Debates anti 113rottahvgs in Varliament.

Navy Esrimerne.

The House of Commons, on Monday, having gone into a Committee of Supply, Mr. WARD moved the Navy Estimates; and in doing so discussed the general policy of our maritime armament. His friend Mr. Hume had told him that he regarded the number of men as the root of the evil which he saw in the present policy: that was the important point. The broad question, whether the course pursued by Parliament for the last five or six years should be continued or not, depended on the settlement of this point. Me Hume and his friends thought the expenditure of that period had been profligate. Mr. Ward thought it wise; and he called on the House to decide between them. 11.3 dealing with the past expenditure, he should leave details to the Committee upon the Navy Estimates, and deal only with the general principle of the policy lately pursued. The question was, whether it were right or wrong to vote some 1,425,3081. to cover the expense of 27,000 seamen, 2,000 boys, and 13,500 ma- rines. There has been no division for nearly twenty years on the question of the amount of force to be kept up. The lowest vote ever taken was in 1817, for 19,000 men. In 1819, the number was 20,000; in 1823,25,000; in 1824, 29,060; in 1825, 30,000; from 1826 to 1830 it was 27,000; in 1835, 26,000, in 1836-7, 33,000; in 1837-8, 34,000; in 1840-1, 39,000; and in 1841-2, 42,000, or the same as this year. in 1843-4 the force fell again to 39,000, and in 1844-5 it was re- duced to 36,000. This last number was taken by Sir James Graham as the standard of a peace establishment; yet in 1845-6, though profound peace continued, the num- ber of 40,000 was found necessary. In the next year it was thought that more ma- rines still should be added, and 1,500 were asked and obtained: the same number are asked in the present year. Why had there been this constant and progressive in- crease? Certainly, from no abstract love of taxation in the country : rather from a feeling that one power should not stand still while others progressed. The most peril- ous position of all was the position of a nation at once wealthy and weak. It is in vain to rely wholly on either the binding influence of Free Trade or the peace- able tendencies of Democracy. The one might present effects in a hundred years hence: the events in Mexico did not inspire confident hopes from the other. The principle of trusting only to yourself is good, wholesome, and practical—worth a bushel of theories. Lord Castlereagh gave evidence before the Finance Com. mittee of 1817, that the principle acted on before that year was, that this country should maintain a fleet equal to the fleets of any two other powers which could be combined against it; and that Committee itself reported, that an illudged tempo- rary economy might ultimately produce great ulterior expenses. The next epoch in the naval expenditure was 1844, when Sir Robert Peel and Lord Aberdeen were in office: a large increase took place, under those most pacific Ministers, and with the sanction of Sir James Graham, the great naval economist of 1834. The votes for men were raised from 958,7611. in 1834, to 1,328,0531. in 1845: for wages, from 348,0121. to 649,1041.; for stores, from 499,1901. to 1,278,7891.; with a vote of 185,0001. as a supplementary estimate. The Administration of that time saw steam navies growing up around them, in France, Russia, and the United States. A new element of warfare arose, and a change of system became indispensable. We must keep our place, or lose our superiority. The extent of our colonial empire was the reason we must keep up such a multiplicity of stations abroad; for we must be enabled to come in contact with the fleets of other nations which we found in every part of the globe. Another reason for the increase in the Naval Estimates of the past few years was the false economy which had been for a series of years adopted, and which had reduced our establishments to a poverty of stocks that could not be con- tinued. In 1832, the stock of timber in the dockyards was 64,023; in 1839, it was 46,395. In the same time, the stock of hemp was reduced from 7,827 tons to 4,673 tons; of canvassorfrom 36,041 bolls to 17,427 bolls; and of sets of tig- ging, from 101 sets to 36; with a proportionate reduction on sails, yarn, cables, cordage, and lower masts. The late Ministry had made immense additions to our naval stores; and no wiser act hadheen performed by them than their repara- tion of the effects of the bastard economy wlfich had before been practised. Now, was the system of efficiency so restored to be abandoned ? There has been a large expenditure on permanent works, not yet finished, in all the principal dock- yards: was that money to be thrown away, by the leaving of those works un- finished? The legitimate fruits of the expenditure would be reaped if the ex- penditure were prolonged but one more year. The largest vote for the present year was the sum of 688,6001. fur public works: that vote, he could undertake, would in 1849-50 be reduced to 473;0001. The works at Woolwich and Chat- ham have been finished, and those at Portsmouth would be completed next year. At Malta, the expense would be reduced by 214,0001. next year, and after that, by 60,0001. or 70,0001. more each year, till 1854, when the whole works com- menced will be finished, and the expenses reduced to the annual charge of super- intendence.

Upon steam machinery the expenses have been increased during the last ten years. The vote under that head will be reduced in 1849-50 from 281:0001. to 100,0001. The naval force then would have been raised to 450 ships of different classes, including a steam navy of 121 vessels of an aggregate power of 45,060 horses. The savings would be these— /few Works £210000 4:643

Steam Machinery 180.000

Iron Steamers, (the contracts for which are complete) 25,000

Ship-bending at Bombay to be discontinued 25,000 Steam Guard-ahlps 8,500 Ship-tank at Bermuda 3,710 Total £456,853

