FACTS ILLUSTRATING- THE HISTORICAL PRO- GRESS OF THE TITHE SYSTEM. (From the Nonconformist.) The ministers of the primitive churches, it is admitted on all hands, derived their maintenance from the willing con- tributions of their converts to the Christian faith. Tertullian, in his Apology," chap. 39, indicates, that in his day these offerings- were made monthly, and that the revenue thus o supplied was expended, not merely in the support of reli- gious teachers, but in relieving the poor, children destitute of parents, aged and feeble persons, men wrecked by sea, or condemned to the metal mines, or banished into islands, or cast into prison, professing the true God and the Christian faith. Eusebius declares, and is confirmed in his statement by Tertuliian, Origen, and Cyprian, that this mode of contribu- tion and expenditure continued till about the year A.D. 304. Somewhere about this time lands were first given to the Church, and the income arising from them went to swell the common treasury; but the use to which such funds were mainly devoted was not the maintenance of the clergy, for Origen writes, It becomes us to be faithful in disposing the rents of the Church, that we ourselves devour not those things which belong to the widows and the poor, but be content with simple diet and necessary appai-el"-and Prosper re- marks that 11 a minister able to live of himself ought not to participate of the goods of the Church." About A.D. 340, the council at Antioch decided that bishops might distribute the property of the Church (here- tofore confined to deacons exclusively), but that they should not take any part to themselves," or to the use of the priests and brethren that lived with them, unless neces- sity psdy required it/' and quoted in support of this restric- tion the words of Paul, Having food and raiment, let us otherwise be content." At the commencement of the fifth century, we catch a glimpse of the primary germ of the tithe system, in the Christian Church. Chrysostom, alluding to the liberality of the ancient Jewish people, and Sommending it as all example worthy of being followed by the disciples of Jesus, speaks," he says, not as commanding or forbidding that they should give more, yet as thinking it fit that they should not give less than the tenth part." Jerome exhorts the Church to the same elf ct. Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, waxes bolder. lie has a whole homily on the divine right of tithes—and says, the neglect of the payment of tithe is the cause of sterility and blast- ing." In the same spirit, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, tells his people that not paying their tithes, they should be found guilty at God's tribunal of the death of all the poor that perish through want in the places where they dwell." Gre- gory brings in the authority of the Mosaic law, and teaches that we are commanded in the law to give the tenth of all things unto God." The question whether tithes ought to be paid, remained quite an open question, and, indeed, was much disputed, as we learn from Agobard, Bishop of Lyons; nor was it till about A.D. 800 that the proportion of his property which a man should place at the disposal of the Church for charitable and religious uses was regarded as a settled point. From the ninth to the eleventh centuries tithes were called "the Lord's goods," the patrimony of the poor," and such like and the Council at Nantes declared that the clergy were not to use them as their-own,, but as committed to their trust." The payment of titho was not made binding by the autho- rity of the Church until it was so ordained by the Council of L-iteran, held under Pope Innocent III., in the year A.D. 1215. After which time, we have abundant evidence that the,clergy very rapidly encroached upon the patrimony of the poor"-and this same Innocent III. cried out against those who gave their tithes and ifrst-fruits to the poor, and not, to the priests, as heinous offenders. By a general council held at Lyons, A.D. 1274, it was decreed, "That it should not thenceforth be lawful for men to give their tithes of their own pleasure, where they would, as it had: been before, but that they should pay all their tithes to the mother Church." In some respects the facts relating to tithes in Great Britain differ in character from those relating to the rest of Catholic Europe. Whilst this island was a province of the Roman empire, the Christian churches planted in it would pmlwIJy b.. gfovarnfir] on the same principles as those on the continent. At the final abandonment of Britain by the llomans, about A.D. 426, there were from thirty to forty bishops, with a due proportion of inferior clergy—but the former were so miserably poor, that Sulpicius Severns remarks of three of them who