Debatts an prourbings In VarliEnntra.

NEW TABLET: AGRICULTURAL RELIEF.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, when the order of the day was feed for going into Committee on the Customs Acts, Mr. Wasaass Mu-Es (Somerset) moved as an amendment--

" That it is the opinion of this House, that in the application of surplus revenue towards relieving the burdens of the country by ruction or remission of taxa- tion, due regard should be had to the necessity of affording relief to the agricul- tural interest"

He complained that the agricultural interest had been neglected in the financial scheme of Government; and insisting that agricultural distrase is general, he imputed it as a direct consequence to the recent measures of Parliament— It had been said that the distress in the country was partial, and that it was eonfmed to certain districts of the country, where, from the dryness of the season, the -crops had been deficient. For himself, he must own that, generally speaking, there was a deficiency in the Southern parts of the country; and he must further admit that no Ministry could control the atmospheric influences or regulate their effects on the produce ef the soil. (" Hear, hair!" fromshe Ozipositionbenches.) He did not know to what that cheer alluded: such were his opinions, whether right or wrong, and he believed they would be assented to by the whole world. (" Hear, hear, hear!") He would maintain that the distress was not local, but general; and that it pressed upon the country, even in seasons of general prospe- rity, though it was more this year by reason of the dryness of the season having bad an injurious effect upon all the crops except whe,at. And there was a singu- lar occurrence which had taken place this year, which it would be well to notice to the House—namely, that when oats, hay, and barley were deficient, the price of meat usually got up, so that the deficiency of the crops was made up by the sale of cattle. But this was not now the case; and though the farmer was now pur- chasmghieproveaderatahighrateyethewouldbosblete prove before he sat down, that neither at Smithfield, Leadeubshl, nor Newgate markets, nor in any of the country markets, had the pnce of meat risen. Under the new Corn-law, even with wheat at 50s., the farmer obtains less protection than under the law of 1828. During the three years that the law has been in operation, the importations have been, of wheat 4,778,669 quarters; of flour, 1,237,193 hundredweight; the average price being 32s. 41;s1.: in the three years ending 1837, when the average price was 55s. 10d., only 640,824 quarters of wheat were imported. In 1842, ex- cellent malt made from Danish barley was selling at 318., when malt made from home-grown barley could not be sold under 35s. In fact, under the average of 50s. a quarter there has been a constant flow of foreign wheat into the market, since 1842, to compete with the farmer. The deficiency in the harvest has not been compensated by the rise in price: in the early months of 184$ porn was at 48s. a quarter; to give compensation to the British farmer, corn ought to have been about 60s. in the latter part of 2849 and early part of 1844. Had Agricultural Members been aware that the new Com-bill would be succeeded by a Canada Corn-bill and the new Tariff, they would not have given their votes for it. He read returns to show that under the new Tariff 'the price of meat has sustained a gradual but decided falls " that class inferior beef," for example, has fallen frentats. 3fd..841 t.&- in 1844, and the price of other kinds in proportion: -yet, the impartation of cattle has been small compared with that whidianay be anticipated. The farmers complain of burdens milk& especially and -grievously oppress them-- the poor-rates the county-rates, and police-rapes; and the rent-charge, which was calculated when wheat was 65s. a quarter, whereas now it is only 48s. The total county-rates amount to 8,806,5011.; of which, 5,434,895/. is assessed on land, and 2,635,2271. on dwelling-houses. The measures of relief he proposed were the following—Government support for Lord Worsley's Enclosure Bill and Mr. Robert Palmer's Drainage Bill; transfer of the expense of criminal prosecutions from the county-rate to the Consolidated Fund; transfer of half the cost of Coroner's inquests from the county rates to Government; and the like transfer of half the gaol expenses. The total expense of all these ameliorations in England and Wales would be about 275,0004 In Scotland, two-thirds of the criminal prosecutions is borne by Government; and including Scotland in the estimate it would only be about 350,000/. Mr. Miles concluded by reproaching Ministers with their conduct, after having been placed in power by. the farmers. The farmers have no confidence in their measures; they complain that the word "protection," so often uttered by Sir Robert Peel when in Opposition, is now seldom heard from his lips: the expressions at the close of hi; financial statement have caused great anxiety and distrust. The Corn- law was passed in the same year that the Tariff was revised; and now, in three years, the Tariff is again revised. At Salisbury, Mr. Sidney Her- bert declared the existing protection sufficient; whereas Mr. Miles -con- tended that protection ought to have been "diffused."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed the motion at much length. He pointed out the inconsistency between Mr. Afiles's speech and his motion • the speech leading to repeal of the Corn-laws, and that part of the Tariff re- lating to foreign meat, and by no means preparing the way for so small a boon as that now -craved on behalf of so great an interest. Sir James re- ferred with some minuteness to the failure of Mr. Thornhill Baxing's at- tempt to increase the revenue by an additional percentage—which failed in the indirect part of taxation but succeeded in the Assessed Taxes—as proving that the limits of indirect taxation had been reached, and flit recourse must be had to direct taxation: therefore the Income-tax was imposed, and indirect taxes, principally on raw material, to the amount of 1,135,0004 had been remitted, affording relief to the entire community. But landowners have derived a large share of benefit: the price of thrther is gradually falling—the price ie 6id. a foot less than it was in 184a ; while landowners-are the great consumers of timber, forrepairs and buildings: the agriculturists have also benefited by remission of taxes on articles of con, sumpticat; and the remission of the protective duty on wool has caused a great increase in the demand for British wool, witha corresponding increase of price. If the present scheme were sanctioned, the amount of taxes remitted in three years would be, in Customs-duties, 5,142,000/.; in Assessed Taxes, 1,162,0001: total, 6,304,0004 Mr. Miles represents agriculture as depressed, while commerce and manufactures are flourishing: Sir James can testify, from personal experience that in Scotland and the North of England the farming classes are in a experience, of great prosperity; and it is generally admit- ted that in Ireland the last year was one of unexampled prosperity and abundance. If the importations have been greater than under the Cora- law of 1828, it is indisputable that the quantity of CQM grown in this country is insufficient for a population increasing at the rate of 1,000 a day: if the supply were intercepted, some frightful convulsion must-ensue. The importation of barley and oats was last year 1,028,000 quarters, the duty paid was 205,0001.; the average price for the ten years ending 1844 has been about 33s.; the importation has gone on steadily from week to week, equally tuiretarded and nnstimulated by high or low duties: those facts show the increasing power of orasnmption in the people. The Canada Corn-bill has had a most useful effect for the agriculturist. It was the custom of speculators to run -up the price of corn before the harvest, in order to introduce foreign corn at a lower duty: the corn from Canada is imported in April, and just serves to counteract that manceuvre in the market: yet it can have had no effect on English coin; for the quantity imported in 1841 was but 241,000 quartent, and in esoltof the three subse- quent years about 227,000 quarters. AAD3 the importation of cattle under the Tariff, in the first six nierith after it came into operation, the number was 4,073 cattle, 410 pigs; in 1843, the number was 1,482 cattle, 361 pigs.; in 1844, 4,865 cattle, the number of pigs still decreasing. "From practical experience, I am convinced that a steady annual importation of 10;000 head of cattle from abroad would produce no effect whatever upon the markets in this country; nor do I believe that if 300,800 waste come aver they would have any such effect. I will tell you what I think would produce an immediate effect upon the price of meat—the prevalence of low wages throughout the manufacturing districts, which would effectually prevent those classes who inhabit them from consuramg your cattle. I./speak upon this subs jeot from a personal knowledge of the facts. The county with which I am con- nected is not very far distant from the manufacturing districts -and the town of Liverpool; and it is to them that we look as the consumers of our prodace. We, the agricultural classes in Cumberland and thereabouts, do not ask any questiana about the number of cattle imported under the new Twig; but we ask, what is the state of trade and manufactures in the districts where our consumers reside.' (Loud and reiterated cheers from the Opposition benches.) The burdens- Mr. Miles complains of are actually decreasing: while the population of England and Wales has increased from 10,505,886 in 1813 to lfi,458,010 in 1844, the poor-rates and county-rates together .have decreased from 8,646,8414 to 6,848,7171., or from 16s. 5d. a-head to 88. ad. With respect to the measures, Lord Lincoln would be able to lay alloa the table in the course of the present session, bills on the suhject of enclosure and drainage; the importation of malt for the purpose of feeding cattle is already allowed, under proper restrictions to prevent farad; the transfer of the expenditure, proposed by Mr. Miles, to the Public Funds, would im in- consistent with the local control over such expenditure, and wpula remove great checks upon prodigality. Sir James had resisted a similar proposal in 1834, when he was a member of Lord Grey's Cabinet.