A further saving may be added for labour and stores, of 150,0001.; which will bring the total decrease of the Estimates for 1849-50 to 606,8531. These reduc- tions would still permit the full maintenance of the present efficient footing dour establishments; and they would allow us to reap the fall return of the enormous expenditure of the last six years. The outlay-on steam machinery since 1835 has been 2,689,0001.; on iron steam-vessels, 503,7981.; since 1844, the cost of stores, without machinery, has been 4,444,9381.; and of works, also without machinery, the sum of 2,794,7421., or a total on the four items of 10,432,4781. The result would be a raising of the steam navy from 4,153 to 50,000 horse-power; and the perfecting of great works at Portsmouth and Woolwich, fitting those places to undertake all steam repairs. The works at Malta would fit that place to undertake the whole steam repairs of the Mediterranean fleet; and those at Bermuda, after thirty years' neglect, will make that a station worthy of a great naval power. It rested with the House of Commons to say if these great results should be sacrificed, and the system which was commenced in 1844, and which was their origin and, cause, should be laid aside and reversed. Should the labour and ex- pense of the past be thrown away, and the resources of the country be Penna. nently crippled? Mr. Ward devoted some remarks to observations made on the distribution of our ships and the employment of the crews. Let the citizens of Palermo, Messina, and other ports in the South of Europe, be asked if a British fleet in the Mediter- ranean were useless? The answer would be a tribute of worthy praise to the wise economy and the useful and protective administration of that fleet by Sr William Parker. On the Pacific we had twelve ships, manned by 3,495 mem The operations of this force in the midst of the disturbances in Spanish Amen!' had been eminently protective of British interests. Our fleet in the East India had protected our commerce in the China seas, and had cleared the Indian seo, of pirates. As to our fleet in the Tagus, it had, under its indefatigable coreMlow' er Sir Charles Napier, become among the best naval schools that England ever produced. ' air. Ward thought that constituencies who had most loudly demanded economy -would be the first to cry out in condemnation of the abandonment of the present efficient state of our establishments. For his own part, he would at once resign rather than forego the great results which a wise policy was now on the eve of perfectin. The Caansaraer was about to put the question of the vote of 593,0001.; but Mr. HUME objected: it had been understood that no money was to be voted till the Committee had reported. He would agree to a vote of men, in order that the Mutiny Bill may be passed; but to ask for money would be a breach of faith. Mr. WARD said, the number of men was a question of prerogative. Sir CHARLES Wows said, there was no distinct vote ever made of men for the Navy as in the case of the Army: the course now proposed was the only one that could be adopted. Mr. HUME said, how then was he to effect any reduction he desired? Mr. GLADSTONE, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, and Mr. CORRY, questioned the correctness of these views as to the usual course. At last, Mr. Wenn rose and explained that he had made a great mistake: he found the proper resolution among his papers, and bad given the wrong one in first. Much laughter was provoked by this confession. Lord Lrateorsts and Mr. DISRAELI excited farther merri- ment by comments on the novel doctrines of prerogative, and the ready arguments founded on them.

Mr. Heats resumed.

He saw that the policy of increased estimates was fairly avowed; and be feared, therefore, that all criticism of details would be useless. The Estimates had been prepared under a very different state of Europe from the present. The only naval powers who rival us at all are France and the United States; but both of those powers are now too mach occupied with other affairs to give us any uneasiness. The experiment of reduction should be fairly entered on at once. It might com- mence with economy in all perishable stores. In respect to those matters, there was nothing more worthy of approval than the course pursued by Sir James Gra- ham when he was at the head of the Admiralty. Mr. flume objected to the wide scattering over the world of our ships, as productive of no possible use, but much possible mischief. What earthly necessity is there for keeping a strong fleet on the West coast of America, now that the questions in controversy with the United States were settled? In the Mediterranean two frigates would have fully protected our commerce. What had we to do with a regiment and a fleet at Buenos Ayres? One day we told France she might make what changes in her government she chose; next day we interfered and overawed a people, at an immense cost and with the grossest inconsistency. Mr. flume went over the ground which Mr. Ward had traversed in respect to the increase of the present Estimates over those of 1835; giving more details, and declaring his shame that he had allowed the increases of each year, which had been made for meeting temporary exigencies, to become permanent advances. He stated among other facts, that the Admiralty appointments were in 1885 but 1,786; in 1845 they were 2,301; at present they are no fewer than 3,479. - It was not decrease of revenue which could be a cause of anxiety—there had been an increase—but the large and continuous increase of the expenditure. The ordinary annual revenue, in the twelve years from 1831 to 1842, was 50,258,0001. in 1835, the lowest, and 52,837,0001. in 1836, the highest. The total annual ex- penditure in eight years, from 1831 to 1838, was 48,787,0001. in 1835, the lowest, and 51,720,0001. in 1838, the highest. There was, therefore, more than sufficient revenue to meet the expenditure. If he took the average of the ordinary revenue from 1831 to 1840, 51,161,0001,Am:1 thatain 1841 and 1842, 51,813,0001, there was a surplus of 651,0001. in 1841 and 1842 over the average of the preceding ten years. If he took the ordinary revenue of 1846-47, 57,597,0001., and deducted the 5,543,0001. of Income-tax, being 5e,054,000L, the ordinary revenue that year exceeded by 241,0001. the average of 1841 and 1842. This state of the revenue held out a consolatory hope of the elasticity of the resources of the country; show- ing that the Government had good materials to work upon, which only required judicious management. He hoped that the House would consent to a motion he moved for bringing down the grant to the Crown below that voted last year, and reducing the men to the number of 86,000 men. Even that reduction, however, was only a part of what must be done. He wished to maintain the defences of _the eountry., but not at a point inconsistent with the continuance of public credit. In conclusion, he moved that the number of men be 36,000 instead of 43,000; being a reduction of 7,000 men.

Mr. CORRY entered into a comparison of the Estimates of 1831 with those of 1846-7.

