The Sun. — London, England, 1849-04-21 00:00:00

spect to Ireland.—(" Hear," and laughter.) Hurt could he, as an English Msmbsr, vote at all, unless it were given as a vote of confidence? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that this rate in ail was for the purpose of saving the lives of the people of Ireland. — (Hear.) He presumed that the Right Hon. Gentleman would not have made that statement unless it were true. The measure might be objectionable in principle; but, when th e y cons id ere d it s object, they must not stand too strictly upon the principle of the measure.—(Hear.) He wished to give Ireland equal justice and equal laws, but he, at the same time, was anxious to be just to the people of this country, by imposing upon all parts of the United Kingdom equal taxation. Mr. SCULLY said, that however lengthened might be their debates on this most important subject, he did not consider that the time would be wasted. The Hon. Gentleman proposed that there should be a rate in aid for a year and then an income-tax; why not let them have both together, and then they would know the worst? He did not consider Ireland to be at this time in a state to be further taxed: he therefore should opposed both an income-tax and a rate in aid. Before either were agreed upon, the resources of Ireland ought to be in quired into; and sure was he that the re,ult of such an intluiry would be a conviction that this was not the time to impose additional taxation upon the people of that country. There were other funds in Ireland which might, in his opinion, fairly be applied to the relief of the destitution in that country. He thought, for instance, that a portion of the rich revenues of that monster evil, the Irish Church, might, as a matter of justice, be so applied. Originally one-third of the tithes were devoted to the support of the poor; and when could a better opportunity be found for the re-establishment of that principle in Ireland than at the present moment?—(Hear, hear.) Then there was the large sum derived in the shape of income-tax from Irish property, which might be also justly applied to the same purpose. These and other matters would, at all events, form a fair subject for inquiry by a Com mittee. He had hoped that the Noble Lord at his re cent interview with Irish Members would have stated his intention of abandoning the proposal of a rate in aid, and of charging the funds he had just alluded to with the relief of the existing distress. But he, as well as others, had been sadly disappointed with the result of that inter view. The fact was that the Government, in order to deal successfully with the present crisis, must change their course. All parties in that House seemed to be agreed that a more energetic policy was necessary for Ireland. He had lately come from that country, and it was really melancholy to witness the despondency which prevailed among all classes there in consequence of the neglect of Government. They had hoped that the Go vernment would long before this have taken an opportu nity of proposing some of those comprehensive measures about which they talked so loudly when in opposition; but they had now lost nearly all confidence in the Govern ment. He implored them, however, to change their course —to bring forward again the great question of the Irish Church, and to adopt in other respects a generous course of policy towards that unfortunate country. Colonel DUNNE said that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had last night expressed his gratification at the speeches of the Hon. Members for Kerry and Long ford. He (Colonel Dunne) could not share in that gra tification; but he did not wonder at the Right Hon. Gentleman's surprise at seeing Irish Members rushing with open arms to meet taxation. For his own part, he objected both to an income-tax and a rate-in-aid, because he did not consider either of them consistent with the spirit of the Act of Union. Should the Go vernment accede to an inquiry as to whether additional taxation was consistent with the Act of Union, and to What extent, he was quite prepared for any amount that Might be considered fair and necessary; but until they did that he should vote not only against ar.y income-tax, but against a rate in aid as well, leaving the respon sibility of the consequences upon her Majesty's Minis ters.—(Hear.) He was not alone in objecting to an income tax for Ireland. Stong objections, which were fully as applicable now as then, were stated to it in 1645 by Sir R. Peel, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Goulburn. (Here the Hon. and Gallant Member quoted the senti ments of the Members he had named.) The Hon. Member for Bucks had last night spoken very severely of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, for !hat he called the "unconstitutional" interview with the Irish Members. If the Hon. Member was correct as to the interview being unconstitutional, the Irish Members W ere equally liable to the condemnation with the Noble Lord, and he (Colonel Dunne) was quite ready to bear h is part of the blame. But he did not think it was un constitutional ; and he thought moreover that if the Government were more frequently to consult the I r ish Memb ers on I r i s h subjects, it would be better .°r both. But with reference to that particular interview he did not think that the Irish Members had much to boast of. The Noble Lord had given them merely a choice between the dagger and the bowl— (tiear, hear)---between an income tax and a rate in aid; wh ereas, as h e h a d sa id, h e as we ll a s oth e r I r i s h Mem bers were equally opposed to both. Not because they Were unwilling to pay their lair share of taxation, but (Rear, they wished the taxes to be readjusted first.— "' t ear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Kerry had said that the . proposal of the rate in aid had been introduced !ider circumstances very unusual. On the contrary, 4. th e (Colonel Dunne) thought that the introduction of' t i e measure was in perfect accordance with the Wh ole conduct of the Government on the subject of 'Ale Poor-law. They had introduced a measure for !Wowing out-door relief to the poor of Ireland, con `srrer to the opinion of Mr. O'Connell and of the cone tnissioners, who had previously conducted an inquiry Into the subject; and they had introduced this rate in lticl exactly in the same way, contrary to the opinion of • large body of the Irish Members, as well as contrary to the opinion of their own commissioner, Mr.Twialcton. -- (Hear.) The timo at which this proposition was Made was most inopportune. Ireland was suffering deeply from the effect of their commercial changes, and On looking to the present prices of corn and to what they would probably become, the actual reduction in the value of the produce of Ireland could not be estimated at less than 6,500,0001. Instead of exporting corn to Liverpool, the Irish mershaets were absolutely preparing to import it from America. Add to this the loss sustained from the failure of the potato crop, with the consequent losses on feeding pigs and cattle, which had not been estimated too highly at 42,000,000/., and they might hesitate before they thought this the most proper time to put an income-tax on that country. He could not understand how his Hon. Friends (Mr. Herbert and hlr• Fox) could vote for an increase of taxation, but if 9rt a readjustment o f th e t axat i on it a p peare d t h at Ireland did not bear her stipulated proportion in accord ance with the terms of the Act of Union, he and every other Irish Member would be quite ready to submit to any burdens which it appeared right that they should Pay. The revenues of Ireland were no less than 4 ,400,000/. It was obvious she did not require such a sum for her own purposes. Her military esta blishment this year would cost nearly 2,500,0001., but it was quite unfair to keep up such an army to en force the poor-rate in a country so obedient to the law as Ireland for the most part was. The analogy be t Ween the rate in aid and the Scotch tax of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, and which the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had referred to, did not hold, because, as he (Colonel Dunne) was informed by the Hon. M em b er f or Montrose (Mr. Hume), that tax had been imposed in accordance with the old Scotch Ty. The fact was they must make large and radical Change s in the whole of the Irish poor•law. The cost of its !ad m i n i s t rat i on was enormous. L ast year t h ey laid out 700,000/., of which 500,0001. went to feed the _People, a n d 2 00,000 / . to pay the poor-law officials. With ouch a system the rate in aid must be eternal. With all that had been said against the potato, he very much doubted wh e th er i t was not b etter t h an cerea l f oo d , , 11 ti d he th oug h t i t i mposs ibl e b y any system o f a l sere at • ion of crops to support the people on the western !Oast, exposed as it was to the winds from the Atlantic. Under any circumstances, suc h a s y s t em cou ld not b e the i n _ growth of a year, and meanti me th e p eo pl e wou ld B ey f rom t h e want of food. The same objections applied lf t o t h e propositions for facilitating the transfer of estates and to the formation of Parliamentary titles. The latter was no new thing, for it had been tried re- Peatedly since the days of Elizabeth and Cromwell, not to go further back ; and the success which had at tended it was not such as to make them wish for a repe tition of the experiment.