fallen into desuetude would only occasion scandal sad dissension. The wisest course is to let things go ea 'as 'they. are. The .1iieltop.of NORWICH was of opinion that the Rubrics .cannot all be obeyed, and deprecated the revival of usages that may grieve " tender ceriseiendese- Thel Bishop of LONDON emphatically observed, that the impossibility Of obeying some rubrics is no reason for disobeying other* 'More words passed; butoaothing substantial resulted; and eventually, the petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

TELB BROTHERS BANDIERA.

lathe. kouse of Lords, on Thursday, Lord BEAUMONT raised question* ,respecting the Corfu affair; the history of which lie briefly retraced. ru, .

the course of doing so, he said that the brothers Bandiera and their com- pet." as had been dissuaded by Mr. Mazzini from a descent on Italy; but that they were induced to enter into a second conspiracy by a spy, a Neapolitan shirr°, (police-officer,) employed no doubt by the Austrian Go- vernment, and sent to Corfu. Lord Beaumont asked whether the British Government had reason to believe that any foreign Government did so prompt the second conspiracy; and whether they knew if any measures -were taken to prevent the expedition?

The Earl of ABERDEEN replied at considerable length. He explained in the most distinct manner, that, having examined the letters of Mr. Max- zini and others,.sent to him by the Home Office, he communicated informa- tion derived from those letters; but lie did not communicate a single syl- lable of the letters, nor the name of the writers; and he kept in view the personal safety of individuals who might be compromised by any in,- formation. Those precautions were fully successful; and he had reason to- believe that not a single individual suffered from information given to the Austrian Government. Complaints had been made of the licence allowed to Italian refugees at Malta. He was aware that one of the brothers Bandiera had arrived at Corfu, because the Austrian Ambassador complained that he'arrived with an English passport: he deserted from the. • Austrian navy at Venice; and as that navy consists altogether of Italians, the desertion was regarded as important. Lord Aberdeen also knew that another brother had gone to Malta; because Sir P. Stuart very properly refused to surrender him to an Austrian Captain: but he had not the smallest conception that any expedition from Corfu was contemplated, at one time or another. There is reason to believe that the expedition wee, prepared within a week; for the Bandieras arrived on the 5th June and sailed again on the 12th; so that the story about sending a sbirro to entrap them was most improbable. And the demand of the Italian Consuls, that the conspirators should be brought back, also disproved the alleged wish to allure them to Italy. Lord Seaton refused, partly because he could not believe that the expedition had sailed; and it was rather to be regretted, for the sake of the young men themselves, that he did refuse. He sent a,. steamer to Otranto, so that the intelligence might be communicated to Naples by telegraph. The conspirators landed at Cortona on the 16th;, marched for three days, without opposition, through a thinly-peopled coun- try; met a party of rural guard on the 19th; discomfited it, and killed the leader; and were themselves conquered by a party under the Judge of San Giovanni in Fiore, on the road to Cosenza. Treachery among their own number had been suspected, because, while the rest were sentenced to death, one was only sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The real chief of the party was Colonel Ricciotti, well known among discon- tented Italians. He was nearly taken with Lord Aberdeen's pass.- port in his pocket, obtained at the recommendation of an eminent banking-house in the City; but he was deprived of it by the Police at Marseilles, to whom he was well known : how he joined the expe- dition has not been learned. The Neapolitan Ambassador had even ac- cused the British Government of remissness—his tone implying something more than remissness; and the conduct of the authorities at Corfu had been.. the subject of a bitter complaint from the Austrian Consul to his Govern- ment. Lord Aberdeen hoped that he might have no better-founded charge than that of a share in this catastrophe to answer for at the last great day of account.

Lord BEAUMONT was quite satisfied with Lord Aberdeen's vindication,, and could no longer believe the treachery imputed to Naples; but he thought that hostile threats ought not to have made Lord Aberdeen look minutely into correspondence.

A NEW WRIT was ordered, on Tuesday, for the borough of Shaftesbiuy, in the room of Lord Howard, who had succeeded to the Earldom of Effingtuun.

