Debates arib iiirocretfings n iparlfament.

THE TARIFF.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Customs-duties, on Monday, Mr. CALLAGHAN moved- " That in removing the prohibition to the importation of any article, there ought not to be charged any duty on the raw material which should not be charged to articles the manufacture thereof; and that so long as living animals be chargeable with a fixed duty, salted provisions should be chargeable with an equivalent rate, and not removable from warehouse without payment thereof, except for exportation."

Mr. Gt.e.neroste opposed the motion- The Irish provision merchant, he said, had formerly efficient protection in the smallness of his prices. In 1827 the price of Irish beef was 6/. per tierce ; in 183142 it was 41 10s. to 51., in 1840 and 1841 it rose to 71. 15,.: the lowest price of beef in Hamburg is 51.5s., the highest 6/. The character of Irish pro- visions is at stake; for the supply has suffered under the pressure of the de- mand; which annually draws off many cattle and many of the best parts of the bullock to the English market ; while the shipowner is now obliged to pay

7/. 15s. for the same article which fifteen years ago cost only 41.10s. or 5/. The existing law is evaded by wholesale : the number of bonds taken out at the

Customhouse for the shipment of foreign provisions in bonds within a few years was 2,176; the number of certificates of the provisions having been landed at the port of destination was only 835.

Mr. LABOUCHERE entirely concurred with Mr. Gladstone ; and Sir ROBERT PEEL remarked, that the change of which so much was made was only a reduction of duty from 12s. to 8s. Mr. EDMUND BURKE ROCHE declared that the Tariff carried throughout the whole of its de- tails protection to English produce ; but the only great article of Irish produce was to be dealt with in a way which would be worse than having an entire free trade in it. Lord Joast RUSSELL thought that the principle of the proposition was entirely fair, and he only regretted that the Corn-laws had not been dealt with, during the present session, on the same sound principle. The amendment was negatived without a division, and the House went into Committee.

It was moved, "That in lien of the present rates of duty now payable on the articles enumerated in the annexed schedules, there shall be raised, levied, and paid upon the importation of the said articles into

the United Kingdom, the rates of duty proposed in the annexed sche- dules.", To that, Mr. MILES proposed to add, by way of amendment,

the following words, "All live stock imported from foreign countries being charged by weight." A deputation of County and Agricultu- ral Members, be said, had 'waited on Sir Robert Peel to endeavour to induce him to alter the duty on foreign cattle ; but without success; and therefore there was nothing left to them but to come to that House to get what they considered a fair protection for agriculture. He con- sidered the general system of taxation offered by Sir Robert Peel as most wise-a resort to direct taxation to relieve the embarrassed exche- quer of the country, instead of palliatives; and the Minister had re-

ceived constant support from the phalanx of County Members who sur- rounded him, and who submitted in silence to the taunts of the party opposite. The time for silence, however, had now passed, and they were called upon to offer every opposition which the present proposal de- mended-

Be knew that the Corn-bill had been received with great alarm by many agriculturists, hut he confessed that he did not participate in any of their feel- ings. He said this because he felt that the system of agriculture in England bad been so greatly improved by the application of science, that in a few years they would have nothing to fear from competition. With respect to the change in the Corn-laws, they had certain facts and data to deal with, and it became a matter of calculation ; but in this question they had to grope in the dark, and were called to give their assent to duties in place of prohibition, which, in his mind, was incomprehensible in principle ; and if carried into effect it would

be most detrimental to the agricultural interest of this country. The point was not one upon which any Minister was called upon to throw up the reins of

government-(Laughter)-as it was merely a matter of detail; and Sir Robert

Peel bad already made concessions urged by various deputations on other points. In reply to the deputation that had waited on him about the present proposition, Sir Robert Peel told them to look at the benefits which farmers would derive from the reduction of duties on several articles consumed by them; and Ise then alluded to various grains and seeds, finishing, to Mr. Miles's as- tonishment, by naming onion-seed. (Laughter.) But, he would ask, were not those reductions made up for by the alterations in the Corn-law ?

Mr. Miles went into a variety of calculations to show the injury that would be inflicted on the agriculturists by the proposed arrangement of duties- An ox of six hundredweight, if imported as meat, would pay 21. 8s. ; if alive, 11. or deducting Is. 8V. for the duty that would be paid on the bide and tallow if imported separately, but 18s. 3id. A bog of three hundredweight, as meat, would pay 1/. 4s.; as ham or bacon, 1/. 8s.•' alive, 5s. The expense to the English farmer of fattening an ox up to six hundredweight was 8/. 15s. 6d.;

the expense of fattening a hog up to three hundredweight was 3/. 5s.; so that it was evidently quite impossible for the farmer here to compete with the foreign breeder if the latter were so much favoured. The freight of an ox from Aber-

deen is 2/.; from Hamburg about the same, but say 2/. 10s.; and an ox can be imported from Hamburg, all expenses paid, at 151.. Ms.; from Ostend, Kiel, Rostock, Dantsig,.Elsinore, at charges varying from 151.17g. 6d. to 11/. 9s. 6d.; in England the price of an ox is 16/. 16s.; so that there would be an average loss to the British farmer of 2/.13s. 4-Ad. a year. The average price of pork at Smithfield is 7ci ; pork from the places named can be imported at less than The trade in salt provisions from the United States has increased from 77 hundredweight imported two years ago, to 22,429 hundredweight in 1841.

Mr. Miles quoted from the New Orleans Price Current, in which a writer ob-

served that New Orleans was the outlet for nine important States of the Union,- Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, containing 450,000 square miles of rich cultivable territory, in which the manufacture of cotton and other clothing was almost entirely un- known; yet the exclusive legislation of England has prevented both countries from enjoying the advantages of a free intercommunication : the average price of American pork brought into this country, when all expenses were paid, would be 3id. a pound, of mess-beef 3-1d. And a new communication is about to be completed between the Danube and the Maine : when it is so, what would there be to prevent large quantities of cattle from being sent from the countries bordering on the banks of the Danube ? what would there be to prevent the Dutch, who were admirable farmers, with almost a Chinese veneration for ma- nure, importing their cattle, and fattening them for the English market ? In like manner, Denmark, Prussia, Wurtemburg, and Hanover, would be able to supply large quantities. The amendment was seconded by Mr. ROBERT Pilau-En; and sup- ported by the Earl of Mastest and Mr. G. BEATHCOTE; who observed, that since the announcement of the Tariff many descriptions of produce had fallen in price. "If," said Mr. Heathcote, " instead of talking of protection to agriculture at the hustings, honourable Members had announced such a measure as this, the result of the elections would have been very different." The amendment was opposed by Colonel