assisted at the Council of Rimini, that they had no property whatever." The Britons, however; between the sixth and seventh cen- turies, harassed perpetually by the Picts and Scots, sought the aid of the Saxons, who, discontented with their treat- ment, turned, after a time, upon their allies, and drove them into Wales. England was divided into the Heptarchy—and heathenism prevailed from one end of it to the other. About A.D. GOO, Gregory the First, then Pope of Rome, sent Augustin hither as a missionary, by whom Ethelbert, King of Kent, was converted, and, in process of time, other kings, with their subjects-but direction was given to Augustin by Gregory, not to make religion burdensome to the missionary church, but to follow the example of the Apostles in primitive times. Great success, however, gradually removed their delicacy, n and they soon began to preach that tithes ought to be paid. In 786, two legates were sent from Pope Hadrian 1. to Ofl'a, King of M-ercia, and Alfwolfe, King of Northumber- land, and a .decree was obtaine#, in relation to both these kingdoms, commanding the people to pay tithe. Athelstone, A.D. 930, Edmond, A.D. 940, Edgar, A.D. 970, Ethelred, A.D. 1010, Canute, A.D. 1020, Edward the Con- fessor, and other Saxon kings, made several laws for tithes —and the privileges and powers extended by them to the Church, were confirmed by William the Conqueror, Henry I., Henry II., and Stephen. All the preceding laws, canons,, and decrees, of kings, popes, councils, and bishops, to the effect that every man ought to pay the tenth part of his increase, left the indi- vidual to pay them where he pleased, and hence the exorbi- tant wealth of certain favourite abbeys and monasteries. It was not until the decretal epistle of Innocent III. to the Bishop of Canterbury, in the commencement of the thirteenth century, enjoining every man, under threat of ecclesiastical censures for disobedience, to pay his tithes to the clergyman who ministered to him, that the parochial system of payment was established-—" aud," says Coke, because the Pope's decree seemed reasonable, it was admitted and enjoined by the law of the nation, king. aiid. people being then Papists." t, S Parishes being set up, priests appointed, and tithes paid to them, what before was owned as a gift, due," indeed, unto God," was, after forty years' possession, claimed as a deht- prescription was pleaded as a just title—the canon laws gained full force-aitd, lest the clergy should swallow up the whole offerings of the people, Parliament enacted, that a convenient portion of tithe should be set apart for the main- tenance of the poor of the parish for ever. Rich. 11. c., 15, s. 6. Tithes, however, could only be recovered in ecclesiastical courts, and no greater punishment could be inflicted upon recusants, which the labours of Wyclyffe and his followers made exceedingly numerous, than excommunication, until the Act of Henry VIII. 32, c. 7. We oppose these historical facts to vague and unsupported clerical assertions. We have chosen to give them in skele- ton, that every reader may see the bones of our conclusion- that tithes were never considered as endowments made over in perpetuity to the Church by the pious munificence of our ancestors. It is certain, that the clergy have made them their own by converting the common charitable and ecclesi- astical funds of the faithful to their own exclusive use, throw-, ing upon us the burden of maintaining the poor, and of repairing religious edifices, to which, as well as to the sup- port of tlie ministry, tithes were formerly allotted.
Two NEW COMETS.—Mr. Graham, of Mr. Cooper's Observa- try, Markr e Castl*?, Sligo, and M. Goujon, of,the Observatory, &t Paris, have written to Mr. Hind, of Mr. Bishop's Observa- tory, Regent's-puk, notifying their discovery of two new comets Mr; Graham'is being at present situated in Bootes, ani Mi.'Goujon'8 in the constellation ;iCrater. Both comets, it is said,, are-in very favourable positions for; observation during the absence of moonlight.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY, APRIL 19. THE WAR IN INDIA. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that on Tuesday next he would move that the thanks of the House be presented to the Governor-General of India, the Commander-in-Chief of India, and the different officers and soldiers engaged in the recent military operations in the Punjnub. The noble Marquis also stated, in reply to a question from Lord Stanley, that the Sicilian correspondence was not quite ready for presentation to the House, and that Admiral Parker's squadron had been ordered to withdraw for the present from the Sicilian waters. NORTH WALES RAILWAY COMPANY. On the motion of Lord MONTEAGLE, the order of the day was read for the attendance at the bar of Mr. W. Chadwick, the chair- man, and of Mr. John Marriner, the late secretary of this Com- pany. Lord MOITTEAGLE then described to the House the p-irticulars of the case against these two gentlemen, with which the recent publication of the report of their lordships' select committee has already rendered the public familiar. He enumerated the different attempts which those gentlemen had made to evade the orders of their lordships for their attendance at the bar. Disobedience pro- ceeded, he contended from the report, from a corrupt motive, which was that of desiring to divide a certain amount of capital among the shareholders, contrary to the provisions of an Act of Parliament. He then moved that the two gentlemen be called to the bar. Lord CAMPBELL seconded the motion. The motion was then put and carried. Mr. CHADWICK and Mr. MARRINElt were then severally called in and placed at the bar. They both gave assurances of their readiness to obey the orders of the House, but offered in excuse of their disobedience a nugatory plea that the summoning officer had not served upon them the order for their attendance in the man- ner stated in the minutes of evidence. They likewise denied that they had taken any steps to evade in the slightest degree the serv- ing of the orders upon them. Lord MONTRAGLE, on their withdrawing from the bar, ob- served that the explanation of Mr. Chadwick amounted to nothing more than this—that he controverted by his mere word the state- ment upon oath made by their summoning officer. He therefore proposed, in conformity with former precedents, to move that they be taken into the custody of the gentleman usher of the black rod for a contempt of the House by disobedience to its orders. The motion was then put formally in each case by the LORD CHANCELLOR, and was carried nemine dissentiente. The two gentlefuen were then removed from the bar in custody.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY, AplUL 19. THE IRISH DEPUTATION. When the first order of the day was read, a conversation of some interest, though of an irregular character, took place be- tween Lord Castlereagh and Lord John Russell, respecting a recent interview between them, on the subject of Irish affairs, which, when about to take the form of a sharp debate, was dis- creetly terminated by the Speaker. NAVIGATION LAWS. On the consideration of the Navigation Bill, as amended, a clause moved by Captain HARRIS, requiring that British ships should have on board an apprentice or apprentices in proportion to the tonnage, and an amendment moved by Mr. ANDERSON, for exempting seamen quitting a vessel to enter the navy from any penalty or forfeiture, were opposed by Mr. LABOUCHEKE, and ne- gatived, after a briet discussion. Mr. LABOUCHEIIE consented to adopt a proposition of Mr. Glad- stone, to introduce into the bill a clause authorising her Majesty in Council, on the application of any colony, to sanction the con- veyance of goods and passengers from one part of such colony to another in other than British ships. RELIEF OF DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND). The House then went into committee on Relief of Distressed Unions in Ireland, when The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, moved a resolution that a sum not exceeding £ 100,000 be gianted from the Consolidated Fund, charged upon the rate-in-aid, in order to afford relief to certain distressed unions in Ireland. He showed the necessity of such a grant for this purpose from the state of utter destitution of the west of Ireland, some of the unions being unable to raise money sufficient to purchase food from the contractors, to whom they were deeply in debt. Mr. HUME inquired whether any portion of the £100,000 would be paid before the Rate-in-Aid Bill passed, which was in a very doubtful state, and he proposed to add to the resolution a proviso, that no part of the money should be paid until the Rate-in-Aid "Bill had received.the Royal assent. Lord John RUSSELL said, the course which the Government intended to pursue was, to proceed with the Rate-in-Aid Bill but as only about £(í,OOO remained of the vote of £ 50,000, he thought he should fail in his duty if he withheld all relief to the west of Ireland unions until the bill had received the Royal assent. If Parliament rejected the bill, he should not authorise any further advances but to the extent of £ 5,000 or 6,000, which might be required in the interval, he thought he might be justified in relieving such utter misery. Mr. H. HERBERT moved an amendment to the effect that an income and property tax be assessed on incomes, and property in Ireland. He observed that the House had expressed an uumis- taken blc opinion that unless Ireland consented to an increase of taxation in some