He selected the year 1831, as a year in which Sir James Graham was First Lord of the Admiralty, under a different Ministry from that of 1846-7; and also because all the Estimates since 1831 bore a character distinctly traceable to the footing on which the Navy establishment was placed in 1831. The increase of 1846-7 over 1831 was 2,127,6151. This great increase arose chiefly in connexion with steam navigation; the total charge of which had amounted to 1,204,0001.: if to that amount were added 602,0001. for the packet service, and 298,0001. for the expenses attendant on adding 6,323 men, the sum of 2,104,0001. out of the total increase of 2,127,0001. was accounted for. The great item having thus been on account of steam navigation, he hoped the charge of extravagance was no longer tenable. Those expenses, however, might hereafter be much reduced. The French Navy Estimates of last year provided for 29,331 men, exclusively of 11,000 more granted under another head. Yet France had in addition 1,500,000 men under arms. How could we do less than we were doing, in the face of these facts? The reason of his preference of 1831 over 1835 was, that in the latter year we lived on our stores and stock: such a system was not safe, though its economy looked agreeable. The consequences told heavily on the following years, when the deficiency had to be made up.

Mr. Batman COCHR.ANE briefly opposed 34r. Hume's amendment; Mr. AGLIONBY made an inquiry, amid laughter, about Captain Warner's in- ventions; and Mr CUMMING Banos intimated his intention to vote with the Ministers.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM defended the policy pursued by him in 1831 and the following years. The charge had before been made, and he thought successfully refuted, when he had a fresher memory of the facts and an access: to the documents that fur- nished his defence. The real efficiency of the Navy department had been in- creased under his care, rather than diminished; the only reductions made having been in those perishable articles which were disadvantageous to store, and did not preaeat difficulties in their sudden replenishment. Mach money had been abeo- ly thrown away on such accumulations. Mr. Ward had moved the Estimates in a most pugnacious style, and had even gone so far as to move the Estimates of futureyears in addition to those of the present. The precise KIM that may be Saved for 1849-50 is stated, neither more nor less; so that the duties of the Select Committee were superseded. Sir James explained, that there were peculiar circumstances to justify the Es- timates of Sir Robert Peel's Administration, which do not now exist. The China war had been carried through to success; in 1844 a serious misunderstanding with France arose, and afterwards a similar one with the United States. The circumstances of the year are the only justification of its estimates. What, then, are the present circumstances j' They present great difficulty and high responsi- bility. In fact, the votes proposed resolve themselves, as indeed votes of na- tional armament frequently do, into a vote of confidence in the Govern- ment. Sir James would frankly express his individual opinions on the existing position. " I conceive, Sir, that the Continental Powers--France, for instance, which has an extended and open frontier—may maintain large standing armies, a force necessary for maintaining the safety and independence of the state, without justly exciting the jealousy of Great Britain. But, on the other hand, I sin bound to say that great naval preparations on the part of France—she not having many colonies, or an extended commercial marine scattered throughout the world —whether for ships or for the establishment of forts and defences on the Chan- nel coast, would not appear to me at any time to be a defensive policy. I could not fail to regard such preparations as an offensive policy, and as really demand- ing the close and jealous attention of the Executive Government, and I will also add, the jealousy—the patriotic jealousy—of the Representatives of the People.* With regard to the past, a pamphlet had been written by a French naval officer which led the French Chamber to consent to very large additional naval expenditure. "I really must say," continued Sir James, " under such circum- stances, I conceive that a British Government would have neglected its duty, and would have been guilty of risking in the highest degree the safety, honour, and independence of this country, if, having failed to protest against such reck- less expenditure, (which in time of peace I think is much to be regretted, for we have thus a rivalry of expenditure instead of a rivalry.p of commerce and of friendly intercourse) it had not made some preparations for defence." "Unless Great Britain maintains her lead in naval preparations—stands at the bead of the maritime powers of the world at all times and under all circum stances—if she is not without dispute the mistress of the British Channel—I say distinctly, advisedly, and with much forethought on the subject, that these intact shores, on which a foreign enemy has never trod, may be exposed at any time to that most disgraceful and horrid outrage a national invasion; and the battle of independence will be fought, not upon the seas, but upon your own shores. (" Hear, hear! ") Our naval supremacy should under no circumstances be risked. I think, then, that the force proposed by her Majesty's Government at this time is by no means excessive, and that any diminution of that force would not be con- sistent with the public safety. I would not now put the Government in the si- tuation to tell you whether they could, consistently with present circumstances, reduce the expenditure required for that force. I beg they may not be dragged into discussion. Let it not be supposed that anything I have said has heen said otherwise than with a desire for peace. My earnest desire, and my fervent prayer is, that the peace of the world may be preserved. (Cheers.) My belief is that British influence and power, in the last extremity of danger, may go far to secure that object: but I entreat the Government not to be dragged into any discussion upon that point. I speak to gentlemen whose sense and whose patriotism must show them, that if it was unwise a month ago to diminish the safeguards of the nation, this is not the moment when, with a view to peace, to our national inde- pendence, and to the maintenance of that position which renders us almost the arbitrers of peace with the rest of Europe, our arm of peace should be paralyzed or shortened in the slightest degree. I cannot tell you how deeply and sincerely I feel on this subject. " Something has been said about jobbing, place-bunting, and patronage, as being the cause of the expensive estimates submitted to the House. I believe that there has been nothing like jobbing or place-hunting: but there is a tendency on the part of every officer of every branch of the public departments to wish to have those departments in the highest possible order, at a comparative recklessness of expense. We have now arrived at a point with reference both to revenue and ex- penditure when such expense must be checked with a firm and determined hand. Now,1 am quite prepared to vote for a force of 43,000 men. I decidedly approve of the proposed increase in the marines; I consider it a most judicious step. But I should be sorry, by thus expressing my approval of the number of men voter] to be concluded in the opinion that considerable savings may not be effected shall still do my best, in the Committee, of which I in common with several otha gentlemen am a member, to point oat every saving, not only in the Navy, but the Army and Ordnance Estimates, which I think, on the principles I have en- deavoured to state, can be effected without impairing the real efficienca4f any branches of our means of defence. I am not more sanguine than my bronourable friend as to the extent of this saving; but I think the Committee vriA have done their duty when they have done this." In reference to Mr. Cobden's censures on a former oceriaioa, ;Sir James adduced testimony to the value of the Tagus as a naval centre 4 operations. " 1 well remember Sir Thomas Hardy telling me, as the result of communications between him and Lord Nelson, that the Tagus was to be regarded by this country as the most important naval station in Europe; that for all purposes of home defence a squadron placed in the Tagus is even better placed than at Cork or at Plymouth. It commands the Gut of Gibraltar on the one side; . it is open to the Atlantic and the West Indies; it juts finely out as a point of departure to all our Western possessions on the American shores; with reference to flit Chops of the Channel it is most advantageously placed; and, for one, apart from all political con- siderations, I never can consider a squads.. ylaced rai the Tagus except as a squadron immediately available either for Mediterranean or for Channel service as may be best. Therefore I have no doubt that that is a great naval position, care- fully to be guarded, and constantly to be occupied by a British naval force." Sir James stated his opinion that the decision of Parliament with regard tO slave-grown sugar was certainly in some measure at variance with the mainte- nance of the squadron on the African coast in its present state. He also thought that the enormous expense of our armament in the River Plate should make us reconsider the 'spiky of our interference there. He could not, without a pan for time rest of his lifii, consent to lessen the present numbers of our seamen or marines by one single man.