WYNDHAM.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that the object of the Government was to secure

to the English grazier such fair and equitable protection as would enable him to compete with the foreigner : but those who devote them- selves to agriculture trust too little to their own science and skill and too much to protection. It was said that the price of meat was depre- ciated ; but in fact it has only returned to the price which it had usually borne in this country. In proof that there has been no serious depre- ciation, Mr. Gladstone read returns from the markets of Carlow, Clon- mell, and Waterford, which stated that cattle and lambs were there selling at fair prices. Mr. Miles had not defined the duty to be charged by weight : he might take it so low as to obtain the votes of Members opposite ; Mr. Gladstone, however, would assume that it was meant to be about 58. the hundredweight- He admitted the theoretical accuracy of taking the duty on live animals by

weight ; but it was a remarkable testimony to the convenience of the different plan, that "live animals" appear in the tariff of every country in Europe, and there is not one in which the duty is levied by weight. There might have been some show of reason for making a distinction between fat and lean cattle; but he contended that the duty of IL on a live ox was not out of proportion with the duty of 84. a hundredweight on the dead meat. A higher rate of in- surance was required for live animals. There was a greater risk in importing them, and when the dead meat arrived it was ready to go on the table. It was more nearly arrived at the ultimate stage of labour : it was the manufactured article, as compared with the raw material; and he contended that its being subjected to a double duty, as compared with live meat, was perfectly fair and equitable. For an ox of six hundredweight, freight and expenses would be 2/. 55.; the duty and 5 per cent added, IL ls.; in all N. 6s.: the expenses on six hundredweight of dead meat would be 3/. 10s.; not a great difference. Again, the carcass of the live animal was very far from being of an uniform value. There were some parts that were prime parts, others of an inferior quality. He had made some inquiries on this point, and be found that one- third part of the carcass was 20 or 25 per cent above the average value of the carcass. The butchers, then, at Hamburg, when sending meat here, would send the picked joints and pieces. In summer, be admitted that this species of trade would be of very little importance; but out of the summer-months joints of meat could be sent from Hamburg into the London market. Taking the value of the ox at the average weight, they might consider it as worth 181. That paying in freight and charges 31. 6s. would be about 22 per cent on the value ; but then, the foreign butcher sending picked meat, and allowing it to be six hundredweight, and the value of it 181., the cost was 20 per cent on the value. Very nearly the same result would be arrived at with fat hogs.

It had been said that, in showing the increased price of meat in this country, the result would have been different had Sir Robert Peel gone further back than 1835: he might have gone much further back-

He had now before him a return showing the number of sheep and oxen sold at the great October fair in each year at Dunto, or Ballinasloe, from 1791 down to 1841. The oxen were divided in this table into four classes, and he should now give the prices borne in 1830 as compared with 1841-

First Class. Second Class. Third Class. Fourth Class.

X s. X s. La.

1830 11 o 910 710 60

1841 18 0 17 0 14 11 11 0 The returns of the Poor-law 'Unions did not begin till 1837; but they showed a progressive increase in the price of meat. Before there was so general an access to the great markets, the price in the remoter districts was 4d or 5d.; now it is 6d. or 7d.: is not that a serious grievance? Although Liverpool receives the bulk of the immense supply from Ireland, meat has Aran there a penny or three-halfpence in the pound within the last ten years. Rapidly as the population is increasing, does this advancing price indicate the means of providing for the additional numbers? Be even believed that if they laid no duty at all on the importation of foreign cattle, yet they would have no need to fear any such reduction as twopence or twopence-halfpenny in the price; whieh some agricultural gentleman had said was an amount of redaction that would not alarm them. A great fallacy ran through Mr. Miles's argu- ments: he took the market-price of Kid, for instance, and forgot the effect which there would be upon it if the British demand were supplied. Another material omission was, that it had not been proved that a large quantity of cattle could be imported, without which the English farmer has nothing to fear. The consumption of the whole country is 1,600,000 head yearly: the nearest Continental countries import largely ; from Ireland and Scotland, where there are no restraints of duty, dead meat is sent in preference to live cattle by the longer voyages; and the cost of conveying cattle from the Baltic might remove all apprehensions on that score. Looking at Europe, he could not see where they were to get a supply of animals. He wished Air. Miles had given his own estimate of the probable importation of live cattle. He had indeed

i

seen a statement in the newspapers, n which was mathematically proved what the consequences of this change would be. It was there'stated that a hundred sows in three or five years would give birth to 232,000,000 pigs. (Laughter.) Calculations of that kind were as rational and as wise as many of the objec- tions that were made to this proposition, but they ought not to be made the basis of a serious opposition. It had been stated, on the authority of our agriculturists, that in the course of five years there would be an importa- tion of 80,000 head per annum : at present there were not 30,000 disposable ; but take it at 80,000. The consumption of animal food per head in this country was about 50 pounds per head annually. He assumed that the half of the meat consumed was beef. The consumption then of beef was twenty- five per cent. Looking to the increase of the population in this country as it had been for the last ten years, they found it to increase 227,000 souls a year. If the population continued thus to increase for the next five years as it had done for the last ten years, they might prove by arithmetic that In order to keep the price of meat down to what it was at present-to prevent its rising further, not to reduce it-giving the same amount of supply that they now had, they ought to have for their increasing population 80,000 head of cattle. Then as to the dread of American salt meat- If the positions of his honourable friend were correct, the American salted meat could, even with the present duty, have undersold that both of Hamburg and Ireland ; why did it not do so? The beef of Canada was to be had at Liverpool, under the name of Indian beef; for V. or 2/. 4s. the three hundred- weight; that was about 2d the pound : it could be sold for half the usual price of Irish beef; and yet the salted beef of Canada, for 3/. to 5/., was ne- glected in bond, and Irish beef at 8/. was taken in preference. Why 60 2—be- cause of the superior quality of the Irish meat.

It had been asked, if there was to be so small an importation of cattle, why alter the law at all 1—" Why interfere ? why not leave the matter to the natural operation of supply and demand ?' "-

But it was the violent interference of the existing system with the natural operations of supply and demand which made it desirable that that system should undergo some modification. Suppose that 50,000 head of cattle were to be annually imported : such importation would produce but a small effect upon the prices of meat, but it would create an import-trade to the amount of half a million of money ; a trade which in its nature would lead, by a smooth, certain course of operation, to an export-trade in return of an equal amount ; which would contribute—he did not say in a moment, but in the course of years—to an increased demand for employment and labour. The proposition was a safe one.

Dr. Bownamc entered into a number of statistical details to prove the effect of restrictive duties on meat upon the Continent. Although there was no part of Europe capable of sending a great quantity of cattle to this country, yet the effect of the Tariff would be to produce a constant tendency towards the importation of cattle. But the measure was more important, as abolishing the last great opprobrium of the existing Tariff—prohibitory duty.

Lord NORREYS had at first participated in the alarm at Sir Robert Peel's plan ; but he believed that that alarm has now been much dissi- pated— He bad been met by gentlemen who said that the farmers were wrong, but that such was the panic among the agriculturists that they must have some good agricultural division in order to satisfy the farmers. He had heard it said—. You can vote for the motion now before the House; you will do no harm, it can't be carried; Government are safe. You may do 'as you please, and satiety your constituents without injuring the Government." Mr. Galax KNIGHT also believed that the panic was an erroneous one, and he would not help to keep it up. He could trust Sir Robert Peers Free Trade— Was it to be taken for granted that because the right honourable Baronet had adopted Free Trade principles he was to push those principles to extremity. There was some risk in introducing the small end of the wedge, but much more in nailing down the safety-valve. There were no more dangerous men than your purists : they all knew who it was who said, "Perish millions—but carry out your principles "; and they were all aware of what that sentiment led to. When they were taunted by honourable gentlemen opposite with their sudden conversion to Free Trade principles, he would take leave to inform those honour- able gentlemen, that it was nut of those principles that they had been afraid; It was Radicalism they dreaded. (Laughter.) They feared the consequences of union with men of extreme opinions—of that constant meddling with the es- tablished provisions of the constitution such men were prone to indulge in : they feared a return of that lax manner in which the reins of government had lately been held. Such were the objects of their apprehension. They had never been afraid of coffee or sugar, or any such minor considerations.