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BANKES said he would, in a few words, • give the reasons why he could not vote for the proposition of the Noble Lord, on the grounds it had been submitted to the House, and at the same time his intention to vote for the amend ment of the Hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Herbert), though he (could (not contemplate the possibility of its bein g adopted for the discouragement and difficulties thrown by the Government in the way of those Irish Members who would otherwise have given it their sup- Port. After the intimation of the Noble Lord, and the strange way in which it had been given, that if the a mendment was carried he should consider it his duty to make additions to it, the nature of which he did not State' but which might plainly be und erstood to p oint to fresh taxation for Ireland, no Irish Member could run the risk of voting for the amendment; but not being de terred by the responsibility attaching to representatives f rom Ireland, he (Mr. Bankes) would give that amend- Mont his support. Ho was not prepared to sit still and see the Irish people starving ; and Government must either c arry out other measures b etter su ited to the fall, or i n t o ot h er hands the arrange ment must t all, and relief must be administered under other circum stances. It wo u ld b e w i th great grief he saw an income tax fixed on Ireland. When the income-tax was pro- Posed for three years longer he had concurred in the proposition of the Hon. M em b er for Montrose to exten d empire to Irel an d. B ut he would exempt that part of the Pire from the tax so l ong as f am i ne cont i nue d ; i t would the give him great pa i n to vote for the extension of income-tax to Ireland at a moment like this, when the Irish Members declared not only that famine existed, but that their condition had bee n d e t er i orate d , as state d by the H ese Member for Portarlington by the unhappy adoption of a change which had subjected Ireland to more severe i n fli ctions ex perienced.—(Hear.) Tthis than ever this country h a d ex and it not th e t i me to add to the taxation of Ireland; itwas not too m uc h t o as k ).M should of the Government t h at the have w ave d f or t h e moment some of those economical pies which a lo ne stood in the way, namely, to furniPsh inci money to Ireland without fixing any new t axat i on on the country. Lord J. RUSSELL—Y ou opposed h at e hfiterred to hadt frMr. BANKES—H e was not awaret side of the H ouse anything such as h e r t be en'opposed. Had the Noble Lord continued the ien port duties on corn, he would have had a revenue which w ould have produced last year 900,000/. applicable to doristrhe.ss i the evil in Ireland, and operating as a remedy to t mass 7 which the Hon. Member for Portarlington had spoken. oble Lord would not evade any promises be had vie4,des. If would have been well had he given no rash tot Ae ., a remedy of easy application were to be e v , r i o e uu ` why not double the rate of postage ? The kne e ° from that source would not be doubled, but 7" 00 4 . or 300,0004 might be rekliscd, which was all the G.ivernment slid they wanted fur the present emergency. Had he not as much right to auk the economists of that House to adopt that proposi Lion as they had to ask him to vote away the money of ois constituents, who could not pay it with.;ut adding to the sufferings they already endured? The present oc cupants of the Treasury benches used in Opposition to taunt the Government with having produced the un happy disunion in feeling which existed between the in habitants of what ought to be a united empire. The people of this country were becoming the creditors of the people of Ireland, and were to have the right of seizing for the present advances the stoctios and crops of their debtors, the people of Ireland. Such was the po sition in which the Government had placed them when it asked them to live in friendly brotherhood. He could not, therefore, consent to advance money on the rate in aid, denounced, as it was almost uni versally, by the Irish representatives. If the English representatives had to refuse money for those who re quired to be relieved, they refused it because the Go vernment did not ark it as they might, entitling Hon. Members to give it not ocly readily but cheer fully, with the sanction of their constituents. With respect to the plan propounded by one of the greatest authorities in that House, and which had been received with the re spect with which everything from that quarter ought to be received, he regretted that so much commentary had been made on that plan, and he thought the Hon. Member for Coeltermouth had occapied the time of the House rather unnecessarily, by going over a scheme al• ready made known so far as expedient. The present question was a narrow one—could the House grant money on the terms proposed by the Government ? To that proposition he must, in one word, say no. Sir L. O'BRIEN could not suppose the Noble Lord at the head of the Government turned a deaf ear to the re presentations of the misery which came from the other side of the Channel. OF all Members of that House, the Noble Lord must be best intormed as to the scenes there passing. Ile could not be ignorant that at this moment starvation prevailed in many of the western counties. Under these circumstances the Noble Lord was bound to ask the House for grants of money; but he found himself in this painful position, that the English Members said they would give no more grants of money to Ireland. The Noble Lord had told the Irish Members that they must take on themselves the rate in aid, which inquiry had shown would produce the most detrimental effects. Nei- tber must it be left out of view that the distress extended in a greater or less degree to the most flourishing ports of Ireland, that the people of Ulster, who lived on the potato as well as the people of the other provinces had this year lost as much, in pro• portion as the others. Nor ought the contributions which Ireland had this year made to the support of its own poor to be forgotten.—(Hear.) A poor•rate of 2,000,000/. had been raised on a valuation of 13,000,000/. The cereal as well as other crops had suffered, lie had made the greatest possible efforts to introduce a system of green crops. This year they had failed as much as the potato. The circumstances were such that the same spirit of generosity ought to pervade that House as had pervaded it in former years. He had heard with great pain the speech of the Hon. Member for Montrose, who proposed to throw on the Irish Members the responsibility of preserving the lives of their brethren. If it were thrown on him (Sir L. O'Brien) he would willingly accept the terms. But was the Hon. Member for Montrose prepared to throw off the brotherhood of one part of the country —to declare that the people in Clare were not equally the brothers of the people of England and Scotland as they were of the people of Ulster and Leinster?— (Hear, hear.) What more brotherhood was there be tween Mayo and Clare than between Middlesex and Clare? They were all fellow subjects. Ho had estates in two different unions. He had paid rates of 55., 3s. 41, and again 3s. 4d. in the union of Ennistymon, three rates atnounting in all to lls. Bd. in the pound. If bread were left for himself and his children, he would abandon all rather than that the people should starve. The landlords had to pay rates on land for which they had not received one farthing—a provision of the poor-law so unjust and iniquitous that the people of England would never bear it; and unless the Noble Lord and Secretary , for Ireland brought in a Bill to remedy that evil, they ought to be driven from their places. If the Government brought forward a proposition for an income-tax in Ireland on their own responsibility, he would not say that he would not support it; but, under present circum stances, he opposed that measure. What Ireland wanted was a restoration of confidence. The landlords were without confidence. The banks were without confidence. Confidence was capital. They had capital enough in Ireland if they had but confidence. They did not want Parliament to send them capital if they could only have confidence. If the farmer, the landlord, the banker, were animated by such confidence, there would be be no defi • ciency of capital. If the plan of the Right lion. Member for Tamworth would lead to a restoration of confidence, it could not be said but that it would confer very great benefit, but if the plan had a tendency to frighten the landlord, to mention it would do the greatest possible injury. A proposal for getting rid of the impediments which legal forms offered to the tranvfer of real property would meet with no opposition from him.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. M'CULLAGH expressed his surprise at the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire's disapproval of the discussion which had arisen upon the plan proposed by the Right Hon. Member for Tainworth. The Hon. Member was the last man in the House from whom such an ohj ection should have proceeded, because it was he who, in the first in stance, declared his wish to know the mind of the Right Hon. Baronet upon the subject of Ireland. The House must recollect, that the Hon. Member made an eloquent appeal to the genius and experience of the Right lion. Baronet, calling upon him to help Ministers in their embarrassments, and the empire in its difficulty.—(Llear, hear.) Now, however, that the oracle had spoken and the Right Hon. Baronet's partly developed plan had already engaged the attention of men on both sides of the Channel, the Honourable Member repented of the invocation which he had made. The Right Honourable Baronet's speech was as distasteful as his silence. The lion. Member was as little contented with the Right Hon. Baronet's sug gestion as he had been with his government when he was the leader of a great united party tin the op posite benches. The Hon. Member's conduct justified the application to him of the words of the old epigram matist,-- " DifEcilis, facilis, jucundus acerbus, es idem ; Nec tecum possum vivere, nee sine te." The course taken by the Hon. Member for Cocker mouth last night was _even more extraordinary. That lion. Gentleman took upon himself to inform the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth in what his plan was de ficient, and to suggest various matters which he stated to be essential to its success. It might safely be averred that no two things ever presented a more marked con trast than the Right Hon. Baronet's speech and the Hon. Member's commentary on it. Though the Right lion. Baronet's plan might fail to satisfy some persons, every man of right feeling must acknowledge the good taste, the sobriety of judgment with which he opened it to the !louse, and the circumspection, cau tion, and, it might be said, the humility of wisdom— the attribute of Lis great experience, long habits of re sponsibility, and power of grasping details—with which he ventured to recommend it to the House.