Lord SEYMOUR urged the utmost efforts at reduction of expenditure.

Lord INOESTRE gave his opinion that the country would never submit to have the right arm of its power weakened. He adverted to Captain War- ner, and would prove 3,000,000& a year might be saved by his inventions. (" Oh, oh! " Laughter.)

Mr. Connzai asserted that the House of Commons is responsible for the expenditure on the Navy; and if they were responsible for its expenditure, they must be so for voting it away. He protested against the doctrine that secret reasons, known only to the Ministers, justify the abdication of its functions by the House.

" There are no secrets now-a-days: if there be let us have them." (Laughter.) Much advantage would result from the national concerns being enshrouded from the mysteries of diplomacy. Transactions are already known by the public through the press before the Government is aware of them. Increases, asked for each year, on special reasons of foreign policy, have become permanent augmen- tations. Secretaries of State pretend that a large navy is necessary to protect commerce: but ships of war have but little to do with commerce. The Mediter- ranean is filled with our ships, while our exports to the coast of that sea are in the great mass made by foreign houses. Our merchants are superseded there by Swiss, German, and Greek merchants, living on the spot. As for the protection against pirates, too, the real protection is the same on the seas that it is on the land: steam navigation is doing for the secluded coasts and islands as regards pirates, what turnpike-roads and mail.coaehes did in English counties for high- way robbers. There is no such a thing now heard of as a square-rigged vessel attacked by pirates; though the prabus in the Indian seas may attack and plop der the Malaya and Chinese verisels and towns.

Mr. Cobden referred to the debates of the French Chambers to show how the

preparations of this country had constantly formed the reasons for emulative ad.. vanes in the French Navy Estimates. Returning to the debates of the House of Commons of 1847, he quoted from Mr. Ward's speech on moving the Navy Estimates, to show the reactive effect on ourselves of those preparations which we Brat stimulated. He quoted Mr. Ward's laudations of French liberality in con- tending with the natural disadvantages of her Channel coast; his significant in- formation on French works, and parallels between them and our own; the 231 acres of dockyard at Cherbourg, and sixteen ships building; the 127 smithery fires at Brest, contrasted with our 48 only at Portsmouth; and Mr. Ward's warn- ings of our heavy responsibility and duty to give a proportionate development in time of peace to our resources against time of war. Such proceedings are a great game which children might be ashamed to play.; . and it is only the serious- ness of the matter to our tax-nddea countrymen which prevents laughter at the imbecility of such courses. Compare the naval expense of the American Government with our own. The Nav Estimates of the United States, before the commencement of the late hos- tilities, were 1,200,0001.; and yet her exports last year were about two-thirds of our own. Their war estimates for the present year—the estimates for naval, military, and every civil expense, including President's salary and all—were but 11,000,0001. Yet that country is the only one on earth that Mr. Cobden looks on ES permanently connected with and capable of affecting our own destinies. He alluded to the aubject to which his remarks elsewhere had attracted the public attention—the condition of our Navy in the Mediterranean; and reiterated the statements which he had already made. Our vessels he for four, five, or six mouths of the winter in the harbour of Valetta; and their crews daring that time fall into courses of drunkenness and immorality truly frightful He had seen as many as 8,500 seamen there at once. Such scenes as were witnessed were the natural and necessary result of the gatheringof so large a body of men in idleness. With regard to the testimony of Lord Nelson on the value of the Tagus as a naval station, he had not yet beard that this was the reason our fleet was ordered there. It has, in fact, been lately. ordered to disappear very suddenly from the station. The climate and the society of Lisbon combined to render it a most demoralizing place for the idle concentration of our fleet. It is a current joke of one of our hue-of-battle ships, that she lay so long in the Tagus as to have gone aground on the beef-bones thrown over her aide. Mr. Cobden recurred to the question of the Estimates. In 1835, when the Navy was at. its lowest, he began his political life by writing pamphlets to show its unnecessarily great expense. He held those opinions still, and thought that the electors of the country more to blame for the great votes than the Ministries who had in succession held the government. If the expenditure were to be in- creased, he would vote for its being borne by those who have 1501. a year, rather than by the working classes. " Your peasant working at his plough, and your weaver at his loom, have no fear. It is the other classes who are always asking for this increased protection; and if they want it the' must pay for it. What a lesson is now being read to us all over Europe I Every day the post brings accounts of the march of revolution; and what is the primary cause of thin? No doubt, the barthens of the people. The primary cause is the suffering of the people. It would have been better if they had had the reasoning power to avert the burthen in another way, rather than be led to revolution; but there is no doubt that the great cause has been the heavy expenditure, particularly for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance. Mr. Charles Sumner, of the United States, has published a work to prove that the stan ' armaments of Europe cost

