The Sun. — London, England, 1848-03-11 00:00:00

Ting SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY which merely implied that the House agreed to the income. tax this year in its present form, reserving to itself to determine whether it should be continued in the same or some other fouls, or whether somo ot'eer tax should be subs'i:utcd for it. No human being could pretend that the present budget of Ministers was a com prehensive scheme of finance. It provided for an as certained deficit of three millions and upwards, and con sequently could only be regarded as a temporary expe . dient till Ministers or Parliament were able to determine what ought to be done. It ought to be treated as a make-shift for the present; therefore the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose proposed to adjourn the consideration of the budget, granting the necessary ' supplies in the `meantime, till the present Ministers, or their successors, were prepared with a statesmanlike scheme of finance, founded upon a revision of taxation and expenditure, with the view of equalising the one and diminishing the other.—(Hear.) Mr. W. MILES said that the question before the House appeared to him to be whether the state and si tuation of the country vas such as to justify the propo sition of the Government; and upon this he came to a different conclusion from the Hun. Baronet who had just spoken; for he thought that the Government were right in asking what was necessary to meet the exigen cies of the country.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the increase which had taken place in their establish runts would add to the stability of their situation, and .contribute to the maintenance of peace. He thought that in revising their taxation they should look for the Ordinary revenue from duties upon imports; but at the same time, seeing that the system of free trade had not had a fair trial as yet, he did not think it would be Proper to draw any ieference as to whether the policy pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamvvorth was right or not. He (Mr. Miles) had not altered his opinions with respect to that policy; and he merely affirmed that it had not bad a fair trial. The Hon Member for Westbury had said that their exports to America had greatly increased in consequence of that policy. The corn which they imported from the United States cost 11,600,0001.; but he should like to know how much was paid fur in manufactured goods, and how much Irma paid in gold. He believed that a large portion of it had been paid for in gold. There was a decrease in the exports of cotton and cotton twists to the amount of 4,300,000/. ; so that the hopes entertained of the advan tages from free trade has not as yet been realised. He had voted for ale income-tax in 1842, and, as the cir cumstances which induced him to do so then were of still greater force in the present year, he felt bound to support the proposition of the Government. He saw no single article on which there would be a prospect of obtaining the requisite amount ; and, as ho saw no possibility of the income equalling the expenditure 4ariag the next year or the year after, he could not hesitate in gieing his support to her Majesty's Govern ment.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BROTHERTON would not enter into a discus sion of the merits of different taxes; but he was con educed that the income-tax was unequal, and might be Made more just than it was at present.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the question whether they would grant the tax for a year or three years, the excellent speech of the Hon. Member for Westbury had such an effect upon his mind, that he came to the conclusion of voting With the Government. He was convinced that, impose the income- tax. as they would, its pressure would fall en the industrious classes.—(Hear, hear.) He was, there fore, in favour of a reduction of expenditure. Ho did hot think that the Government would be induced to in crease their expenditure by voting the tax for three years, because the country was determined that there should be a reduction in that respect. There had been a culpable neglect both in the country and in that House respecting the expenditure of late years. Since 1837 there were 13 divisions in Committee of Supply. On 15 of these he had voted iu the minority fur a reduction of the army, navy, and ordnance esti mates. Upon an average the minority during those years did not amount to 16 out of 658 Members.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that the best way to ensure Peace was to be prepared for war; but he found that, since 1815, they had paid 600,000,0001. as a policy of insurance for peace. Since 1828 the army, navy, and ordnance estimates had cost the country 350,000,000/. He thought that there was here great room for retrench ment, and that, by reducing their establishments, other nations would be induced to do the same. He believed there was no occasion for large standing armies, and if the nations on the continent kept them on foot, it was because they were afraid of their own subjects, and not for the purpose of invading other nations. It was now blear that public opinion was stronger than armies.— (Hear, hear.) He would therefore always vote for a rigid economy. Mr. CARDWELL wished very briefly to explain the reasons which induced him to support the proposition of the Government upon this occasion. Those reasons Were based on two considerations: one, the duty he owed to the great mercantile community he had the honour to represent ; the other arising from a sense of what was due to the credit and security of this great coun try. He knew how much the pressure of the income-tax, Which was imposed in a period of prosperity, was ag gravated by its imposition in this period of unprecedented depression ; but, looking to the financial condition of the country, and to the exigencies of the imperial exchequer, and considering how much the revival of trade depended on the state of the treasury, he found it impossible to withhold his support from the Government. - -(Hear, hear.) He would reject the Past year altogether from consideration, and consider the financial position in which they stood at present. If he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, he would not have on hand, on the sth of April next, a larger sum than between 6,000,0001, and 7,000,0001., whereas, to carry him through the quarter, he ought to have about 9,000,0001., and he must therefore depend on the Bank for assistance to the amount of between two and three millions. They had before them also the estimates for the coming year, and they had no reason to expect that the deficiency would be less than two millions. Therefore, by the sth of April, 1849, between four and five millions of money would be Wanted. With regard to the expenditure, he thought that a great deal might be done for the depressed ener gies of the country by a reduction in that respect.— (Hear, hear.) Could any person suppose, however, that this expenditure could bo reduced in an instant, so that it could have effect before the sth of April, 1849? Part of the expenditure had been already incurred, and they Were left no option in the matter. With regard to the great works of fortification and the works in their naval arsenals, a great retrenchment might be expected when they were completed. But taking the most favourable 'view, and hoping the best for a revival of trade and a good harvest, the most sanguine could not but feel that by the sth of April, 1849, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer must ask for the assistance-of the Bank to the amount of between four and five millions. Was that a state of things which ought to be continued?—(hear.) In justice to the commercial interests of the country, Which always sympathised with the state of its finances, Was it right that such a state of things should be allowed to endure?—(Hear.) But it was said that they should raise the income-tax in a more equal manner. The Hon. Member for Westbury, in his powerful speech, made a mistake in saying that no deduction was allowed for de preciation of machinery. He was as anxious as the .Hon. Member for Coekermouth (Hr. Horsma,n) to avoid all inequality, and obviate all injustice in the tax. But the present law had this advantage, as was truly said by the Noble Lord, that it did nut put in force that minute system of inquisition which would be necessary if the system of income-tax proposed by the Hon. Member for Cockermouth were put in practice. That system Was not free from objection, on the ground of ine• quality. Take, for instance, the case of a person re ceiving an annuity of 1601. a year terminable with life, such a person would have to pay Bd. in the pound, whilst a gentleman receiving an enormous income in Westminster Hall would have to pay only 4d. in • the pound. A more monstrous injustice could not be introtluced, and it was ono which was foreign to the law as it stood at present. —(llear, hoar.) As far as his experience enabled him to form an opinion, nothing was 80 much complained of as the inquisitorial nature of the tax.—(Hear, hear.) But that would be greatly aggro - 'witted under the plan proposed by the lion. Member for Cockermouth. Under the present law a person who turned a capital of 100,0001. a year had but to make a single return under schedule B. Part of this might be borrowed money, fur which ho had give❑ security, but the tax-gatherer asked him no questions, he took the 7d. in the pound, and left him to deduct the corresponding amount from his creditor. But under the plan of thee Hon. Member for Cockermouth a single return would not satisfy the tax gatherer. He must be shown all the elements from which the capital wa4 drawn, and the precise amount of income derived from each portion. This would be an amount of in quisition to which he would venture to say the .Commercial interests of this country would not long submit.—(llear, hear.) He would vote for giving the tax for three years instead of for one year, because there Was no probability that the deficiency in the revenue , would be made up in any of the two following years. And if they voted it only for a single year, what was to become of trade in the mean time?