a coca 
> 
1843.] 
THE GARDENERS 
CHRONIC 
LE. 347 
installation of Sir Charles Metcalfe, at Kingston. The 
addresses to his Excellency, on assuming the government, 
and his replies, are published in the papers. He had not 
developed the line of policy he intended to pursue. His 
predecessor, Sir Charles Bagot, had so far recovered as to 
be able to walk in-doors. He would return to England 
so soon as his health would permit. The Warspite, Lord 
John Hay, had arrived at New York to convey him home. 
—Accounts from Bes sone s, Newfoundland, to the 15th 
ult., of the ship- 
wreck of 28 beng: with serious camage to 5 others, by 
the drifting of the ice from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 
Although the craft were small, and the loss of capital less 
extensive in proportion, this great sacrifice of property will, 
it is feared, occasion much inconvenience to the trade of 
the colonists, especially to those engaged in the fisheries, 
—From Hayti we learn that the city of St. Domingo sur- 
rendered to the forces of the new Government on the 
30th March, after a slight affair, in which 10 or 12 persons 
only were killed. Since the abdication of Boyer the 
administration of a Provisional Government had prevailed, 
as there had not been time for choosing a President.— 
From the West Indies we have the melancholy intelli- 
gence of the death of the Bishop of Jamaica, after a short 
illness, about the 10th of April. 
‘APE oF Goop Hopx.—We learn by the Cape papers 
received on Wednesday, that there is some reason to 
believe, upon the removal of the troops from Colesberg, 
that the Boers had again made hostile demonstrations. 
The news from Port Natal is alike unsatisfactory; for it 
seems that Major Smith requires a reinforcement of troops 
to suppress a similar feeling among the Boers in that 
neighbourhood. These accounts, however, are very 
vague ; and, probably, are much exaggerated.” 
New Sour Warns ann New Znauanp. — The 
Columbian from Sidney arrived at Liverpool on Wednesday, 
making the passage in 105 days. By this arrival we have 
Sydney papers to the 2d Feb., and New Zealand to the 
11th January. There is no political news of importance 
from either colony. At the former, commercial matters 
appear to be in a very bad state. The New Zealand 
Wellington Gazette has the following passage: ‘* In our 
last, under the head of Nelson news, we gave an account 
of Mr. Cottrell having proceeded upon an exploring expe- 
dition. The following extract from a letter of the 12th 
of December describes the result, and cannot fail to prove 
highly satisfactory. We think the fear about the deficiency 
of available land in New Zealand is now set at rest. 
Mr. Cottrell is just returned from an exploring expedition 
to the southward, which has turned out satisfactorily. 
He reached the thouth of the Wairoa, in Cloudy Bay, 
after about nine days’ walking, for the last four days 
through an extensive grass valley containing about 
250,000 acres, and, from his description, of very good 
Jand; he pronounces a road to be perfectly practicable 
from this into the plain, the pass through the hills being 
quite easy. A man who was with him, and a good bush- 
man, ee to reach the valley in three days from 
the Waimea district; it appears also that there is an 
available district to the south-west. We hear nothing 
more from the flaxdressers ; they have only just got their 
house up, and are beginning to cut the flax. They are 
still very sanguine of complete success.””—At Sydney, the 
55th anniversary of the foundation of the colony was 
celebrated with great pomp on the 26th Feb.; the weather 
was remarkably fine, and the whole proceedings of dinners, 
regattas, and other joyous demonstrations, passed off with 
the greatest satisfaction 
‘Patliament. 
_ HOUSE OF LORD: 
RNCLIFFE, itt akes to Lord Beaumont, 
ited to him, “during the present session,” 
when stating that no pcre: wee contemplated in the Corn- 
Monday.—Lorp 
denied the words attr: 
laws.—Earu Powis laid upon the table of ahs aoe a bill to 
called on some other learned Peers to express their opinions.— 
Lord Denman declared, that ifthe Bill did not pass, public mora- 
lity would suffer. more unhesitatingly gave a vote 
than he would to the second reading of this Bill—Lord Came- 
BELL gave his opinion that there was no other remedy but this 
,ANGDALE Said, ks sooner than permit a great 
public scandal and private injw unredressed, the Bill 
ought to be passed.—Their Lovdships divided, when the second 
reading was carried by 55 tos 
Thursday.—The House went into committee on the Townshend | 
daly Bi it .—Lord BrouGHam proposed the amendments of which 
he had given notice, viz., one which would go to aci4 the Bill 
declare simply that the children of Lady Townshend were not the 
children eh i Marquis Townshend, and the other that Sait leave 
‘s, Cecil Nina Bolivar, who is under age, out of the Bill 
altogether.: paler ONTEAGLE me the Earl of Se sy , Obyecket 
The advocates of free trade were not disposed to legis- 
or injuriously, or without due and previous inquiry 
ine the nature of the alleged peculiar burdens borne by the agri- 
cultural interest. Sir R. Peel w: 
did neither, he felt bound, in theniredantethoes 
of the country, 5 support the motion.—Sir OUGLAS, as the 
free representative of the citizens of Liverpool, and not their 
pledged delegate, declared bis determination to oppose the 
motion, which he considered as fatal in its object to the best 
interests of the empire, manufacturing, eae and agri- 
England was England’s best custom: 
tect the small farmer was to protect the people; “aad confidence 
and steadiness in our legislation were essential to the employ- 
ment of our superabundant capital—Mr. Muntz asked where 
the confidence was to come from—from a starving ae 
iminishi r a declining revenue? 