—(Cheers.) Contrast that address with the fruit of irresponsibility and inexperience with which the lion. Member fur Cockermouth had favoured the House! The one was as great a proof of overconfidence as the other might to some have seemed to be of unaccountable diffidence. There was hardly any one whom the lion. Member did not lecture, if not revile. The Ministers were pronounced incompetent and imbecile, and their measures mis chievous, whilst the profusion of praise which he be stowed upon the Rlght Hon. Member for Tamworth— whether it were apposite or inapposite —must have been as little regarded by their object as his censures by the Government. The sensitiveness of the Right lion. Baronet must have been wounded when the Hon. Member made an infelicitous illustration of the influence of his plan by a reference to the contracts which had been broken in consequence of its promulgation. In short, the lion. Member attributed to the Right Hon. Baronet the intention of rigging the land market, and thus defeating the very object which he had in view.— (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The allusions which the Hon. Member for Cockermouth made to the evidence given before the committee on the Poor Law called for some observation on that point. The evidence of Mr. Twisleton was deserving of every consideration on account of the office which he had so ably filled, and which he had resigned rather than administer the law for levying a rate in aid. Fortunately, how ever, Mr. Twisleton gave his reasons for objecting to a rate in aid, and any one was able to estimate the force of them. Mr. Twisleton frankly declared that his reason for refusing to take any part in administering a law enacting a rate in aid was, that he believed the measure would endanger the stability of the connexion between the two countries. Upon thas point ho (Ur. M'Cul lagh), although the youngest and least experienced Irish representative in that House, was as competent to form an opinion as Mr. Twisleton, and he totally differed from the view which that gentleman took of the subject. There was no proof that the opinions expressed by the repre sentatives of Ulster were shared by the mass of the Irish people. No petition against the measure had ema nated from any great public meeting south of the Boyne. With the exception of Belfast, no great town had petitioned against the rate in aid, whilst Dublin and Limerick had petitioned in its favour as contrasted with an income-tax. With scarcely an exception the Ca tholic clergy had pronounced in the same manner. Mr. Twisleton's sole hope for the future rested on the revival of the potato crop, and he would have the people of Ire land depend in the mean time on supplies from the Im perial Exchequer. Nothing could be more fatal than to teach the people of Ireland to rely on that root, which had proved the greatest traitor to them, and which had made them alternately sponges in the hands of absentee proprietors and stipendiaries on the Imperial Exche quer.—(hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire put the question on the t ight footing when he said that the Irish representatives had now an opportunity of determining whether or not personal pro petty should not, as well as real property, be made liable to the support of the poor. The lion. Member wished to fight over again upon Irish ground the battle in which he had recently been defeated; but he (Mr. M'Cullagh) warned Mill Members that if they should once admit the principle that an income-tax might when applied in aid of poor-rates the tim e would cane whn it would be applied instead of them. The on. Mem bers for Buckinghamshire and Cockermnut h were a g reed in demanding a policy. It was undoubtedly true that at . the measures now proposed were merely te m p orar y , could exercise no permanent influence on the condition ' of Ireland, and he believed that no legislation would be capable of remedying the evils of that country until the Irish Members on both sides of the House, who kept faith with their tenantry and in whom that tenantry trusted, should do themselves an act of .justice by no longer conceiving themselves bound to make common cause with others of their body whose crimes had reduced the people to misery—who had made the people the tools of their rapacity as 1013 g as the potatoes last -d, and when that crop failed cast them for support upon the Imperial Treasury.—(Hear, hear.) The land lords who had faithfully discharged their duties would become accomplices after the fact of the bad men who had deserted their country after inflicting the most grievous evils upon it, if they failed now to shake off the connexion and unite themselves with the mid do and labouring classes, who had been too long the vic tims of bad men's crimes. Half the landlords of Ire hsed were bad.—(" No! nor) Well, the smaller the number might be, the more easy it would be found to deal with them. It would be said, " Will you attack the rights of property ?" but against those rights it was necessary to set the wrongs which industry and humanity had sustained. For the sake of their country he im plored the Irish Members to consent to a stringent and an unusual measure, for by such alone could the evils of that country be cured.—(Cheers.) Mr. MO - NSELL considered that the sole question which could be then debated was whether they should accept a rate in aid or the proposition of his Honourable Friend the Msmber for Kerry. lie could not conceive how Honourable Gentlemen could reconcile it to their consciences, knowing the distress which existed in Ire hld, and the necessity of funds being provided for its relief, to oppose the rate in aid unless they were pre pared to support a substitute for it.--(Hear, hear.) He must, however, say that he thought the Noble Lord at the head of the Government had dealt somewhat un fairly with Irish Members on this question. Professing to decide it by their wishes, he had, by the course he had pursued, rendered the decision of it extremely diffi oult. The Noble Lard had frightened many of his Hon. Friends by a sort of veiled figure of indefinite taxation which he had raised, and he (Mr. Monsell) believed that it the Noble Lord had deals not more candidly, but more openly with them, they would have been much more able to cme to a conclusion. But to those Hon. Gentlemen who had been alarmed by the Noble Lord, and particularly to the Noble Lord the Member for Down, he wished to address a few words. He thought it must be clear to that Noble Lord that one of these two measures, a rate in aid or an income-tax, must be car ried; and, therefore, if the course pursued by the Noble Lord and many of his friends was to defeat the proposi tion of his Hon. Friend, they would substantially assist the Government in carrying the rate in aid. His Hon. Friend who had last addressed the House had spoken as if this measure was such as it had been described in many of the public prints—a sort of landlord ques tion.—(Hear, hear.) He wished to know a h e th er hi s Hon. Friend could say he did not in his conscience know that the adoption of an income-tax rather than a rate in aid would deliver the farmers of Ireland from an enormous amount of taxation which they would otherwise shave to pay. Knowing, as his Hon. Friend did, that the vast majority of farmers in Ireland would be rated under 3001. a year, could his Hon. Friend maintain that this was a landlord question?—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman, after, referring to a reso lution which had been passed at a meeting of the board of guardians of the Limerick Union in favour of an in come-tax rather than a rate in aid, proceeded to say that this was a question of a general tax instead of a local one, and in that lay the fallacy of the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the previous evening when he spoke of the Scotch case. In that case, which oceurred in the twenty-third year of George several of the northern counties were allowed to tax themselves for the poor, but there was no general taxation, and it therefore did not apply to the present question. Every precedent was against the proposition of the Government ; and all writers on the subject had expressed themselves in the strongest manner as to the injustice of such a tax. Honourable Gentlemen connected only with England were perhaps hardly aware of the extreme disproportion between the amount of rateable property in England and in Ireland. Tho Chancellor of the Exchequer, he believed, had stated the former at 103,000,0001. a year, the tax upon it being 12,000,000/., or about ls. 81 in the pound. In Ireland, before the potato failure, the amount of rateable property might be valued at 13,000,000/. a year, a low average, he admitted, but adding 15 per cent., he would take it at 15,000,0001., which no Hon. Gentleman would think was understated. From that must now be eleducted 20 per cent., which left the amount at 12,003,000/. The county cesa on the average of three years, without any repayment of ad vances, was 1,142,000/. a year. The poor-rates last year were 1,600,0001. ; the repayment of relief advances, 272,321/. ; and the amount charged under Sir J. Burgoyne's Relief Commission was 952,0001., port of which was, he believed, paid, making altogether 4,200,0001., or he might fairly state it at 3,800,0001. So that the rateable property in England, which was 103,000,000/., paid but 12,000,000/. of taxation, whilst that of Ireland, amounting to only 12,000,0001., paid 4,ooo,oool.—(Hear, hear.) Was not that a state of things which fairly claimed their liberal consideration? If the representatives of Irelani consented to the im position of further taxation on that country in her pre sent distressed state, had they not a fair right to call upon the House to change the policy which had already produced such disastrous results?—(Hear, hear.) Would the House allow that state of things which was de scribed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Noble Lord as continually squeezing all the rates that could be collected out of the different electoral divi sions to go on and make no such exertions as the emer gency of the case required?—(Hear, hear.) The re medial measures that might be adopted had been fairly put forward by the Hon. Member for Cockermouth in this debate, and by the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, on two former and remarkable occasions. He would refer to one case within his own knowledge which illustrated some of the important measures that were absolutely necessary for Ireland. 