Mr. NEWDEGATE complained that Sir James Graham had rather set aside than answered Mr. Miles 's facts. He described Mr. Cobden as the high priest of Free Trade, the occupants of the Treasury-bench chanting responses to the service. However, he believed that Sir James Graham's tone ana the announcement of Lord Lincoln's bills would be consolatory to the apicultural interest, Lord Jonw Rnsarem opposed the motion. He took Mr. Miles's and Sir ,James Graham's speeches .together as estahlishieg his position that "pro-

tection is the bane of agriculture," and that it cannot stand in the face of 'discontent; a fact practically corroborated by the Corn-law of 1842 and the subsequent measures. He sneered at Ministers for saying, in effect, if we have not sufficient corn for the population, let us have it from some colony or from some foreign country through that colony, so that the pro- lection may be less in deed than it is in appearance. Thus an alteration 'was made in the law by the Ministers who were brought into power to maintain agricultural protection! But although Lord John considered protection the bane of agriculture, he thought, with Mr. Ricardo and other -high authorities, that restrictions ought to be removed in the most cautious manner. Sir James Graham had frilly answered Mr. Miles's propositions. A proposal to institute a public prosecutor would present a totally different view of that question. He would reply generally to Mr. Miles, that if such alterations were to be made, let there be no more protection either for com- merce or for laud; let all imposts be taken off the raw material, treating the produce of land as raw material; let the House agree to Mr. Ward's inquiry into special burdens on land, and equalize their operation on all classes. Supposing protection were to be continued, in what an ungracious position would the landed interest be plat:Jodi- " If they complain of the present state of the law, they will be obliged to com- plain that human food has been rendered cheaper and more abundant than it had previously been; that there have been reductions to the extent of 6d., 7d., or 8c1. since the bill of 1842. Then, in order to be consistent, they must complain that the Tariff is an evil, and one that requires the interference of the Legislature. They must complain that when the poor man buys two pounds of meat for his Sunday's dinner, he has saved 2d. in the price of his weekly luxury; that when he buys a quantity of bread, he saves per week 4d. or 5d. See how ungracious all this will appear in the eyes of the world: but how different would its appear- ance be i' all were reduced equally; in fact, how fair would it be if there were no special protections. If the prices of meat and manufactures rose at the same tune, there would -be an obvious increase in the comforts of the people: this might be followed by new production, then by a fall of prices, and that again -by a fresh rise. That would indeed be a happy state of things. And who would deans to see the continuance of a law that would prevent that happy consummation? What class of the community would listen to a complaint that the law was not stringent enough to prevent such a state of things?"

Mr. Memos Esoorr, although one of Mr. Miles', constituents, could not support his representative—

After all, these debates were like skirmishes between the League and the Pro- tection Society: but The League, with all its efforts, could not depress trade; neither would the Protection Society depress agriculture. He wished his Mends near him to know, that although no attack, however able, would put down a great principle, or a great interest, yet that no interest and no principle, however meat, could stand such a defence as was made for it the other evening ton Mr. Cobden's motion]. The Agricultural Members said they knew the cause of the distress; and yet-they did what they could to perpetuate that came. They call upon the House not to akerthe protection which the law allowed: now, the pro- tection which the law allowed was the Corn-law of 1842-and the Tariff of 1842— the very things which his honourable friends told the farmers were the cause of their distress! He thought he knew sometliingcf the farmers; and he would

like to 'mow what they said, when in one they were told that the Corn- law was the cause of-the present distress, and in another-breath that they were to pray for the continuance of this same law. (".0h, oh!") His honourable friend the Member for -Dorset said "Oh" to that: did his honourablefriend mean to pray for the abolition of the Corn-law'? (Cheers front the Opposition benches.)

. Escott.gave this support to Government in the belief that the Budgets of 1842 and of 1845 were the commencement of a series of great financial e,speriments; that-they were the -commencement of a new system for the encouragement of trade,mannfaetures, commerce, and .agriculture—in short, the commencement of a neweystem for promoting.the rewards of industry. Mr. DISRAELI seized the occasion for one of his attacks on Sir Robert Beers Administration. Protection, he argued, is-not a principle -but an ex- pedient: if an expedient, it must depend upon circumstances: if it-depend won circumstances, it .cannot be settled 'by those quotations-of repudiated dogmas cited by Lord.John Russell. Some day,the great question, will you have protection, or will you have—not free trade, for that is not the alter- native—but free imports, must be met: yet before it cau be settled, there are many questions, of hostile tariffs, wages, currency, which must be calmly entered upon. As to the present motion, it was not new: a similar motion had been proposed under identical circurestimeee, and the result Would be some guide to the probable result of the present motion.

In 1836, pato -.triumphant, but a -powerful Opposition wished to try a fall on this verymotion, with, he would, not say a-feeble, but at the same time not 'a con- fident Government; and Mr. Miles, looking at the present distinguished position of those who were then his supporters, might no doubt count upon .a greater share of success in a Conservative than in a R%ig House of COMMA& "There is the right honourable gentleman," continued Mr. Disraeli, interrupted by fre- quent laughter and cheers, "the Secretary for Ireland: he voted under similar circumstances for an identical motion. I know the rightthonourable gentleman too well to doubt that he will give a similar vote tonight. There was then a budget; there was then a surplus; and then, as now, the Agricultural interest came and said through their Members—' Are we not now to be considered?' The right honourable Sometary for Ireland thought that they should be considered; and I am not at all surprised that such should have been the case, for the right honourable gentleman has always be= the friend of agriculture. I remember having had the honour of meeting him in the presence of his con- stituents. I cannot forget the circumstance, because the president at the dinner was the noble Lord who in 1836 brought forward the motion, but-who is now in the other House of Parliament; and I well remember the speech which the right honourable gentleman made under these circumstances. Those, Sir, were dreary moments. Then we were Mauch a position, that we knew we had no chance of getting into power, unless we were brought in by an agricultural cry. Oh, I ow the of the constituency of Buckingham. They were satisfied— greatly satisfied.,-with " the sympathy-of so accomplished a representative, when he was in Opposition; bet when he came into power, they knew they had a friend on whom they might count. The -nobleman, too, who presided at that dinner could never more than they suppose such a thing. When he found the policy of Government to be contrary to Ms opinions, he quitted the Cabinet: therefore the honourable Member for Somersetshire may count upon the support of the sight honourable gentleman the Secretary,for Ireland? Mr. Disraeli pursued these sarcastic appeals, to Sir George Clerk, Lord Lincoln, and Captain Boldero, the Member for Chippenhans. "Not an.agricultrual constituency, from Buckingham to Chippenham, with the great county between, but must be imbued with grati- tude for being no represented. It is but just to stxte that the right honourable gentleman at the head of the -Government was of a eontrary opinion. I should be very sorry to make any statements in any way erroneous ; 1 must therefore eye- cffimlly say that the right honourable gentIman did not approve of the motion. He went into the Whig lobby. He alone left his party. The right honourable gentleman behaved throughout in the most handsome manner. (Great laughter on the Opposition benches.) The right honourable gentleman preserved his consistency, and kept on the best -terms with his party. (Lend laughter.) Now. that is exactly the state of the question.' (Low/ dieers from the Oppostiion.) And I have not the slightest doubt, Sir, that the right onourable gentleman will vote against his party now, and, following pr- dents, that he will afterwards treat his immediate supporters with the same affa- bility as ever." (Much laughter, and cries of" Hear, hear! " from the Opposition.) However, Sir Robert Peel had done more for agriculture than any previous Minister. He had kicked out of the Cabinet the Minister of Commerce, and thereby made a favourable demonstration to agriculture. No doubt, Sir Robert Peel's conduct is different in office from what it was in opposition. But that the old story : you must not contrast too strongly the hour of courtship with the moment of possession. 'Tis very true that the right honourable gentleman's conduct is different. I remember his protection' speeches—the best speeches I ever heard. It was a great thing to hear the right honourable gentleman say, would sooner be the leader of the gentlemen of England than possess the con- fidence of sovereigns.' That was a grand thing. (The ironical tone in which this comment was given caused roars qf laughter.) We don't hear much of the gentlemen of England ' now. But they have the pleasures of memory—the charming reminiscences of a first love. The right honourable gentleman does what he can to keep these gentlemen quiet: he sometimes treats them with arrogant silence, and sometimes with haughty frigidity; and if they knew any- thing of human nature they would take the hint aria shut their mouths. But they won't. And what then happens? Why, the right honourable gentleman, being compelled to interfere, sends down his valet, a well-behaved person, to make it 'known that we are to have no 'whining' here."