—(Hear, hear.) they did not make due provision for the replenishment of the treasury what would become of the confidence of commerce? That commerce was built up on the confi- dente which was reposed in their financial management, and it was for this reason, amongst others, that this Country formed a pillar for the whole commerce of the earth. The Noble Lord the Member for Lynn had said that he would re-impose the duties:on those articles from which they had been removed. Ho differed from the Noble Lord in that policy, and the Hon. Member for Somersetshire said, with a candour that did him honour, that free trade had not had a fair trial. That was a reason amongst others to induce him to vote for the tax for three years. He knew this was not agreeable, but he believed that the necessities of the country required it. "Gratiora posse vobis dicere satis scio: vera pro gratis loqui ii meum non moverit ingenium necessitas cogit." • - -(Cheers.) lie could not take upon himself the re sponsibility of voting for a motion that would seriously affect the commercial interests of the country. And in voting for the proposition of the Government he believed • he would best discharge his duty to the country, and he should at all events in cl, ing so have the approbation of his own conscience. —(Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI s.id that the Hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had left out of consideration the last Year—he best knew why—when the commercial and trading interests of the country had been suffering from a depression which had been unknown in former years. The lion. Member for Westbury, in his very able speech, made one or two observations which surprised him- lie declared that the country had Leen enriched twenty -fold by the remission of the duties which had been eff,cted by the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Taniwcrth. The return from the property and in come-tax up to the sth of April, 1846, was 5,600,0001. The estimate of the return for 1848 is calculated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as 5,200,000/.; showing a deficiency of 400,000/. Now if he multiplied that by 34, as he bad a right to do, it represented a falling off in the national income of 13,702,0001. He made that calcula tion according to the strictest rate of accounts, end yet the Honoureble G: ritleman said the weel:li of the country had increased treaty-fold.—(Hear, hear.) The Member for Westbury had also called attention to an increasing commerce with France. It' ho (Mr. Dis raeli) were a politico-econe mist, he certainly should not cite our trade with France as a very favourable example of a free trade system. Contrast our trade with France with our colonial trade, and how inferior would it not be found? Then the Honourable Gentleman had referred to the national debt, which he declared to have been re duced twenty millions since the income-tax was enforced. But the Honourable Member forgot that the income-tax since 1842 had brought to the revenue nearly 33,003,000/, and the China money amounting to 6,000,00e1. (Hear, hear.) No wonder, indeed, that the national debt was reduced.—(Loud cheers.) But, said the Honourable Member, our trade is nothing so bad as the trade in France. What said the French King at the opening of the late Chambers? Certainly his Msjesty's speech any thing but bore out the II enourable Member's view. But then the Honourable Member started a proposition that all the taxes did and ought to come out of the industry of the country. That was a position which he (Mr. Disraeli) was prepared to deny. Taxation ought to come from the productions of the foreigner, not from the industry of our own people.—(Cheers.) Again, the Hon. Member went on to say that the principles carried out by the Ministers in 1845 were the principles that Ministers advocated in 1842. On that point he (Mr. Disraeli) was again at issue with the Member for West bury. Although the income-tax was brought forward on principles which were not clearly defined, the tariff was certainly propounded upon a principle that was particu larly, clearly, and expiicitly set forth. The destruction of prohibition, and the reductioa of excessive duties, were measures accompanied with a notification to the House that the Government were in correspondence with foreign Courts, and with great traders in foreign countries, in order to secure some sort of reciprocity. But, in 1845, nothing of this sort occurred. The policy of the present Government was mimetic; the policy of the Government of that day was not mimetic, it was Cobden's.—(Hear, and cheers.) What were the circumstances? In the in terval between 1842 and 1845 a great confederation had arisen; a confederation very powerfully organized, con ducted by very able men—men who concentrated all their energies and knowledge on the work. That con federation propagated principles in commerce totally different from the opinions of Sir R. Peel in 1842. Their opinions were not the opinions of Mr. Pitt, or of Lord Shelburne, upon the adoption of which Sir R. Peel had prided himself in 1842. They were not the opinions of free trade, which was a principle he (Mr. Disraeli) was always prepared to support.—(Oh, oh, and a laugh.) Yes: he was a free-trader, but he was not a free-boater. —(Loud cheers.) The gentlemen opposite were free booters.—(Renewed cheers) They laid down as their principle to " buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market." He denied that that was the principle of free trade. The principle of free trade was barter.— (Cheers.) Another of their principles was," Take care of the imports and the exports will take care of them selves." That was another principle equally opposed, as he (Mr. Disraeli) conceived, to free-trade principles. But those were the principles the Right Hon. Baronet adopted in 1845. (Loud cheers.) In the interval, the Government, of which he was the head, had not pro duced a single treaty with a foreign power, as they had promised to do in 1842.—(Renewed cheering.) Mr. GLADSTONE—We failed in forming them. Mr. DISRAELI received that acknowledgment.— (Great cheering.) He believed it to be the fact.—(Re newed cheering.) It was in 1846, after the mischief under the tariffs was clone, that the Right Hon. Baronet consummated his policy. He then repealed the corn law, thereby reducing the revenue seven millions more; and immediately after doing so he quitted his office. — (Great laughter and cheering.) In so retiring the Right Honourable Baronet addressed his constituents in extenuation of' his policy. He defended it by reference to the state of the revenue. Now, he (Mr. Disraeli) believed that a great fallacy pervaded that position. Ho believed that the state of the revenue was no test of the soundness of commercial policy.—(f-fear, hear.) He believed the test of commercial policy was nothing else than commercial prosperity.—(Great cheering.) He remembered once asking the Member for Tainworth if he was prepared to fight hostile tariffs by free im ports ; and to that question he had never received a satisfactory reply. He begged to lay down the proposition that the commerce of a country having free ports with countries which opposed to it hostile tariffs, would be diminished to the exact extent of the hostile tariffs ; so that year after year the former would have to give more and more of its labour in ex change for the goods of the latter, and, as a second con segue:rice, would, year after year, have to give more and more of its labour for the same quantity of the precious metals, until, unhimately, it got none at atl, and would find its foreign commerce well nigh at a standstill. Even in 1845 the Right Hon. Baronet told the House that he had hepss of friendly treaties; that Prussia was shaken, and that the United States were giving way. What was the fact ? That the legislation of the Zollverein had become more hostile to us than over, and that the last message of the President of the United States comforted the manufacturers of the States with the assurance that their protection, though changed, was only more efficient in their favour than before, for that they now had an average eel valorem protection of not less than 28 per cent. Then as to France, the Right Hon. Baronet had told the House that the only obstacle to a friendly treaty of trade with France was her com mercial and agricultural aristocracy •, that aristocracy was now quelled. What prospect had we of a friendly treaty at the bands of Louis Blanc, and the sovereign people who now reigned at Paris ? The commercial distress, and the financial embarrassment which pressed so heavily upon;Eogland, were, in his opinion, to be entirely ascribed to the noes system, and he was perfectly convinced that if this system were not distinctly abandoned, that embarrassment and distress would become fatal. Look at the scene of the noble industry which produced the staple manufacture of the country. What was the condition of its population—what the state of its trade ? The condition of its population was such, that the business of a meeting of delegates at Manchester the other day, resolved itself into the forma tion of a committee to consider the best means of emi gration for the surplus hands to the United States.— (Hear, hear.) Another most significant document had been put into his hand—an account of the number of persons relieved in Manchester as paupers in the year before last and the last year. In the :year ending February, 1847, the number of persons so relieved was 48,000, the poor rates levied in Manchester amounting to 19,2431.; in the year ending February, 1848, the number of persons relieved was 149,504, and the amount of poor rate, 45,0001.—(Hear, hear.) When he spoke of the decrease in our exports, Hon. Gentlemen opposite might say, as they said to the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, that exports were no criterion of prosperity ; but, at all events, the fact was that our exports to the countries of the Old World had fallen off —fallen off most considerably— fallen oft' to the extent of not less than two and a half millions sterling.—(Hear, hear.) True, there had been an increase of exports to the United States, amounting in value to two millions; but he was informed, on very geod authority, that as far as the Lancashire exporters—and he believed the case nearly general —were concerned, they had not received, up to the present moment, more than 67 per cent. of their outlay.