Wthoowersx.—Lord Duncan's motion for the rupeel of the Window-tax,. whkh stood for Thursday last, has been altered to one for inquiry, and postp., to.the 17th March.

Local. TAXATION. In reply. to Lord Beettuostr, on Mofiday, Lord WHABlir CIAFFE intimated that the Government have no present intention of introducing a measure to amend the system of local taxation; the bill to alter the law settlement being quite sufficient to occupy the attention of Parliament, so far ee, such subjects are concerned, for this session. RAILWAY LEUISLATION. The House of Commons had early sittings oa . Tuesday aucl Thursday, to forward, the clauses of the RailwarClaaeneCeasoli- BANITLY0 tie SCOTLAND. On Thursday, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that from the state of public business, he did not expect to be able to bring forward his measure for the regulation of banking in Scotland before Easter. Biel-10mm OF BATH AND WELLS. On Wednesday, Mr. COLLETT asked whether Government intended to appoint another Bishop of Bath and Wells daring the life of the present incumbent, whose duties are now and have for some time past been performed by the Bishop of Salisbury? Also, "whether at the death of the present Bishop it is intended to appoint another Bishop of Bath and Wells, or to unite that diocese with the diocese of Salisbury ? " Sir ROBERT PEEL answered the first question in the negative; and said, that on the decease of the present Bishop it would be the duty of Government to advise her Majesty to appoint another to the see without delay. Mr. ComErr then gave notice, that on the llth March, be would move for leave to bring in a bill to unite the diocese of Bath and Wells with that of Salisbury, on the demise of the present Bishop of the former see.

THE EARL OF LIICAN. The appointment of Lord Lucan to be Lord-Lieutenant of Mayo was the subject of a conversation in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Mr. BELLEW, moving for papers, and supported by Mr. lSloaoait JOHN O'Cos- NELL and Mr. Ross, complained that Lord Lamm had been appointed after haying been dismissed from the Magistracy by the Lord Chancellor for brawling— using the words " miscreant" and "blackguard," to a brother Magistrate—m a court of justice. Sir THOMAS FRF.MANTLE replied, that if the authority of the Led Chancellor were cited for the dismissal, he might cite the same authority for Lord Lama's restoration to the Bench; and he maintained that a casual indis- cretion ought not to be visited with perpetual punishment. Mr. T. B. C. SMITH explained, that Lord Lucius did not appear in court as a Magistrate, and that he received very gross provocation from his antagonist in a case of litigation with Mr. O'Malley, whom he had dismissed from his agency. The motion for papers gwas not opposed, and was affirmed. INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT. In reply IO Lord MAHON, on Monday, Sir Rom= PEEL said, that negotiations had been entered into on this subject with France, Belgium, and Saxony, for the purpose of giving facilities to the book- trade in those countries and in this. These negotiations were carried on for some time, but they did not lead to any final or satisfactory result. Negotiations were afterwards entered into with Prussia ; and after a certain time it was alleged, on the part of Prussia, that the law of copyright in this country was defective and ought to be amended. Since that time two bills had passed Parliament to amend the law of copyright. The negotiations with Prussia were now renewed; and in the event of their being brought to a satisfactory conclusion, they might perhaps form the basis for the renewal of negotiations with other countries. HONG-KONG. On Tuesday, Dr. BOWRING drew attention to an ordinance issued in August last by Governor Davis, in Hong-kong, requiring a registration of all the inhabitants' with statements of their condition and circumstances; a measure which the Doctor characterized as inquisitorial and tyrannical, and im- practicable in an Oriental country. The ordinance had excited a strong feeling against it, and it had been withdrawn. Mr. G. W. HOPE pointed to the propriety waiting till the Governor's reasons had been received, lefore condemning the -.ordinance. Considering the high character of Mr. Davis, the presumption ought to be in his favour. Hong-kong is infested by roeu„. es and vagabonds in great i number; a comms sariat-boat, well-manned, has been attacked and robbed in open day; and robbers to the number of 150 attacked and robbed the house of a merchant. Registration would prevent the residence of bad characters within the colony. Sir GEORGE STausros bore testimony to the high qualifications of Mr. Davis; and deprecated premature discussions, as injurious to the progress of the colony. The motion was withdrawn.