Lord ALFORD opposed the amendment; and the Government mea- sures were opposed by Mr. W. 0. STANLEY, on account of their partial scope and extent.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL professed, as a plain man, to be puzzled by such announcements as that of Lord Norreys, that the amendment was not meant to be carried, but only to please the farmers ; and of Mr. Gaily Knight, that when the Conservatives voted on coffee and sugar they did not mean coffee and sugar, but only Radicalism. He was equally surprised by the arguments on which the motion was supported and opposed— "I should have thought that those who came forward to propose that cattle should be admitted at a moderate fixed duty, would have endeavoured to show that great benefit would accrue from that importation taking place, and that the labouring classes of this country might procure at a cheaper rate more animal food; their welfare being, of course, proportionably promoted. I quite expected, also, that the other side would have shown the fallacy of supposing that the supply which was predicted could be relied on ; that it was a mistake to think that any of the countries on the Continent could give us a large quan- tity of provisions, and that the price of meat would substantially remain the same after this act became law. But, in point of fact, the arguments of the two parties are the reverse of what I have stated. Those who oppose the mo- tion come forward to show that the comforts of the people will be increased ; that the price of subsistence will be lowered ; while, on the other hand, it is contended that no such difference will arise from the passing of this Tariff. I must confess, if I could believe all the statements of the honourable Member for Somersetshire, (Mr. Miles,) his I should take to be the ablest and most con- vincing speech in favour of the proposition of the Government. He says, 'Certain countries will become deptSts for the fattening of cattle, which they can do by reason of their abundance of corn, and send them over here at a mo- derate price; that this meat could be had at 4ict a pound ; and that, the grosser parts being got rid of, the people will secure a better article at a cheaper rate.' If that is the case, let us by all means adopt the proposition. (Cheers.) What are we sitting here for? ("Hear, hear !") Are we sitting here to prevent theeople from having cheap food ? (Cheers.)

He rejoiced to hear the principles laid down by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone ; but he could not reconcile their arguments on cattle with the Corn-bill-

" We have heard it stated by the right honourable gentleman, that when he proposed a reduction of the duty on herrings, a correspondent of his stated that it would reduce the price from 20s. to 10s. the barrel. The right honour- able Baronet, however, professed to disbelieve the fact ; but added, that if there could be such a reduction in the price of the food of the labouring classes, it would be an argument in favour of and not against his proposition. I perfectly agree in the statement and in the principle; but when I recollect that a member Of the Government stated, in the late debate on the Corn-laws, that foreign corn could be introduced at 40s., it seems preposterous that the main article of the people's food should be treated on principles diametrically opposed to those which the right honourable Baronet and the Vice-President of the Board of Trade now maintain at all hazards. The right honourable Baronet on a former night observed that cattle could not be expected in any great quantities, be- cause the area from which they could be imported was small, and they could not bear a long voyage; but that corn may be had from all the world. But what is the meaning of this argument ? Here is a sound principle, one which can be adopted in practical legislation one which you can make the basis of your future commercial policy, and hold up as an example to foreign nations; and yet we adopt it only where it is inoperative; but when it would effect most good, and be productive of most benefit to the people, we shrink from its application. That I cannot understand ; much less can I understand it at a moment like this, when we yesterday heard in our churches the Queen's latter calling for subscriptions to relieve the general distress."

But there were other articles in the Tariff upon which a great reduc- tion could be made : why should the farmer be called upon to compete with the foreigner in producing meat, and yet be prevented by an enor- mous prohibitory duty from purchasing sugar on equal terms? He did not see that the practical benefit of the Tariff would be so great as Mr. Miles seemed to apprehend ; but he thought it of great value as the assertion of a principle, as putting an end to monopoly, and as appor- tioning a moderate and fixed duty to great articles of consumption ; and therefore he should support it against the amendment of Mr. Miles.

Sir ROBERT PEEL would state the principle on which sugar had been excluded from the Tariff when it should come under separate discus- sion. With respect to the Corn-law, Lord John Russell's present argu- ment was, that the people should have the cheapest supply of food wherever they could get it ; but he was the author of the eight-shilling fixed duty. He formerly charged Sir Robert Peel with deluding the agriculturists ; he now accused him of unduly favouring them, and of shrinking from the application of Free Trade principles. Sir Robert thanked his agricultural friends for their generous support ; and he had no doubt that it would continue beyond that night. He had prophesied that the panic would cease before they bad got through the Tariff, and his expectation had been realized ; for the accounts in the papers of the markets at Liverpool and other places showed that meat was rising in price. With beef and mutton at 7d. and 71d. in Liverpool, he put It to any intelligent man whether it was right to continue the prohibition on the importation of cattle. Sir Robert repeated arguments already copiously used by himself and Mr. Gladstone. He thought that a free intercourse with the Continent would be advantageous to the agricul- tural interest, by leading to improvements in the breed of cattle. And on looking back to the records of the Treasury, he found that it bad constantly violated the existing law in favour of applications to permit the introduction of bulls from Lombardy, Switzerland, Flanders, or other foreign countries. He must adhere to the proposal he bad made, and be hoped the which House would affirm it by a large majority.

Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL quoted the Morning Post, which had declared that Sir Robert Peel looked on whilst the agriculturists de- ceived themselves ; and he pronounced Mr. Gladstone's speech to be an excellent one in favour of a fixed duty on corn. Lord Wommatir did not demand continued prohibition, but a higher protection than that in the Tariff. Mr. VILLIERS agreed with Lord Worsley, that Mr. Miles's proposition bad not been fairly treated, for it had been treated with respect ; whereas, if the House had represented the country, it would have been scouted : be tried to deprive suffering people of the miserable boon which was offered to them. The people were horribly distressed, many were starving; and Sir Robert Peel defended his measure by saying that no relief would really be given! He had comforted the agriculturists in the same way about the Corn-law ; and he proved to be right, for wheat had already risen 4s. since the new act was passed. Mr. Fakeers Scow was reconciled to the proposition in the Tariff, by learning that the importation of foreign cattle could not exceed o e yeek's con- sumption. In souse further debate, the amendment was opposed by Mr. WARD, Mr. ORMSBY GORE, and Mr. Hume. Mr. MILES replied ; de- fending himself from the charge of not feeling for the disTess in the country. On a division, his amendment was rejected, by 380 to 113; and the Committee adjourned at past one o'clock.

When the Committee resumed on Tuesday, Mr. Mamie stated that the duty which he aimed at was 5s. 6d. per hundredweight on live cattle ; and he now moved an amendment imposing that duty, and 98. 4d. per hundredweight on the dead meat. Sir ROBERT PEEL ob- served, that in fixing the duty at 8s., he had not gone very far from the amount which Mr. Miles said would quiet all apprehension. Mr. POSEY thought that a matter of detail like that in question might conveniently be referred to a Select Committee for investigation. Sir ROBERT PEEL did not think that a Committee of the most experienced graziers could come to any satisfactory conclusion on the subject ; and if he were to agree to Mr. Pusey's suggestion, he would be required to consent to the appointment of Select Committees with respect to nine-tenths of the articles in the Tariff. Mr. Mu.isua GIBSON was surprised, if the difficulties of importation were so great, that Sir Robert Peel should have imposed such high duties, or indeed any duties at all.