—(Hear, hear.) Among other experiments, the Right Hon. Baronet had tried his " prentiee hand " at the sugar duties. With what effect to our trading industry? In the eighteen months preceeding the change in these duties (from Feb. 1845 to Aug. 1846), we exported of the produce of our manufacturing industry, to tho West Indies, Mauritius, Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta, 5,797,000 L, leaving, after allow ing for the price of the cotton material, nearly four millions sterling for wages and profits. In the eighteen months following the change, the exports to these places amounted only to 4,650,0001., leaving, for wages and profits, only 2,600,0001.—(Hear, hear.) What was the counteracting advantage that had been held out to the manufacturing classes of Lancashire? What had been the grand result of the promised increase of exports to the sugar-growing states? Why this: to Brazil, Porto ltico, and Cuba there were exported in the first eighteen months 2,400,0001., leaving for wages and profits 1,700,000/. In the latter 18 months the experts thither had attained the tremendous increase of 2,800,0001., leaving for profits and wages, at the higher price of cotton, 1,860,000/. — (Hear, hear.) Comparing the advantages which had been derived by the operatives of all classes from the re duction of the sugar duties with the absolute losses which had been sustained by them, it would be foetid that, supposing every hand employed consumed 23A-lbs. of sugar, the amount gained by the reduction of the sugar duties was 68,542/., whilst the loss incurred in wages was 1,161,6951., so that in effect the operatives of Lancashire had been robbed of upwards of 1,100,0001. by the advantage of being able to consume cheap sugar. —([fear.) In that excellent annual publication, en titled " Burn's Commercial Glance," it was stated that during the last year the diminution in the exportation of printed and plain cali coes to the sugar colonies of Great Britain amounted to 70,390,586 yards. And these were the results of the commercial scheme of sugar duties acting upon the British colonies. It had been asserted that the reason why the export of manufactured roods was smaller during the last years wae, that the supply of cotton was very scant. He denied that there had been any very serious falling off in the supply of raw cotton, nor did the returns show any such result. He could not forget that the crop of cetten was greater by 440,000 bags in 1847 than it was in 1840 and 1841. He would tell the House what was the cause of the falling off in the export of manufactured goods. That cause was to be found in the fact that the recent alteration in sugar duties had operated fatally against the cotton manufacturers, and had , diminished the demand for their productions. In a letter from New Orleans he found it stated that the re duction of the duties on foreign slave sugar had given such a stimulus to the production of sugar, that slave labour was transferred from the cultivation of cotton to that of sugar, and hence the futuro supply of raw cotton would necessarily be greatly dimin ished.—(Hear, hear.) He had been asked if he was prepared to re-impose the duty on the import of raw cotton. To this he would reply, that if it could be shown to biro that no English manufacturer had derived any advantage from the abolition of the duty he would be satisfied, and not seek to restore the duty; but it was certain that no such result could be shown. The prices of raw cotton might be quoted to bear out the view which he took of the question; for whilst that article was quoted at 4d. 4 16ths per lb., in the year 1845, before the duty was taken off, it was sold at 4d. 8-16tha per lb. on an average, after the tariff had been altered by the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear. hear.) The facts which he had cited bad induced him to draw a conclusion that the free-traders were by no means un conscious of—namely, that during the whole time that they were talking of free trade they were establishing a monopoly. The talk was of free trade, bat the real question between the cotton grower and the manucrte.• turer, was who could hold out the longest. The protec- I au:lists had always been taunted with the as astion that i they had not proved their case ; but ho thought that he had succeeded in effecting the obj fct.—(llear, and a laugh.) lie had shown how the result of the Right Hon. Baronet's commertial policy had been to occa sion the whole loss of the duties which he took off, and the additional toes to the country of the income tax.—(Cries of "hear, hear.") He had ;shoe n how in respect to the sugar duties, the operatives had gain, d 68.0001., while they lost in wages 1,100,0001. He might be told by the opposite side that the principles of free trade had not had a fair trial. But ho asserted that the doctrines of the !lon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had received every trial to which they were entitled, and they had also received ample re:utation. The view which he and his party took of the matter, was that free trade had ruined commerce, and that the boon of cheap auger had cost the manufacturing classes more than ten times what they had gained by it. Was the country to seek for its consolation under the present financial proposition of the Government in the great sugar measure of 1847, which the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had so reluctantly supported. He would not go into the details of the tariff us the Right Hon. Baronet had done. He thought he had sufficiently shown the causes of the present disorder and distress that prevailed at Manchester to have originated in the new commercial scheme. Ho would not visit on the Minister the consequences of the adverse cir cumstances of which they had been the victims— (Loud laughter)—nor was he disposed to as cribe to the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir R. Peel) the moral consequences of the fatal error he had committed.—(Continued laughter.) There they sat (pointing to the opposite benches) who were responsible for the present state of the commerce and manufacture of the country.—(Laughter and cheers.) But, as it was impossible to forsee what that party would do if it were not checked in its career, he could only say that the Pr otectionists ought to be wide awake. The finances showed a deficit of 8.000,0001., which was the exact amount that the Right Hon. Baronet had deprived the revenue of by his commercial policy. The great Minister had talked of lightening the springs of industry— (Cheers)—but the springs were broken, the machine would no longer move.—(Hoar, hear.) The country had been told that the distress arose from overtrading, but if so, how was it that the Right Hon. Baronet had recommended his commercial system, upou the ground that it would give a renewed impetus to commerce, at the same time that he accuses the manufacturers and othets of overtrading.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli) did not consider that there had been any over trading. If there had been, who was the cause of it but the great Minister who had lightened the springs of industry?—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Where was that commerce which the free-traders had complained was " cabined, crib'd, confined," and which the Right Hon. Baronet had released? Where was it? Wander ing far away, and absent from its former haunts! The whole of the mischief had been occasioned by a work which he had no hesitation in saying was the greatest effort of imagination that had ever been witnessed in this country. He meant the evidence reported by the Import Committee.—(Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), or the Noble Lord (J. Russell), or the Manchester free-traders, would now at the present moment come forward and frankly admit that they had been wrong in their commercial policy, then he would agree to the income-tax; but, persisting as they all three did in being right, he could only say that, taking them on their own representations, thiere was no necessity whatever for granting any additional taxation. He took the evidence reported by the Import Committee for his guide, as the Right Hon. Baronet had declared that report to be the basis of legislation. He had been told that he had misrepresented the Hon. Member for Glas gow in having stated that his evidence before the Import Committee was, that 100,000,000/. would be gained by the abolition of the corn-laws. lie had since copied from the report what the Hon. Member had stated in evidence, and he would, with the permission of the House, read the extract he had made. The Hon. Member then read the extract, which was to the effect that Mr. Macgre gor's evidence expressed his conviction that the taxation imposed upon the corn and provisions, and the prubibi tions upon the import of food, was far greater—was, in fact, more than double the whole amount of taxation paid into the treasury.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member (Mr. Macgregor) had observed on a former evening, solo voce, that he (Mr. Disraeli) had misrepresented his evidence, by overstating the amount at which he had estimated the duties on corn and provisions ; but the extract which he had just read would justify his former observation. But the Hon. Member was not contented with being examined f 'r five days, he treated the Committee with a tariff of his own.—(Hear, hear.) In this tariff, which was to save the country 100,000,000/. per annum, he never touched the duties on tea or sugar, and on to bacco he raised the duty sixpence per pound. The reason that he (Mr. Disraeli) singled out the Hon. Gen tleman was that he looked upon him as one of the prime proposers of these measures, and as one of the most voluminous statistical writers of the nineteenth cen tury.—(Laughter.) At a meeting which took place during the lion. Member's canvass of the city of Glas gow one Mr. Adam Low relieved the tedium of the proceedings by asking Mr. Macgregor whether he had not prepared Sir Robert Peel's tariff ?