Keeping up this attack prospectively, Mr. Disraeli finished thus-

" Protection appears to be in about the same condition that Protestantism was in 1828. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) The country will draw its moral. For my Fart, if we are to have free trade, I, who honour genius, prefer that such measures should be proposed by the honourable Member for Stockport, than by one who, through skilful Parliamentary manceuvres, has tampered with the gene- roils confidence of a great people and of a great parre. For myself, I care not what will be the result. Dissolve' if you like, the Parliament you have betrayed, and appeal to the people, who, I believe, mistrust you. For me there remains this at least—the opportunity of expressing thus publicly my belief that a Con- servative Government is an organized hypocrisy? Sir ROBERT PEEL argued, that it would be a delusion. to suppose that Mr. Miles's proposition would cause any benefit to the agneidtural interest. If adopted for England and Wales, similar relief must be extended also to Scotland and Ireland; making the charge on the Consolidated Fund 400,000/., in order to obtain a relief equivalent to 250,0001. for England: but the Consolidated Fund is neither more nor less than the general taxa- tion of the country, to which the agriculturists contribute. The Agricul- tural Protection Societies have recommended support of Mr. Miles's motion in order to arrest the progress of Government measures, and to imply a censure on their financial policy; and for that reason alone Sir Robert could not assent to it. The House had sanctioned the Income-tax; and it would be acting with gross bad faith to take that tax without fulfilling the conditions under which it was granted. Sir Robert con- trasted the state of the country when he entered office—thousands of houses in Sheffield unoccupied, people snatching a scanty sustenance at Bolton from animals who had died of disease, 17,000 persons at Paisley subsisting on voluntary charity—with the present state of things. Let the House consider, not the 3,000 or 4,000 cattle or pigs imported, but the effect of a diminished demand throughout the manufacturing districts OR the prices of agricultural produce. Agricultural prosperity cannot coexist with the continuance of manufacturing distress. Compare the flourishing accounts in commercial circulars at the beginning of this year with the circulars of 1842 and their predictions of ruin. There are no unsound speculations as in the memorable year 1835, nor any enormous bill-circu- lation as before the last panic. Altogether, our monetary relations with fo- reign countries are in a favourable condition. This increased prosperity has a direct bearing on agriculture-

" The quantity of wheat sold during the last four months in those towns where returns are made for the purpose of striking the averages is 2,128,000 quarters; being no less than 237,000 quarters more than the amount of sale during the cor- responding period of 1842. Observe, too, that the whole of that increased con- sumption of wheat was the produce of this country. There was no need for an importation of foreign wheat."

When Mr. Villiers should make his motion, Sir Robert would be pre- pared to say why he thought the Corn-laws ought not to be abolished— "At the same time, I am not prepared to say that precisely the same amount of agricultural protection shall be maintained, if by. that you mean that we are not at liberty to touch it many-revisal of a tariff, as m regard to hark, or articles of that kind. I believe it is for the interest of the country that you should relax your prohibitory and restrictive laws with great caution: I do not say for the advantage of the agricultural interest, but for the advantage of all classes of the

community. * Our intention is, to pursue the course we have hitherto taken, without yieldingto the suggestions of one party or the other." He would enter into no personal controversy with Mr. Disraeli. When the Tariff was proposed in 1842, that gentleman said—" The conduct pursued by the sight honourable Baronet was in exact, permanent, and perfect consistency with the principles of free trade laid down by Mr. Pitt." SIr Robert held the panegyric and the attack in the same estimation: but he could not help being struck with their both having proceeded from the same person. Mr. PLUKETRE objected to Mr. Miles's measure, as altogether inadequate to meet the distress of the agriculturists.

On a division, the motion was negatived, by 218 to.78.

Sosaierns IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For Mr. Miles's plan—Mr. Miles, the Earl of March, Mr. Newdegate, Lord Worsley, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Darby, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bankes, Captain Herne. Against it.—(Conservatives) Sir James Graham, Mr. Bickharn Eseatt, Mr. Peter Borthwick, Sir Robert Peel, ter. Plumptre, (Liberal) Lord John Russell.

The House then about one o'clock, went into Committee on the Cus- toms Acts, and proceeded to adopt several resolutions in which the new Tariff was embodied; a few remarks being made here and there. Some articles to which objections were made were reserved; and, having resumed, the Mouse adjourned, at a quarter-past two o'clock. On Wednesday, the House again went into Committee, to discuss the cliee prited articles.

Mr. Basis:wow moved to omit the article of " grease "; as, tinder _Om repeal of the 20e. duty, a great quantity of butter would be introduced, to the manifest detriment of the agriculturists of the country. Sir GEoeste CrAwie said, that the agriculturists would benefit rather than suffer from the remission of the duty—

For instance, large quantities of it were made use of by the sheep-farmers in the North, for the purpose of smearing their sheep, as a precaution against the

effects of cold. The honourable gentleman need not fear that the article would be made use of as food. (" Hear, hear!" from the Opposition benches.) The Customhouse-officers took effectual means to prevent fraudulent traders selling the article to the poor as butter. (Renewederies of "Hear, heart") He did not understand what honourable gentlemen opposite were cheering; but he would repeat, that the Customhouse-officers took care that the article introduced as grease should not be sold as butter, by mixing a quantity of tar with it before it passed the Customhouse. (" Hear, hear!" and laughter.) Mr.WaRte admired the beautiful simplicity which prevented Sir George Clerk from knowing why he cheered, and the superfluousness of his assur- ance: of course, it was perfectly well understood already, that if this re- mission could in any way be made beneficial to the poor man—add in any way to his comfort or his nutriment—the right honourable Baronet would do his best to prevent it. Mr. BORTHWICK reprobated these "stand-up fights" for grease and lard: it was most injudicious in "the farmer's friends" to prevent the farmer having an article which he so much needs as grease. Mr. AGLIONBY said, that farmers in Scotland and the North of England use great quantities of grease for their sheep. Mr. Ewsur averred, that butter, which might be sold as such, is converted into "grease." Mr. ViLLIERs banteringly insisted upon the right of " grease " to be protected as well as corn; and he took the case as illustrating the absurdity in the protective system, pointed out by Mr. Cobden, that the agriculturists of one county " protect " themselves against another county—

They were divided when they were robbing each other; and they were united only when they were protected, or, to use a coarser expression, all robbing e public together. In the present case, the honourable Member for Cocker- mouth stated that he was an agriculturist, and that he had a great number of Sheep which he wanted to grease—of course it was therefore important to him to have grease cheap; whilst, on the other hand, the honourable Member for Essex, Who was also an agriculturist, who did not live in Cumberland, and had no sheep to grease, but had grease to sell, was desirous that there should be a good price for grease. (Laughter.) They both represented branches of the agricultural interest, sheep and grease: and the representative of the sheep-interest pressed the repre- sentative of the grease-interest not to divide, as he was desirous that grease should be cheap. (Cheers and laughter.) He should defend the interests of grease from being attacked in particular, unless the whole system of protection was equally exposed to attack. He therefore advised the honourable Member to take the sense or rather the nonsense of the House.

Mr. AoLrowEir gravely repudiated the notion that he was interested in grease. He was a landowner; but he had always supported the views of the honourable Member for Wolverhampton instead of maintaining the pettifogging interests of the farmers against the public at large.

Mr. BRAMSTON withdrew his amendment; and " grease " was agreed to. On "hides tanned, not otherwise dressed," Mr. Sergeant Muatarr in- sisted that the remission of duty would be injurious to his constituents; Cork containing fifty tan-yards. Mr. AGLIONBY had understood that " bides" are a manufactured article in an advanced state, and therefore that they do not come within the principle recognized by the Tariff. Sir ROBERT PEEL showed that, with remission of duties on raw hides and bark, in 1841 and 1842, the leather-manufacturers have been benefited to the extent of 100,000L; and he believed them well able to compete with foreign dealers. Lord HOWICK lectured Free-traders on their inconsistency in advocating special protection on some petty article or other affecting their constituents: he would in all cases and under all circumstances sup- port every proposal that might be made for the removal of protection; and be was sorry that gentlemen who agreed with him in that policy should appear to be giving way to the old taunt of Mr. Huskisson, that every man in this country was for free trade except in those articles which affected himself. Thus admonished, Mr. Sergeant MURPHY declined to divide the House; on which Mr. Losto did so instead. The remission of duty was affirmed, by 73 to 27.

