than they ought to be, the noble Lord would be the first
to be benefited by the reduction. Why then should not
an inquiry be made? Why should they have
what he always considered a subterfuge—the previous
question? It could not be said that the present was
an inconvenient time, there could not be a fitter
time than one of transition for such an inquiry.—Sir
ROBERT PEEL agreed with much that had been said by
Mr. Roebuck, but could not adopt his conclusion; as
the proposed inquiry could lead to no practical result,
the salaries of no class of the public servants being
greater than what their services earned and the public
interest required.—Mr. CORDEN opposed the motion;
because if he accepted the reduction of price as a plea
for a reduction of salaries in public offices, he would be
party to a proposition for a general reduction of wages
throughout the country; a measure uncalled for,
impracticable, and therefore absurd. So far from a
reduction, of price leading to a reduction of wages, the
tendency is the other way; a diminution of price leading
to increased demand, increased employment, and
increase of wages. He admitted that the time is come
when we should endeavour to deal with the non-effective
branch of the military service by preventing its extension.
Considerable advantages have generally resulted
from Committees: but he would vote against this motion
because he objected to the reduction of the salaries of
humble clerks and labourers in the public departments;
because he could not be a party to casting a blemish on
free trade by making it the pretence for inflicting a wound
on any class of the community; because he was
unwilling to make it appear that the country was less able
now than before the establishment of free trade to pay
its officers and servants; because he was not disposed
to acknowledge, as a consequence of free trade, that the
people are in the enjoyment of fewer comforts than
before; and finally, because he could not admit that
the people are not entitled to the full benefit of the advantages
which free trade gives them.—Mr. DISRAELl said
that there was a general cry over the country for
reduction of burdens which were felt to be grievous and
intolerable; and maintained that this arose from the
distress produced by the operation of free trade. He
defended the policy recently adopted by the Protectionist
party; and in reference to the charge that it was
inspired by a new-born economy, he boasted that to the
Tory party the nation was indebted for all the great
financial reforms which had been effected since the
declaration of the independence of America up to the
Reform Bill. Financial reform, he asserted, had that
night received a fatal blow. The proposal of Mr.
Henley was to deal with an amount of seven millions
and a half, and might have effected a reduction of a
million a-year. But the great financial reformers had
decided that it was not to be. The present distress in
the country was not the condemnation—that was
coming—of the new commercial system, but one of its
consequences. He did not intend to bring on a specific
motion for a re-consideration of our financial system,
because he did not think that Parliament was the place
for settling the question. Experience could only be
learned by affliction; and as soon as the people had, by
bitter experience, arrived at a proper understanding
of its position, the nation itself would take the
settlement of the question into its own hands.—
Lord John RUSSELL said that this motion was clearly
one of censure on the Government, inasmuch as it asked
Her Majesty to direct that to be done which Government
was already doing. The labouring classes were
in a better position than before a free-trade policy was
adopted. The motion was part of an avowed system of
tactics for bringing back the duties on food, and he
believed that no such proposal would for a moment be
listened to by the country. On the division the numbers
were, for the previous question 269, against it, 173:
majority against the motion, 96.

On Wednesday the 1st of May, the House, on the
motion of Sir G. GREY, voted an address of congratulation
to Her Majesty on the birth of a prince.—The
House went into Committee on the Benefices in Plurality
Bill.—Mr. HUME moved, as an amendment on the first
clause, the omission of the qualifying words, so as
totally to prohibit the holding of pluralities; which,
after some discussion, was negatived by 166 to 53.—Mr.
Sidney HERBERT then moved an amendment, extending
the prohibition against plural holding not only to benefices
situated beyond a certain proximity to one another,
but also to those of which one at least should not fall
beneath the annual value of £100, which was passed by
a majority of 166 to 16.—The clause as so amended
was adopted, as were several succeeding, without
opposition, the one extending the operation of the bill to
Ireland being withdrawn by consent.

The debate on the bill for the Abolition of Attorney's
Certificate Tax was resumed on Thursday the 2nd.
Sir F. THESIGER supported the motion for leave to
bring in the bill, entering into elaborate statistics in its
favour, and contending that the tax originated in a
spirit of hostility to lawyers.—The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER opposed the bill on the ground that as
many taxes had been already removed as the state of
the revenue would admit of. Leave, however, was
given to bring in the bill, by 155 to 136; a majority
of 19 against the government.

The intentions of the Government with respect to the
Factory Question were announced on Friday the 3rd,
by Sir George GREY, in answer to a question by Lord
Ashley. He proposed, he said, to introduce a measure
in conformity with the spirit of the act of 1847, though
not with its letter. At present, the factory may work
between the hours of half-past five in the morning and
half-past eight in the evening; the ten hours to be
included within that time. He proposed to limit the
working of the factory between six in the morning and
six in the evening, and to deduct from that time an hour
and a half for meals; making the time for all hands ten
hours and a half daily. On Saturday, however, he would
take the eight hours from six till two, omitting half an
hour for breakfast, and making in the whole sixty hours
in the week, in lieu of fifty-eight hours as at present.
Lord John MANNERS and Mr. EDWARDS protested
against this, or any compromise which would add two
hours to the toil of the labourer.—Mr. HUME said he
had always deprecated interference between master and
workmen, and that he regretted to find the government
so weak as to countenance so vicious a principle.—Several
Irish measures—the Distressed Unions Advances Bill,
the Parliamentary Voters Bill, and the Court of
Chancery Bill, were considered and forwarded in
committee, with little discussion. A small episodical
skirmish occurred on the Franchise Bill. Lord
CASTLEREAGH called on Mr. W. J. Fox to explain an expression
he had used at the Reform conference—that their
ultimate object was "a social revolution," which, he
(Lord Castlereagh) presumed, meant a socialist revolution.
—Mr. FOX said, that what he meant, was not a
revolution which had anything to do with bloodshed,
plunder, or the destruction of venerated and useful
institutions, the redistribution of property, or any such
absurdities: but a change which should put talent,
integrity, and legitimate influence in the place of
corruption and of intimidation in the representation of the
people in that House. This explanatian was received
with loud cheers.

On Monday the 6th, on the Report of the Australian
Colonies Bill being brought up. Sir W. MOLESWORTH
moved its re-committal, in order to take the sense of the
House on his scheme for depriving the Colonial Office of
power to interfere with the local administration of the
Australian colonies, and for giving those colonies the
uncontrolled management of their own affairs. "I
propose," he said, "virtually to transport the colonial office,
with all its powers, to the colonies. For instance, my
object would virtually be accomplished if the noble earl
the secretary of state for the colonies were transported
to New South Wales and made governor of that colony,
or if the honourable gentleman the under-secretary of
state for the colonies were made lieutenant-governor of
Western Australia, and both of them were, as far as
their respective colonies were concerned, to retain all
the powers of the colonial office. Without doubt, we
should deeply grieve to lose the valuable services of the
noble earl and the honourable gentleman in Downing
Street; but I am satisfied that they would render
far greater services to the Colonial empire in
the colonies to which I have referred." He concluded