'At a distance of 10 or 12 miles from LitTneriek was an estate of about 4,500 acres. For a long period it had been under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. The tenants were in a miserable state, and crime prevailed in the district to a frightful extent. After many years an eminent Limerick merchant purchased it, and by the course he pursued the district was restored to tranquillity, and the tenantry were, he could not say restored, for he be• lieved they never had enjoyed prosperity before, but ren d-red prosperous. And what was that course? Assisting the surplus population, who had no capital, to emigrate, whilst those who had capital were kept at home. But al though he had done all this for his own property, there was at the same moment, in the same electoral divi sion, another estate, which had been, Heaven only knew how long, in the Court of Chancery. Misery existed there to a frightful extent, and in consequence his rates were not reduced to the amount they otherwise might have been. He wished the House would reflect on the condition of the people living on the estate of the Noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, to which reference had been made in the beginning of 1847, and take 6,000 people living there—the number in the electoral division, and compare it with that of 6,000 living in the electoral divi sion of Clifden. In the first instance, they would find 2,000 of these people sent to a country where they are prosperous and able to remit money to their friends, and the other 4,000 being in a state of comparative com fort; whilst in the other case, most probably, 2,000 were already in their graves, and the others were (frig ging on a miserable existence. He could only decl ire his belief that if the course which had been persevered in so long were persevered in still, and the people of Ireland were allowed to remain in their present wretched condition, that House would bring down upon itself the judgment of Heaven for not adopting those means which were open for relieving those people from their misery and suffering. Sir W. BARRON said, that under the present circum stances of Ireland he could not ♦ote for uny addition of taxation. In that country everything was hastening to ruin, and how could this House fix an additional tax upo❑ a people so circumstanced. He could not agree with the principle that these poor people should not come to the common exchequer. Up to this hour they had acknowledged and acted upon this principle, but now, when Ireland, after three years of the direst misery, was reduced to the lowest condition, they abandoued it, and in the hour of its deepest distress deserted it. But if he was to make a choice between the two evils he should feel it to be his duty to give the preference to the motion of the Hon. Member for Kerry, rather than the proposition of the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The proposal of the rate in aid came at a singularly inau spicious moment. After a loss of between thirty and forty millions of her capital and the infliction of two millions of additional taxation, they propose.' to impose another tax of 300,0001. They did this, too, at a time when the agricultural products of Ireland were debased in price at least 20 per cent. compared with what they were five years ago. He was not going into the question of the corn-laws; but this was certain, that the interests of all classes in Ireland were bound up with the interests of the landed class; and he would ask whether, with the loss of nearly forty millions of capital, and the depreciation of prices, this was a time to put an additional tax upon an impoverished country? He would remind the Noble Lord that it was because the British Par- liament persisted in imposing unjust taxes that lost this country the finest of her colonies. It was the unjust impo sition of taxes which cost a British monarch his head, and though he did not say that the Irish people would take up arms to resist this tax, yet certain it was that it would alienate them from this country, and in the hour of dan ger it would find the error it had committed. The tax on the North American colonies was imposed without the pretext of representation, but in Ireland it was worse, fur the tax was imposed under the pretext of a repre sentation which did not really exist. lie protested against the imposition of this tax, because it was con trary to the spirit of the constitution, and because it was unsuitable to the present miserable and impoverished condition of the people of Ireland. Lord C. HAMILTON would not have risen on that occasion if it had not been for the manner in which the Hon. and Learned Member for Dundalk had attacked a number of Hon. Gentlemen, some of whom had been Members of that House, and especially the Hon. Mem ber for Cockermouth, whose manly and intelligent con duct during these debates, had not only reflected addi tional lustre upon his already well-earned reputation, but who had tho courage to advocate what he called justice to Ireland at the hazard of offending his consti tuents. The Hon. and Learned Member had next attacked Mr. Twisleton, and the whole of the landlords of Ireland. For his own part he knew of no public services performed by the Hon. Member which justified him in thus denouncing a whole class of her Majesty's subjectti. One thing be would admit, that however liberal in censure the Honourable Member had been, he had been exceedingly sparing in argument in his sup port of the rate in aid. As a specimen of the arguments he had adduced the alleged fact, that the Roman Catho lic clergy had petitioned that the poorer portions of their flocks should be excused from paying the income-tax, and insinuated that the proposition of an income-tax was iend the Member for Kerry curpdeefrfoonar tbheeapriunrgpothsee b o u f r enabling w i hie t h he fa l i a ri n y dlords to e belonged tos them. Now his Hon. r he did would absolve him knew his Hon. Fri e n d as might be accused of presumrptatoriniaininepnrto;pobsuitngtahonseewt on Ireland to an Imperial who from btri thatdid felt atshomadneyba(the lobate oo r o Irish this AlmTeexvd ienhatriagee.coulrisee THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 21, 1849. question, that the time had come when some addi tional taxation should be levied on Ireland. But he felt that that taxation should not be in the shape of a rate in aid, but in a mode by which the burden might be fairly allotted. He might be in error as to the terms of his resolution, or the mode in which ho had placed it before the House, but, at all events, his object was to apportion burdens fairly in Ireland, and to place that country on a level with this as regarded the income tax. Upon that ground he gave the motion of his Hon. Friend his support, as he believed other Irish Members did. They were prepared to bear their fair share of the burdens ; they only objected to bearing an unfair pro portion. With respect to the statement of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer as to the origin of this rate, there were very few guardians who returned replies to the queries addressed to them, and their decisions should not be 11,11 binding upon parties who had not given their assent to the proposition. Mr. MARTIN said he had been acquainted with the farmers of Ulster f rom an ear l y age, an d k no wing, as he did, that of all c l asses o f h er Majesty's subjects they were most opp ose d to t h e rate i n a id, he was anxious to state publi c ly t h e reasons w h y h e intended to vote in favour of t h at rite. T he di stress i n th e west of Ireland was such that it must be relieved from some quarter or other. Now he knew of no quarter from which such relief could be more justly relieved than the immediate locality in which it existed. He objected altogether to taking away the estates of the landlords, as proposed by the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. It might be very proper to take lands for debts voluntarily contracted by the proprietor, but it was altogether different to take it for debts created by an Act of Parliament, to which the proprietor might have been opposed. Ho supported the rate in aid, because he thought it was just that Ireland should exert itself to support its own poor, before coming to either Eugland or Scotland, and asking them to do so, and because having listened with attention to all the objections that had been urged against it, and especially the three which had been urged by the Hon. Member for Buckingham shire, he was convinced that it was less objectionable, either immediately or prospectively, than an income-tax. Mr. STAFFORD said that the Hon. Member who had just sat down was one of the only two English Members who spoke in support of the proposition of the Government, and if be looked at the support which the Hon. Member for Pontefract and the flon. Member for Dover gave to the vote then before them, he must be al lowed to say that scanty as that support was it might well have been spared. The Hon. Member for Dover gave to his friends only a sort of half-support, for he wished the rate to be continued merely for one year. Again, the Hon. Member for Pontefract contended that the Irish ought to provide for their own poor, and then, after praising his friends the Presbyterians, he declared his willingness to lay a heavy burden on them for the benefit of the people of Connaught and Munster; but, at the end of two years he would suspend his bounty, and leave the inhabitants of those provinces to perish. The Noble Lord stated, that if it were the wish of the Irish Members to take the income-tax instead of the rate in aid, he would be prepared to favour their inclination. The attendance of English Members on this occasion was therefore a superfluous luxury ; for, to morrow, when the division lists were scrutinized in Downing street, all the attention of the Government would be turned to the majority or minority of Irish Members who had voted en the question; and he believed the supposi tion that this would be the case had led to so thin an at tendance of English Members. The Noble Lord having failed, by his courteous invitation to Downing-street, to elicit the opinions of the Irish Members, proposed by this division to give them the choice of two alterna tives, and it was for them to decide whether they would take the income-tax or the rate in aid. The position of those Hon. Gentlemen reminded him of the words of Prior, addressed to a lady placed in somewhat similar circumstances:— " Now, Emma, now, thy last reflection make, Which, thou wilt follow, which thou must forsake; For, by ill-omened stars and adverse heaven, No midile object to thy choice is given." Whatever the