On the article of "lard," Mr. GRoo_sx moved to omit it; urging the

injury which would be inflicted on Irish peasants, whose subsistence mainly depends on the breeding of pigs, by the introduction of foreign lard. Sir GEORGE CLERK pleaded the importance of admitting it, DS an article used in machinery. But the discussion soon took a more general turn to the subject of "protection." Colonel WYNDHAM passed some severe strictures on the Agricultural Members—

In 1841, the Manufacturing Members, as he had before described them to be,

were like jacks-in-the-box, continually jumping up and down in their places, and presenting themselves to the disgust and ridicule of the country; and he was now sorry to see his Agricultural friends following their example. To the ultra gen- tlemen who clamour out, "What is there for us ? " He answered, "Gentlemen, there is nothing for you. He rebuked the liberty which the Central Protection Society and its branches take in dictating to the Representatives of constituencies. He himself was a stanch friend to the farmer. He was favourable to protection; nor would he abate in the least degree his zeal for the agricultural interest, which he thought should be protected: but he begged the House to understand that he was not one of those ultra gentlemen of whom he had just spoken. Could it be supposed, he would ask, that a farmer' entirely occupied as he generally was with his fields, his crops, his sheep, and his calves, could have a comprehensive view of the state of affairs, or of what was fitting to be done for the country? He would not suffer himself to be dictated to by the Protection Society in Bond Street, or by any Agricultural Society. Just let the House analyze for a moment the Bond Street Protection Society. It consisted of a number of country gentlemen, and was also patronized by a number of Members of Parliament; it had besides many, noblemen enrolled among its members, and in its ranks were to be seen men of the highest rank and station in the country. Assembled in conclave in Bond Street, they issued their mandates to the minor Societies in the country, my Lord Duke all the time pulling the strings behind the scenes; and these minor Societies, milder the influence of these mandates, persecuted the Representatives of the People. It struck him that these gentlemen were something like Polyphemus, with but one eye in their heads: they seemed to see nothing but their turnip-fields; they seemed to see nothing in the world but their own single interests. On the sub- ject of land he would give his decided support to the Government. Lord ARrstuR LENNOX (one of Colonel Wyndham's constituents) warned that gentleman, that at a subsequent election he was not again likely to be returned to Parliament. Mr. WARD reproached the Agricul- tural Members with proposing niggardly measures at the eleventh hour, instead of boldly asserting their principles in some such motion as one to repeal the Corn-law of 1842. Sir JoRN TYRELL angrily attacked, first Mr. Villiers, for imputing grovelling motives to the agriculturists, and then Colonel Wyndham, for his speech. That speech was exceedingly amusing, no doubt; and it would have been more forcible but for the recollection of the honourable gentleman acting as a member of the s pialar Society, at the head of which was the Duke of Buckingham. YNDHAM—" I am not a member now." Sir JO)IN TYRELL ITOVveil that Colonel Wyndham's inconsistency was not to be wondered at, the many examples he had-- " In my researches—and [turning directly to the Ministerial bench] I have had occasion to look into the consistency of many gentlemen—what did I find? I found, to my utter surprise, that the honourable gentleman the Member for Wol- verhampton, who deals so largely in abuse of the agriculturists, for participating, as he says, in the public plunder, is in possession of a seat in that sink of iniquity the Court of Chancery(" Bear, hear! " and " Oh, oh!")—and I believe he is a pluralist, and in possession of a large salary. I take the liberty of calling upon the honourable is to tell me, upon his own principles of free trade, if that seat, which 1/3 a sinecure—(" Oh, oh!")—well, I imagine it is a sinecure, because the honourable gentleman has so much time to devote to, and actually occupies SO much time in advocating, the principles of the Anti-Corn-law League—were put up to auction, would it not be found in all probability, that on the principles of free trade the business of that office, which he now holds, would be performed as well for five hundred as for a thousand pounds?"

Mr. VILLrEns retorted with bitterness-

" You must be reduced, indeed, to desperate shifts, if that is the only answer you have to give. Besides in making your statement against me you did not make it correctly. The place I hold is no sinecure. [ Sir .Jonst TYBELL was un- derstood to say that he did not call it a sinecure.] You did not say that it was a sinecure? Then, if it is not a sinecure, why should I not bold it? If you say it is a sinecure, I tell you it is not. I tell you that I am paid for the work I do, and tell you more, that you are not paid for the work you do. You come here to the House to get paid by the operation of iniquitous legislation. You come here to the House and pass laws to swell your own rents. Your law is made—and you cannot deny it—for.pecuniary objects; to support your younger children, ae..I pro- vide yon with mamage-portions. What do you do m return for all this ? We pay your mortgagee; and what do you give us in return? If you ask me what I do for what I receive, I can show it to you without hesitation, and I can tell you that you cannot get it done for less. You work not for what you receive; you inherit your property, like many other fortunate accidents of society, never having to work for it in the least; and if you had the misfortune to lose it your condition would be pitiable."

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, in a graver manner, argued against the view of the Free-traders, who regard the supply of provisions and manufactures simply as a question of cheapness. Mr. COBDEN replied, that it was not cheapness which the Free-traders seek, but abundance.

" I ask him, then, if abundance is our object, what is his I will tell him. It is his object to produce the greatest scarcity. (" Bear, hear!" and" No, no r) Well, you desire to produce dearness. ("No, no!" froen the Agricultural Members.) Then let us know what it is you want. ("Hear, hear!" and laughter.) Our object is abundance—as your object is scarcity. (" No, no! ") Then is your object abundance? (" Yes, yes! ") Yes then you cannot have abundance without having cheapness. In the old phraseology of your own poli- tical Prayer-Book, abundance and cheapness are convertible terms. There is no way of making articles dear but by making them scarce. What do you desire but to make them scarce, in order that you may make them dear? Does it not show the iniquity of the system which you are unconsciously supporting, that you cannot face a definition of your own principles? (Cheers and laughter.) AS to lard, the manufacturing operatives are not concerned in its cheapness—they, who get from 12s. to 20s. a week, do not use it for food: the poor agricultural labourers use it with their potatoes; they put it in the frying-pan for the purpose of having some sort of a reah with their food. They do so because they cannot afford to buy butter, or beef, or anything else that will give a relish to their, wretched food. Is it not then pitiable—is it not, I say, deplorable,-to see here gentlemen, the owners of large estates, anxious to press hard upon the poor—the very poor that they see about them—by keeping out of the country that which' the poorest among the poor are desirous to have?"

From this point the discussion became less animated; Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord JoirN RUSSELL, and Mr. GLADSTONE, more solemnly discussing the questions of " protection " and lard. Mr. GRoosst withdrew his amend- ment.

On the article of "resin," Sir WALTER JAMES moved to retain a duty of ls., as the total abolition of the duty (2s.) would be injurious to the dis- tillers of turpentine; but, after a short discussion, he withdrew the amend-

ment. . .

On "silk thrown not dyed," Mr. Tarrow EGERTON (North Cheshire) objected that the removal of duty would materially injure his constituents • and the objection was enforced by Mr. Gramsurrat, (Macclesfield,) Mr. Wu.Lisms, (Coventry,) and others. Mr. Srmarr (Derby) cited a memo- rial upon the subject of the proposed abolition of the duty upon thrown silk, addressed by his constituents to the House. They stated, that although the abolition of duty upon thrown silk might be injurious to them in a pecuniary point of view, yet they were so fully satisfied of the• justice of free trade, and appreciated so deeply the blessings its adoption would confer upon the country, that they were quite willing to bear any' loss the abolition of the duty might inflict upon them. Mr. FacrwisrLE said that his constituents, (South Lancashire,) in answer to his request for in- structions, replied," Give us free trade, and we will not care for the re-, moval of the duty at all." Sir GEORGE CLERK and Sir ROBERT PEEL referred to the effect of the previous reductions of the duties on silk; ruin, was predicted, but the result was quite different: from 1814 to 1824, when , the trade had all the advantage of protection, the raw silk imported was 15,414,000 pounds; whereas from 1835 to 1844, since the redaction of duty, the raw silk imported had increased to 37,934,000 pounds. Yet the thrown silk had diminished from 3,608,000 pounds in the former period to 2,900,000 pounds in the latter. The amendment was negatived, by 86 to 25.