Mr. Vuadreas diverged at some length into the general question of the people's food— To impose such a duty as was proposed, was to assume that the community was adequately supplied at present; but it was not a small portion of the population, but millions of the people, who were entirely deprived of animal food. Dr. Kay was sent into Suffolk and Norfolk as a Commissioner to in- quire into the state of the poor ; and he reported that the average expenditure for a man, his wife, and three children, in the Workhouse, amounted to 50!.: their wages would only have amounted to 35/. 9s.; and the agricultural la- bourers of those counties were little better than half dieted, and were unable to purchase animal food. Mr. Villiers did not suppose that the labourers there were worse off than in other English counties. The Poor-law Inquiry proved to demonstration that the agricultural population subsisted on an ina- dequate supply of bread and potatoes. Dr. Kay said that in half a year there had been sixty-three deaths from starvation in a population of one hundred thousand. What is the state of Scotland ? In the county of Stirling, lately, a man who had stolen some potatoes was watched home ; and the aged mother and two sisters, whom he supported, were found boiling a dead dog. In Paisley, 15,000 people arc without the means of obtaining a livelihood. The people are much worse off than they were four hundred years ago, when For- tescue described them as having abundance of fish and flesh. The preamble of an act passed in the reign of Henry the Eighth stated, that, whereas meat was formerly sold at such prices as enabled poor labouring persons to buy it for their sustenance, the prices now exacted by graziers, butchers, and others, pre- vented their getting sufficient ; and the act provided that meat should be sold at reasonable prizes as formerly. It was not wise legislation, but it showed the animus of legislation in those days. With the increase in the price of food, crime has increased : the number of criminals in 1836 was 20,000, and it pro- gressively increased to 30,000 in 1840. In spite of the New Poor-law, pauper- ism has increased, since 1837, by 25 per cent. Instead of addressing Queen's

letters to excite charity on behalf of a people who did not want favour, but justice—instead of taxing their provisions, which he maintained they bad no

more right to do than to tax the butchers' trays upon which It was carried— instead of a tax which was not for the good of the revenue, but for the uphold- ing of rents, which already amounted to 77,000,000/. (a large margin to !ope- rate upon)—instead of continuing these things, be called upon the Conyffincritetnt

ee to set an example of the charity which others were called upon under ch names to exemplify. He moved, as an amendment, that the duty be one shilling per bead on oxen and bulls.

Mr. BICKHAM Escorr having alluded to an extravagant statement in a placard respecting the importation of meat, Mr. REDHEAD YORK said that the placard was exhibited in Yoi k merely as a joke. Lord Joan RUSSELL said that such statements were not more absurd than those made last year as to the amount of corn which was to be received from the Russian province Tamhoff. Mr. Meek's Report showed that if there were some importation of cattle from Kiel and Hamhurg, it was owing to the operation of the Corn-law : the importation of butter from Kiel has increased from 1.000,000 pounds, in 1818, to 4,000,000 pounds, prin- cipally because the fluctuation of the corn-averages makes it more ad- vantageous to produce butter for the market in this country than to grow corn for it. Sir ROBERT PEEL remarked, that the ignorant and absurd statement to which Lord John Russell referred as to the growth of 38,000.000 quarters of wheat in Tamboff was made by the Whigs' own Consul; and it remained in his Report, without any attempt on the part of Government to clear up the mistake, till Sir Robert himself pointed it out, and then Lord Palmerston wrote to the Consul to ascertain the truth.

Mr. Miles's amendment was withdrawn. The Committee then divid d on Mr. Villiers's amendment ; which was rejected, by 209 to 44.

M jot ViviAN next proposed an amendment to make the duty on cattle and provisions imported from the Canadas equal to the duties on similar imports from "other foreign countries "; for the boon, he said, which was intended for the colonists, would really be bestowed on a foreign country, the Western States of North America.

Sir ROBERT PEEL could not conceive the possibility of danger from the importation of oxen from the banks of the Mississippi ; and though he had once seen a haunch of venison from that country, it was not in such a state that he should have liked to have ventured upon it. The boon had already been allowed to Guernsey and Jersey, and he did not see why it should not be allowed to Canada.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER said, that although the proposition on the Tariff might be theoretically objected to on the ground of its artificially fostering particular trades in Canada, yet he did not think that the im- portation under it would be so considerable as to give any practical im- portance to the objection. The Tariff would he the greatest step to- wards free trade which had ever been-he would not say attempted, but made; and they ought not to look the gift horse in the mouth.

In the course of some further conversation ; Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that in the week ending the 12th May 1842, 31,000 quarters of wheat were entered for home consumption ; of which 15,000 quarters were foreign wheat, paying 12s. duty : from the 12th to the 21st May, 5,760 quarters of foreign wheat were entered for home consumption in Lon- don alone, paying the then rate of duty. Mr. CHARLES Woon ob- served, that in the week ending the 14th of May of last year, the quan- tity of foreign wheat introduced for home consumption was 17,000 quarters; and in the week ending the 21st May, the quantitywas 71,000 quarters, the duty being 23s. 8d.

Major VIVIAN'S amendment was withdrawn, and the items in the Tariff were taken seriatim. On swine and hogs, Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN proposed to levy a duty of 4s. per hundredweight, in lien of the foreign duty of 5s. per head ; but the original proposition was affirmed, by 121 to 32. The Tariff substitutes moderate duties for the prohibition of various foreign fish. Sir ROBERT PEEL consented to reconsider the proposed duty on lobsters, which have hitherto been exempt ; but he resisted the proposal to retain the exception in favour of turbot, which is consumed only by the rich.

Mr. WAKLEY moved to retain the duty at 5 per cent ad valorem on the importation of apples, instead of 6d a bushel, set down in the Tariff. Mr. GLADSTONE admitted that the proposed duty would be heavy on the inferior kinds of apple ; but ranging as prices did from is. 6d. to 25s. per bushel, the duty must be considered as fair and moderate ; and Lord Melbourne had given a pledge that the former reduction from 4s.

bushel to 5 per cent ad valorem should be reconsidered. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that Lord Melbourne only seemed to promise that the question of duties upon perishable fruits generally should be reconsi- dered by a Committee ; and Mr. Gladstone had not proved that the new duty was an improvement. The duty proposed in the Tariff was af- firmed, by 110 to 52. The Committee then adjourned.

On Wednesday, the Committee went on with the first schedule of the Tariff, until stopped by Mr. MILES at the article bacon ; the duty on which is to be reduced by the Tariff from 1/. 8s. to 14s. on Foreign and 3s. 6d. on Colonial. Mr. Miles feared that the differential duty would open a door to the fraudulent introduction of salted provisions from the American states through Canada. But Sir ROBERT PEEL in- sisted that the presumption of a future fraud was not to deprive the Colonies of their right to be considered integral portions of the empire ; and after a little consideration the item was agreed to.

Butter, upon which a Foreign duty of 1/. and a Colonial duty of 5s. were set, was the next point of remark ; Lord JOHN RUSSELL and others on his side contending that the duties on butter and cheese should be lower. Mr. GLADSTONE defended the charge, on the score of the revenue derived from the present duties. Viscount HOWICK moved that the duty levied upon Foreign butter should be 108.; observing that, according to the original proposal, the result would be that the con- sumer would not obtain relief, while the revenue would suffer by the introduction of American under the name of Canadian butter.

Sir ROBERT PEEL remarked, that Lord Howick did not carry out his own principle; according to which he ought to move that the duty on Colonial butter should also be 10s. He did not expect the results which Lord Howick anticipated-

The noble Lord said," You have reduced the revenue, let us also have a hand in it." That was not a legitimate mode of proceeding. The Govern- ment had made what reductions they thought they could concede ; and if they found that more would be obtained from the Income-tax than was expected, they would then see what further reduction they could make. He thought it would be found that he had not underrated the financial income, and that it would not be safe to make further experiments in reducing taxation.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER counselled the House, if they were about to give away revenue, to give it on necessaries of life, which butter might almost be considered, and not upon timber. And he quoted a return which had lately been made, for the purpose of proving that Sir Robert Peel had under-calculated the rental of the country by 10,000,0004

Dr. BowinNo said that the proposed duties would add 2d. a pound to the price of all butter imported, and therefore to the price of all batter throughout the country.