—(Laughter.) The abruptness and novelty of the question took the meeting by surprise, and the Hon. Gentleman's an swer was as follows :—" If the Hon. Baronet had been still in office, and I had still been Secretary of the Board of Trade, no consideration on earth would have induced me to answer the question—(Continued laughter) --but as the Right Hon. Baronet Is not in power, and as I come before this constituency as an independent candidate, and have resigned my connexion with the Board of Trado—(The Hon. Member was here inter rupted by " tremendous applause which lasted for several minutes, and prevented the completion of the sen tence.") When silence was restored, the Hon. Member said, " Sir Robert Peel being out of office, I hare no hesitation in saying that I ha the honour of preparing the whole of that tariff, schedules and all."—(Loud laughter.) The Honourable Gentleman added, that in this labour he had no assistant but his private secre tary, Mr. Lack.—(Continued laughter.) He (Mr. Dis raeli) must say that in the opposition he had given to the Right Hon. Baronet's tariff he had not been aware of how much of it was due to the labours of Mr. Lack.— (Loud laughter.) He should apply to that gentleman for a portion of the hundred millions to make up the present deficiency.—(Hear, hear.) But he must alsc remind the House of a name which had occurred fre quently during the tariff debates, namely, that of the late Mr. Deacon Hume. The Right Hon. Member for Tamworth had frequently supported his tariff by quoting the opinions of Mr. Deacon Hume. Bat that gentleman was more moderate than the lion. Member for Glasgow. When he was asked, " Have you made a calculation of how much the community loses by the prohibitive duties and the monopoly of the landed proprietors," his answer was, " Thirty-six millions per annum."—(Laughter.) And this was the evidence on which they had passed laws which had tuined Lancashire.—(Hear.) There was another gentleman who had been examined, and whose name he must not omit—one who had lately said that the only remedy loft was to nurse our resources and get down our expenses—he meant Mr. J. B Smith. What was that gentleman's evidence? He said at once that the burden of the corn-laws was greater than the whole of the taxes of the country.—(Hear. hear.) But the evidence of Mr. Macgregor was the only evidence that satisfied the Committee. Any gen tleman who staid that the burden of the corn-laws was only fifty millions disappointed them. The Honourable Member for Stirling, not having satisfied them, was asked to explain, and he was at length forced to say that the loss might be sixty, and perhaps ninety mil lions.—(Cheers.) The House might laugh, but it was no laughing matter in the face of a deficit; and besides, they had ruled the Legislature of the country.—(Hear, hear.) He said in the presence of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, whom he was glad to see in his place, but he was not surprised to hoar he had been newel', seeing that he had to rule the country on the report of that Committee. Why, it was like smoking a cigar while sitting on a barrel of gun powder.—(Haar, hear, and laughter.) This was the evidence which had given the first impulse to the Manchester school, of which the Honour able Members for Manchester and the West Riding were apostles—champions of the two great prin cieles—peace and plenty.—(Cheers, and laughter.) Peace and plenty, in the midst of a starving people, and with a world in arms.—(Hear, hear.) lie must call the attention of these Hon. Gentlemen to such matters now, because, after having criticised all their measures which had blown up, noticed all their delusions which had evaporated, and pointed the attention of the House to all the natural disasters and misery they had occasioned, he found that those Hoe. Gentlemen, not contented with what they had done, were already threatening the country with another confederation and another assault. There was, it seemed, to be a league for fiscal reform, the objects of which had already been almost proclaimed in that House. From the more detailed programme, as it had appeared in a highly talented and trustworthy Liberal paper, he saw that they did not mean to limit themselves to fiscal reform, but talked of throwing the burden of taxation on the landed and other realised property of the country. He should like to know what the " statesmen " of the north of England, and the co partners of Lincolnshire, many of whose interests did not exceed 101. or 201. a year, would say to this.— (Hear, hear.) Or if he turned to the other branch of realised property, he found that at the last payment of the dividends, out of 300,000 warrants issued, one-third did not exceed 5/. per annum; 45,000 or 50,000 warrants did not exceed 101., and oven of the few large payments of which so much advantage had been taken the great majority consisted of the invest ments of banking and insurance companies, the capital, in fact, of the commercial world. Therefore he could imagaine nothing more false or more unworthy of the talents of the Member fur the West Riding titan to un• furl his banner against what he called the realised property of the oountry.—(Hear.) What did all this mean? Had they not hoard it stated by no less a per son than the Hon. Member for Manchester that the pre sent was a middle-class Government, and that the middle classes looked to them for legislation to their advantage. A few years ago it had been held to be the greatest opprobrium in the world that the aristo cratic byold class legislation.—(H ear , hear.) interesti in free-trade halls, a n d iadthsevyas not upheld been t in former temples of the muses, that class legislation was the ruin of the country ? Now, however, that they had obtained their ends, the commercial system was workiug its results. Having established their political and parliamentary power,they said that the Govern ment was a middle class Government, and must work for the middle classes.—(Hear, hear.) But would gen tlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House sub mit without a struggle to such views?—(Hear, hear.) No, if; they allowed the triumph of these commercial doctrines to be complete, it would be but poor consols lion for them to discover that the only retern they had ' for a diminished revenue and the decline of commerce I was the arrogant pretc.‘nsions of a claw which had 0.) tamed power hy false pretences, and now sought to turn , it to their own advantage.—(Cheers.) Mr. GLADSTONE wished ho eoull in any way eels- I tarn the lively interest which had been created by Ihe remarkable speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat i down. But not bring elle to do so he should esn'iee I himself to the nr.:tter iinmediate'y beforo the Howe, b"- I cause he felt that in the present position of the c ,untry and of the world there was no time for personal disen;- sions respec:iug Ministers who had retired from office. —(Hear, hear.) Ho must, however, allele in a few 1 words to what the lion. Gentleman had said of the policy of the late Government. The House must eb serve that the policy now assailed was not only the policy of 1846; it comprehended every step which had been taken in changing the restrictive system of this country.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had said the principles laid down by his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) in 1549 were reasonable, and he supported them, but in 1845 those principles were essentially changed; he then adopted the doctrines of the Manchester school, and he opposed them. The Hon. Gentleman at tempted to draw a broad distinction between the princi ples of 1842 and 1845. But in 1842 his Right Hon. Friend said "We have reserved many articles from reduction of duty, in the hope that ere long we may obtain increased facilities for commerce from other countries, but it is our interest to buy cheap, whatever others may do."—(Hear, hear.) With regard to ex tending our trade by negotiations with foreign countries, the experiment was tried by the late Government, but it failed, in consequence of the exaggerated views which those countries took.--(Hear, hear.) But the charge made against his Right Hon. Friend was, that having started in 1842 on moderate and fixed principles, he in 1845 turned round and adopted those of the Manchester school; whereas, by a reference to the speeches of his , Right Hon. Friend in 1842, it would be seen that the principles ho then proceeded upon were the same as those upon which his measure of 1845 was founded. But they were now called upon to give a vote on the great subject ef commercial credit, which lay at the foundation of the whole commercial system, and involved not only the profits ,of capital, but the employment of labour old the subsistence of the people.—(Bear, hear.) , At a time like this, when revolution was spreading through the nations of the continent, tied ho strongest throne perhaps in Europe had been over turned, we were more especially called upon to provide 'or the safety of our own country. He called upon :hem, therefore, in the present discussion, to throw over every question that did not affect the real merits of the subjecte—allear.) Three Atm beatt been proposed for their adoption. First, there was the plan of the Noble Lord (Bentinek) to renew the income-tax for one year only, in order that the present system of taxation might be revised, with a view to the re-imposition of those Customs duties which had been taken off by the late Government. Then there was the proposition of the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who also proposed to renew the income-tax for one year, his object being to compel such a reduction of the establish ments of the country as should by the end of that time bring the public expenditure within the income. —(Hear.) And lastly, there was the plan of the Government, to renew the tax for three years. The Noble Lord (Bentinek) contended, in opposition to this proposition, that the system of freedom of trade, which was adopted with such promises of ultimate success, had ended in failure and disaster.— (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gladstone), on the contrary, was prepared to show that whether they looked to revenue, income, trade, or mployment of labour, it had succeeded, if not to the extent of the most sanguine expectations, as far as any reasonable person could have anticipated.