decision of the Irish Members might be, the House would still have the unpleasing but inevitable duty of voting 100,0001. on account, or as a loan; and it behoved them, as men of business, to see which alterna tive offered the best security. The Chancellor of the Exchequer bad stated last night that the sum he ex pected to raise from the rate in aid was 259,000/. Now the value of property in Ireland was officially stated, in a calculation made some time since, at 13,000,0001, annually, and the produce of a rate of 6d. in the pound on that amount would be about 329,0001.; but, as the Chancellor calculated that a sixpenny, rate would produce only 250,0001., the value of the property could be only about 10,000,0001., so that, in the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the value of property in Ireland had sunk to the amount of 3,000,0001. since the value h ti e on m t u o st w a h l i s c o h r h e e m ( in M d r. th S e ta ti ffo o r u d s ) e, re t f h e a r t red it w a a p s p m en a r d ed e. fr ß o u m t and that more than 7,000 armed Ireland was 800,0001., t papers laid r laid before P 1 amounti am e n o t f , u t u h e a j t 1 0 l e n e t t e h d e 2 r s a t t h e o d f S ep u due in men were last year engaged in the collection of rates in that country; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had d r s ad tr e s s t s fi e t d e m u e n n i t o s n w s hi ch was s e o e se , v om d i a t h g a t w t o h r e s e c , o n a d n i d t i otnh thatthe f the circle of de&itution was spreading. He (Mr. Stafford) thought, looking at these circumstances, that it became the House to consider whether the security upon which it was proposed to advance the 100,000/. now a-ked for was good.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourab:e Mem ber for Kerry (Mr. 11. Herbert) proposed to offer as security for this grant the whole of the property in Ireland which was not at present subject to the income-tax. The Right lloti. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), when he brought forward his income• tax scheme on the 11th of March, 1842, estimated that the produce of a property-tax in Ireland might amount to about 410,000/. a year. The Chancellor of the Ex, chequer had said that un income-tax would not yield so much as a rate in aid in Ireland, and that therefore if an income-tax were adopted some supplementary tax would be necessary; but the Right Hon. Gentleman did not tell them on what calculations his statement was founded, or what supplementary tax he would propose. He (Mr. Stafford) considered, therefore, that the Government had not put the two alternatives fairly before the Irish Mem bers. He had suggested to the Noble Lord two months ago that it would have been fairer to the Irish Members to give them the option now afforded them. That sug gestion was then received with no favour; but however unconstitutional and unprecedented ho might consider the morning party—the Irish Parliament—held the other morning in Downing-street, he could not complaia that the Noble Lord had now adopted his suggestion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated last night that there was hardly any amount of deference he was not ready to pay the Irish Members. Why, then, did he not pay some regard to their opinions, and abandon the rate in aid altogether? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that this tax was no novelty. He (Mr. Stafford) entirely acquitted the Government of the slightest ori ginality of idea; but he thought they deserved to be called the Rate-in-aid Government, for they seemed to spend their official time in seeking suggestions from others as to what they should do, especially with regard to Ireland. The Hon. Member for the %Vest Riding (Mr. Cobden) had stated at one of the larg e assemblies he had graced with hi s p resence during the Easter recess that wheat, which, according to the last averages, was 445. a quarter, would, if the last sliding scale had been in operation, have now realised 70s. a quarter; and the Hon. Gentlt man attributed the difference of 265. a quarter to the effect of the free importation of corn. This reduction of price Hon. Gentlemen opposite would say would benefit the consumer, while it might be likely to inj ure t h e pro Weer. The Right Honourable Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) brought forward the Bill which, according to the statement of the Member for the West Riding, would now have made wheat 70s. a quarter, and the same Right Hon. Baronet brought in the Bill under the operation of which foreign s ed wheat was now admitted at a nominal duty. the agri culturalinly imposed upontt oh the ask West the Riding,i ht Hon. whether wouldnd t he vote Hon. M n l e f i a m e v b w o c u . fur uf this rate, which would be ma he had just referred—t hus the mea taxation those who were likely to su ff er from had sufF-red whieh broughtmthuecyhhfardomthe pr o e f sen d t im m it o li m sh e e n d t aurns classes—those who he (Mr. Staeffilidwil)ltboheewhaehvviieeehdr chias I f tg o in r eg w in a w rd lT : S urely t they pt m or u i c s et t sa f x e m el ua the stol; vote against the 8 1 m . He hoped that the Right Hun. Mem berproposition of the Hen. Member fur Derry, would for Tamworth, Po°lll i i f eYw he hofi fa vour the House and the people of Ireland by explaining were selecting the go i n e g t ff t e t e e o t the reasons which actuated him. The Right Hon. Ba ronet's speeches in reference to Irelend had attracted a great deal of ,attention there, and no subjett w as so eagerly debated as the scheme which he had put forth, to effect, us he (Mr. Stafford) in a great measur e be the amelioration of Ireland an d t h e re- Conuaught. But if the Ri g ht H on. g ß ltee a uv r ee o dr n a e tt t ito w wn a o s ou a rld bOut to give a vote against the agricultu ral interest in that country, how could he expect capitalists to invest money in land ther e , w h en he lent his assistance to a proposition d ec id e dl y againstnon. Gentlementha speciest connected with land, w h o were prepared of property? It m i g h t b e well for to vote against the proposition of th e H on. Member for Kerry, to consider that in doing so they would vote in company with those who loved not the land and the just influence connected with it. He believed that if the rate in aid was carried in that House, but a few weeks would elapse before Honourable Gentlemen would learn from the bitter experience of what might occur in another place the wisdom of the course now proposed by the Honourable Member for Kerry, whose Proposition would not only exempt from taxation the small farmers, but also the small shopkeepers in the lesser towns in Ireland. There might be a difficulty in arranging the machinery with respect to the income-tax, but that would be as nothing compared with the diffi culty which would arise in respect to the working of the poor-law from the adoption of the rate in aid; which tax, like the last leather that broke the camel's thick, would just complete the difficulty and render the confusion in termiiittb'e. Mr. GROGAN, amidst loud cries for a division, said he found - himself with the opportunity, on the one hand, of voting for the Government proposition ; that course he could not take, because he was opposed to the rate in aid. On the other hand, he had the opportunity of sup porting the proposal of an income•tax in Ireland, an offer which he thought uncalhd for and unnecessary.— (Laughter.) The alternative presented was the choice between two bad courses.—(A laugh.) Let the English Members bear in mind that by their votes they had en abled the Government to carry the second reading of the Rate in Aid Bill, upon which was based the present proposal of the Government; let them carry it if it was their pleasure, but as he concurred with the head poor law officials in Ireland, who all held that the rate in aid would give the worst of securities, he could be no party to that vote of 100,0001. ; it it was the pleasure of the House to vote it. let them do it.—(Laughter.) The distress in Ireland bad been recognised as an Impe rial citltuuity, and in 1846 the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said that " the whole credit of the Treasury and means of the country were ready to be used, and would, whenever they could be usefully applied, be so disposed, to avert famine and to maintain the people of Ireland;" that contrasted strangely with his statement on the previous night, that if the rate in aid should be refused he would allow the people to die of destitution without making any further advance from the Imperial Exchequer.—(" Divide!") Lord CASTLEREAGII though the House must feel that many Members were placedi n a most embarrassing position—(A laugh) —partly by the conduct pursued by the Noble Lord, most ably seconded by the Hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Herbert).—(" Divide, divide!") He (Lord Castlereagh) had hoped the House would not have been required to decide on such an alter native as was now presented. Would the Noble Lord explain what additional taxation he intended to pro pose for Ireland in the event of the proposal of the Hon. Member (.11r. Herbert) for an income-tax being carried?—(Laughter and Hear, hear.) He (Lard Castlereagh) never was c4lted on in that House to take such a leap in the dark. He was asked to vote for an income-tax, not knowing for how long or in what pro. portion, and he was fairly told beforehand that it must be attended with additional taxation. Unless he heard something of what it was to be, and whether direct or indirect, he felt that he could not give a vote upon the motion.—(Divide, divide.) Lord J. `RUSSELL could not, consistently:with his duty, give any further explanation to the Noble Lord beyond what he had already stated.