diiii

200,0000001. a year, gad that they withdraW npw ds of 2,000;000 in the flower Of manhood from, industrious occupations. ,. e estimates their labour at 60,000,0001. more; making an annual loss of 160,000,0001 to tiirope. Copia any- thing but disaster and suffering flow from such a state of things? L4king at the middle ages, we find the monastic system then in full operation: great num- betts,were shut up in cloisters; and much of the distress which fell on the people we atttibute to such a state of society. But I wish to know the difference be- s.ween keepinetwo or three millions of people in. black cloaks in dungeons, and keeping two or-tbreer millions in red coats in barracks. In either cat* they have

,-.. to be .supported,"

"I sus :melees that in this country we should take the matter in 'hand in time. I believe atiaareateet daug. r is to be apprehended from financial difficulties. You talk of borrowing from the reserved fund. They must go to borrow from the Bank..' Then the ,Bank, is distress, is obliged to press upon the commercial in- terest. Most of oure panics, I believe, have arisen from the illicit oommerce be- tween the Bank and tike Government. You are in danger of a bad harvest. That is always on the cards. Your danger from foreign invasion is nothing as com- pared with the danger from your own finances. The danger is not from a falling- off of revenue—that is good—but from your inordinate expenditure. I wish honourable gentlemen, when they brace up their courage against foreign foes, would at the same time have courage to face their own difficulties. I have no fear of invasion. Nobody, I believe, thinks of molesting us. If we can only in- mese the number of prosperous people and diminish the number of paupers, and at the same time of sailors, ynii will be stronger than you are by your present course in doing all at the expense of the prosperity, etwesand comfort of the mass of the population." (Loud cheers.) Admiral DUNDAS thought it necessary to contradict the statements of Mr. Cobden with regard to the Navy discipliise in the Mediterranean.

The American Consul at Malta had written to say he had had no communica- tion with Mr. Cobden for ten years: and Sir William Parker was at a loss to know what ship it could be that lay at Malta while Mr. Cobden cruised to Naples and back. Not ten men in the House believed the representations of the discipline to be correct.

Mr. Como= explained. It was in the winter and spring of 1836-7 that the incident occurred which lie had related. His movements had been perfectly notorious throughout Europe. (" Oh, oh!") • Lord PALMERSTON rose not to defend the British Navy: " the blood of Douglas can protect itself"— Re commented on the extracts which had been read from the French debates, and deduced from them a testimony to the sound plain sense of considering the forces of your neighbours in preparing your own. The remarks on the needless- ness of a navy to protect our own commerce are answered by the incessant com- plaints he almost every day received from distant merchants, that they had not seen a British cruiser for mouths, and their constant demands of the protection of the British flag. Lord Palmerston objected to the appeal to ploughmen and weavers which Mr. Cobden had made. ' I do not think it right that we should strip the country of that defence which our Army and our Navy throw around it, and rely upon the vaunted protection which the doctrines of free trade may afford. (Great cheering.) Those doctrines .I have often praised as doctrines tending to peace • but they are not doctrines which can be substituted for the material and

ial protection which a navy can impart." He thought that no rational man ug at the future, linked as it was with uncertain events, could wish the least reduction of our establishments.

Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND protested against the traducing of the naval profession, though he did not belong to it; and he supported the Govern- ment Estimates.

He avowed his distrust of all Ministries, especially such as were formed of is and astronomers—(Laughter)—and of counsels proceeding from any body of 900 illiterate paupers. lie thought we were safe up to the moment we could repel assault, and not one moment longer; and he conjured the House to reject the idea that the military establishments were all for the behoof of the genteel classes, or the imagination that the Throne could stand safely upon cotton, any more than the Queen could sit with security upon spinning-jennies. (Laughter and cheers.) Several other Members spoke; but their speeches demand no special mention. The House divided, and negatived Mr. Hume's motion, by 347 to 38. The resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.

THE INCOME-TAR.

On Monday, the resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means im- posing the Income-tax were reported; and the question was put that they should be agreed to.

Mr. HUME, abandoning all thought of further opposition to the continr.a- tion of the tax for three years, hoped stik however, he might suggest that the bill to carry the resolutions into effect should be referred to a Cora mittee up-stairs, in order if possible to remove the gross inequalities of the present operation of the tax. Mr. SLANEY "implored " and Sir DE Lux Evews "entreated" the Government to entertain Mr. Hume's suggestion.

Sir CHARLES WOOD was firm in refusing. No plan had been proposed that would not lead to individual injustice as painful as any inflicted under the present scheme; which was that pursued at all times and in all cone. tries where an income-tax had ever been imposed.