Eventually, Lord Howick's motion was rejected; by 115 to 59, and the original proposition was affirmed.

On the motion that 10s. the hundredweight should be imposed on Foreign and 2s. 6d. on Colonial cheese, Mr. MARK Prin.ros moved that

the 10s. be reduced to 7s. 6d. Mr. TArroN EGERTON having supported the higher duty, Mr. COBDEN threatened to tell the freeholders of Stock- port, Ashton, and the other towns from which the Members for Cheshire derived their influence. Mr. WAKLEY remarked, it was fortunate that the people could not eat wood : if they could eat timber, what an out- cry would be made against Sir Robert Peel for reducing the Timber- duties I Mr. JERVIS opposed the amendment ; for if there must be pro- tection, let there be adequate protection. The tenor of observations on the Opposition side of the House, said Sir ROBERT PEEL, afforded opportunity of judging what difficulties he had to contend with who should undertake to amend the commercial Tariff of the country. When he saw Mr. Jervis enter the House, be said to himself, here comes a fresh accession to the advocates of Free Trade : Mr. Jervis, how ever, while he took care to vindicate his general principles in his speech, said that he must vote in favour of Chester. Sir JOHN Gam. moved that the duty on foreign cheese he 5&; but that amendment was nega- tived without a division; Mr. Mark Philips's was rejected, by 82 to 37; and the Government rate of duty was agreed to.

Mr. GEORGE PALMER moved unsuccessfully to impose Is. instead of 6d. per bushel on onion-seed. In the short conversation on the point, Mr. WAILLEY deplored the disposition of Members to disregard general interests : Mr. Jervis, for instance, having voted for a protecting duty on cheese, left the House, consigning the question of onions to those who represented onion-growers. Potatoes next gave pause to the Committee. The duty is to be 2d. on Foreign and ld. on Colonial, instead of 2s. the hundredweight. Mr. STUART WORTLEY had heard, though he believed the statements to be highly exaggerated, that potatoes could be introduced from Holland and the coast of France at the low duty, in such quantities as entirely to supplant the home-cultivated article. Mr. GEORGE PALMER believed that it was true ; and he moved that the duty be Is. Mr. GLADSTONE thought that the bulk of the article and the cost of conveyance would prevent any considerable importation when ordinary prices prevailed; and on no article in the Tariff could a reduction of the high duty be more properly effected-

The first object of the reduction was, to enable the poor consumer to obtain a supply of the article when the home production fell short and the price suddenly and materially increased: the second was to secure the introduction of a class of very cheap potatoes, used in the starch and the other manufac- tures; of which class our produce was, in fact, very inconsiderable. He be- lieved it to be capable of demonstration that a greater protection was afforded to an acre of potatoes than was afforded to an acre of wheat.

Mr. WAKLEY believed that a great reduction of price would take place, and he thought that this was the best proposition in the whole Tariff. Mr. PALMER withdrew his amendment ; and the remainder of Schedule I was agreed to. Schedule 2, relating to spices, Schedule 3, to seeds, Schedule 4, to woods, were agreed to. Sir CHARLES LEMON suggested that Schedule 5 should be postponed for a few days. But Sir ROBERT PEEL said that Sir Charles had already repeated opportunities of sending up deputations, and it was better to proceed in the order of the Tariff: if reasons could be stated for a change in the schedule as it now stood, there would be an opportunity of stating them on a future day. The Tariff imposes on the importation of metal containing copper ore a graduated scale commencing with 11. 10s. when the metal con-

tains only ten parts of? copper per ton of metal, and rising to 71. 10s. on

metal containing more than twenty-five parts of copper. Mr. TURNER moved to impose an equal duty of 71. 10s. on all metal enumerated in that part of the schedule ; for, he said, the importation of metal from Cuba and Chili has increased from 45,000 hundredweight in 1832 to 974,000 hundredweight in 1841; and there would very probably be such an admixture of ores as would defeat all the plans of revenue. [Mr. Turner was much interrupted during a long speech with by-talk in a listless House.] Mr. GLADSTONE said, that Mr. Turner's motion ap- plied to a species of ore of which only a small portion had as yet been introduced into the country. The ore in question would not be more than 71. 15s. a ton ; and of that, 5/. would have to be paid for freight ; so that there was little fear of successful competition from abroad. Mr. Turner had said that 100 men in Chili could produce as much as 1,500 men here : if so, no protection could guard against such a competition. The policy of the existing Tariff seemed to be to encourage the impor- tation of the finer ores ; that of the new Tariff is to encourage the importation of the rougher ores, which give the most employment ; and Mr. Gladstone believed that the effect would be to give to this country the whole trade in smelting foreign ores, while a real protection is given to the Cornish miners. The shipping-interests and the copper- manufacturers of Birmingham and Sheffield had hitherto been com- pelled to pay 10/. per ton more than the foreigner. Sir CHARLES LE- MON, Mr. LABOUCHERE, and Lord ELIOT, entirely concurred with Mr. Gladstone; who was also supported by Mr. CHARLES BULLER and Mr. J. E. VivIAN. The amendment was supported by Mr. W. 0. STA.NLEY and Mr. PENDARVES. The House divided on the first of the series of duties proposed in the Tariff; and it was carried, by 158 to 7; Mr. Turner's amendment thus being lost. On the question of imposing 1/. duty on Foreign unwrought iron bars and 2s. 6d. on Colonial, Mr. Hums suggested that there should be no duty. Mr. GLADSTONE said, the producers of the superior kinds of iron claimed protection like other classes of producers. Mr. PARKER said, that for the eight or nine years that he had been in Parliament, the Sheffield cutlers had memorialized the Board of Trade to reduce the duty on unwrought iron. Sir ROBERT PEEL had the pleasure of in- forming the honourable gentleman that the Board of Trade had con- sented to take off one-third of the existing duty. The remainder of the schedule was agreed to ; and the Committee adjourned.

THE QUEEN'S LETTER.

In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, during a random conversation on the Corn-law, Lord KINNAIRD observed that the price of wheat had been rising ever since the passing of the new bill, and he believed it would be at the shilling-duty point before the expiration of six weeks more. He wanted to know, however, the reasons which had induced Government to circulate a "begging letter" in the name of the Queen ? The Earl of RIPON intimated a doubt as to the existence of such a document. Lord KINNAIRD said he would move for its production. The Duke of Wnrassicrosi observed, that he should first be perfectly certain that such a letter had been written.. Lord KINNAIRD appealed to Lord COLBORNE ; who said that he certainly had heard such a letter read in church on Sunday. The Duke of WELLINGTON had no objec- tion to the production of the letter, if it existed. But notice, said the Earl of RIPON, ought to be given. Lord KINNAIRD said that he should move, then, for the letter on Thursday.

Accordingly, on Thursday, Lord KINNAIRD did move an address to the Crown for copies of the Queen's letter ; accompanying his motion with sarcastic allusions to the ignorance which the Ministers in the House had displayed—

lie had long suspected that the whole Government of the country was carried on by one individual—certainly an individual of great talent ; who seemed, however, not to consult the other members of the Ministry, hut to treat them as mere ciphers. He had been pleased with the able and liberal speeches of that individual; but as to his measures, they were mere humbug. Still he had hopes of the present Government ; for as its head spoke so liber- ally, he would probably make his colleagues eat, if not dirt, their own words.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, he ought perhaps to take some shame to himself, as a member of the Privy Council, for not being aware on Tuesday that the letter had been actually written. He had a full knowledge of the intention to write it ; and he was present at the discussion of the subject in the Council, when it was taken into grave deliberation ; but since that time he had been out of town, and on Sun- day he did not attend at any parish-church, but at the Chapel Royal, where it was not read. As to the reasons for writing the letter, it was written on the 11th of this month ; and Lord Kinnaird ought to know that the Paisley Relief Fund, to which allusion had been made, was exhausted on the 9th. The Duke denied a passing charge made by Lord Kinnaird, that last session he treated the distress lightly : he had said that there was no prospect of a scarcity of grain in the country, but that what was wanted was the means of purchasing it.