A conversation took place as to the method of proceeding; Members wishing to urge some further objections, yet not liking to impede the reso- lutions, which Ministers desired to pass before Easter. Ultimately it was arranged, that on some day after Easter the House should go into Com- mittee on the Customs Act, on purpose to consider those objections. The resolutions passed; and, the House having resumed, they were reported and affirmed.

The bill founded on the resolutions was introduced on Thursday, and reed a first time; to be read a second time on Monday the 31st instant.

WINDOW-TIX.

On Tuesday, Viscount DUNCAN moved for a Select Committee to inquire , into the present mode of assessing, levying, and collecting the Window- duties in Great Britain. He introduced the subject to the House solely from a conviction of the impolicy of the tax. Sir Robert Peel mentioned in his financial statement, that of 3,400,000 houses which would benefit by the repeal of the Glass-duties, only 450,000 are subject to the Window-tax. In many cases, the houses exempt are those used as warehouses by wealthy proprietors; and in many others they are old edifices, occupied by the poor, who, to evade the tax, build up the windows necessary for light and venti- lation. Mr. Biers, President of the Carpenters Society, had stated, in a letter to Lord Duncan, that in all the poorer descriptions of houses in the

Metropolis and large towns, those appurtenances which most need lighting and ventilation are kept without them, to avoid the tax. Dr. Southwood Sinith, writing to the mover, pointed to remission of the Window-duties as "the only point of consequence omitted in the remedial measures recom- mended by the Commissioners on the Health of Towns, in their admirable report just laid on the table of the House. Their evidence is full and complete as to the influence of air and light on the health of the people; but the effect of the present Window-tax is to exclude these blessings to a great extent from the abodes of the poor." In Bath, the consequences of the tax are particularly ruinous: at No. 10 Galloway's Buildings, there are upwards of twenty windows shut up in a house occupied by twenty-seven families; and Lord Duncan mentioned other instances. How would repeal of the Glass-duties affect those families? The Window-tax is imposed accord- ing to a sliding-scale: houses having not more than seven windows are exempt; at eight windows, the duty is 2s. 3id. per window; the duty gra- dually rises, till at thirty-nine windows it is 73. flitl.; then it declines again, tai at five hundred windows the duty is 2s. 71d. The latter part of the scale diminishes in a ratio inverse to the means of the persons who pay the impost. The effect is very unequal pressure upon different classes: for Apsley House, of which the rental is 2,0001., the Duke of Wel- lington pays 371. 58. tax, or 21 per cent on the rent; the occupant of 223 Regent Street, rent 1401., pays 31. 178., or not 2 per cent; Francis Beazley, plasterer, at Lancashire Court, rent 321., pays 61. 3s., or 20 per cent; the occupant of No. 1 Peter Street, St. James's, rent 351., pays 9/. 8s., or 261. per cent. The information respecting the proceeds of the tax is most conflicting: one return, moved for by Sir Charles Napier, shows a decrease from 1,830,4571. in 1841, to 1,743,4001. in 1844; ano- ther return, obtained by Captain Pechell, shows an increase from 1,774,6381. in 1841, to 1,786,5141. in 1844; while Mr. Porter states that the number of houses paying duty had decreased from 447,420 in 1843, to 409,235 in 1844, although the population is increasing. In 1834, Lord Althorp intro- duced a measure which professed to relieve those who were duly assessed or had compounded at the time the act passed, by entitling them to open as many windows as they pleased without additional duty : that act was so carried out until 1840, when the expenditure was found to exceed the in- come; then, the windows were all resurveyed, and those who had acted on the faith of Lord Althorp's measure found themselves in the arms of a very hungry Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been decided that perforated zinc plates, recommended as a means of ventilation, are liable to pay the duty ; and Mr. Pressly, the Surveyor of Taxes, is of opinion that each separate hole in those perforated plates could be separately charged for!

The exemption of houses with not more than seven windows is inopera- tive as regards the poor in large towns; for they do not live in cottages. The tax is a premium on bad construction. Dr. Arnott, Mr. Toynbee, and Dr. Guy, all concur in ascribing much of the illness that prevails in the country to bad ventilation. Dr. Southwood Smith says— "it is remarkable that the seats of dim.. so are the seat of crime. There is evidence that the working-classes lose the manly spirit natural to the English

race, from living in dark abodes. The operation of causes of death are steady, unceasing, sure. The annual slaughter in England and Wales, from preventable causes of typhus fever alone, which attacks persons in the 'vigour of life, is double the amount of what was suffered by the allied armies at the battle of Waterloo."

It is the spirit of the working-classes that has raised this country to its proud preflminence: is that spirit to be broken by a tax on light and venti- lation? He did not ask for remission of the tax; but he asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not find some less objectionable mode of collecting the amount?

Mr. GOIrLBTIRN was compelled to the disagreeable duty of defending the continuance of a tax that was sought to be repealed. In the accounts ad- duced in support of repeal, there is much exaggeration; and he would state the result of inquiry into two of the cases cited by Lord Duncan—

The first case was that of No. 10 Galloway Street; in which house there were originally 57 windows, and so many had been closed as to reduce the number to 20. The next was the adjoining house No. 9; in which it was alleged that a considerable number of windows had been closed. The result of the inquiry that he had directed to be instituted respecting the former house stated, that the as- sessment for the Window-tax for the year 1843-4 was on 34 windows, and for the year 1844-,5 was 35, showing an increase of one in the number of windows. With respect to No. 9 Galloway Street, he was informed that it was a house of ill- fame, and therefore, perhaps it might have been found advisable to stop up some of the windows. (Great laughter.) It was a mistake to suppose that Lord Althorp had been guilty of any breach of faith. In 1834, the usual period arrived for the renewal of the act for the composition of Assessed Taxes for five years; when the noble Lord said that those who availed themselves of the composition might open new windows in their residences without additional charge. Therefore, what the noble Lord promised. was personal to the individual, and was not attached to the house itself, and could not be claimed at a new assessment by any subsequent tenant. Mr. Goulburn could not in consistency with his duty consent to a Committee, which could do nothing more than express an opinion that the tax ought to be removed, thus embarrassing the Government; for the 1,700,0001. of revenue cannot be spared. The lower classes are not particularly bur- dened by the tax; and the remission, instead of benefiting them, would only put money into the pockets of their landlords. And in their dwell- ings the poorer class of persons are anxious for warmth rather than venti- lation. The Health of Towns Commissioners do not mention the Window- tax as in any way operating on the health of the inhabitants; though he was sure that if the authors of the report believed the Window-tax to be the cause of fever they would have said so.

Among the opponents of the measure, was Mr. THORNHILL BARING; who corroborated Mr. Goulburn's account of Lord Althorp's measure. In 1840, Mr. Baring gave directions to the officers cautiously to avoid charging persons for those windows which were excused under the former clause: but it would be seen how necessary such a survey was, when he informed the House that he had received information of whole streets which ought to have come within the operation of the Window-tax, and the inhabitants of which evaded the payment of it.

The motion was supported by many Members. Mr. Hume suggested, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not spare the revenue de- rived from the Window-tax, he might substitute a percentage on the rental: 10 per cent would produce 1,900,0001. Mr. WARLEY hoped that the re- mission of the tax would form part of one of Sir Robert Peel's great schemes in some future year. If the electors were to take up the matter, it wouM be settled at the next election. An Anti-Window-tax League ought to be formed. Mr. HAWES suggested the substitution of a house-tax, free from the inequalities of the old house-tax.

Sir ROBERT Pest said, that Government had taken into consideration this tax, as well as the Soap-duty, and various other taxes, with a view to ascertain which of them could be proposed to the House for remission with the greatest advantage. He did not think it was the duty of the Govern- ment to give a specific pledge as to the future removal of a particular tax: such a pledge from the House would make the collection very difficult. Sir Robert combated Mr. Hume's suggestion of a percentage on house-rent, espPeially as being inconsistent with that provision of the Income-tax which exempts from charge incomes under 1501. a year. Then reverting to the motion, he said—

He would not be betrayed into saying a word in vindication of the tax. He was perfectly ready to admit, that in some cases it inflicted hardship: but it would be difficult to point out any tax, particularly upon articles of general consumption among large bodies of the people which occasioned so little loss in the collection as the Window-tax. Now, let bins not deceive the noble Lord: he would not in order to avoid a vote in favour of a Committee, promise that this tax should be specifically taken into consideration: he would not delude him with false hopes: but this he was ready to say, that this tax, with others, was one which, when a remission was practicable, ought to undergo consideration. But, a year before it was possible to make any such computation, he would not pledge himself to its remission.