Mr. TRELAWNEY and Lord JOHN Russum. supported this view. The latter considered Mr. Horsman's the most skilfully framed modification of any proposed ; yet he thought that many persons, whom that scheme would rate 8(1. in the pound, would be placed under grievances which Mr. Horsman would find it difficult to justify. Mr. COBDEN adduced a remark in a late speech of Mr. M`Gregor, to op pose the Chancellor of the Exchequer's quotation of the authority of fo- reign countries as in favour of the present scheme of income-tax: Mr. M'Gregor had, be believed, stated that in no other country in tha world is tax on income levied at all. The CHANCELLOR of the Exemnariuu replied by another quotation from Mr. M'Gregor; one of whose works mentions South Carolina as a state which imposes such a tax. Mr. 1PGREGOR explained, that in the speech alluded to by Mr. Cobden he had confined himself to the larger powers: South Carolina, and also the free European towns of Frank- fort, Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck, alllevied a tax on income. He agreed as to the great difficulty of improvement, but thought some alterations might well be made.

Dr. Bowaneta thought that if the tax was continued on its present foot- ing, the difficulty and annoyance to the public functionaries) in collecting it would become very great. Mr. Housman thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at direct issue with the public at large in his opinion that the tax cannotle improved. The feeling that improvements may be made is so general—in many districts it is unanimous—that it would be but a fair and just defer- ence to opinion to grant some Committee of inquiry.

The resolutions were agreed to; and it was ordered that a bill founded on them be brought in.

IRISH TENANT-RIGHT.

The morning sitting of Wednesday was principally occupied by a debate on Mr. Sharman Crawford's Oixtgoilig Tenants (Ireland) Bill, on a motion by Mr. SuAnataar Csavencatis. to read Ir. :second time. He explained that his bill was intended simply to conftruahy law relations which were already in existence. Tenant-right has existed since the seventeenth century; and has been recog- nized in sales, mortgages, and in acts of Parliament, as a species of real property. The report of Lord. Devon's Commission 'expressed a decided opinion that there should be legislative interference to secure the right. The common law of Eng- land recognizes, and adopts-es part of itself, the customary law of particular lo- calities; but it is not so in Ireland, and it is to cure this defect that the bill is in- tended. The right is called " Ulster tenant-right," from its extensive prevalence in that part of Ireland; not because it is universal there, or confined to that part elope. This difference, however, generally deracterizes the right as it exists in parts beyond Ulster—that it is only a right between the outgoing and incoming tenant, and is not also recognized by the landlord as it is in the North. Mr. Crawford ad- duced the instances of Switzerland, Norwayi-and particulir provinces in India, in contrast with others, to show the great benefits to a population of its having a secured interest and property in the occupation of the soil which it cultivates. His bill was aimed at the correction and not at the continuation of the abuses of the right, which he admitted had existence in some parts of Ireland. For a tenant to claim a right under it, he must at least be able to show that he has been industrious and has increased the value of the land.. The whole value of tenant- right depends on this increased value, and the right to occupancy is founded upon it. With respect to the bill of Sir William Somerville, it was unsuitable to the cases of three-fourths of the Irish tenants, andwould destroy the rights of many wheat present enjoy the custom. If it passed into law, landlords would abide by the law and not by the custom. Eves Mr. Henry Drummond's bill was mach preferable, and more capable of being made useful. Mr. TRELAWNEY moved that the bill be read that day six months.

He bad the strongest persuasion of Mr. Crawford's good intentions; but thought the bill would work much such a confiscation as he might work if he crossed the House, took Mr. Crawford's watch, and gave it to the first beggar he met. He moreover defended evictions, as the only means by which farms can be consoli- dated and the land be enabled to maintain the increasing population. The bill would deny to landlords the fair opportunity of improving their estates, just as the burthen of a new poor-law has been thrown on them.

The other speakers againat.the bill were Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE,— who commented on the multitudinons and varying definitions which Mr. Crawford had given, in the history of his bill, of its subject the " Ulster tenant-right "; and Sir -RZNJAMIN HALL,—who thought it would be an actual injustice and confiscation to. extend this right (all very well as an ancient custom in the North) over the whole of Ireland. Sir Benjamin added to the list of definitions of tenant-right one by Mr. John O'Connell, lately given in these words of confiscation- " Now, what is tenant-right? It is this—that a tenant, whether he be a te- nant-at-will or a tenant with an expired lease, shall not be obliged to leave the land until he has sold the possession of it to the highest bidder he can find; and if he cannot find a bidder the landlord shall not turn him out." The speakers for the bill were Mr. MAURICE PONVER,—who thought the Government bill "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare "; Mr. E. B. ROCHE, and Mr. SADLIER,—who both,. however, reserved any approval of details, and desired to see alterations in Committee. Mr. HUME spoke at length on the past Irish misrule; and suggested the postponement of the bill, that Government might consider what general improvements in the law of land-

tenure it could introduce. -

Mr. CALLAGHAN thought the bill did not go far enough. As Mr. NA- PIER was speaking, the hour of six drew near; and, on Mr. BROTHERTON'S suggestion, the debate was adjourned till Wednesday the 5th of ApriL

GAME-LAWS.