—(Laughter.) The Committee then divided on the aruendment,when the numbers were— Ayes Noce Majority —4B On re-entering the gallery, we found Mr. HUME stating that it was not necessary for him to move the proviso of which he had given notice, be cause he understood it would not be competent for the Noble Lord to advance any money on the credit of the rate in aid till the Bill had received the Royal aisent. Lord J. RUSSELL said the Government did not pro pose to advance any money on the credit of the rate in aid till the Act had received the Royal assent. Still he was of opinion that if any unforeseen contingency should arise it would be their duty to give aid from the funds at their disposal, and then come down to the House with the recommendation that it should be agreed to as a grant. Certainly if he found that there was any chance of people dying from famine, he would adopt that course, and afterwards bring the matter under the consideration of the House for their approval. Mr. GOULBURN thought it perfectly clear that the Noble Lord could not givo any money on the credit of the Rate in Aid Bill till it had received the Royal as sent. The only fund from which payments could be made was that placed at the disposal of the Government by Parliament; and if they expended any sum for the relief of distress they must af•crwards come to Parlia ment for its judgment and decision on the matter. Mr. HUME wished it to be understood that, accord ing to a former statement of the Noble Lord, he would not exceed, in any payment he might make, the sum of 5,0001. or 7.0001. Mr. BATESON would oppose the motion because he could not agree to any money being voted on the credit of the rate in aid. -. The Committee then divided on the original motion, when the numbers were— Ayes Noes Majority -95 The vote was then agreed to. The Apprehension of Deserters (Portugal) Bill went through Committee. It was ordered that the House, at its rising, should adjourn till Monday next. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned a few minutes before One o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) FRIDAY, APRIL 20. POOR-LAWS (IRELANDLRATE IN AID-ADVANCE OF AF)NEY.) (IN THE COMMITTEE.) Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Com missioners of her Majesty's Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland be authorised to direct the ad vance, out of the Consolidated Fund of the said United King dom, of any sum not exceeding 100,0001., for affording relief to certain distressed Poor-law Unions in Ireland, the same to be charged on any Rate to be levied in each Union of Ire land under any Act to be passed in the present session of Parliament :"—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words " distressed Poor-law Unions in Ireland" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, " and in considera tion thereof that an Income and Prcperty-tax be assessed on Incomes and Property in Ireland not liable to Income and Property Tax under the Act 1 t and 12 Vic., c. 8," instead thereof:—Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question" The Committee divided:— MAJORITY—AYES, 194. Abdy, T. N. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Patten, J. W. Adair, It. Shafto Grenfell, Charles W. Pechell, Captain Anderson, Arthur Grey, Sir G. Peel, Sir Robert Anson, Co'onel G ey, It. W. Peel, Frederick Anon, Viscount Guest, Sir J. Pennant, Colonel Armstrong, Sir A. liallyburton, Lord Perfect, Robert Baines, M. T. Harris, Richard Pigott, Francis . .. ... ..... , _ . Baring. Sir P. Ilastie, Archibald Pinney, William Bass, M. T. Hawes, B. Plowden, W. 11. Bellew, R. M. Hay, Lord John Power, N icholas Berkeley, Captain ilayei, Sir E. Pryse, Pryse Berkeley, 11. 1. Ilayter, W. G. Reid. Colonel Berkeley, C. L. G. Ileadlam, T. E. Ricardo, J. L. Birch, Sir T. Heywood, James Ricardo, Osman Boyle, Colonel Ileyworth, Lawrence Rice, E It. Bright, John Ilobliouse, Sir John Rich henry Brockman, E. D. Hobhouse, T. B. Romilly, Sir John Brotherton, J. Hogg, Sir J. W. Russell, Lord J. Brown, W. Howard, Lord E. Russell, Edward S. Browne, It. D. Howard, C W. G. Rutherfurd, A. Bulkeley, Sir R. B. Howard, E. G. Sadleir, John Butler, I'. S.I Iluine, Joseph Sal wcy, Colonel Buxton, Sir N. __. Jervis, Sir John Sandars, J. Cardwell, Edward Johnstone, Sir J. Scholefield, William Carter, J. B. Keating, Robert Scully, Francis Chaplin, W. J. Kepp,l, G. T. Seymour, Lord Childers, J. W. Kershaw, James Shafto, It. D. —. Clay, James _ Labouchere, Henry Shell, It. L. Clerk, Sir G. Langston, J. H. Shelburne, Earl of Clifford, H. M. Lascelles, W. S. Sheridan, R. B. Cobden, It. -: Lawless, Cecil Smith, R V. .. _ Cockburn, A. J. Lerman', T. B. Smith, J. A. Coke, E.:K. Lewis, G.C. G Smith, M. Tucker ____,. —"'" . M Cowper, W F. Littleton, E. R. Smith, J. Benjamin Craig, W. G. Loch, James Somerville, Sir W. Crowder, R. B. Locke, Joseph Staunton, Sir G. Dalrymple, Captain Lockhart, A. E. Stuart, Lord Dudley Devereux, Joins T. Lushington, Charles Stuart, Lord J. Douglas, Sir C. 3PCullagh, W. T. Sullivan, 311chael Duff, G. S. 31'Gregor, John Talbot, C. It. Duff, James Duncembe, 0. Magan, W. U. Talfourd, Sergeant Meagher, Thomas Tancred, H. W. Duncuft, John Maitland, Thomas Thicknesme, It. A. l)undas, Admiral Marshall, J. G. Thompson, George Dunne, F. P. Marshall, W. Thornely, Thomas Ebrington,:Lord Martin, Samuel Towneley, John Ellice, Edward Masterman, John Townshend. Captain Ellis, John _ Matheson, J. Trelawny, J. S. Elliot, John E. Matheson, Colonel Vane, Lord H. Emlyn, Viscount Maule, Fox Villiers, Charles Eusteu, Earl Mitchell, A. T. Wall, C. 11. Evans, John Mo watt, Francis Walmsley, Sir I. Evans, William MilloTave Earl Ward, 11. G. Ewart, William Norreys, Lord Watkins, Colonel Fergus, John Norreys, Sir D. Willcox, Brodie Ffolliott, J. O'Brien, Sir Lucius Williams, John Viliner, Sir E. O'Connell, John Williamson, Sir 11. Fitzroy, Henry O'Connor, Feargus Wilson, James: Fordyce, A. 1). OTLtherty, Anthony Wilson, Matthew Forster, M. Ord, W. Wood, Sir Charles Fortescue, J. W. Paget, Lord A. Wood, W. P. Gibson, T. M.l Paget, Lord Clarence WyTlll, Marmaduks Glyn, G. C. Paget, Lord George Goddard, A. L. Pakington, Sir J. S. TELLSAS. Graham, Sir James Palmerston, Viscount Tufnell, Beery' Greene, John Parker, John 11111, Lard Marcus MINORITY—NOES, 146. Adair, Hugh E. Estcourt, J. B. B. Mundy, William A r kwrlght, George Farnham, E. Mure, Colonel Baldock, E. H. Fellowes, E. Neeld, Joseph Bankes, George Ferguson, Sir R. Newdegate, C. N. 1 14 { ,. . E. Packe, C. W. 1 .Newry, Viscount Baring, Thomas Fuller, A. E. Nugent,' Lord Godson, Richard Palmer, Robert Bentinck, Lord 11. Goulburn, Henry Philips, Sir G. R. Beresford, William Granby, Marquis of Plgot, Sir Robert sir Philip. Viscount Gladstone,G ask ell J . Granger, T. C. Plumptre, J. P. Blackstone, W. S. Greenall, G. Portal, Melville Blair, Stephen Gwyn, Howe! Prime,!Richard 8 88 l ea a nr c rn i to Barrington,ant: I , S . W . Blandford, Marquis Haggitt, F. R. Renton, J. C. Bourke, Richard S. Halford, Sir Henry Repton, G. - W. J. Bouverie, E. P. Hamilton, Lord C. Richards, Richard Bowles, Admiral Harris, Captain Rushout, Captain Bramston, T• W. Heald, James Sandars, Georg, Bremridge, Richard Henley, J. W. &rope, G. P. Brisco, M. Herbert, Sydney Shirley, E. J. Broadley, H. Ilerries, Jelin C. Sibthorp, Colonel Bromley, Robert 1111dyarti, T. B. Sidney, Alderman Buller, Sir J. Y. Ilindley, C. Simeon, John ISurroughes, H. N. Hood, Sir A. Smyth, John G. Charters, Francis Mornby, John Somerset, Captain Christy, Samuel Howard, Sir R. Stanley, 14. 11. Clements, Charles Jocelyn, Viscount Stuart, H. Clive, R. 11. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Stuart, J. .._ . . _ Cobbold, J. C. Jones, Captain Cochrane, A. King, P. J. Cocks, Thomas S. Knox, (Mono Codrington, Sir W. Lennox, Lord G. H. Cole, lion. H. A. Leslie, C. P. Colebrooko, Sir T. Lincoln, Earl of Coles, 11. It. Lindsay, Colonel Compton, H. C. Lockhart, W. Corry, Henry Long, Walter Currie, H. Lowther, Colonel Currie, Raikes Lowther, Henry Darner. Colonel Mackenzie, W. F. Dick, QUilltill 111'lcaghten, Sir E. Disraeli, B. Mahon, Viscount Drumianrig, Vis. Manners, Lord G. Drummond, Home March, Earl of Duncan, Lord Meux, Sir Henry Duncan, George Miles, I'. W. S. Edwards,'llenry Moffatt, George Egerton, Sir P. Monsell, William Egerton, W. T. Morris, David Ellice, E., jun. Muntz, G. F. Tenison, E. K. Thesiger, Sir F. Thompson, Colonel Trollope, Sir J. Turner, G. J. Tyrell, Sir J. T. Vyse, R. H. Waddington, H. S. Walpole, Spencer Walsh, Sir J. Williams, T. P. Willoughby, Sir H. Wodehouse, E. Worcester, Marquis Wortley, J. S. Wyld, James Young, Sir John TELLERS. Herbert, Henry A. Stafford, Augustus ROYAL ARTILLERY.—WOOLWICH, APRIL 19. Lieutenant- Colonel Locke, recently second in command of the Royal Artillery at Gibraltar, has been appointed to command the Royal Artillery at Chatham, rico Lieu tenant-Colonel Harrison, retired on full pay. Lieute nant-Colonel Wilson has been appointed to command the Royal Artillery at Jersey, vice Lieutenant Colonel James, who has been in command at that station since Marsh, 1846. [ADVERTISEMENT.]- -CONSUMPTION, BRONCHIAL, ASTHMA, INFLUENZA, &C.—The following cases of the severest forms of disease are selected from the clinical report published by Dr. Cronin:—Mrs. Osborne, 8, Ox ford-street; Mr. Morley, Messrs. Croncock and Co., Bow Churchyard; Major Lynch (late 14th Foot), 7, Wood land-place, St. John's Wood; Mr. Bryant, 7, Padding ton-street Marylebone; Mademoiselle I ) uprez , Roya l Academy of Music; Miss Erwood , 72, New Bond-street; Miss Robb, at the Baroness Bassett's. T ehid y Park, near Truro, Cornwall; Mrs. Tburmott, 29, Bedford-street- Covent Garden; Mrs. Williams, Portobello . Arms, OF see e .A . L tr D ac it t o f ß ro O m llG hi fi s Kentish New Town; —, 14, Leicester-place, Leicester, square. AND HoLtowAy's PILLS.