On a division, the motion was negatived, by 93 to 47.

SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE.. For the motion—Lord Duncan, Captain Pechell, Sir Charles Napier, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Hume Mr. Wakley, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Thomas Duncombe, Mr. Williams. .Against it—kr. Goulburu, Mr. F. T. Baring, Colonel Sibthorp, Sir Robert Peel.

RAILWAY FARES.

On Thursday, Mr. MORISON proposed a new regulation to improve the management of railways. He enlarged upon the advantage which that means of transit affords to the commercial classes; and on those which it may offer to farmers, for travelling in pursuit of information, and la- bourers in pursuit of higher wages. The inhabitants of large towns de- rive unprecedented advantages in the conveyance of fresh fish, coal, stone, and other heavy articles. The progress of railways has been ex- traordinary; common coaches are almost superseded, some canals are almost wholly deprived of their traffic and the coasting-trade is consider- ably affected. The cost of making railways has diminished from 50,0001. or 30,000/. a mile to 10,0001. or 12,0001.; the expense of driving an entire train is no more than posting with one pair of horses used to be- 2s. a mile; while these advantages and improvements are as yet but in their' infancy. The power to accommodate the public, however, has not been fully tested. While the rates of fares in Belgium are ld., fd., and id. a mile for the three classes, and in France lid., ld., and id., ours are very generally 3d., 2d., and ld. The reduction enforced for third-class passengers ha been creditably carried out; but it has also occasioned an increase of traffic. On the Grand Junction Railway, the increase of passengers had been 308 per cent, the increase of revenue 75 per cent, consequent on a diminution of ld. per mile in the fares. In France, railways are let by the State to companies on terminable leases, subject to revision., a better arrangement- than ours. He did not know why 10 per cent on their investments should be secured to companies: two-thirds of that would be ample remunera- tion. At present, if the cost is diminished, the difference goes into the pockets of the proprietors, the public deriving no benefit: whether the line costa 10,0001. or 50,0001., the companies all seem to start with about - the same fares. Mr. Morison therefore moved a set of resolutions, declar- ing it the duty of Parliament to secure for the public the best and safest communication • and proposing that in every future railway bill clauses be introduced fixing the highest rates for fares; every Railway-bill Committee to report a table of fees and charges.

In seconding this motion, Mr. Waestrezoie expressed his disapproval of the interference of the Railway Board in the investment of capital. How- ever, if there is to be monopoly, he did not see why a maximum of fares should not be fixed. He looked forward to the time when some Government in distress might seize upon the monopoly of all railways, as the Post-office' had been seized, and lay a profit of 1,200 per cent upon the charge.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET admitted that the charges for railways had heretofore been laid down on somewhat erroneous principles; but he saw difficulties in the way of Mr. Morison's proposal. He looked to competition as a means of bringing down fares: and it does not follow that the compe- tition will be limited to lines running between the same termini; for to the majority of passengers cheapness will sways be of more importance than a fraction of time, and they will go round to obtain lower fares. As it is, these things are examined by Committees on Railway-bills, and considered. All the bills the draughts of which he had seen this session did contain clauses stating what should be the maximum toll and the charge for the conveyance of goods and passengers and if these clauses were introduced into every bill, they would, no doubt, perfectly carry out Mr. Morison's intentions. He did not think the abstract resolutions would do so.

Lord Howree and some other Members insisted on the necessity of general interference. Sir Romer PEEL on the other hand, argued, that a pecuniary check could be evaded, while you could not provide against want of vigilance, ill- conducted establishments inconveniences, and discomfort.

The motion was withdrawn

New ZEALAND.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. CHARLES BULLER agreed to postpone until after Easter his motion for papers respecting an Moon vertible paper-currency in the Falkland Islands and New Zealand, in order to make way for Mr. Hope's explanation ; other Members also deferring motions of which they had given notice.

Mr. HOPE began by saying that he should limit himself to the charge against Lord Stanley; and, making some apologetic allusion to the warmth with which he had spoken before, he expressed his belief that the accusation against Lord Stanley, of producing one set of instructions to the Company and giving another secret set to Governor Fitzroy, was made in error. He was obliged, in order to avoid impracticable length of detail, to assume some knowledge of the matter on the part of the House. Mr. Hope then recounted the proposals made by the Com- pany to Lord Stanley in May 1843—that they should take 50,0001. worth of land at Auckland in lieu of 50,000 acres elsewhere; that a Judge should be appointed to the settlements on Cook's Strait; that the agehts of the Government should aid in procuring a settlement of land- titles for the New Zealand Company ; and that the Company should be allowed a "conditional grant" of the lands selected within certain limits, subject to being impugned by prior claims, lie did not hesitate to say,

that Lord Stanley accepted those proposals. The correspondence was transmitted to Mr. Shortlead, the Acting-Governor, with instructions to

expedite the grant of land at Auckland; the other points being-reserved

for the newly-appointed Governor. Captain Fitzroy expressed doubts as to the agreement about the land. The arrangement was then incomplete, and Lord Stanley necessarily answered him in confidence ; setting his mis- apprehensions right, and referring him on each point of doubt to the corre- spondence enclosed to the Acting-Governor. The correspondence was therefore marked "confidential"; but when the documents were given to the New Zealand Company for publication, that word was struck out.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER rose with reluctance to answer the statement made by Mr. Hope ; for it had never been his inclination or his practice to indulge in personal aspersion. He first referred to an expression of his in a debate last week, which had given- pain to the friends of Captain Fitzroy and he sincerely apologized for it. He than took some pains to show in what way the charge implicating Lord Stanley now came before the House— Be was not standing there for the purpose of robing the House to pass a vote. of censure on the conduct of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. What he stood there for was, to justify the conduct of the New Zealand Company, and to prove, by the statements and by the correspondence before the country, that a. substantial wrong had been done to the New Zealand Company by the noble Lord. The New Zealand. Company had made a report to their proprietors a whole year ago containing the statement which had given rise to the present discussion. The noble Lord was then a Member of the House; and, if he had chosen, he might have brought the question forward long ago. The Twelfth Report of the New Zea- land Directors, setting forth the charge, in April last, had been laid before a Com- mittee of the House. Lord Stanley had sent in a formal ansvrer. The Committee very wisely refrained from meddling with the personal dispute ; and Lord Stanley's re- presentativea in the Committee took no steps there in relation to it. Mr. Buller only referred to this matter to prove that the New Zealand Company had all along publicly charged the noble Lord; and they were now prepared to abide by the truth of their accusations. There certainly was some language of a heated cha- racter used on a former occasion with reference to this part of the question; but that had been far from the intention of those who brought it forward. The Speech of his honourable friend near him was not of that character. Neither did he (Mr. Buller) nor the House at large give occasion for any such feeling. It was created by the right honotuable Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) reading a letter supposed to make out some inconsistency on the part of the New Zealand Company in their opinion of Governor Fitzroy; which was met by an exclamation that the Company had been deceived, being in ignorance of Governor Fitzroy's secret instructions. It was therefore not his fault that the subject had been brought before the House in its present form: at the same time, he must express Ids satisfaction that the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had done so, as he trusted the effect of that evening's debate would be to remove all personal grounds fmm the ulterior consideration of the main question.

Mr. Buller then entered into a very detailed counter-explanation; tracing the whole negotiation with Government, from Lord John Russell's agreement with Lord Stanley's interpretation of it, to the last compromise between Lord Stanley and the Company. The draught of the proposals suggested by the Company was corrected by Lord Stanley, and constituted in fact the joint proposals of the Company and the Government In a subsequent letter, Mr. Hope himself referred to it as "the agreement of the 8th May last." Early in June, Mr. Buller went to the Colonial Office te ascertain the instructions issued to the Governor of New Zealand in persuance of that agreement; and he was shown a letter to Mr. Shortland, the Acting-Governor; which was, of course, presumed to be the instruc- tion to every Governor until it were revoked. But the second instructions, given to Captain Fitzroy on the 26th June 1843, were materially different; and Mr. Buller minutely explained the points of difference. [We have a .sepe.rate paper on this subject, in a subsequent page.] Captain Fitzroy understood that in carrying out the second arrangement he was to act under the Government interpretation of the old agreement; and the Company were not informed at the time of that most fatal misconception on the part el the Governor. The practical effect was, that the conditional title, sti- ptilated to be given in 1843, had never been granted to this hour. That showed Captain Fitzroy's understanding of Lord Stanley's meaning and wishes.