shape, there should be no further grant from imperial taxation. Irish members in the present emergency were bound to consent to such further taxation. Mr. FitE CH opposed the amendment. The catne course wa- followed by Mr. J. O'OONNELL, who read some frightful details of misery aud death from starvation in the destitute districts os Ireland. Captain JONES supported the amendment, preferring an incomef tax to a rate-in-aid, which, in his opinion, would endanger the whole working of the poor-law. Mr. HORSMAN couid not support the amendment, which he did not consider, with Mr. Herbert, to be au alternative of a rate- in-aid. Major BLACKALL thought, if the distress of Ireland was to be relieved from Irish resources, as the laud had hitherto been heavily taxed for that purpose, it. was but fair that other property should now be required to contribute, and he therefore supported the amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER commended the spirit which had been shown that night by Irish members, and after a general review of the conduct of Government, of Parliament, and of Irish members, upon Irish questions, admitted that the argu- ments against the rate-in-aid were very strong but the House of Commons had expressrd its opinion that a further effort should be made by Ireland to support its own poor, and by a natioula rate-in-aid. Mr. DISRAELI said, no one had objected to a grant of public money for the extraneous relief of distress in Ireland as a grant, but had required that such a grant should be accompanied by some remedial measures. He should vote for the amendment. He had no confidence in the bill, for it was quite evident that the Govern- ment had no confidence in it themselves whereas an Income-tax, besides other recommendations, would settle the question, and would, touch all species of property. Mr. Disraeli then reviewed the Irish policy of the Government, and characterised the recent communication between Lord John Russell and the Irish members as an unconstitutional act. There was no analogy between a leader of a party calling his supporters together, and a Minister iuviting by advertisement one-sixth of the House of Commons, and asking them, in a private room, not for their support, but for their counsel, which was a shuffling off of responsibility. Lord John RUSSELL, in replying to Mr. Disraeli, complained that lie dealt in events and occurrences in the spirit of a writer of fiction, in order to produce an effect; the alleged closeting of Irish members, for example, was a very pleasant story, but it was in its circumstances imaginary. Lord John explained what really did occur at the meeting, and denied that he had been guilty of any unconstitutional it-t. With regard to the proposition of Mr. Herbert, an Income tax, which must be fppl;?d to trades and professions, would require a new machinery-; but whether the com- mittee preferred an Income-tax or a rate-in-aid, the Government must have some means of affuldiu" immediate relief to the west of Ireland. 0 Colonel Pu>'nE moved the adjournment of the debate. The committee divided, when the motion was negatived-by 206 to 77. illr. SADLLIR, however, urged that many Irish members de- sired to express their opinions upon th;e subject, and he moved that the chairman report progress, to which Lord J. Russell yielded, and The House adjourned at one o'clock.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—FRIDAY, APRIL 20. Lord REDKSDALE introduced A bill for the prevention of smoke, which was read a first time. Petitions were presented from Sussex-complaining of agricul- tural distress, and from several places in Ireland against the rate- in-aid. In reply to the Earl of ST. GERM INS, The Marquis of LAXeDOWMt said that the subject of separa- ting highways from turnpike-roads in any measure which might be introduced would receive the consideration of the Government. NORTH WALES RAILWAY. Lord BKAUMONT presented petitions from Mr. Chadwick and Mr. iMarriner, the chairman and secretary of the North Wales Railway, who were ordered into the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod, on Thursday, for disobeying the orders of the House, acknowledging their error, and praying to be released. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that their lordships would not be acting consistently with their dignity in entertaining these peti- tions to-day. A decent time should be given before they were considered, and he recommended the noble baron to postpone any motion for the liberation of these persons until Monday next. Lord BEAUMONT concurred in the propriety of this suggestion, and postponed his motion for their liberation till Monday next. The House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY, APRIL 20. The Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. HOP DUTY. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer to Mr. Herries, stated that the collection of the half-yearly hop duties payable in May would be postponed till about Michaelmas, on bonds being entered into for che payment of those duties. This was done to give the parties concerned the benefit- of the picking of this year. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE OF THE YEAR. Mr. HUMP. asked when the Government would be prepared with an accurate financial statement of the income and expenditure of the year. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, referring to a return re- cently published, said that the revenue of the year just closed had produced about half a million more than lie had anticipated. This led to the hope of a continued improvement. The estimates were not yet quite completed, but he was induced to hope that the in- come of the year would cover the expenditure. -Reductions to the extent of nearly a million and a half had been made in the naval, military, and ordnance estimates any great reduction in the miscellaneous estimates was not to be looked for. For some months past the export trade to the north of Europe had been gra- dually reviving, but he regretted to learn that it had again suf- fered a check by the recent renewal of hostilities between Prussia and Denmark. AFFAIRS OF SICILY. Mr. BANKRS, referring to a letter of Lord Palmerston to the Hon. Mr. Temple in January last, asked when the Government had first recognised the rebels in Sicily as the Sicilian Government, and whether that recognition still continued. Lord PALMERSTON said the leeognition had been made as early as the beginnina of last year, when Lord Minto, at the request of the King of Naples, entered into communication with those parties. That recognition still continued, as far as acknowledging the fact that there did exist in Sicily a party exercising the functions of a Government. SUPPLY.-NAVY ESTIMATES. The House then went into Committee of Supply, to vote some sums on account of the Navy Estimates. The first was £ 350,000 on account for wages of artificers and labourers in the naval establishments at home, Captain FITZROY protested against the practice of taking votes on account, as an innovation and unconstitutional. After a short conversation the vote was agreed to, as were the following: — £ 350,000 for naval stores, and purchase of steam machinery, &c.; E500,000 for half-pay of naval officers; £ 200,000 far military pensions and allowances £ I UO,OOO for civil pensions and allowances. RATE-IN-AID. The House then went into committee, and the debate of the The House then went into committee, and the debate of the preceding evening was resumed, on the proposed advance of £ 100,000 in anticipation of the Ratc-in-Aid Bill. Mr. SADLEIR said he was strongly opposed to the proposal of a rate-in-aid, and shot!]cl' reJOice if its rejection led to the overthrow of a ministry who had hitherto not displayed any aptitude for legis- lating for Ireland. He regarded a rate-in-aid as wholly opposed to the principle of a sound poor-law. Mr. CLEMENTS also supported the amendment, believing that the rate-in aid would tend to destroy all efforts now making in various localities to keep down the poor-rates. It was unjust in principle, and would be disastrous in consequences. An income- tax would be much preferable. Mr. RICE considered that a rate in-aid would meet the emer- gency, while an income-tax would fail to do so. Mr. SCULLY thought it would he impossible, having regard to the prevailing distress, to limit either the amount or the duration of the rate-in-aid. His constituents were not in a condition to bear either a rate-in-aid or an income-tix. He would recommend the Government to advance the money then appoint a committee to inquire into the ability of Ireland to bear any additional bur- den and he was certain their report, would be either an income-tax or a rate-in-aid. The Church temporalities were best able to bear the burden. This was evident from the fact that eight Irish bishops had died, leaving; an aggregate property of a million and a half sterling, or an average of E IS 7,500 each There were other species of property which might be made available for the purpose. Col. DUNNE objected to both taxes, as inconsistent with the act of union. On condition of a coiyii-nittee being appointed to make inquiries with a view to an adjustment of the taxation of the two countries, he would be ready to consent to a repayment of the pro- posed advance otherwise he should oppose both the propositions before the committee. He attributed much of the distress of Ire- land to the change of the co n-laws, a<d the removal of p otective duties, whereby the value of its production would