—An astounding curs by this miraculous B n o o a t o e u v o e li r . t „ h o T w h a e t s e e r s wonderfulo f Carlsbad pills or M a . - Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 1845. medriticinl:RuTrleSvE::: J: — nie T ans ilE had E cad Aß ed i l Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint you that your pills have ef fected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach which all the most eminent of the faculty, at home and all ever the Continent, had not cure any dieease of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also Holloway'swill Ointnymt) at Professor Holloway's Establlsluuent, 244, str by ail medicine Teudprg throughout the 0411112(d world a" ' alla ribeeennbaadb.le ( t S o ign efr eg t ;..nALayD, THE QUARTERLIES. THE E DING tTRG II RE VIEW. No. CLXXX. Let all ladies and gentlemen connected with authorcraft abstain from a perusal of the opening article in this number of the Edinburgh, unless they are solicitous of obtaining a heartache. The pa per is evidently from the pen of the accomplished editor, and is entitled " The Vanity and Glory of Literature : ' After going through the whole of this indirect cri ticism upon books in general, and English books in particular, we must be permitted to characterize it as one of the most depressive articles we ever remember to have encountered. It saddens the whole heart. It makes one sceptical of any literary immortality , beyond such colossi of letters as Homer, and Shaks pere, and Dante. If read, no matter how negligently, it must effectually put the extinguisher on the vanity of all those little minnows and tadpoles of literature, who expect to live in the re tnernbrance of posterity, simply because they have en dited a successful magazine story, a tolerable pamphlet of 32 pige3, or an intolerable book of travels in three volumes octavo. Should they but once read the contribution we are alluding to, we warrant them they will never hold their heads up again with self 3uffl2iency, or ruffle their crests with ostentation. The precise nature of the article in question may be at once conjectured when we remak that the obser vations of the reviewer are dependent upon the prefix of that very remarkable and alarming work, " The London Catalogue of Books published in Great Bri ! min, with their Sizes, Price 3, and Publishers' Names, from 1814 to 1846"—a stout volume of 542 closely printed pages, over which we remember well having pored three years ago, with precisely such thoughts as have been here so admirably expressed in the Edinburgh. Among the happy phrases which are scattered through the contribution, we must not omit to mention that capital expression of " the leakage of the memory" —an intellectual affliction, from the effects of which we are all of us, more or less, sufferers. It is also felicitously said that the majority of the writers who are destined not to live are " merely embalmed and made mummies of the reviewer attaching a rather more grim simile to books than Disraeli the elder, who spoke of them as " eastern beauties peering through their jalousies." Incidentally the author pays a rather magnificent and somewhat premature homage to Mr. Macaulay, clas sing his name as an historian with that of Gibbon. It should be remembered that in the " Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" we have one of those extraordinary masterpieces which are intellectually what the pyramids are physically, whereas in the " History of England from the Accession of James II." we possess merely he fragment of a compo sition which an adverse destiny may (for all the reviewer knows to the contrary) render as in. complete as the preceding commencements of a similar narrative by Fox, and by Mackin tosh. As a sort of sardonic consolation to those who may be disposed to lament over the prospective destruction of so many favourites, it is observed that " The value of books does not depend on their dura bility ; nor in truth is there any reason why the philosopher should be more solicitous about these wasted and wasting treasures of mind than about the death of men, or the decay of the cities they have built, or of the empires they have founded." There seems a horrible truth in this—though we concede so much rather reluctantly. It is well, and, indeed, admirably, because most truthfully said, that, " perhaps, after all, the greatest of an author's rewards is the pleasure of composition"—in illustra tion of the accuracy of which we recollect that Mr. Monckton Mines, in his biographical memento of John Keats, mentions of that exquisite poet that he would write verses over night in a sort of rapture, not caring whether the manuscript were destroyed by the next morning. Next to the pleasure of composition is the joy of appreciation. It is cleverly observed by the Edinburgh reviewer that " the chief glory of all human literature is, that it is our pledge and security against the retrogradation of humanity; the effectual breakwater against barbarism ; the ratchet in the great wheel of the world, which, even when it stands still, prevents it from slipping back." The saying is inimi tably good ; and the ingenuity of the metaphor is worthy of Jonathan Swift. As to the character of the conjectures formed by the critic, from such facts as that 10,000 new German books on the average were, until the breaking out of the continental revo lution, published annually at the Leipsic fair, the reader may judge from the following extract:— " Most pleasant it would be, no doubt, in case human life were prolonged in some proportion with the sum of human knowledge—to lay out our studies on a corres ponding scale. Possessed of antediluvian longevity, we might devote some twenty years or so (a year or two more or less would be of no consequence) to purely elementary studies and discipline ; the' promising lad' of fifty might commence his more serious school studies, under judicious masters, in their full vigour and prime of three or four centuries; and at the age of ninety or a hundred, the young student, just entering upon life (though as yet raw and in xperienced), might be sup posed to have laid a tolerably solid foundation, whereon in the course of his progress towards manhood through the next two centuries, he might, by due diligence and perseverance, build such a superstructur e as s h ou ld justify some pretensions to accurate and sound s -holar ship. But alas: we forgot that, even then, the old ob structions to universal knowledge would soon be repro duced in a now form. The same insatiable curiosity, and the same restless activity, op( rating through longer periods, would rapidly extend the circle of science and literature beyond the reach of even such a student, The tremendous authors who enjoyed a career of five cen turies of popularity, would be voluminous in proportion; Jeremy Taylor and Baxter, Voltaire and Walter Scott, would ap )ear but pamphleteers in comparison. Their opera °nude would extend to libraries. Novels would be written to which the Great Cyrus and Clelia would be mere novellettes, wEErein the heroes and heroines would be married, hanged, or drowned, after a courtship and adventures of three or tour centuries. The biogra phies of the long-lived worthies of such an age would be composed in forty folios, or more; and the history of nations projected on a scale which would render De Thou's huge seven tomes a mere sketch or abstract. The author who began the history of Athens by a dissertation on the geological formation of the Acropolis, or the work of Leibnitz on the house of Brunswick, in which he commences with his Protogass,' would be but a type of the prodigious gyrations of such writers; so that the hopi.less student, toiling after them in vain,' would be obliged to exclaim with Voltaire's 'little man of Saturn,' who only lived during five hundred revolutions (or fifteen thousand of our years), that scarcely had he begun to pick up a little knowledge, when he was summoned to depart; and that to live only for such a span is, as one may say, to die as soon as one is born." There is wit as well as reason in these vagaries of the imagination. As a favourable specimen of the writer's style of illustration, take the following : " The while gigantic growth of human knowledge and science may be compared to those deposits whtch geologists describe, full of the remains of animal and vegetable life—beautiful once, trod beneficial still. The luxuriant foliage and huge forest growth of science and literature which now overshadow us, are themselves rooted in strata of decaying or decayed mind, and derive their nourishment from them; the very soil we turn is the loose detritus of thought, washed down to us through long ages. In the world of intellect, as in the world of matter, though vanity' is written on all things, and oblivion awaits man and his achievements, yet is it also sublimely true, th a t i n b ot h a lik e Deat h is itself the germ of life; and new forms of glory and beau!) , spring from the dust of desolation." In the next criticism on the " Physical Atlas," a deserved meed of commendation is bestowed upon the magnificent work now publishing by the Messrs. Blackwood from the eminent hand of Mr. Alexander Keith Johnston. Without wishing in any,respect to depreciate the poetical abilities of Mr. Henry Taylor, we cannot but think that his "Eve of the Conquest" and Miscellaneous Poems are rather over than under praised in the Edinburgh. The subsequent paper on " Sacred and Legendary Art," suggested by the ele gant compilation of Mrs. Jameson, is exceedingly agreeable, and gives altogether a very judicious esti mate of that lady's capacities as an authoress. " Mary Barton" will surely outlive some few years at least the ordinary duration of the existence of novels for the circulating libraries ; 'for its rude naturalness and domestic pathos have already attracted the attention of two of the quarterlies—the Edinburgh and the Westminster. The author may plume himself on having, at any rate, made a decided " hit"—whatever may be the length of his reputation. After a careful and searching examina tion of some amongst the historical misstatements made by Miss Strickland in her celebrated " Hitt iry of the Queens of England"—there is a passing but earnest allusion to the great work commenced by Mr. Macaulay as a continuation to Hume or Lin ; gard. The paragraph, although brief , wilt to many be almost a compensation for the delay of the substantiala criticism which is looked for ultimately in th Edin burgh. It rather strikes us that the tremendous re view of no less than 36 pa ges u w po o n ul t d e have uk b e ee o n f Argyll's " Presbytery Dfam ined," considerably abbreviated in length, if not lessened in enthusiasm of panegyric (upon the style), had the pamphleteer been anything less than a Duke. Upon the extravagant notice of Monsieur Cru;z,t' s " De mocracy in France" we have already c ommented in our leading columns. Besides a paper on our " nancial Prospects," there are Refle c ti ons on the Political State of Germany," g i v i ng a very sketch of the present posture - readable of that vast congeries of indemdent, et coalescin g prin cipalities. The ronaining yontribution, not yet noticed, i s we ll worthy of a c must serious pe rusal, being an excellent commentary on the recen t reforms effected in on., and attempted to be intro duced into th e other, of our two venerable Universi ties. Gl a dl y should' we hear of the general adoption Sir John of that suggest i on of erschell, to the effect that young men should go through u woul a course of the Novum Organu m . Gladly we recognise the elevation o f th e average standard of information among the pol by the carrying out of the improvements commenced in regard to the Graces, the Triposes, and