The difficulty arose from a breach, on the part of the Government, of one of the meat common rules which obtain between man and man on matters of agreement, isamely, that when an arrangement is made between two parties, and to be executed he a third person, neither of the parties should offer any comment to such third person as to the execution of that arrangement Mr. Buller concluded by moving, as an amendment, for the production of all correspondence between the Governor of New Zealand and Lord Stanley.

Mr. HOPE deprecated the production of the most recent correspondence, as unfair to Captain Fitzroy. He charged Mr. Buller with omitting the difficulty which stood in Lord Stanley's way in granting a new title to the Wilds claimed by the New Zealand Company—the claims of the Natives: -which could not be overlooked, and which had been guaranteed by the treaty of Waitangi. As to the land at Auckland, it was understood Go- vernment were to receive value in return for that grant. Several other Members joined in the debate, but without much advan- -ting the question before the House. Colonel RICE TEE TOE acknowledged the courtesy of Mr. Boiler's expression of regret in regard to what he had said of Captain Fitzroy, painful to his relations. Mr. SHELL set forth ora- torically some of the facts referred to by Mr. Buller. He recommended the Colonial Office to print in letters of gold the admonition of a savage New Zealander, Naupera, published in an official paper—" Speak your words openly; speak as you mean to act; do not say one thing and mean another." Sir FREDERICK THESIGER (the Solicitor-General) went over Mr. Hope's ground, with a lawyer's advocacy, many blun- ders of detail, and an attack on the Company for not having urged the charge sooner. Captan Roue attacked the Company for mistaking the " genius " of the New Zealanders : he had been at New Zealand, and could tell all about it. The disinterested and high motives of the Campanywere advocated by Viscount limEsTRE, and other Members connected with it. Mr. Ai:immix commented strongly on the strange fact, that not only was the correspondence of June 15th and 26th, between Captain Fitzroy and Lord Stanley, kept secret, but when it was produced, the word "confidential" was erased, so minutely that at first he could not discover it. That he had always considered as a strong aggravation of the ease; for it appeared to him then, as now, that it indicated a deliberate in- tention to keep the fact from the Company. Sir ROBERT PEEL expressed his belief that Lord Stanley would be acquitted by the House of an inten- tion to deceive, or of any actual deception; and he attacked the Company because they spoke with contempt of the treaty' of Waitangi, as a treaty Made with "naked savages," and a fiction. ba the course of his speech Sir ROBEBT PEEL WES subjected to a SCrie8 or interruptions in correction of his statements. He remarked, that of eight • Members on the front-Opposition benches, seven were members of the Neer- Zealand Company. Mr. lflateaeRs rejoined, that the bench opposite tor him was chiefly occupied by members of' he Government. Sir Rol:1E1m PEEL represented Mr. Aglionby to have said that he should have ;Token - with more freedom if Lord Stanley had • been present. Mr. Aezzosuir never said so: what he said was, that he spoke with the feeling which , generous minds feel towards the absent. Sir ROBERT PEEL—" Just six• But the whole of last session Lord Stanley was present, and the charge wan not made. Why was it not referred to in moving for the Select Conte name? " Mr. Hurr replied, that it was expressly agreed with Lord Stanley that the moving of the Committee should- pass without discussion, The Company now said, observed. Sir ROBERT PEEL, that so gives a breach of faith was committed by his noble friend, that if they had been aware of it, they would have refused to hold any personal communication with the noble Lord. Mr. AGLIONIIT explained, that it was not the Company that said so: he had said, for himself individually, that be would hold no coin- municiation with Lord Stanley, to discuss any matters which required plain dealing or good flab. Mr. CHARLES ButaseR reproached the Premier with 'having departed from the understanding at the beginning of the debate, in order to attaclzthw Company. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he felt justified in doing so, in order to show that there were reasons why Lord Stanley should use the expression that the Governor should- aid -the objects and claims of the Company " as . far as was consistent with the interests of other parties and with those of the community at large."

Mr. MoircKross MILERS rose merely to repeat a sentiment, and that not his own, which appeared to him to. be particularly applicable. It was an extract from a lecture on political economy, delivered by Professor Merivale- to the University of Oxford, speaking of the Company- " Never in the history of civilized man has there occurred a commercial under- taking in which the, love of gain has been so completely subordinated to every higher faculty; never has there been in England any commercial undertaking whatever so continually guided by the highest laws of justice and humanity (Cheers.)

The motion for papers was agreed to.

SpExeRris rs THE FOREGODIG DERATE. For Lord Stanley—Mr. Hope, Sir, Frederick.Thesiger, Captain Roue, Sir Robert Peel, Colonel Rice Trevor. For- the New. Zealand Corapany—Mr. Charles Buller, Mr. Shell, Mr. /Tett, Viecount Ingestre, Mr. Aglionly, Mr. Mangles, Mr. Moulton /dillies.

ENGLAND -AND, TUB SpsvE-niaDit.

On Wednesday, Mr. ALreim called Sir Robert Peel's attention to a re- cent message addressed by President Tyler to the Senate and House -of Re- presentatives of the United States, insinuating that the treatment of 11-, berated Africans in the British Colonies is no better than it was in the time- of slavery. [This message accompanied several documents transmitted Mr. Wise, the -American Minister at Brazil; who detailed devices by w both British and American subjects evade the laws against slave-tradingt and Mr. Tyler suggested whether other means than those now existent might not be necessary to give effect to the "just and humane policy" of the Amerioan laws.] Mr. Aida= read the following passages from the message— "The slaves, when captured, [by the Brilish,].instead of being returned to their homes, are transferred to her Colonial instead

in the West Indies, and

made the means of swelling the amount of their products by a system of appren. liceship for a term of years." "It must be obvious, that while these large interests' are enlisted in favour of its continuance, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to- suppress the nefarious traffic, and that its results would be in effect but a con- tinuance of the slave-trade in another and more cruel form : for it can be matter, of-little difference with the African, whether he is torn from his country and , transferred to the West Indies as .a slave, in the regular course of the trade, en; captured by a cruiser, transported to the same place, and made to perform the same labour as an apprentice; which is at present the practical operation of the policy adopted." Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it was to be regretted that the Presi- dent of the United States of America should send a formal message on the subject to Congress withont first ascertaining what was the real con- dition of the slaves in the British Colonies. If the President should think St to appoint a, Commission to ascertain the state of the liberated Africans: in the British West Indian Colonies, so far from making any objection, the British Government would offer every facility to the Cummission for carry- ing on die.inquit7, so that the Counsibeioners, on their return to their own country, might present a true picture. As to the passage quoted, it is. well known that the state of apprenticeship has been altogether abo- lished in the West Indies. No Negro who has been captured, and liber shed, and sent there, is now, or ever has been, made to serve for a time as an apprentice. Be is perfectly free when he lands, and is entitled to all the rights of freedom. He. stated the course pursued by Government with respect to slaves captured by British cruisers.— ' If they are captured on the coast of Africa, they are, generally speaking, taken to Sierra Leone; and there they are perfectly at liberty to determine for themselves whether they will go or not to the West India Colonies. They are also at perfect liberty to determine for themselves whether they. will go to the country of which they may be the natives. According to the provisions of- the treaties we have with Spain, in the event of the capture of a Spanish trading-vessel by a British onuser, the slaves so captured are to be delivered up to the country to which the capturing cruiser belongs; and we have a vessel at the Havamuth, which, in general, receives the slaves captured in the neighbourhood of Cuba. It is true that individual slaves may not always be sent to Africa; it is quite impost elle at all times to provide means of sending them thither: but if they are sent to the West Indies they are subject to no compulsion; and although they may voluntarily enter into contracts, there is no apprenticeship whatever. It is pos- sible the mistake of the American President may have originated in this manner. Oar treaty with Spain was entered into in 1835: at that time the state of ap- prenticeship did exist; and the provision of the treaty was, that the captured Negro should besent to the British Colonies and placed on the same footing as an apprentice. but since 1835 the state of apprenticeship has altogether ceased ; and no captured Negro introduced into the Bnlish Colonies is now in a condition other than that of a free man. In-addition to the treaty with Spain, we have a treaty with Brazil and Portugal. By the treaty with Brazil it was provided that the captured slaves should be delivered up to the country on the coasts of which they were captured or to which the captured vessel belonged. It was the manifest la- tention of the treaty that captured slaves should become free men: but Brazil in. slated on keeping them in a state of slavery, and declined to keep the engage. ments of the treaty with respect to the future disposition of the slaves. On re- peated proof that such was the case, we signified to the Government of Brazil, that the slaves when captured should not be delivered up to Brazil, unless Brasti consented. to place them in a, state of freedom:, and we do keep a vessel at Rio Janeiro to recover the slaves captured on that coast, instead oi delivering them up to Bruzil„ to. be afterwards sent, as they may prefer, to the West India Colo- nies, or back to Africa. Instantly on arriving in the West Indies they are in the condition of freemen. I enlist thy, I cannot but regret that this should have been the subject of a public forma message to Congresa, anclyet that the prac- tiae- of thie country should not have been. understood."