—(Hear.) o one could expect freedom of trade to give an equal end uniform prosperity at all times and in all cireum ;lances. The commerce of this country would always have its periods of ebb and flow, and it was enough to prove the success of freedom of trade, if he showed that it added to prosperity and mitigated affliction. This had been the result 'of their legislation since 1842. , [tear, hear.) He would take the articles timber and .ilk, two articles which had been the subject of much eontroversy—he would pass over brandy and many otaers which had been effectually dealt with by the Hon. Mem ber for Westbury (Mr. Wilmon)—and show that the re suit of the reduction in the duty ha I been an increase of import and a gain to the revenue. In 1841 there were 131,000 loads of foreign timber imported, and the re senue arising from it was 411,0001., after deducting 10,000/. allowed as drawback. He would compare this with the unfortunate year 1847, which was scarcely i fair test; but he would take it nevertheless. The duty in the meantime had been reduced from 565. 6d. to 21s. With this reduced duty the quantity im ported had increased to 437,000 loads, and the revenue to 451,0001—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord seemed to suppose that because the foreigner obtained some advantage in the increase of price that we suffered .1 corresponding loss, as though commerce was a sort of war in which all the foreigner gained we must neces sarily lose.—(llear, hear.) Tho price, the Noble Lord said, had increased by 103. 10d. a load, the whole of which went into the foreigner's pocket. But the re "notion of duty had been 355, 61.—(Hear.) Three fourths of that duty nearly, therefore, had been saved to the consumer, notwithstanding the rise in price. But there was another point for consideration, increase 1 of demand, which always occasions increase of price, and increase of price increase of production, without which Ahere would not be that extended trade and augmented means of employment which were amongst the benefits hey contemplated from freedom of trade.—(Hear.) Again, it must be reatemared that, eve* to the extent ,if the increase of pace, was not the foreigner only who derived the • advantage. To a great extent it was British capital that was employed in the trade in timber ; and, in some instances, the woods were the property of linglishmen.—(Hear, hear.) The great demand for the railways sh ou ld no t b e f o rgotten as an element in increasing the price, and but for the alte ration in the duty he believed that demand would have caused the price of timber to rise much higher than it had done. So much with regard to timber: now as to silk. The Noble Lord had referred to the falling off in the number of looms working in Spitalfields from the year 1836 to 1845, appearing to forget that until 1845 this trade had not been, as he said, dabbled with. He admitted that in a question of this kind its bearing on the employment of the people was important; but how ,lid it really stand in this respect? Take the average of the two years 1846 and 1847, the only two years of the 1 843, as shown in the returns reit with the average of the imports of raw silk on the aver -3,742,0001W.; the two )ears , . t a)e e gei ci fleo u yor c , eef e a d tt rhhs d ee duty, and mu)s, eelaB:years st c 4h o e mt waso compare a 4,265,0001b5.: increase 523,0001b5. In thrown silk the increase was 106,0001b5. Of silk goods imported on the average of the ten years the amount was 209,0001b5.: on that on the two years, 40 8,0001b5. The exports in value, 751,000/. on the averag e of the ten years, and 907,0001. on the average of the two. True, we had im ported 200.00 0 more of foreign goods; but we had also imported 5 23 , 000 more of raw materials.—(Hear, hear.) arow, f ro m 1842 to 1844, 2,0000001. of Customs' duties were repealed; and in 1844 , as compared with 1841, the whole amount of these duties, and 76,000/. to boot, had been recovered; so that in 1844 we had actually, by the :evival of trade, and by its action upon the revenue in all its branches, recovered the whole of the income-tax. —(Hear, hear.) The revenue of 1846, one year after the reductions of 1845, without the income-tax, only tell short of the revenue of 1841, by the small sum of 363,0001. Therefore, when the Hon. Member (Mr. Disraeli) talked of these reductions cutting off 7,000,000/. from the income of the country, he would be nearer the 'nark if he said they had added that amount.—(Hear, hear.) But, comparing the Customs and the Excise, even if the disastrous year of 1 847, with what they were in 1841, before those changes took place, he found that out of the 7,600,0001. of repealed taxation, 5,500,0001. had been replaced, or somewhat more than th e w hole amount of the income-tax.—(flear, hear.) And yet that took alace in the year of the double famine of' corn and cot ton, with which the Honourable Gentleman made out Ills argument, one affecting the first article of the people's n eot tear the expre ssion n ow , our Customs and Excise s th u a bs t i y s t e e a n r c , e w , iatzdththees o p theirrinegr s t h of i n ( e i u st r y mployment. broken, in d paid 5,500,0001. more than in 1841, before these changes hoard of. The i v r e orne. made 1 e o tfi r a t n h , e s s ea argument u f, u t i l s e e n t principl e " resp ee ti s ng cotton was fal lacious, for if he removed cotton yarn there had been an increase upon 1847 as compared with 1846 of no less than 1,695,0001. The Honourable Gentleman's reasons, vhen connected with the vote he. intended to give, Amounted simply to this, " give up rive trade, and I will give you the income-tax—adhere to free trade and I will refuse it." Such an opinien up on a vital national ques tion was unworthy of an emin ent le gislator, for it led to Hear the very opposite conclusion to whic h the Honourable Gentleman intended it should. If fre e trade had broken the springs of industry, and impoverished th e L ancas hi re weaver, and cut off 8,000, 0001 . from the revenue, surely it was all the more necessary to vote for a n i ncome - tax supporttwohen the Hon.th the Gentleman public redit— nextwould do so upon reasons which did not lead to diametrically the opposite conclusion. Th en , as t o t h e proposition of the Hon. Member for Mont rose, w hi c h was in direct collision with that of the Government. He c', he ar .) H e h ope d explai ne d h i s vote, he said he would vote for the income-tax for one year, and in the coursdof that year devise a reduction so exten- 1 sive as at the end of it to enable the Government to do without that tax. But, in order to fulfil his promise, he should effect reductions within t he next ten months of from eight to ten millions. He (Mr. Gladstone) felt convinced that a great country like this ought periodi cally to have a thorough and searching revision of its taxation.—(Cheers.) It was now more than fifteen years since there had been such a revision, and seeing that the tide had again set in against the public, and that there had been so formidable an increase upon the army, navy, and ordnance, as of nearly 7,000,0001. since 1835, of 4,500,000/. since 1844, and of 1,638,0001. since 11146, he did think that a prima facie case was established for a searching inquiry, and that by a full examination of the details a considerable economy might be effected. lie confessed himself dis appointed with a part of the Chancellor of the Exche qtter's speech. He did not appear to him to be sanguine enough as to what might be expected from investigating rariuir brances of the public expenditure, and could not go the length of saying with hi m that the consolidated fund charges, the half.pay list, or the charges for col lecting the public revenue, m ight not be revised with advantage. They had nearly 4,000,0001. deficiency to provide for in 1849, and he was greatly afraid they might have a new Kafir war, and also that that mysterious vote called " navy excess" might re five millions of deficiency apncar. To this f our or th e lion. Member for Mon trose proposed to .add live trillions more, by repealing the income tax.—(Hear, hear.) Was it consistent with ordinary prudence to take such a course, in the face of unforeseen contingencies ? Nothing could compen sate for a proceeding which touched the public credit ; and though the Honourable Gentlemen sup- EVEN ING, MARCH ll, porting the amendment might not in'cr:d it, the don ol'thtt amendment would it:flict a seri" ,, blow en the publi,; conti Ln " The etrect on the funds to- ` morrow would show that at onee. Ile felt concerned and surprised at havi.i:r, '0 ad the is this argument t o g entl emen on his own side of the Howe, who had generally shown themselves anxious to snpplrt the .public credit.—(clear, hear.) Li reference to our c .lonies, he was convinced that I..rge reductions must be :undo in the cost of their government, and where it was possible the colonists must be made more responsible for the defence of the empire at large, though that could only be done by giving them more power in the management of their own affairs.—(Hear, hear.) The old European system of colonisation, which rested on a monopoly of markets, had been entirely abandoned; but we had not yet arrived at the adoption of the principle he had last named.—(Hear, hear.) lie thanked the Committee fur the at tention with which he had been heard, and expressed his belief that the votes would not be given out of any desire to embarrass the Government. The tax which the Government asked for was not necessary fur the expenditure of the year only, but was applicable to a deficit of two years. Everything had been thrown over, except what was absolutely necessary, even the proposed liquidation of the loan of last year. Nothing was proposed, to be expanded but what was absolutely necessary. ,Let the House assist this great nation to stand firm in the midst of the convulsions which shook European society, convinced that, if they set a good example, the people would stand firm, and our insti tutions would remain a blessing and a benefit to pos terity, whatever changes might disturb other nations. Mr. M.GREGOtt moved the adjournment of the de bate, amidst loud cries of "Divide," and much confusion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had hoped they should come to a division, but if many Gentlemen wished to speak, he would not resist the ad. jagirament. Mr. COBDEN said they had been in Committee nearly eight hours, without one hour being occupied by the question before them, namely, whether the income. tax should be renewed for one or three years. He should certainly wish to have an opportunity of express.. ing his sentiments.