the Syndicates. Gladly, thrice gladly, should we learn of the following of this wholesome advice—" It would be a very great advantage, were Government to invite them (the magnates of- the universities) t o recom mend to its notice, as i s donein Prussia and France, those whose accomplishments and talents seem to qualify them eminently for a civil career, or for the tranquil cultivation of science." The Honourable Mortimer Plantagenet, and the Reverend Theophilus Mudge, are no mere fancy profiles, they are finished miniatures taken from the life with the vividness of callotype. Such are the eleven articles constituting the hundred and eightieth number of the Edinburgh. TEE QUARTE RL Y RE VIE Tr. No. CLX VIII. Everybody knows—the thing is already notorious —that Mr. Macaulay comes in for eighty-two mortal pages of abuse, vituperation, distortion, spitefulness, and sneering, in the current number of the Quarterly. The revenge of the contributor has been carefully bottled up for eighteen years, and when it comes out at last, of course it is in a high state of effervescence. And certainly when we recur to that celebrated cri ticism which appeared in the Edinburgh, September, 1831, we cannot feel astonished that the editor of I3os • well's " Johnson" should feel for a considerable time particularly tetchy and sensitive—like that assailant of Kompanee Jehan described by Mr. Thackeray in a recent number of the " London Charivari," as being "as savage as a bear whose head is sore." For certainly the knout of criticism was not spared by Mr. Macaulay; every blow was excoriat ing, flaying, murderous. The writer was told in one sentence that " many of his blunders were such as the reviewer would have been surprised to hare seen any well-educated gentleman commit, even in conversa tion." He was told in another that "the merits of his performance was on a par with those of a certain leg of mutton on which Dr. Johnson dined while travelling from London to Oxford, and which he, with characteristic energy, pronounced to be as bad as bad could be, ill fed, ill killed, ill kept, and ill dressed.'" " This edition," said the inexorable critic, parodying the exclamation of the Doctor, " is ill com piled, ill arranged, ill written, and ill printed." Further on, after a frightful exposure of the faults heaped together in this same Croker's Boswell's John son—the Edinburgh reviewer remarked that the de cisions of the editor of the biography on points of classical learning, " though pronounced in a very authoritative tone, are generally such that if a school boy under our care were to utter them, our soul as suredly should not spare for his crying." When he read that, Mr. Croker must even in his manhood have again tingled as under the birch. The position assumed by the reviewer placed the reviewed, to say the least of it, in an attitude sufficiently ignominious. He found himself arraigned before the Tribunal of Letters upon .a charge of faults in what the critic contemptuously designated " the fourth form learning" —upon the misapprehension of the word "puella ;' upon forgetting that Lucina was another name for Diana ; upon using the word 6;lvoi in a sense " which no schoolboy would do without imminent danger of a flogging;" and upon translating so wretchedly a Latin note sent off jocosely by Dr. Johnson to Dr. Lawrence [" si per to licet, imperatur Nuncio Holderum ad me deducere"] that he at last receives the recommendation to " give an hour every morning to our old friend Corderius: • • • • • . . These things have not been forgotten. Eighteen years roll on : Mr. Macaulay publishes a book, a History of Eng land : the vial of spleen is uncorked and hence the bitterness which runs through the whole of this long and elaborate attack upon the historian in the pages of the Quarterly. The fury of the reviewer, however, is so blind and overpowering as to miti gate in a great measure the effect of its violence. Ile is altogether too much in a rage to discriminate. He aims such hard blows, and so fast, that sometimes he misses—and wounds himself. Even the first line in Mr. Macaulay's first volume, he won't allow to be anything else than "a pompous commonplace, that looks like something and means nothing." He makes a great fuss about the misapprehension of the word Brittia in Procopius. lie says, " that some times Air. Macaulay strains after verbal effect, and in his effort loses the point"—quoting in illustration that beautiful expression, " Arabian mothers long awed their infants to silence with the name of the lion-hearted Plantagenet" (the italics are the Quarterly reviewer's)--and then remarking, with a kind of hysterical giggle of derision, " This is an unlucky occasion to introduce the name of Planta genet, which assuredly no Arabian ear had ever heard nor tongue pronounced:' As if the historian had ever said one syllable about Arabian ears hearing or tongues pronouncing the name of Plantagenet What Mr. Macaulay says is, that these Arabian mothers uttered the "name of the lion-hearted Plantagenet"—in other words (as any simpleton might see who was not actually obnubilated by revenge) Richard. The reviewer is pleased to be particularly droll at the circumstance that Mr. Macaulay, instead of copying the literal words of Burnet, that William 111. was on one particular day " hunting," has the temerity to remark that the Stadthulder was then "many miles qif alter a stag." Upon this says the sagacious critic —" There wits prob a bly no s t ag -h unt at all—William may have been shooting!" 0, wonderful subtlety of criticism! Probably Yes. Probably No. Qu'importe Then, again, how the reviewer catches at the minutest" slip of the pen imaginable—his eyes a- wide, and his cars a• cocked ! " The hangman addressed himself to his office," says the historian inadvertently when describing the execution of Monmouth. And there upon, roars out the critic of the Quarterly, with a horse-laugh, betokening, one would think, some thing more than the discovery of a mare's nest— " And after all it was not a hangman, but a headsman ; and a wretched one, too"—the words being printed in italics just to point out the joke more irresistibly. But let the reader listen to the Quarterly reviewer " showing up" the phraseology of one of the first m3sters of the English language. " If," says he derisively, "a regiment of Militia marches into Bridport, it must come pouring in " of course it must, say we. "If many wit nesses appeared on the Popish plot," he exclaims again, all a-gog with a n as t on i s h men t, th e cause of which we can't for the life of us make out, " they come ' pouring forth' "—of course they do And he authenticates those wonderful discoveries— be sure of that—he authenticates them. The one about the militia, says he, is Vol. I. page 576. That about the witnesses, is Vol. I. page '237. Yet the writer is not altogether too cross to be dull—the very fire of his indignation heats him now and then to the saying of a good thing—as when, after quoting Mr. Macaulay's remarks about " the infamous Ti mothy Hall," and the " not less infamous Parker," about the infamy of 'Williams, and the infamy of Wright, it is observed—" Every great painter is supposed to make a large use of one parti ticular colour. What a monstrous bladierful of it Mr. Macaulay must have squeezed on his palette when he took to portrait painting ! " Spiteful as the words are, yet they are capital to us—they have the genuine ring of wit. As to the wholesale charge of plaYiarisms, made by the Quarterly— pillagings from Mackintosh, and from Joinville, and even self-robberies from the " Lays of Ancient Rome,"—it is absolutely preposterous. The absurdity of the accusation has been so triumphantly disproved elsewhere, that we only now refer to it for the sake of calling our readers' attention to the examples paraded by the Quarterly in pages 604, 606, and 606. If the employment of kindred adjectives, and sympathetic verbs, and congenial similes, in the delineation of the same scenes and the same occurrences, constitute plagiarisms—then is Mr. Macaulay a plagiarist. But so also for the same reasons should we regard M. Louis Blanc in refer ence to the preceding works of Michelet, and Lamar tine, and Carlyle, and Mignet, and Thiers, and a hundred other historians of the Revolution. So also is Mr. Grote after Mitford and Thucydides. In fine, we cannot but express our gratitude to the contributor to the Quarterly for mostamus hiving af forded us the prrusal of one o f the ve iz hile artwiceleasgwreee with can recollecthi cordially e ver i having _n very vi examined. sen tentious opinion, that " thel:?maplde of History "the is not the floor for a morris-dance , and Cli o is not to be worshipped in the hmalelasnosfeoTinecripd; by of Mr. Ma cau l ay as no g o f t he course,labours swi being cithli"eh t i a m.' n ' t i a wn m ev o i u ec r aw l n i n to " the squandering of so much a s r u r b a j y e ecdt hinithtehretesirmepvleerengetterd. gar as e t l h o e d r fi a g m u a r t e i c a t f a len T t ru o t n h a pre sume so far t o diff er wit h ments of Philosophy?' Y e t, while himas wt toe rvse•goaurldd Macaulay in the light of a very mark a very gre a t wr i ter, and re ave a r b y le historian, elogoeat rhetorician, we would, nevertheless, reiterate the ex pressions of our gratitude for the entertainment extracted by us from this harmless, though malignant, effort of vengeance. We have written so much at length upon this final, but most conspicuous contribution, that we have now only the opportunity of enumerating the remaining seven :—" Popular Science," " Hutchinson and Hie over, " " The Skerry yore Lighthouse," " Cattle and Sheep," " The Germanic Confederation and the Austrian Empire," " Curzon's Visits to Monasteries in the Levant," and " .M'Farlane's Glance at Revo lutionized Italy." Several of these, more particularly the first, the third, and the fourth, are worthy of this eminent public2tion. AN ENGLISH POTTERY IN FRANCE.—As a proof of the revival of confidence in the stability of the French Government, and of their power . and willin g n ess to sustain order and protect property , it may be mentioned that an Irish gentleman has just purchased one of the large factories on the banks of th e Seine, whi c h was abandoned during the revolution in February, 1848, and yesterday he left South ampton for Havr e , i n th e Courier steamer, accompanied by about thirty of his workpeople. A great number of his workmou had al ready preceded