With, respect to another allegation in that document, that both the sub, jeets of the United States and of this country are concerned in carrying on the slave-trade, that is a matter for very serious consideration: "tam not prepared, to deny that fact: but I do hope, that if law eau reach the appli- cation of British capital to the continuance of the slave-trade, it will be able to be enforced with a vigour that shall put an end to such practices."

Streets. In Committee of Supply, on Monday, a few votes of sums necessary for the military and naval services were taken, without discussion.

'few lercormr.-ze,x. BILL was, read a second time in the Howe of Lords on Monday; the discussion to be taken on the third reading, after Eu0.41'; and it was aeraeged. between Lord WLIARECLLEFE the the lifiuquis of IeuiliDONI.LZ, that one daseuesion on the bill would suffice.

'lletts EFFeep.-Drprois MtsY.. was read a third time in the House of Commons en Tuesday, end passed.

Rathwar Lacestarion: MORNING SITTINGS. Atthaearly sitting, on Wed- nesday, Mr. Hawes said, he hoped that after the Easter mesa these sittings wonld he discontinued. It would be impossiblatooccupy the. time of the Speaker at the morning sittings without considerably interfering, with the mode ot con- ducting the private business of the House. Mr. LABOUCHERE also found, in his own case, that the attendance at both 'nothing and etheing sittings was. eteeienslY iejneiona to the health of Members. Lord Ciaareythen SoanemsEr admitted the force of the objections to the wkly sittings; bin Government had felt that theth bills [to consolidate clauses in Railway-bills and the like] were of a very im- portant nettle; and thatet was necessary, if they permed before Easter, thet morn- ing should be heldi He did not, howevee„ think it practicable that the

House could sit at twelve o'clock after Easter..

ATMOSPHERIC Runways. The following list of names was moved by Mr. Sb.aw, on Tuesday, as a Select Committee to inquire into the merits of the atmo- erie plan of railways—Mr. Shaw, Mr. Bingham. Baring, Lord Harry Vane, Sir George Clerk, Mr. Francis Baring, Viscount Mahon, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. Hawes, Viscount Ilowick, Mr. Jlodgson Hinde, Mr. Munson, Mr. Pakington, Mr. Gibson Craig, Mr. Laseellee, and ean, egy„,

Leoranerion re Paosenor. In the House of Commons, several measures

have bee,n &leavel till after Ensd:Pr' and some new ones are to be introduced. The Jewish Disabilities Removal Bill, nicid a first time on Monday, is to be read again on the 2d of April. Lord Ashleft bill to regulate Labour in Cotton-print-works 8t41148 -Pr tke 2f1 441. After Easter, Government will state their intentions re

e Boer-law for Scotland; a measnee founded on the Irish Tenure

ifentiCommissioners' an Report will probably be introduced, (in which Hope, and b whom, is uncertain); and two measures more te:ctively promised are., a bill relating to Maynooth College, and a bill for Extent •g Academical Education in Lteland Scemotreasrens IN SCOTLAND. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Earl of Miner° drew attention to petitions from Scotland praying that some better provision should be made for parochial schoolmasters, in that country. The Duke of RUCOLEUCH said that the subject had already been ender the consideration of Government. The best way, perhaps, to bring it In all its bearings before the Le- tare, would be to refer it to a Select Committee; for which he now moved. The motion was at once affirmed.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH. A tart conversation occurred in the House .of Lords on Monday. The House was in Committee on the Deodand Abolition Bill, and the Earl of ELLEHBOROUGH took exception to some verbal redundancy. Lord CAMPBELL, the author of the hill, said that a charge of redundancy came strangely from the promulgater of certain verbose compositions in India- Lord ExAENBOROUOH was prepared to answer Lord Campbell, or any man; and (speaking emphatically) he wished to hear repeated in his presence what had been said in his absence. Lord CATIMEELI. had not the meet distant idea of re- flecting upon the noble Lords policy, only snuffing to his style. Lord P,LEN- BOROIJOH repeated advice once given by Lord Chatham, that if Lord Camp- bell meant nothing, he should say nothing. Lord Pireouomax told his noble fxlcnil that in his absence be bad been eeslOasY and fully, and anxiously, the- , and ably, defended by the Duke of Wellington; and zealously, though, God knows not ably, defended by the individuarwho then addressed their Lord- shine- Lord ELI,ENBOROUG}I—" I know the whole debt of gratitude I owe to tke noble Duke, upon this as upon other satijecia: but [much excited] I cannot ventare to, speak of this subject."

uic " Lona Raeroz." On Wedneeday, Lord leterenne read to the House of*its a letter from Mr. Warner complainhig of unfair treatment; repeating a ejiallenge to destroy a ship at a distance of five miles; and also 'offerhig to make expeeirneets at his own expense, 'before the Master-General of Ordnance, the Prime Minister, the Commander-in-Chief, and Lord Ingestra Sir CHARLES NAPIER thought that in old hull might be allowed by Government for Mr. Werner to attempt its destruction at the distance of five miles. Sir ROBERT l'Ept feared to give any encouragement to schemers, with whose letters he was inundated, making similar offers, and demandinp even larger rewards than the 100,000i or 200,0001. claimed by Mr. Warner. All that he could say was, that if the author of any one of those projects could show a proof of his possessing the means of &Amnon to a great extent at a distance of five miles, lie wend re- commend him to make a private communication on the thbject to the Board of Oednance, and he did not despair of leave being given to. wake a trial.

TICE Rama RECESS. The House of Lords adjourned on Tuesday last, till Thursday the 8d April; the House of Cominons, on Thursday last, till Monday the 31st instant.

011 Thursday, Sir ROBERT PEEL gave the specific notice that he should, on the 3d May, move that the House take into. consideration the proposed grant to Maynooth. Mr. WARD gave notice that he should, on a fixture day, propose that all further money-grants for the purpose of religion be niede.ut the feeds appropriated to the maintenance of the Protestant Eeletheal gl4Pre13" THE DARTMOUTH ancreen COMMITTEE brought their labours to a close on Wednesday. The petition against the return of Mr. Joseph. Some, alleged, infer alas, that he was the holder of contracts under Government; the Act of the 22d. Geo. III. not only disqualifying any person holding a contract, but subjecting him to a penalty of 500/. for each day that he sits in Parliament. -Several witnesees were produced to prove that at the time of Mr. Sornes's election, in December last, he was owner of several vessels, under contracts with the Admiralty to convey troops, convicts, and stores to various parts of the world; and that the Admiralty owed him a debt to the amount of 50,0001. On the part of the sitting Member, it was contended that iininediately before the election he had parted with his interest both in eoutreets acid debt. A release from the Admiralty was produced, by favour of which Mr. Somes passed his contracts to his nephews, Messrs. Frederiek and Joseph Scones: the deed was completed on the 17th December; but it was not signed and witnessed till the 20th, at Dartmouth. The two nephews :deo bought the Admiralty debt: they paid 10,000/. in cash, a bill for 20,0001. at six months, and another•bill for 15,0001. at twelve months. Mr. Frederick Somas, the elder bre,. ther, was a shipowner and shipmaster; his private fortune was 25,0001.; he seielt that he had often received kindnesses from his uncle; he considered this a boat fide transaction, and should not feel bound either in law or honour to return any part of the proceeds to Mr. Somes. The nephews took the bargain without exa- mination, trusting to their uncle. Mr. Joseph Somes junior gave similar evi- dence; which was corroborated by the lawyers and the witnesses to the deed. For the petition it was argued, that the transfer was not effected by legal and valid instruments; and that without a private understanding the nephews must have been NMI compotes lomat to undertake their liabilities as they had done. On Wednesday, the Chairman stated that the Committee had found this case one of v•• great difficulty and embarrassment; but after the most painful and anxious consideration of it, they had come to the following resolution—" That at the time of the last election for the borough of Dartmouth, Joseph Somes, Es., was not disqualified by reason of being engaged in any contract within the meaning of the Act 224 Geo. W. chap. 45." Counsel for the petition relinquished further oppo- sitien to Mr. Somea's olotion.