to the amendments nd, the Bill a: 
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE eee ted the nats of calling 
the Marquis of *eWnaken to the bar, to answer for his conduct in 
bargaining for the sale of the rights of the Pesvige for a pecuniary 
consideration.—The of DEvon, noerebeteaeH ote amend- 
ments, which he aia e Bill most 
objectionable.—T1 he amendments were finally agreed Ant aa the Bill 
passed Hens committee 
to a question from Lord Campbell, the Lord CHanceLnor 
ated that the nies would ied in attendance in the mas on Thurs- 
to give their opinion respecting the law in cas inal 
sn The Lord Cuance.yor stated that Mr. Kuster the counsel 
mployed for the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill, had admitted his 
elie to prove a case of. oe corruption against the probes 
Aeacinnats a Ga hAdLeAas Giana, than which, in his opinion, 
nothing more disgraceful ever issued from the lips of a prelate.—The 
Earl of Kenmare also disclaimed any participation in the senti- 
ments attributed to Dr. Higgins, and expressed his concurrrence 
with Lord Beaumont’s indignation, 
copa OF pega AOS 
Monday.—In answer a question by Mr. Redington, Sir R. 
PEEL areal that iS as authorized by the Queen to declare her 
Majesty’s adherence to the declaration made by King William, 
in reply to the joint address of the two Houses of Parliament, sf 
the roe 1834, in reference to the repeal of the Union. And thai 
royal reply having contained these words :—‘I receiv - with 
great satisfaction, your assurance that you will co-operat 
etermination to preserve inviolable the teeaiee 
Union, and I shall feel it my duty to co-operate in the removal 
of any real grievances pas which any portion of my subjects 
ajesty adhered to the latter as well 
as to the former part a it. With respect to what measures 
besides those before the House the Government proposed, in 
accordance with this royal pledge, to introduce in regard to 
Ireland, it would be inconvenient to announce them before- 
hand.—Lord Cirments having asked under what head of ame- 
lioration the Government classed the Arms’ Bill, Sir R. Pern 
replied—* I consider that a measure which is intended to pro- 
tect the personal safety of residents in Ireland, and to prevent 
the commission of such terrible crimes as-have been committed 
in some cases within the last two years, is one which may be 
expected to ameliorate the onder of that country. 
The adjourned debate on the Corn-laws was resumed by Mr. W. 
O. STANLEY, who taunted the agricuturatoreounty members with 
forfeiting their pledges, and his opinion that the fixed 
duty of the late Government Benner been a far more effectual 
security to the agriculturist, than the uncertain and conceding 
system of the present Government.—Dr. Bowrine thought that 
the friends of free trade had great reason to congratulate them- 
selves on the progress of the debate. Glimmerings of truth ap- 
peared in the twilight ees of the supporters of the Corn- 
Jaws, for half and whole ad missions of the estes tel he eo Sane: 
‘3 
them. The free-traders asked for the unqualified application of 
their principles ; ed repudiated exemptions in favour of any 
class whatever.—Mr. Ewarr followed, appealing to the Conser- 
vative representatives of commercial towns, and contending that, 
in the course of the debate, the opponents ‘of free trade had ine 
dulged in mis-statements and fallacies, such as that low prices 
would follow the repeal of the Corn- laws, and so forth. What 
was required was, such an extension of the commerce of the 
country as would increase the ability of the people to consume. 