On Thursday, Mr. BRIGHT moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Game-laws. He explained that his measure was based, not on the re- port, but on the evidence collected by the Select Committee which he ob- tained in 1845; and he made large quotations from that evidence to prove that the statements he advanced in moving for the Committee had been amply corroborated by the witnesses. He cited a great quantity of evidence, with figures, showing the damage done to farmers' crops by preserves of game. In one case the damage was estimated M 1181. for 30 acres of wheat; in another, at 1721. for 45 acres; 4161. for 223 acres. Mr. Posey stated before the Committee, that a small proprietor in the neighbourhood of a large cover might be injured to the extent of at least 501. per cent on the rental. Where game is strictly preserved, Mr. Bright added, the loss to the tenant exceeds all the payments he has to make for local and general taxa- tion. Every tenant-farmer who was asked the question declared that game is injurious to agriculture, and therefore prevents the expenditure of capital on land. A landowner examined by the Committee, an advocate for the Game-laws, admitted that his present tenant on a large farm was " bumptious," and that the three previous tenants had given up the farm. Mr. Bright quoted statistics de- rived from the Home Office and other sources to prove that offences arising out of the Game-laws, now amounting to 5z000 cases annually, continually increase; that the laws cannot be faithfully. administered by magistrates, who are generally advocates for game-preserving,—insomuch that Sir George Grey has recommended that cases of night-poaching be tried at the Assizes rather than the Sessions; and that the custom of poaching begets criminal habits and a general disrespect for the laws of the country.

No modification of the Game-laws has hitherto prevented these evils; and the Government bill before the House [to permit the killing of hares by occupiers without a game-certificate] is a mockery of legislation. His own bill simply repeals the Game-laws, without touching the subject of trespass. If it were pro- posed to have another game-law under the name of a law of trespass, he should strenuously oppose it; but if a clause were suggested for the bona fide protection of property, he should be willing to consider it.

The motion was seconded by Mr. COWAN; supported by Mr. W. P. WOOD, and Sir HARRY VERNEY as a farmer. It was opposed by Colonel SIEntoRP,—who suspected Mr. Bright to be capable of no kind of sport- ing but such as he might enjoy in a punt tinder Westminster Bridge; by Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, Mr. BAILLIE _COCHRANE, and Mr. NEWDE- GATE. Sir GEORGE GREY expressed himself indebted to Mr. Bright for intro- ducing the subject; but he could not consent to the introduction of his In passing, Sir George said a few emphatic words on the subject of battue- shooting,—a practice utterly unworthy of English gentlemen. He admitted that injury is done to crops by hares and pheasants; but maintained that tenants are quite able to protect themselves in making arrangements with their landlords. He contended that the privilege to kill hares, which perhaps might be advan- tageously extended to pheasants, would mitigate the present evils. He denied

that the number of offences against the i Game-laws is increasing. The whole number of persons imprisoned for such offences in 1845 was 2,796—a lower num- ber than that in any preceding year. The effect of repealing the Game-laws, without providing checks against trespass, would be that every estate would be overran by persons in search of game; while, to be effective, a new trespass-law must be so stringent as to be intolerable.

Mr. GEORGE ToomPsom moved the adjournment of the debate. This was resisted by SirCisormit" Garr and Mr. FORMES MACKENZIE; and negatived by 87 to 82. As the -opponents of the measure persevered in resisting the adjournment, Dr. Bowanvo moved that the House do adjourn: a motion which was eagerly seconded, promptly put by the SPEAKER, and Carried amidst roars of laughter.

[Dr. Bowring's'naotion was meant to be retributive: as Ministers Would pot aid in adjourning the debate,ise intended to cut short the business of the evening: the adjournment of the House, however, las the effect of copverting the undetermined motion into a dropped order, so that it is set aside for the present; and the House laughed at finding Dr. Bowring self- entrapped.]

Ex-ROYAL FAMILY Or FRANCE.

On Tuesday, to a question by Mr. CRARTERIS, as to whether it was true that Lord Normanby had been instructed to apologize for the asylum afforded in this country to the Royal Family of France, Lord PALMER- STON replied—

"There is no foundation for any statement that any communication of the kind to which the honourable gentleman has alluded, or of any kind, has taken place between her Majesty's Government and Lord Normanby with regard to the Royal Family of France. It is true, however, that Lord Normanby did convey in a private letter to me a statement that a good deal of misapprehension and jealousy was likely to arise on the part of persons in France in regard to the reception which might be given in this country, not to the Royal Family, but to the Minis- ters of the late French Government. I, in aprivate letter, desired Lord Normanby,

in case any such feeling should be expressed, at once to state that the reception

given to those persons was and would be the reception which in this country is always given to men who from unfortunate circumstances are obliged to seek

refuge in England,—s reception of hospitality suitable to the occasion; but that be might be sure, in our dealings with the French Government her Majesty's Ministers would act fairly, honourably, and openly, and under no circumstances would there be any ground for supposing that we would engage in any intrigue hostile to the Government of France." Lord DUDLEY STUART asked for explanation respecting the report that some documents had come into the possession of the Provisional Govern-

ment of France implicating the Duke and Dutchess de Montpensier in some most extraordinary transactions; and that the correspondence,' com- municated to her Majesty's Ministers, wasZhe cause of their Royal Highnesses'

hasty departure from this country. Lord Premiums said that no such communication has been made to her Majesty's Government from the Provisional Government of France— "I have not heard that any such correspondence, or correspondence of any kind affecting the Duke and Dutchess de Montpensier, has been found. I have no knowledge or belief of the kind; but at all events, no communication or inti- mation of that kind has been made to her Majesty's Government. With regard to the departure of the Duke and Dutchess de Montpensier, it is entirely the result of their own choice; and, so far from being the consequence of any communica- tion made by us, the House will at once see that there mast be many reasons why it would have been the desire of her Majesty's Government that they should have staid here, instead of going away." ("Hear head')

ELECTORAL CORRUPTION.