be diminished fully six millions and a half. Mr. BANKES said he should vote in favour of the amendment, though he was aware it had no chance of being carried, after the declaration of the noble lord (Russell), that, in the event of its being affirmed, he should impose other taxes on Ireland in addi- tion. He had no wish to saddle Ireland with an Income-tax at so unfavourable a moment, and would rather have seen the emer- gency met by the continuance of the duties on corn for a year, or by doubling the rate of postage. Sir Lucius O'BRIEN advocated the grant being made uncon- ditionally. He regarded the want of confidence as the great evil of Ireland it extended to all classes, and paralysed all industry. Mr. T. M'CULLAGH referred to the evidence given by Mr. Twisleton before the committee on the Irish Poor-laws as opposed to the rate-in-aid, and contended that the grounds were insufficient on which he had based that opinion. He believed that south of the Boyne there was no great feeling against the rate-in-aid much less than against an Income-tax, or against the refusal of any grant He sincerely deprecated the recommendation of Mr Twisleton that reliance should be placed on the potato crop. This was nothing short of recommending what must lead to national bankruptcy. If the principle of an Income-tax in aid of poor- rates were once admitted, it might soon come to this, that the $ a Income-tax would be made a substitute for rates generally. It was beyond the power of any Poor-law to remedy the evils of Ireland; it was necessary that some stringent measure should be adopted against absenteeism. Mr. MONSELL complained that the Irish members had been un- fairly used by the noble lord (Russell), who, while professing to take their opinion as to the kind of taxation to be imposed, had encumbered the question with considerable difficulty by holding out a threat of some undefined additional taxation. Regarding the question as one between a rate-in-aid and an Income-tax, he should support the latter, though lie knew it would press much more heavily on the landlords. Sir H. W. BARRON could not conscientiously vote for any ad- ditional taxation in a country situate as Ireland now was. Lord Claude HAMILTON followed in support of the amendment. Mr. MARTIN supported the rate-in-aid. Mr. STAFFORD put it to the committee, as men of business, to consider which proposition—that of the Government or that of Mr. Herbert-offered the best security for the mortgage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had assumed the produce of the rate at £ -250,000 that of an income-tax had not been calculated and he complained of the Government for not putting the two alterna- tives fully and fairly before Irish members. Mr. Stafford insisted upon the injustice and impolicy of following up the rereal of the Corn-law—a measure beneficial to the const mer, but injurious to the agricultural class in Ireland-by a measur; in the same di- rection and made a strong appeal to Irish members not to sup- port a proposition which would derange the whole working of the Poor-law, and bring its machinery to a dead-lock. Mr. GiiOGAN adhered to his decided objection to the rate-in-aid, upon its own merits and as a security for the advance; on the other hand, he considered the offer of Mr. Herbert most uncalled. for mid unusual on that side of the House. Lord CASTLEREAGH endeavoured to elicit from Lord J. Russell the nature and amount of the taxation which might be expected to accompany an income-tax, but without effect. The committee divided, when Mr. HEKBKIIT'S amendment was negatived by 194 to 146, several members leaving the House without voting. Lord John RUSSELL, in reply to Mr. HeME. explained what he had said on Thursday night respecting interim advances. The committee then divided upon the resolution, which was affirmed by 201 to 106. The House adjourned at a few minutes before one o'clock until ¡ Monday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY, APRIL 23. The Earl of Powis presented a petition from several villages ill Wales ngainst the Marriages Bill, and another from a board of guardians, complaining of the present mode of administering pa- rochial relief. NORTH WALES RAILWAY.—DISCHARGE OF MESSRS. CHADWICK AND MARIUNER. Lord BEAUMONT moved that the petitions of Mr. W. Chad- wick and Mr. J. Marriner then in custody for contempt pf the orders of the House praying to be discharged, be taken into con- sideration." This having been done, his lordship moved that the petitioners be brought to the bar, reprimanded, and discharged oa payment of thi-ir fees. A short conversation, in which Lord M ONTEAGLE, Earl GREY, Lord BROUGHAM, and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE were the speakers, then took place. Every one of their lordships dilated on the enormity of the offence committed by the petitioners, and gave warning that, if a similar offence were hereafter committed by any party, it would not be visited with the lenity which their lordships were about to display in the present instance. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE added, that their lordships were deeply indebted to Lord Monteagle for the manner in which he had vindicated their privileges, and assured the noble baron that if he had not o promptly taken the matter up it would have been his (the noble marquis's) duty, or the duty of some other member of the Cabi- net, to have interfered in their support. Lord BEAUMONT assured the House that in making this motion he had no intention to palliate the offence which the petitioner* had committed. None of their lordships could entertain a stronger opinion than he did of the misconduct of the petitioners. The motion was then put and carried. The petitioners were then brought to the bar, reprimanded by the LORD CHANCELLOR, and ordered to be discharged. After the other business of the House had been transacted their lordships adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY, APRIL 23. SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL. Sir J. PAKINGTON rose to move the second reading of the Se- vern Navigation Improvement Commission (Amendment of Acts, New Works, and Further Powers) Bill. He said that by the forms of the House the bill before them was a private bill, but it was really a public bill, involving public interests ef great com- mercial importance, and deeply affecting the well-being of the whole of that part of England which is watered by the Severn. Captain BERKELEY, in opposing the bill, s:,id that the city of Bristol, as well as the town of Gloucester and couiity of Shrop- shire, were decidedly opposed to it The Bill was supported by Mr. LABOUCHEHE, Sir F. T. BARING, and Mr. LITTLETON, and opposed by Mr. R. CLIVE, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. HUMB, Mr. GRKNVILLE BERKELEY, Mr. SLANEY, and Mr. 0. GORE. Ultimately the second reading was rejected by a majo- rity of 34, the numbers being for it, 137, and against it, 171. THE NAVIGATION BILL. Mr. HERRIES, in moving that the bill be read a third time that day six months, justified the conduct of its opponents in refraining from discussing the details of the bill in committee, on the ground that it was so framed that it was utterly impossible to make any changes that could reconcile them to its principle; and he-then urged the increased strength which the opposition to the bill had acquired in this country, on the one hand, and, on the other, the circumstances which, since the introduction of this most danger* us measure, had destroyed or diluted the evidence in its favour. The arguments derived from Canada, the West ladies, the representa- tions of continental nations, the United States of America, had no longer the weight which Government had attached to them. The measure was said to be for the interests of commerce but commerce should be allowed to speak for itself, and in London, Liverpool, Bristol, Newcastle, Hull, Sunderland, Waterford, com- mercial men had pronounced an opinion adverse to this measure, which had no necessary connexion with free trade. Mr. ROBINSON seconded the amendment, and repeated his ob- jections to the bill with reference to its effects upon the emplov- ment of artisans, and upon our tiaval supremacy but his main objection was, that the bill would throw open the direct trade be- tween the colonies and the mother country, and the indirect trade between the different colonies. Mr. l\f'GIE.GOlt supported the bill, observing that he complained not of what it did for foreign ships, but what it left undone for British ships he wished that all the burdens upon the Bri- tish shipowner—insurance, manning, victualling, light dues should be removed, and then he feared no competition with other countries. He couid not discover that the Navigation-laws had at any period been of the Jet advantage to the British shipowner, and he showed the inutility and consequent impolicy of navigation laws from the practice of other naval and commercial nations. He undervalued the apprehensions respecting an open competition with the United States, which could be'hazardousoniy upon the supposition that the physical and moral qualities of the Americans had attained a higher pitch of perfection than those of Englishmen. Mr. T. BARING opposed the bill, and reviewed the grievances for which it professed to be a remedy. He admitted that there were, ar.d must be, grievances under restrictions, and that restrictions could only be justified upon strong grounds but those grievances might be removed without striking at the principle of the