—(Cries of " Go on.") Dr. BOWRING was understood to support the ad journment. After a scene of considerable confusion, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it appeared to be the feeling of the House that the House should resume, and go on again on Monday night. The debate was then adjourned till Monday. The House adjourned at Twenty minutes after On• o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the Rouse of Commons.) FRIDAY, 'MARCH 10. STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. The following Resolution was reported from the above Committee : That in the case of the Kilcullen Bridge Road petition of Debenture Holders to deposit a petition for a Bill, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to deposit a petition ac cordingly.—Resolution agreed to. PARLIAMEN TARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proeeed7ngs of the House of Commons.) FRIDAY, MARCH 10. PENZANCE' WATERWORKS BILL, Read a second time: —Motion made, and Citif stion put, " That the Bill be committed." The House divided: MAJORITY—AYES, 62. Adair, It. Shafto Forbes, W. O'Connell, M. J. Arkwright, G. Fox, Richard M. O'Flaherty, Anthony Bailey, Joseph . Greenall, Gilbert Palmer, Robert Baring, Henry Greene Thomas Pilkington, James Iterestord, William Hall, Sir Benjamin Plumptre, J. P. vi , ,..k.•11. ,-, W Hardcastle, J. A. Plowden, \V. 11. Domin i Dr. Hindley, C. Reynolds, John brew...u‘e, Richard liornby, John Sal,vey, Colonel Brotherton, J. Hudson, G. Scholefield, William Brown, Humphrey Hume, Joseph Stuart, Lord D. Cobden, Richard Inglis, Sir' It. Sullivan, Michael Cobbold, J. C. Jackson, William Thompson, Colonel Codrington, Sir W. Kershaw, James Thornely, T. Cowan, Charles Law, C. E. Tolleinache, Joke Crippi, William Lindsay, Colonel Turner, E. Deering, John Lowther, Colonel Waddington, David Denison, J. E. Mackinnon, W. A. Walmsiey, Sir J. D'Eyncourt, C. T. 11`Titvish, C. C. Wilson, Matthew Drummond, H. Masterman, John Duncan, Viscount Milnes, It. M. TELLERS. Duncan, George Morris, David Mowatt, Francis Ewart, William Muntz, ,Gl F. W,yld, James MINORITY-NOES, 45. Adair, Hugh E. Hill, Lord M. Sothcron, T. 11. S. Barnard, E. G. llodaes, T. L. Stafford, Auiensttui Berkeley, Captain Lewis, G. C. Stride, Edward Boldero, H. G. Maitland, T.! Tattered. H. W. Buller, Sir J. Y. Mitchell, T. I. Trelawny, J. S. Cabbell, B. B. Nugent , Lord. Tynte, Colonel Corbally, M. E. O'Connor,. Feargas Vivian, J. E. Cartels, H. B. Ord, W. Vyvyan, Sir It. B. Davie, Sir II Patten, J. W. Wall, C. B. ___... .... ... Duckworth, Sir J. Pendarves, Edward Willoughby, Sir 11. Fuller, I. E. Raphael, Alexander Wood, W. P. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Repton, G. W. Wrightson, W. B. liastle, Archibald Rice, E. R. Wortley, J. S. Ileadlin, Thomas Robartes, T. J. TELLERS. Lleatlicoto, Sir W. Sandars, George Lemon, Sir C. Heneage, O. 11. Sidney, Thomas Carew, W. P. FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE OF FRIDAY. ST. JAMES'S PALACE, FEB. 11, 1845. The Queen has been pleased to appoint George Hamilton, Marquis of Donegal, to be Captain of her Majesty's Guard of Yeomen of the Guard, in the room of Lucius Bentinck, Viscount Falkland, resigned. WIIITEHALL, MARCH 9. The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal, nominating and ap pointing Benjamin Currey, Esq., to be Clerk Assistant of the Parliaments, in the room of John William Birch, Esq., resigned. DOWNING-STREET, MARCH 10. The Queen has been pleased to appoint James Wat son Sheriff, Esq. to be her Majesty's Attorney-General for the Islands of Antigua and Montserrat, and Johu Somers Martin, Esq , to be Coroner for the Island of Antigua. Iler Majesty has also been pleased to appoint John H. Jennings, Esq. to be Commissary of Police for the Island of St. Lucia. WAR-OFFICE, MARCH 10. Ist Dragoon Guards.—John Kemp, Gent. (Riding Mager) to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Bu►ke, who retires, March 10. _ _ . sth Regiment of Foot—Samuel Lindsay Maylor, Gent, to be Second Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Wallace, appointed to the Ist or Grenadier Regiment of Foot Guards, March 10. Bth Foot —Ensign Thomas Beattie Grierson, from 28th Foot, to be Ensign, vice Bourne, who exchanges, Dec. 27, 1847. 11th Foot--Lieut. John Theodore Thomas Boyd to be Adjutant, vice Lewis Alexander Boyd, promoted ; Lieut. Richard Maunsell, from half-pay 62d Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Boyd, appointed Adjutant, March 10. 16th Foot—Lieutenant•Colonel George Teulon, from half-pay as late Inspecting Field Officer of Militia in the lonian Islands, to be Lieutenant-Colonel, vice Henry M'Manus, who exchanges, receiving the difference; Major Robert Luxmore to be Lieutenant Co lonel, by purchase, vice Teulon, who retires ; Brevet Major Charles Murray to be Major, by purchase, vice Luxmore ; Lieutenant Charles Lorenzo De Winton to be Captain, by purchase, vice Murray; Ensign John Thomas James to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice De Winton; Richard Lucas Baker, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, March 10. 17th Foot--Captain Eric Mackay Clarke to be Major by purchase, vice Owen, who retires ; Lieutenant Ed ward Croker to be Captain, by purchase, vice Clarke ; Ensign Philip M'Pherson to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Croker ; Frederic John Sandys Lindesay, Gent. to be Ensign, by purchase, vice M'Pherson; Lieutenant Cambbell Sawers to be Adjutant, vice Croker, pro moted, March 10. 21:h Foot—Brevet Major Thomas Deacon, from 2Sth Foot, to be Captain, vice M'Donald, who exchanges, Dec. 29, 1847. 28:h Foot—Captain William Nl'Donald, from the 25th Foot, to be Captain, vice Deacon, who exchanges, Dec. 29; Ensign Frederick Dickinson Bourne, from Bth Foot, to Ensign, vice Grierson, who exchanges, Dec. 27, 1847. 63d Fuot—Augustns Penton, Gent., to be Ensign, by purcha,e, vice Reynolds, promoted in the 94th Foot, March 10. 67th Foot—WilliamVesey Munnings, Gent. to be Ensign, by purchase, vice O'Brien, appointed to the 70th Foot, March 10. 70th Foot—Captain James Benners Parkinson, from half pay Unattached, to be Captain vice James Palliser Costobadie, who exchanges ; Lieutenant John Wilson Filder to be Cap tain by purchan, vice Parkinson who retires, Ensign Arthur Henry Creswell Snow to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Filder ; Ensign John Terence Nicolls O'Brien, from the 67th Foot, to be Ensign, vice Snow, March 10. 71st Foot—Sergeant-Major Thomas Walker to be Quartermaster, vice Thomas Fitzgerald, who retires on half-pay, March 10. 90th Foot—Ensign Thomas James Meredith to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice O'Gorman, ap pointed Adjutant; Frederick Beatty, Gent., to be En sign, without purchase, vice Meredith; Lieutenant Pur cell O'Gorman to be Adjutant, vice Walter, promoted, March 10. _ . 94th Foot—Ensign Montagu Lyttleton Varnharn Reynolds, from 63d Foot, to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice William Wilson Campbell, who has been allowed to receive the value of his commission, March 10. 99th Foot—William James Romulus Russell, Gent., to bo Ensign, without purchase, vice Mends, promoted in 98th Foot, March 10. BREVET—Lieutenant - Colonel George Toulon, of 16th Foot, to be Colonel in tho Army, Nev. 9, 1846. STAFF.—Lieutenant John Spence, from 14th Foot, to be Adjutant of a Recruiting District, vice Moorhead, promottd, March 10. MnsionANDust.—The namo of the Ensign, appointed to the 93d Foot, on the 11th February, 1843, is James " Dalzo,ll," not 1)413 . 011 as previously stated. The name of the Captain of the 57th Foot, 2d March, 1947, is John " Auchmuty," not Ahmuty, as previously stated. The name of the Captain of the 98th Foot, 9th April, 1847, is Warren " Auchmuty," not Allinuty, as previ• ously stated. The date of the promotion of Lieutenant Stewart, of 21st Foot, to be Captain in the 61st Foot, has been antedated " 21st November, 1847," and not the 21st November, 1848, as stated in the Gazette of 3d March, 1848. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, MARCH 9. Royal Regiment of Artillery—Second Captain Fre- I derick Alexander Campbell to be Adjutant, vice Forbes, promoted, Nov. 21, 1846; Second Captain John Russell Domvile to be Adjutant, vice Riddell, who resigns the Adjutantcy only, J?eb. 5, 1847. 848. al!ss:o :s by Lord Licutenant cf . Worcr stc.rsbire. V.%)rf.^.4tertlfr:2 R.- - 2jment Miitia T:;ornas Ciut.tort :'.:roJ:; to L.c. ulen..nt.-..;pei, vice CuY, tle eeas..d; To.onas Clowes, Esq., laic Captain in the Sal, or KIn ; ;;':; Of Foot, to ba Major, vice Thomas C;utt, n l3roelz, promoted; Henry Gile;, Gent., to be Ensigu; Hcnry Giles, Gent., t* be Assistant Surgeon, ‘4llO resigns the Assi.tant Surgeoney only, Feb 29. CQminiusion by the Lord-Lieu:entnt of the East Riding of York. East York Reynard, Esq. to be Cap tain, vice Locke, resigned, Feb. 21; George Holmes, Gent. to be Lieutenant, vice Smith, resigned, Feb. 22. Commission by the Lord-Lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire. 2d Regiment of West York Militia.—William St. Leger, Gent. to be Ensign, Feb. 29. Yorkshire llussar Regiment of West Riding Yeo manry Cavalry.—William Alcock, Gent. to be Cornet, vice Wilson, resigned, Feb. 29. WHITEHALL, MARCH 6. The Lord Chancellor has appointed John Brooks, of Ashton under-Lyne, in the county palatine of Lancaster, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. WHITEHALL, MAIICII 7. The Lord Chancellor has appointed John Reed Donald, of the city of Carlisle, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. Edward Beck, doctor of medicine, Ipswich. BANKRUPTS. _ James Oliver Mason, John Mason, and Alfred Mason, merchants, New Broad-street, City, and Birmingham, to surrender March 23, at half•past one, and May 18, at eleven, at the Court, Basinghall-street. Bell, official assignee, Coleman street-buildings, Moorgate-street ; Rickards and Walker, Lincoln's Inn-fields. John Wing, innkeeper, Cambridge, March 21, at half past twelve, and April 18, at twelve, at the Court, Basinghall- street. Pennell, official assignee; Englehart, Great listight Rider-street, Doctors'-commons; Barlow, Cambridge. Watkin Williams, draper, Brecon, Brecknockshire, March 22, at half-past one, and April 18, at one, at the Court, Basinghall-street. Stansfeld, official assignee; Sole and Turner, Aldermanbury. Samuel Prentice, licensed victualler, Boxfortl, Suffolk, March 23, at half-past twelve, and April 22, at half-past eleven, at the Court, Basinghall- street. Follett, official assignee, Sambrook court, Basiughall-street; Smith, Furnival's Inn; Pownall, Ipswich. David 11Plieo, wholesale cheesemonger,Upper Thames street, March 21, at two, and April 18, at twelve, at the Court, Basinghall-street. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane; Wire and Child, St. Swithin's-lane. George Saunders Naish and Thomas Inkson Glennie, ironmongers, Farringdon-street, Snow-hill, March 24, at two, and April 18, at eleven, at the Court, Ba,linghall street. Edwards, official assignee, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry; Paxon, Lincoln's Inn-fields. William Lee, builder, Honiton, Devonshire, March 23 and April 20, at one, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzel, official assignee, Exeter; Townsend and Stamp, Honiton; Daw, Exeter; Robinson and Barlow, Essex street, Strand, London. Walter Tyler, otherwise William Henry Tyler, sta tioner, Bristol, March 23, at twelve, and April 20, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official assignee, Bristol; Boykett, Chancery-lane, London; Ayr, jun., Bristol. John Bryant Chapple, victualler. Bath, March 23 and April 20, at twelve, at the Bristol District Court. Miller, official assignee, Bristol; Jay, Sergeant's Inn, London; Crosby, Bristol. James Plumley, market gardener, Bower Ashton, So merset,hire, March 21 and April 18, at twelve, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official asssgnee, Bristol; Phippen, Bristol. Joseph Randell, painter, Bristol, March 23 and April 20, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, official assignee, Bristol; Boykett, Chancery-lane, Lon don; Ay' e, jun., Bristol. Richard Evans, stationer, Carmarthen, March 24, at twelve, and May 2, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, official assignee Bristol ; Parry, Carmarthen. Thomas Chandler, innkeeper, Brimscombe, Glouces tershire, March 23 and May 2, at half-past twelve, at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, official assignee, Bris tol; Witchell, Stroud. James Sh"pherd, leather seller, Bristol, March 23, at eleven, and May 18, at twelve, at the Bristol District Court. Miller, official assignee, Bristol; ilaberfield, Bristol. Jaws Baker, victualler, Staunton•upon-Wrye, Here fordshire, March 22, and April 19, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. Christie, official assignee, Birmingham ; Pritchard, Hereford ; Bloxhatn, Bir mingham. Thomas Harrison, earthenware manufacturer, Church Gresley, and Wooden Box, Derbyshire, March 24 and April 14, at eleven, at the Nottingham District Court. Bit•leston, official assignee, Nottingham; Kelsall, Ches• ter; Enfield and Son, Nottingham. _ _ _ John Owen, brewer, 'Dew;ley, Shropshire, March 21 and April 18, at twelve, at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee, Birmingham; Stanley, Millman- street, Bedford-row, London ; Smith, Bir mingham . Henry Prince, furrier, Exeter, March 22 and April 19, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzel, official assignee, Exeter; Soles and Turner, Alderman bury, London; Stogdon, Exeter. Edward Roberts, saddler, Toxteth-park, near Liver pool, March 23 and April 20, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Morgan, official assignee, Liverpool; Chester arid Co., Staple Inn, London; Avison and Co., Liverpool. John Milroy Hannay, stockbroker, Birkenhead, March 22 and April 19, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Cazz.nove, official assignee, Liverpool; Norris and Co., Bedford row, London; Bell, Liverpool. George Thomas Bateson, ironfounder, Warrington, Lancashire, March 28 and April 18, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court. Pott, official assignee, Man chester; Rowley and Taylor, Manchester; W. and 11. P. Sharp, Verulam-buildings, Gray's Inn, London. William Tomlinson, - butcher, Rochdale, Lancashire, March 22 and April 13, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Hobson, official assignee, Manchester; Johnson and Co., Temple, London; Lord, Rochdale. William Parkinson, cotton manufacturer, Blackburn, Lancashire, March 20 and April 12, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court. Fraser, official assignee, Manchester; Hall and Co., Verulam-buildings, Gray's Inn, London; Aspinall, Manchester. William Helm, cabinet joiner, Salford, Lancashire, March 23 and April 12, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court. Hobson, official assignee, Manchester; Cobbett, Manchester; Spinks, Great James-street, Bed ford. row, London. Edward Charles Blackwell and James Newman Duns ford, brewers, Newbiggin by the Sea, Northumberland shire, March 20 and April 12, at twelve, at the Newcastle upon-Tyne District Court. Walley, official assignee, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Jobling, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Bell and Co., Bow Church-yard, Cheapside, London. (Dividends. &c.. in our next.) PRICE OF SUGAR. The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed from the returns made in the week ending March 7 1848, is 245. led. per cwt. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CI RCUlT.—Chelmsl rd, March 10. (Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.) Martha Prior, 37, a married woman, was indicted for the wilful murder of her female child, 13 days old, by nearly cutting off its head with a razor. Mr. Ryland prosecuted. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Hawkins. It appeared from the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, that the prisoner is the wife of a labouring man, and resided at a village called North end, in the parish of Great Waltham, Essex. She was in the family Hay in December last, and it would seem that she had made the usual preparations for her confine ment, and was delivered on the 10th December of the unfortunate child which formed the subject of the present inquiry. The prisoner went on very well for some days after her confinement, when it appeared that, in consequence of her having made some im. proper exertion an event occurred which rendered it necessary to send again for the medical man, and he found her in a very dangerous state, and from symptoms which he observed he gave directions that she should be kept perfectly quiet, and that the child should not be allowed to go to her, aad also that the prisoner should not be left by herself. In consequence of these direc tions it appeared that for two or three days the prisoner was attended and watched by two women belonging to the parish, but on the 233 of December, the day when the dreadrul occurrence now under inquiry happened, it seemed that they had left her, and there was no one in the cottage but the infant, and a daughter of the pri soner, named Ellen, about thirteen years old, who had the care of it. About one o'clock in the day the pri soner, who was in bed, called to the girl Ellen, s and told her to bring her the child. The girl at first objected to do so, but the prisoner, in an angry and peremptory tone, insisted that she should, and the girl being alarmed, carried the child to her mother, and laid it on the bed by her side. A short time afterwards the pri soner called out again to her daughter, and told her to bring her a:raz She asked herwhat she wanted with a rant . , upon which the prisoner said she wanted to cut off some of the hard skin off her hands. The girl, fearing some mischief, remonstrated with her mother, and asked her not to have the razor till another time, but she again became very angry, and the girl, it appeared, being terrifleii, tookiber one of her father's razors, but the moment she had done so she ran out of the cottage, intending to give au alarm, but she had hardly reac h e d the door be fore she heard the infant give a shriek, and on her going into her mother's bed-room, eccompanied by some of the neighbours, immediately afterwards, it was discovered that the child was dead, its head having been nearly cut from the trunk, and on ly remaining a ttached to it by some .portion of the integuments. The prisoner ap peared quite calm and collected, and she at once ad mitted that she had destroyed the child, and said that it was what she had all along intended to do, and she added that she should not care if any one served her the same. Tho women who had watched with the deceased during the past period of her illness, said that she fre quently seemed as though her mind was wrong, and often said that she knew she was going to die ; and as she was certain she should go to hell, it might be as well first as last, and other incoherent expressions. All the wit. nesses concurred in giving the prisoner the character of a kind and affectionate mother up to the period of this unfortunate transaction. Mr. Bell, a surgeon, of Felstead, proved the circum stances connected with the delivery, and said that when he left the prisoner after it took place she was doing very well. He was called in to see her about a week after, and be found her in a dangerous state, suffering under a complete prostration of strength. Her eyes were vacant and wild, and her count el -, , a;:ce h agg , r 3 , an d from what ho s - -.