—Mr. CurnpERs could not, in the present state of the country, 
and after the extensive changes of last year, vote for the imme- 
diate and total repeal of the Corn-laws, though he looked forward 
fearlessly to their ultimate removal, and was satisfied that the 
change would disappoint both opponents and supporters.—Cap. 
tain LAyarp commented on the measures 0! © Govern- 
ment, especially the imposition of the Income-tax, and eeree 
that the financial statement of the Chancellor of 
chequer was not only a proof of their failure, but an eaiiie 
tional argument for the further application of free-trade 
principles. He would vote otion because he con- 
jemned the Corn-laws, though on this point he feared he 
differed from some of his constituents who were interested in 
agriculture.—Mr. ULLER discussed the auniont of “ peculiar 
burdens,” and after showing that last year, bY arison with 
the previous one, was peculiarly favourable for “dissuieine the 
mischiefs of a Corn-law, declared that in default of opportunity 
for supporting a fixed duty, he would give his vote in favour of 
the motion. The principle of the ‘ sliding scale” could not be 
tions by which he was h 
found himself in very A company, in the attacks made | upon 
him by vie Irish agitat 
y.—Lord Br Siena withdrew his Slave-Trade Aboli- 
tion bill, A introduced another bul y convening some altera- 
ions, ‘This amended ie was read a fil 
ed the second reading of the Townshend 
made ovt at the bar was, aa 
unnecessar 
My ‘was open 
rdships Panantl it, iiioee ‘was not one amongst ition mete would 
Not live to repent it. He therefore moved that it be read that 
especially after the impetus given to free-trade prin. 
ciples by the Government, and the feeling of dissatisfaction and 
insecurity which Maes ees had communicated to the agri- 
cultural interest.— RELL contended that landlord, 
farmer, and eedeciarn aint were all interested in the 
Corn-laws ; even now, the recent Sos had so affected the 
capital of the farmer, that if he were to off his stock he 
would lose one-half. He adduced various statement to show 
the necessity of fair protection to agriculture.—Mr. Pou.ur 
Scrore looked upon all indirect taxes on articles of consumption 
as savouring of Bla ae se) we had a great national 
establishment to maintain, wi d not push the principles of 
free-trade to the extent of repeating all these taxes. What we 
shou ooh new ever, Was onstruct our financial system with 
a view to nue, and ae a protection, and above all, in that, 
| which eonstieates the main article of subsiste: nce for the people.! 
There were only two arguments put forth in favour of the Corn-) 
laws, peculiar burdens and prescriptive right: but the one wag 
not proved, while if the other was to be pleaded in defence of am 
error, every additional year added to the prescriptive right 
only plunged us deeper in the mire. In his own opinion, 
there never More favourable time for the repeal 
of the Corn- a prices were already low, and he did not 
think they would descend much lower; while the benefit 
to the Bee ctnvis community would be very great.— Mr. 
THoRNELY had visited the United States last Autumn, im- 
Senor after the passing of its high tariff. At Washington 
he had waited on the President, and urged the sommes re- 
forms effected by Sir R, Peel as a reason for jore liberal 
policy, but Mr. Tyler had avowed his spmoneone which was 
Jargely. shared in by American merchants—that our system of 
woe laws presented an almost insuperable bar to an extended 
e between the two countries—Mr. Srrurr, speaking on 
Ponait of the silk manufacture, denied that it required or sought 
¢ 
day six months.—Lord Kenyon replied to Lord Cottenham, and 
protection, the demand of those interested in it being for equal 
laws caused the people of this country to pay fifty: ‘aons 
more for food than the range of the continental prices. It 
was not all lost to the country, but it was taken from in- 
dustry and given to idleness. AS a representative of a great, 
and enlightened, and a suffering community, he expressed his 
concern at the state of the revenue and the condition of 
Mr. CoppEn said there was no way of raising prices but b 
restricting supply. Could they Ae themselves, therefore, in 
maintaining a law which restricted of the supply of 
food for the people? He did not aerate motives’ but the con- 
dition of the Se altieat labourer was the paket condition of 
the Corn-law which eet be pronounced. He had been making 
some excursions into the agricultural Spies and he found 
pauperism and cae: coincident, and was.told that the return 
os the petty sone: ae no criterion, for ee bee obliged to 
ink at crime, and t 
it eb boasted, as an act of benevolence, that the: Seer labourer 
was permitted to gather up the sticks blown down from the 
crows’ nests on the trees. Those landowners who were the best 
farmers denied that land would be thrown ont of cultivation ; 
that allegation was only made by those who came from the 
worst-farmed districts of the country, and who were, therefore, 
most rampant for protection. Long leases and good farming 
were to be found together, as in the Lothians and Northumber- 
land; for himself, he would reckon it an insult to have a farm 
offered to him on which at spend money without the security of 
alease., In fact, they did not know their own interests. Pro- 
faution usta egedto Tiave bepif dininished by the last Corn-law, 
but the landlords, instead of talking of reducing their rents, 
called on the farmers to bestir themselves, instead of sitting at 
their doors, smoking their pipes and drinking their ale. But the 
ae were beginning to get sick of political eee they 
were jealous even of that sma. Wh section who wel! tying to ge! 
up > friendship for the farmers on the ruins of “the old "friend- 
ships; theygwere suspicious of all who “ 
ing; and they wer 
League, because the question was placed by them on its true 
merits, and promised them nothing.—Col. Sisryorr made some 
warm remarks, excited by Mr. Cobden’s allusions to Lincoln- 
shire.— was followed by Mr. Mitwer Grisson, who repre- 
sented the wishes of his constituency in favour of general Free 
Trade, making allowance, however, for the difficulties of Sir R. 