Naviga- tion-laws, and adopting the principle of removing all restrictions upon foreigners and maintaining restrictions upon British sub- jects. He complained of the topics introduced by Sir J. Graham, whose fear of reaction was a token of distrust. If there was re- action, it would not be the work of a political faction, but of the most dangerous sort of party—a suffering p ople. Lord John RUSSELL felt great difficulty in addressing the House after the arguments in favour of the bill had been so thoroughly exhausted by Sir J. Graham. Addressing himself to the objec- tions of Mr. Walpole, he showed that the Navigation Act of Crom- weil, so far from being of a protective character, originated in hostility to the Du;ch, and that the act of Charles II. had been in its results not beneficial, but mischievous. In an economical view, Mr. Baring had confessed that the restrictions of these laws must produce grievances. In a national view, there were many reasons for doubting the assertion, of which there was no proof, that our navy der.ved its strength from these lairs. He showed that s.n(,.e the modifications introduced by Mr. Huskisson our shipping 'had increased—a result which justified the going further in the re- moval of these restrictions,—and he declared his confident beliet that the energies of this country, left free and unshackled, won id maintain a competition with any nation of the globe. He asked the House to settle this great question, more especially now that a cry was raised for a renewal of protection in the shape of a duty upon the importation of food, which, if passed by Parliament, could never be maintained. The noble lord concluded by saying, I ask you not to refuse a reform which is pointed out by reason, which is the result of inquiry, and which is in conformity with the principle that Parliament has already deliberately adopted. If, on. the other hand, you announce that you are about, to pursue tiie course of reaction, and if you induce men to think that you doubt of the soundness of those princ.ples that you have adopted, if the opinion prevails that the shipping interest is not alone to be left as the sole protected interest in the country, and that you are about to restore that protection which Parliament has taken away, then I say you will be giving the signal for an agitation of which indeed you may have been proved of having commenced the ope- ration, but of which you will not see tie eud without the deepest regret and sorrow (luud cheers). Mr. WALPOLE viewed the question of our Navigation-laws in three points of view-namely, historical, economical, and na- tional. b the first he traced the laws through the different modi- fications they had undergone, and drew the conclusion that the re- ciprocity system, which had been forced upon us. had been upon the whole advantageous, and being so, he asked why it should be abandoned. Under the economical view, he summed up the faci- lities and gains which the change proposed to secure to the con- sumer, and he set against this small fractional benefit the loss and risk with which it menaced a capital of £ Its,000,000, employing 240.00.) men and boys, and put it to the House whether, if the result of the experiment should dityiii.isli our mercantile navy and deteriorate our shipping interest, it bei'eved they couid ever be restored. But if the economical advantage, were not, as they were, doubtful-if they were certain and great—they should not be pur- chased at the expense of national objects; and Mr. Walpole in- sisted that, with one exception, all the witnesses had declared that this measure would impair our mercantile marine, and that that marine was the foundation of our naval supremacy. He sug- gested certain relaxations of the existing laws, in the spirit of tite reciprocity system, and concluded a speech of much ability with a eulogy upon the policy of the Navigation-laws,.vand by depre- cating a rash experiment which would probably impair, and cer- tainly hazard, our national resources. Sir James GIIAHAM, with reference to the remark of Mr. Herries, that commerce should be allowed to speak for itself, and to his triumphant appeal to the petitions which he supposed to be the organs of its voice, obsened that the opinions of the out- ports were to be collected from their representatives, and the members for those places which were the chief emporin of our commerce voted in favour of the bill. As to the principle of reci- procity, he admitted that it was wise and politic at the time-when it was adopted by Mr. H u,kissoll; but he could not attach mucii value to the principle in the abstract. He believed, with resp et,, to reciprocity or retaliation, as a general rule, tir.it it would be better to leave the Navigation-laws as they were tltdi w,wt 11. O.