Lord KINNAIRD Said, that the people wanted some more permanent mode of relief than charity. The Earl of Munro asked, whether there was any intention of releasing corn in bond free of duty ? The Duke of WELLINGTON did not know whether there was any intention of the kind : it was an illegal assumption of power by the Sovereign, and he did not know that it would be resorted to. Earl FITZWILLIAM asked what pro- portion of the weekly earnings of artisans in one of our large towns the letter would raise ? in some towns, the gross amount of wages was 1,000,000/. a year. Did the Government believe the distress to be tempo- rary? The Earl of RIPON attributed much of the distress to the state of our relations with America ; and he believed that a better state of things would soon arise. If the letter did no other good, it would at least prove that those to whom Providence had given more were not insensible to the distress of their fellow-creatures.

The motion was agreed to.

BRIBERY : THE IPSWICH AND SOUTHAMPTON WRITS.

Colonel RUSHBROOKE moved, in the House of Commons, on Monday, that a writ be issued for the borough of Ipswich, a return for which had been declared void.

Mr. CHARLES WYNN having procured the Report of the Ipswich Committee to be read at the table, proceeded to say, that although there was no case which would justify the adoption of any measures against the borough, still it could not remain unnoticed by the House ; and it was obvious that there was ample evidence to justify proceedings against individuals. If the House gave impunity to the accepters of bribes, it could never put any check upon the crime— It was unfortunate that in these cases there was not that general feeling against this offence which they would desire to see; the feeling was frequently as much in favour of the object of the prosecution as it was against the offence. The party prosecuted was only looked upon as a martyr, and by his own party he was never thought the worse of. Though there were heavy penalties against bribery, the question was who was to put them in force? In the Cricklade case, where there were convictions for penalties against the head offenders, and where the sitting Members were prosecuted, the indivi- duals never were looked upon in society as discreditable, and one who held high office was advanced afterwards. There never was an instance of a party convicted of the high crime of bribery being looked upon, in any society, high or low, as discredited.

Sir GEORGE GREY remarked, that, as the petitioners did not pray for the seats, the Committee could only receive evidence to unseat the sitting Members ; and it was therefore only a one-sided inquiry. The effect would be that two candidates would stand again, while the sitting Members would be disqualified.

In reply to Mr. JOHN PARKER, Mr. CHARLES WYNN thought that the general sanction of the House would be sufficient warrant to the Attorney-General to proceed against parties not mentioned in the re- port of the Committee. The two sitting Members would be disqualified, certainly ; but the return under the original writ having been declared void, although a new writ was issued, it would only be one election, and it would be competent to a Committee to inquire under the second writ into bribery committed under the first.

Mr. BICKHAM Escorr wished to know whether parties convicted of bribery at the last election would be allowed to vote at the next ?

Mr. HUME accused the House itself of supporting the system of bribery, because in 1822 it rejected a test which was proposed to be taken by Members before they took their seats, similar to that sug- gested the other day by Mr. Duneombe. Ile moved as an amendment, that the issue of the writ be suspended for fourteen days, in order to give time for the proceeding with Lord John Russell's bill for the sup- pression of bribery.

Lord Joins Russzu. supported the amendment. He believed that both parties suffered from the expense of elections, and from corruption. He doubted the efficacy of the test proposed in 1822.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, reserving to himself the power of determining whether any particular proposition for the prevention of bribery was consistent with justice and the spirit of the law, was ready to admit that the practice was one which tended to diminish the authority of the House. If Mr. Wynn would give notice of a motion for inquiry on an early day, he would vote for the suspension of the writ : but they should not forget the rights of the constituent body, and the writ should only be suspended until they could see what further steps should be taken in the matter. Mr. WARD suggested that Southampton, whose case was similar, should be included in the same motion.

Mr. CHARLES WYNN gave notice, that on Thursday he should pro- pose that the Attorney-General be instructed to prosecute all persons concerned in the bribery at Ipswich and Southampton.

Mr. Hume's amendment was withdrawn ; and Colonel RUSHBROOKE postponed his motion until Thursday.

In making his motion, on that day, Mr. WYNN explained the grounds on which he proceeded— In order to justify any measure which would -deprive the uncorrupt electors of their rights, it must be proved that the corruption in a place was so extensive as to nullify the votes of the independent electors. Such had not been proved in the cases of Ipswich and Southampton ; but the matter should not be passed over in silence, nor should the briber and the bribed escape with impunity to recur to their practices at the next election. lie did not propose, as had been done in other cases, that the Attorney-Gene- ral should be instructed to prosecute particular individuals, as there migiit be a difficulty in establishing individual cases of bribery ; and in the instance of Ipswich bribery might have prevailed on the side of the petitioners, though the Committee bad been withheld from investigating it. It might be said, why not prevent bribery bylaw? Ile thought that the House had not been wanting in the endeavour: it had passed many acts ; the Bribery Act of 1839 imposes a penalty of 503/. on the demand or acceptance of a bribe, and gives indemnity to prosecutors, though not to witnesses ; but he hoped that omission would he supplied. The evidence in the case of Ipswich was much to be distrusted : if part of it was to be believed, the Members might have been connected with the acts of bribery—there were public speeches in which it was stated that one, two, or even three thousand pounds should not stop them in their pursuit ; but other witnesses denied that such statements had been made. The necessity for prosecution was clear ; and it was apparent that a discretionary power should be given to the Attorney-General in those cases which appeared to re- quire confirmation. Mr. Wynn therefore moved, "That Mr. Attorney-Gene- ral be directed to prosecute such persons as shall appear to him to have been guilty of bribery in respect of the last election for the borough of Ipswich." He would afterwards make the same motion with regard to Southampton.

The motion was seconded by Sir Tunnies FREMANTLE. A long de- bate followed ; of which, as there was a general concurrence against the motion on all sides, it will suffice to indicate the chief points. Sir Tnoraas WILDE began by objecting to the motion, that it was without precedent. Any prosecution of the kind would be regarded as an act of persecution, intended to bolster up the general practice of bribery, by selecting a few individuals for a show of hostility against the system of which the Members themselves were the supporters and instigators ; and the only result would be to excite sympathy for the sufferers. Then, what means had the Attorney-General of ascertaining the proba- bility of conviction ? what power to call witnesses for preliminary

examination ? He had himself been obliged to abstain from prosecuting under the direction of the House, even where he had the evidence of a