•,v t o w.7_s her mini was airccted, at d he i:t qttene, gave directions tint the child should net be given to her, and that she should be kept perfectly quiet, and act be permitted to be alone. The witness concluded his et.iilenee by expressing an opinion that at the time the prisoner destroyed the child she was not aware what she was doing., or, if she were, that she was incapable of coatrollitig her actions. Lord DENMAN aslad the witness whether he Ras of opinion that when the prisoner sent for the child she was not aware what she was about ? The witness said it was his opinion that the prisoner might have known that she was going to kill the child, but that at the same time was not aware of the nature of the act she was about to commit. In point of fact, that she acted under a sudden and uncontrollable impulse of the mind. Lord DENmaN—Do you call it a sudden impulse of the mind when a person deliberately calls for a child, and then suffers a quarter of an hour to elapse before the razor is asked for w ith which the injury then appears to be deliberately inflicted? Witness—l am of opinion that she committed the act under an uncontrollable im pulse acting upon a mind previously diseased. Lord DENMAN then addressed the jury, and said that, after this evidence, he had no doubt they would come to the conclusion, which it was intended to convey, that the prisoner, although she had, no doubt, committed the set imputed to her, was not legally responsible for it. He must, however, express an opinion, that the judgment of the medical gentleman had been very rashly formed. How could any f•rson dive into the mind of another, and express an opinion with regard to its being in an unsound state, when there was no f vidence of any alteration of conduct, or any circumstances in the case to show alienation of mind? He said this on account of the great danger that would prevail to human life, if people were to be taught that a sudden impulse was to be an excuse for a crime, and that the atrocity of the off, nee itself was to be adduced as an argument in support of such a supposition. Lie could not help thinking that such opinions were too often given by scientific men upon tco slight fettruistion for the safety of the public ; but as he felt that in this in stance there was no doubt but the jury would act upon the testimony of the medical gentleman who had been examined, it would be useless to proceed any further with the inquiry. The jury accordingly returned a verdict of Not Guilty, on the ground of insanity. • John Roberts, 21, Thomas Folks, 17, and George Butler, 20, three miserable looking lads, were indicted for a burglary in the dwelling-house of Lucy Marshall, and stealing some silver money and other articles, her pro perty. Mr. Glyn prosecuted. - - It appeared that the prosecutrix is a widow, and she occupied, with her sister, a cottage in a lonely position, near the village of Stansted Mountfichet. In the dead of the night of the 25th February she was awoke by hear ing a noise in her sister's bad-room, and upon going to see what was the matter, she found her sister in bed in a state of great alarm, and the prisoners Folks and Roberts were in the room, the former with a large dinner-knife in his hand. When they saw the p-rose cutrix they demanded her money, and took away from her a pocket which contained about seven shillings. They then asked for grub, and regaled themselves with some food, and drank a bottle of home-made wine, after which they teld the presecutrix to go to bed, again threatening her with violence if she gave any alarm, and they said they should leave a " watcher" outside to see if she disobeyed their injunctions. The prisoners then went away, but were apprehended shortly afterwards with part of the stolen property in their possession, and it appeared pretty eleatly that Butler was outside the cottage watching, as they stated, while the others were committing the robbery. The prisoners were found Guilty, and Roberts and Butler, who had been before convicted of felony, were sentenced to be transported for fifteen years, and Folks was ordered to be kept to hard labour for eighteen months. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, March 9. CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.) Mr. Justice Cresswen being again called from the duties of his circuit by the continued indisposition of his sister, Mr. Sergeant Trifourd set in the Nisi Prins Court, and assisted Sir J. Patteson in disposing of cases from the criminal calendar. _ _ _ George Box and George Tolley were indicted for a bur glary in the dwelling.house of William Ashford, at Hales Owen, on tke night of the 22d of November, and stealing twenty-three sovereigns, a fowling-piece, and other articles theicfrorn. Tit appeared that the prosecutor, with his wife, two old people between sixty and seventy years of age, living in a lonely part of a commen,l were alarmed about two o'clock in the morning, by hearing a n,,ise made by the entrance of three men into their bedroom, who had their faces blackened, and were otherwise disguised. Box carried a candle, Tolley had a gun, and the other man (who is not in custody) something which appeared to be a pistol. Prosecutor asked what brought them there, and Box replied that they came for his money. Tolly presented the (gun at them, and threatened to " settle' them if they were not quiet. He and Box then ran sacked the byes and things in the room, from which they took the property named in the indictment, while the other man kept guard over the old man and woman, saying he would kill them with the weapon if they were not quiet. The old lady has since died, but her deposi tion, which entirely confirmed the statement made by her husband in evidence, was put in and read, when Mr. Justice Patteson remarked that it was most improper to take depositions except in the actual presence of the ac cused ; reading them over afterwards was not sufficient, and he hoped the magistrates would eeaso such a pm. tice in future. Ashford denied any conversation with llyett. Marks corresponding with the prisoners' boots were traced from the house towards Drayton, seven miles distant, where the prisoners were apprehended. The old man was certain as to the identy of Box, but could not safely swear to Tolley, of whom he bad no previous knowledge. The jury, after a trial of six hours, found both pri soners Guilty; but sentence was deferred. George Baldwin, 28, was indicted for maliciously cutting and wounding Thomas Petford, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, at Upton-on-Severn, on the 13th of August. Petford was the superintendent of the Upton police, and went to apprehend the prisoner for stealing half a sovereign; when he was attacked by the prisoner and some of his companions, by whom he was knocked down and violently kicked. The officer got one of the hand cuffs on Baldwin, and knocked two or three of his assailants down. Prisoner got the pliceman's thumb into his mouth, and bit it severely. He also cut him in two places across the left hand, and other injuries were inflioted on him, which produced insensibility, when the prisoner escaped. The jury negatived the more serious counts in the in dictment, and convicted the prisoner of an assault. Sentence—Eighteen months' imprisahment. WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Salisbury, March 9. (Before Sir WILLIAM WIGIITMAN, Bart.) George Harris and 2 hontas Mead/:am, labourers, were placed at the bar charged with having maliciously wounded Isaac Knight, William Grant, and Caleb Sy monds; also with having been together, with two other persons, in the night of the 31st o October last, armed for the purpose of taking game at L'etle Bedwin, in this county, on the preserves of the Marquis of Ayles bury. After this fatal encounter, Meadham's brother died. The fourth poacher has not yet beer. taken. William Grant, under-keeper to the Marquis of AS leg. bury, stated that he, with others, was watching on Saturday night, and on the Sunday morning, the 31st of October last, his heard firing on Bedwin-common. Went then to Thriftwood; more shooting about two hundred yards from the London and Bath turnpike-road. On arriving at the wood still shooting was going on. About ten minutes afterwards four men were coming along,, on the opposite side of the common, towards Ramsby. He saw one of them pull out a gun from his pocket. King, 0n. , . of the watchers, cried out "Hallo, my lads, what's up?" The poachers then began to beat him. One of them struck him Gil the head with a stick. The other three went up to King, striking and knocking him down. After the last blow he struck the poacher with a swingle he was armed with. After fighting with his swingie, and giving four or five blows, his swingle broke. He then fought with the broken part as long us he could, and then run away. King was lying on the ground at the time, he having been knocked down With the poachers•, he rent about twenty yards, and gof through the hedge on the common. He called out . foe assistance. Mr. S3monds did come up the road at the time the four poachers were coining aftt:r him; he could scarcely see at the time, as the Wood was running down his face; he wiped the Woad off, and thee went into the road. lie saw three of the poachers attack Mr. Symonds. We fought as well as we ceu:d. Thomas Meia.lharn closed with Symonds, the other two set about him. Alter a hard tight and etruggle one of the two who set on him ran away; the other he took. The name of the one captured was Mortis Meadham, b r other to one of the prisoners at the bar, who died from the effects of the wounds he had given in the struggle. Meadham was armed with a gun, the barrel was found upon him. The other poacher was armed with a heavy bludgeon or weapon. Thomas Meadham struck the first blow. Caleb Symonds stated that he was head keeper. That lie was called up. Ile heard a furious scuffle. lie went down in the road. Sat clown by the side of a tree to watch. Remained about five or ten initiates. Ile heard a noise—compared it to the rattling of two bucks with their horns. He remained :here, when lie heard a man say " Come on." He then ran or. th g e o r i o n a g d t f h ro r m oug w h h t e i r t e e a a n rds of him, f o ll ow i n g. h th e e dg s e r a n n d d f c o a n n r ie in . a e it s h a t w a t a en m y He called out—" Ilallo ! what's up? I'm here." He received no answer. The poachers formed two and two. One of the hinder men went through the hedge. Three men ran at me in the road. One had a ;stick in his hand; he held it up, and with it came and struck me across the head. In return I struck the poacher on the face. The man staggered back. The other two men struck me across the back with a gun. He (Symonds) then struck the poacher with the swiugle. He received another blow across the shoulder. He was fighting with the three men, - The second came up as if to strike hire, when he turned round and struck the poacher, and sent him back r ee lin g . Then the third man caught him by the collar and kept striking him on the head. Ho threw him down. The poacher then cried out to his accomplices, " Come back." lie (Symonds) out his fingers under his handkerchief and tried to choke him. Took the stick from him, and struck him three times with that stick. it could only swear to Meadham. The jury, after a fov minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty against Meadham, and Not Guilty against Harris, Meadham was sentenced to seven years' transportation. 1 ~ ~ `~- r f I t ~.1 il I