On Thursday, Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE moved the issue of a new writ for Harwich. Mr. BLACKSTONE again, as he had done twice last week, opposed the ssn e of the writ. He could not say he thought the borough deserved dis- franchisement; but there was a state of things requiring a remedy. A principle of the Reform Bill was declared by Lord Grey to be that no place having a less population than 4,000 should retain two Members. Harwich, how- ever, which had always been a favourite borough with Governments, only num- bered 3,371 in its population. To obviate that difficulty, a parish containing 936 inhabitants was added to the borough, and so Harwich was removed from schedule B. Since that time the number of the enlarged borough has fallen to 3,829. Mr. Blackstone believed that the neighbourhood of Harwich is popu- lous; and he moved as amendment to Mr. Mackenzie's motion, that leave be given to bring in a bill for extending the limits of the borough with a view to increasing the number of its electors.

Mr. Hume would have voted for Mr. Blackstone if Harwich had stood alone. Finding, however, that Yarmouth, Kinsale, Lancaster, Carlisle, Lincoln, Dundalk, Aylesbury, Bewdley, Derby, and Horsham, were at the last election in the same position as regarded bribery, be thought the House owed it to its own character to suspend the writs of all those places, and appoint a Committee of general inquiry into the prevalence of corruption. The law might perhaps be found capable of amendment.

The issue of the writ was supported by Mr. HENLEY, Sir Ds Liur EVANS, Mr. ELLIOT, Mr. STUART WORTLEY, (Chairman of the Commit- tee,) the Earl of ARUNDEL, Viscount CASTLEREAGH, and Sir WILLLLM MOLES WORTH. The amendment was supported by Sir BENJAMIN HALL, Dr. Bowalso, Mr. Ernes, and Captain HARRIS.

On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 195 to 64.

A further and a similar discussion ensued on the original motion. Among the speakers were Mr. Watunv and Mr. ELLIOT. The latter de- clared that Mr. Wakley had never made but one speech in the four years he had listened to him,—namely, " You are all a set of rogues, and I am the only honest man among you: the people outside know this very well." (Great laughter.) Mr. Wuttatv manifested some soreness at this attack.

The issue of the writ was carried, by 164 to 73.

Early in the same evening, Lord Couaramax announced that the Com- mittee on the Horsham election bad declared the return of Mr. John. Jervis void. Subsequently, the Earl of MARCH moved for the issue of a new writ. Mr. Hums moved that the writ should be withheld till the evi- dence be printed. The motion was withdrawn, and the amendment was carried.

ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN. Both Houses have unanimously voted addresses to her Majesty on the birth of another Princess. BEWDLEY. On Tuesday, Mr. MACKENZIE moved that a new writ be issued for Bewdley, in the room of Mr. Ireland, unseated on petition. Mr. HUME thought that the writ ought not to issue until the evidence taken by the Committee shall have been printed and laid before the House; and, on his motion, it was ordered that the evidence be printed. INCREASE OF BISHOPS. In reply to Lord STANLEY, on Thursday, the Mar- quis of LANSDOWNE stated that Government adhered to the opinion which they expressed on introducing theAshopric of ManchesW Bill, respecting an increase in the number of Bishops. -They thought that the Episcopal fund would be beat appropriated to that object: when the means in the bands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appeared sufficient for the purpose, it would be for the Crown ant. Parliament to consider the subject; but it would be impossible for the Commis- sioners to report upon the matter at present. OFFICIAL SALARIES. In reply to Mr. HUME, on Monday, Lord Seim Res SELL stated that, pending the In airy into the Estimates, new official appoint meats would be made subject to future reductions of salary. On this assurant Mr. HUME withdrew certain resolutions to affirm that rule. -

•

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES. On Monday, Mr. COWAN asked whether any mea- sure would be introduced by Government to repeal a law which had remained ob- solete till late occurrences in the Scottish Church have caused to be revived, and which requires that all the professors of the Universities Scotland shall be members a the Established Church there? The LORD AL,.. 7C.kTII said, he in- tended to bring in a bill on this subject, as soon as the slzki6 of public business would permit a hope of its being carried through. ILLEGAL HOUSE-DESTROYING BY Bum LANDLORPS. On Wednesday, Mr. Poularrr SCROPE asked, whether Government intended to prosecute the parties alluded to by Major M'Kie in his evidence printed in the fifth series of papers re- lating to the Irish Distress, who illegally destroyed several houses in Galway after ejecting the inmates, and so caused the deaths of several of those inmates by exposure ? Mr. Scrape attempted to go into explanations on this question; but was called to order by Members and by the SPEAKER. Later in the evening, however, he made an opportunity of explaining, that his object was to moot the question whether the acts alluded to in his question were not capital felonies with- in the scope of the Whiteboy Act, though committed by gentlemen of wealth and station. Sir GEORGE GREY said, he had read the facts referred to with deep pain: he believed, however, that a landlord acting in the way described was not liable by law to any criminal proceedings, and that no steps could be legally taken by the Government. Mr. Nerian confirmed this view of the law. COMmaRCE WITH BRAZIL. In reply to Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, on Tues- day, Lord PALMERSTON said that he had received advice from Lord,Howden, that the result of his communications with the Brazilian Government led him to despair for the present of concluding a conimercial treaty or a slave-trade treaty. " But Lord Howden wrote a despatch jest as the packet was sailing, which led me to think that it was possible a charge of opinion might perhaps take place in Bra- zil. At the same time, I cannot hold out to the House any confident expectation that in the present state of Brazil it is likely that any commercial treaty can be obtained. The Brazilians appear to be averse to any avoidable commercial en- gagement with European countries: they have a sort of notion that Great Britain is so dependent upon Brazil for the cenonnerce she carries on with that country, that we are willing to carry on that commerce on almost any terms the Brazilian Government may propose to us." (" Hear 1"atul a laugh.)