Committee to guide him, because he felt that it was insufficient to secure a conviction. At the St. Alban's trial, the defence taken was, that bribery was so universal that none but party-motives could have dic- tated the prosecution ; and the speeches of counsel in the proposed prosecution would excite disgust in the minds of the Jury rather than the desire to convict. An Election Committee that prosecuted its inquiry zealously was charged with a vindictive spirit : if an honourable Member delared that he must conceal what took place in confidence, the walls of the House were sure to ring with cheers. The cheers of the House showed that every impediment offered to inquiry was a matter to rejoice at rather than to deplore. Sir Thomas exhorted the House sincerely to set about devising a general remedy ; and reminded them of the expression of an eminent constitutional writer, that "the sign of ruin of this country would be, when the constituency was more corrupt than the representation." The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the motion, on the ground that it was an unusual course, imply ing a power in the Attorney-General which he does not possess. And the ATTORNEY-GENERAL himself protested against being placed in a situa- tion of so much delicacy and responsibility, exposed to the jealousy of party. Besides, very great doubt exists, whether the House ought to devolve upon a public officer a discretionary power which should be exercised only by itself. In the views of the Law-Officers of the Crown Sir ROBERT INGLIS concurred ; and SO did Lord JOHN RUSSELL. The latter remarked that the Government, and the Attorney-General acting under the Government, could not be without some bias respecting a great party struggle in a borough during apolitical election ; and as an analogous example, he alluded to Mr. Thesiger's having taken the House by surprise when he moved, late on a Friday, to adjourn to Saturday instead Of Monday, in order to discharge a witness before an Election Committee who was in custody ; the House thus being called upon to support the witness against their own Committee! Mr. THE• SHIER repeated his previous explanations, that he had taken pains to make Members aware of his intention early on the Friday evening ; and he expressed an opinion, that the course recommended by Mr. Wynn would be most inconvenient. Sir ROBERT PEEL could not ad- mit that bribery by the higher classes excused the acceptance of bribes by the lower ; and he thought that the selection of a few individual instances for punishment would be a useful example to constituencies in general. Still, he could not consent to the Treasury coming fora aid to prop up defective evidence ; and the result of the prosecution might only expose the weakness of the law and the want of power in the House to bring the offenders to punishment. He could not allow that the House had been backward in endeavouring to put down bribery heretofore : at present Mr. Roebuck and Lord John Russell both had measures in hand ; and the experience of this session, he thought, showed that the Election Committees could now not be charged a ith partiality. Several other Members urged the necessity of general measures. Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE was confident that no good could be done without remodelling the House of COMIRODS Mr. O'CONNELL demanded a Committee, and an indemnity bill to be

brought in by Government, and he would prove that the over- - whelming majority of the present House had been returned by means of bribery—a million or a million and a half had been spent at the last election. [Sir ROBERT PEEL believed that a more unfounded statement was never made.] Mr. Hoare advocated vote by ballot, exten- sion of the suffrage, and stringent laws against bribery, followed by a dissolution : Mr. BERNAL, some measure to counteract the growing im- pression that there is no moral offence in bribery, which makes the people combine to render ineffectual the acts against it. Mr. WAKLEY attributed the evil to the very constitution of the House : they begin

with money-3001. or 600/. a year is a qualification for a Member, la. a year for an elector, a 50/. tenancy-at-will for another elector, who must

vote with his landlord in deference to the power of money; and so long as the House refuse extension and redistribution of the suffrage, and ballot, all that they do will be delusion. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY agreed that further inquiry was needed in the case of Southampton. Mr. &w- axier could see no satisfactory object in the indefinite motion.

Mr. Wrists, finding the sense of the House against him, would not press his motion ; though be asked, where was the use of passing acts of Parliament unless means were taken to enforce them ?

The motion was withdrawn ; and that touching Southampton was not made.

Colonel RUSHBROORE then renewed his motion for the issue of a writ for Ipswich; and another debate arose. Mr. HUME thought it inexpe- dient to issue the writ, after an intention had been expressed of provid- ing some remedial measure to meet the abuses which had been practised in the borough; and he moved to adjourn the debate for a month. Sir ROBERT PEEL could not think it a good precedent to establish, that merely because an individual Member of the House had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill for the prevention of bribery, the issue of the writ should be suspended. The evidence did not warrant inter- ference with the constitutional right of the electors to have a new writ issued at the earliest possible period. Lord Joust RUSSELL appealed to the precedent in Sheppard's case, for suspending the issue of the writ pending the inquiry.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER put the inconsistency of the proposed course in a strong light— In Nottingham, Reading, and other cases, there was a suspicion that bribery had prevailed. Honourable Members immediately said, "God bless us, only think that there have been persons bribing ! we never heard of such a thing before "—(Laughter)—and the House suspended these writs, on suspicion of bribery. Then came a case in which there Was not mere suspicion, and in which an actual conviction for bribery had taken place—in which a Committee appointed by the House declared that there had been extensive bribery. The House immediately said to the guilty parties, " You are not merely suspected, but proved to be guilty ; you shall have a writ, and go on with your election immediately." (Cheers and laughter.) What was this but for the House of Commons to say to the convicted bribers, "Carry on your old tricks: you have been found guilty—go and do the same thing again. ("Hear, hear!" and laughter.) We invite competition on the part of men with large fortunes to cor- rupt this corruptible constituency again." It wag, in fact, saying that all the inquiries as to bribery were nothing but solemn farces—that an inquiry might be made, but nothing more would be done. If the House wished to give the public any proof of being in earnest about this matter, they ought not to give to a constituency which had been found guilty of gross and extensive bribery the opportunity of repeating the crime.

Mr. WAKLEY believed that there was evidence sufficient permanently to suspend the writ, and to prevent Ipswich from abusing its privilege for the future. Sir ROBERT Itrous rejoined, If so, let it be done; but if the Committee did not recommend that, it was because they did not feel that it would be just, and therefore let the writ issue. Mr. ROE.. BUCK insisted that it would be safer to wait, until a general measure for the prevention of bribery should have been framed on the inquiry about to be instituted into several cases. The Ipswich Committee had re- commended the House to take the evidence in the case into their serious consideration : had the House done so? the House had in fact done nothing. Mr. CHRISTIE suggested, that letters in the newspapers by the two late sitting Members brought Ipswich within the category of those boroughs in which compromises bad taken place; and therefore it might be included in Mr. Roebuck's inquiry. In the mean time, he should be slow to admit that the absence of representation was a greater evil than misrepresentation. Mr. GOULBURN, followed up at an inter- val by Lord STANLEY, retorted on the opponents of the motion, that the report of the Committee bad been before the House for a month, but no proposal had been made for taking steps against the borough ; and Lord Stanley added, that Mr. Roebuck, in urging the inquiry into the cases of the five boroughs, did not seek to suspend their representa- tion: the House had refused to inquire into the case of Ipswich and to try bribers, and it is against all principles of English law to condemn befure conviction. Mr. DARBY explained, that the Committee only re- commended the suspension of the writ until the House was in posses- of the evidence, and able to judge on its own course. Mr. HAWES mad Sir THOMAS. WILDE insisted on the analogy between the eases of Ipswich and Nottingham. Mr. HODGSON Moine advocated the issue of the writ; Mr. REDHEAD YORKE opposed it.

On a division, the amendment was rejected, by 126 to 107.

Mr. O'CONNELL then proposed another amendment, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the extent of the bribery in the borough of Ipswich ; and the debate was partially renewed. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, Lord SEYMOUR, MY. CHARLES WOOD, Mr. H. BERKELEY, supported the amendment: Sir ROBERT reams and Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed it. The last recapitulated the circumstances under which he had agreed to suspend the Nottingham writ after the inquiry had been assented to: but no inquiry was talked of in respect to Ipswich until the writ had been moved ; and he could not under- stand how, until some measure had been perfected, the rights of the constituent body could be interfered with.

Mr. O'Connell's motion was rejected, by 133 to 117; and it was then ordered that the writ be issued.

Mr. Roebuck's Indemnity of Witnesses Bill was introduced on Mon- day; and on Thursday it was read a second time.

Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, in reply to Mr. O'CONNELL, 011 Thursday, that it was his intention to introduce a bill to continue his Act for the Trial of Controverted Elections, Coevitrcirr.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord Chancellor LYNDHURST moved the Committee on the Copyright Bill. Opposition to it in the other House had this session been waived under a special compromise : four petitions in favour of its present shape, from men of great emi- nence in literature, eminent publishers, eminent printers, and eminent stationers, attested the general concurrence of opinion in its favour; and he was disappointed at finding that it was not to be unopposed in their Lordships' House. He took a very general glance at the history of copyright ; and contended that the additional protection for authors, asked by the bill, was not an act of favour, but of justice. France, who is running the race of civilization with us, has given the copyright to the author for his life, to his widow, and to his family for twenty years after his widow's death. In only one country of Europe was the law of' copyright not more favourable than in England—in Austria ; which, ía proportion to its extent and population, has produced fewer works of original genius and learning than any other country in Europe. That coincided very much with the description which Tacitus gives of the ancient Pannonians ; and it also showed the slow progress which a nation might make in its literature. It was said that the bill en- couraged "monopoly " ; but by a similar abuse of the term, every per- son's house might be called a monopoly.

Lord Bactoonest went quite as far as his friend Lord Lyndhurst in respect and sincere affection for those illustrious individuals the authors; and he did not object to the measure as a whole ; but it was retrospec- tiveas well as prospective, and the House was bound to discriminate between its valuable and its injurious parts. He too reviewed the law of copyright, to show the shadowy nature of the claim to perpetual copyright at common law ; and he pointed to the fact, that in considera- tion of a more stringent exaction of eleven copies of each work for certain public bodies, the term had been increased, in 1814, from four- teen years to twenty-eight ; a large concession. The bill would work a great amendment of the law in checking piracy, and especially the piracy of articles from such works as the Eneyelopcedia Britan- aka ; the property in which is so imperfectly vested in authors, pub- lishers, or editors, that the whole of the most valuable papers can be pirated with impunity. He had made a calculation which proved the nugatory effect of increasing the term from twenty-eight to forty-two years. Suppose a publisher reaped 1001, a year profit from a particular work : the present value of 100/. for twenty-eight years is 730!.; for forty-two years, 7811.; a difference of only 51/. at 10/. per cent: but a bookseller requires a profit of 15 per cent, and in that case the differ- ence tumbles downto 154 And would a bookseller give 51/. or 15/. more for the longer term? No, not fifty-one farthings; and from the evi- dence which the publishers had given before the Committee on Sir Egerton Brydges's Bill in 1818, be inferred that they now petition, not in favour of the longer term, but in favour of that part of the bill which protects their property in encyclopedias and the like. In four hundred and ninety-nine out of five hundred cases, the value of books is quite irrespective of any durable copyright ; and why legislate for the single ease in five hundred? Many works, though not of sufficient value to continue selling at the original price, would sell in cheaper forms ; which the bill would prevent. According to the present law, every man has a right to make preparations for republishing works of which the copyright is about to expire ; yet the bill, with its retrospective clause, now comes between these persons and their speculations. Lord Brougham, in a passage marked by his most effec- tive eloquence, compared with the great poets who might derive profit from this bill passing into a law—and he would ungrudingly give them all legitimate protection—him who by his wonderful discovery brought the centres of mighty continents together, so that not an axe falls to break the silence of an Indian forest but its sounds are echoed back by the anvils and shuttles set in motion in Warwickshire, Yorkshire, Staf- fordshire, and Lancashire : yet what profit was secured to the Wor- cesters, the Newcomens, and, greatest of all, to Watt? Fourteen years is the longest term for which the undivided use of mechanical inven- tion is reserved to its author.

The bill was supported by Lord Lzrrer-Totr. The Bishop of Lost- DON observed, that the fact that people found it worth their while to in- vest 2,000/. or 3,000/. in the republication of a work whose copyright had just expired, proved that the author had not sufficient protection. Lord Brougham's calculation went upon the assumption that books do not increase in value with time : but standard works do so ; and for the cheap editions of inferior works, containing some valuable matter and much that was otherwise, the Bishop did not feel Lord Brougham's in- terest. Lord Corm-imam gave to the measure a qualified support ; but said that theNetails would want amendment,—such as one which ena- bles an exciseman to seize any book in a bookseller's shop which has' been reprinted abroad from an English edition and imported, and to de- mand 5/. for his trouble. Lord CAMPBELL cordially supported the bill.

The House went into Committee ; and several clauses were agreed to without amendment, on the understanding that the objections to parti- cular clauses should be discussed on bringing up the report.

l!dISCELLANEOUS.

PAROCHTAL Asingssainsra In reply to Sir ROBERT Nous, on Wed- nesday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the whole subject of parochial rating must be brought before the House next session; and with that view, the present system would be continued for one year by a conti- nuance bill.

SAFETY ON RAILWAYS. Replying to Lord CAMPBELL, on Tuesday, the Earl of RIPON said that the Government had obtained the opinion of the Inspector-General of Railways, that the practice of locking-in passengers was dangerous and unnecessary. Circulars had been, in consequence, addressed to the different Railway Companies, urging the discontinuance of the practice. The Government had no power to do more.

Mr. GLADSTONE further stated, on Wednesday, in reply to Sir Ro- BERT Lanus, that the attention of the Great Western Railway Company had recently been called to their practice of locking the doors of the carriages. That representation was at present under the consideration of the Company ; and he had no reason to believe that they had any wish to adhere with undue tenacity to their former arrangements.

CONSTITUTION OF NEWFOUNDLAND. Lord STANLEY moved, on

Thursday, for leave to bring in a bill for the better government of New- foundland. At present there is practically no qualification for the elec- tive franchise, and the most illiterate persons are elected ; great dissen- sion resulting. His bill fixes the qualification in the country districts at a forty-shilling freehold ; in towns at an occupancy of 51.; and that would include the great bulk of the householders. Instead of a sepa- rate Assembly and Legislative Council, the bill would unite the two as one Couucil ; two-fifths of the united Council to be nominated by the Crown, three-fifths elected by the people. Money-votes would ori- ginate with the Crown. With some protest from Mr. O'CoNaram., Mr. CHARLES BULLER, and others, leave was given to bring in the bill. Mr. BULLER approved of parts of it, but objected to the large nomina- tion by the Crown. NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT. Lord STANLEY also introduced a bill founded on Lord John Russell's of last session, for the better go- vernment of New South Wales. CAPTAIN Eirzior. On Tuesday, Sir ROBERT PEEL made the spon- taneous declaration, that his intercourse with Captain Elliot, late Com- missioner at Canton, with whom he was previously unacquainted, had given him fall confidence in his integrity and ability.

Coast Er.r.crion.

The case for the petitioners was brought to a close on Saturday. On that day, Mr. Ware, the Clerk of the Peace, stated, that every time a man was registered his name appeared in the registration-book ; so that every year there was an addition to the register : a pen was never drawn across a man's name, and thus dead men sill remained on the book : double qualifications were allowed to stand: 3,700 electors are on the register; and it is supposed that if the county were "well whipped,' about 3,000 or 3.200 voters might be brought up to the poll. Mr. Austen then argued in support of the sitting Members, that al- though there had beeu rioting, it was admitted that they had no con- nexion with it ; the rioting was not sufficient to prevent polling, or the Returning, officer would have resorted to the obvious and usual remedy of adjourning the poll ; and therefore there was no ground for the peti- tion. After an hour s deliberation, the Committee resolved- " That Daniel O'Connell, Esq., and Edmund Burke Roche, Esq., were duly elected Knights of the Shire to serve in the present Parliament, at the last election for the county of Cork."