Peel, seeing that Liverpool was represented by so violent an 
opponent of Free Trade as Sir H. Douglas.—Mr. VILLIERS 
replied, and on a division nee appeared—Vor the motion, 125; 
Against it, 381 jority, 
Tuesday.—The KER calle ed attention to the circumstance 
of a bill (the ott Widows’ Fund having received the 
royal assent, without the amendments of the Lords having been 
considered or agreed to by the Commons. Sir R. Pexzt,s 
by Lord J! RussELL, moved the appointment of a select com- 
mittee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the 
informality ; which was carried. 
ir. Cummine Bruce moved for leave to bring in a bill to 
amend Lord As! eee 's act of last session, for regul a aoe the eis 
ployment of young persons in mines and collier He 
due credit to the TTrOHY OR by which Lord Ashley ae been ae 
ated, though the eee of his intentions was not a sufficient 
protection Fron error in judgment. The Mines and Collieries 
Act was a hasty and injudicions piece of legislation, and it had 
praduced ee distress in Scotland, by depriving Jindividuals of 
employment for which they could obtain no substitute; and, 
though hee did not wish to interfere with the Act so far as married 
females and young persons were concerned, he wished to amend 
it, by permitting widows and unmarried females, above eighteen 
years of age, to return to under-ground labour. The hon. mem- 
ber adduced a variety of documentary evidence in support of his 
motion, which he said he had brought forward on the express 
personal soli ions of the colliers themselves. 
Lord AsHixy did not think that a case had been made out for 
the interference of the House. Why was Scotland to enjoy. 
privilege not accorded to England, which was subjected to the 
same alleged inconveniences arising out of the operation of the 
ct? Already the results had been most beneficial in the 
emancipation of women, young girls, and children, from a 
slavish and degrading employment for which they were wholly 
unsuited, and the Ooenee a Dtas of their places by men and boys 
—a change which was with joy by the people them- 
Selves. The amelioration ee Mite eir habits w 
striking instances, of Ww! 
from letters which had fea addressed to by individuals 
interested in the successful working of the ne especially by 
Lord F, Egerton; and amongst these testimonies were Jetters 
from. Scotland, characterising the Neh er against the Mines 
and Collieries Act a: s proceeding from the selfish feelings of cer- 
tain proprietors, who had coerced shone ieeer spect into a reluc- 
tant assent to the opposition. Of this! latter fact he produced 
some evidence, tending to show the compulsory way in which 
petitions had been got up against the act. No doubt cases of 
hardship had arisen out of its operation; but it was the business 
of the proprietors to provide for the unhappy persons whose ener~ 
gies had been exhausted in their service, instead of coming to the 
House with a proposition to nullify a measure which had only 
come into operation last year, and was producing so much bene~ 
fit. By negativing the raohees the House would affirm that 
DrODEEEY, had its duties as well as its rights. 
Sir J. Granam, considering the entire success of Lord Ashley’s 
Act in England, and the great probability of its success in Scot- 
land; and eaerdeengd likewise the limited extent of the evil of 
which Mr. C. Bruce complained, concurred ae Lord Ashley in 
resisting the motion.—Mr. CurtTEis and Li F. EcErton also 
opposed the motion.—A discussion Plated ‘A which Mr. Rog- 
suck, Lord Duncannon, Mr. P. Stewart, Mr. Forsus, Mr 
BrotwEerron, Mr. LockHart, Mr. Hinpriey, and Alderman 
THOMPSON, took a after which the House divided, when the 
numbers wi were—For the motion, 23 ; Againstit, 136 ; Majority, 113. 
sir C. NapreR moved an address, praying her Majesty to give 
directions to enable a certain number of old na avy officers to retire 
with an increase of pay, for the purpose of bringing forward 
young and active officers, What he recommended was, that a 
hundred of the oldest Post-captains on the list, being sixty years 
of age, should be allowed to retire with an increase of 100. a 
year.—Sir R. Perr ocd to the motion as interfering with the 
prerogative of ihe: own. He was not prepared to recommend 
ome remarks by Captains PECHELL and PLumriper, which were 
ane Weietl by Mr, 8S. HerBert, the motion was withdrawn. 
