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

spect to Ireland.—(" Hear," and laUghter.) How cot& he, as an English Member, vote at all, unless it were given as a vote of confidence? The Chancellor of tb, Exchequer had told them that this rate in aid was fug 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 wor,! true The measure mi4lit be objectionable in principle; but. when they considered its object, they must not stand to. strictly upon the. principle of the measure.—(ll , ar.) Il 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 migh , be their debates on this most important subject, he did not consider that the time would be wasted. The Hot , . 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 stat, to be further taxed: he therefore should opposed both an income-tax and a rate in aid. Before either wer, agreed upon, the resources of Ireland ought to be in quired into; and sure was he that the result of such an inquiry 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 shaVe 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 oaly against any 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 statei to it in 1545 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 what he called the "unconstitutional" interview with the Irish Members. If the Hon. Member was correct as to the interview being unconstitutional, the Irish Members were equally liable to the condemnation with the Noble Lord, and he (Colonel Dunne) was quite ready to bear has part of the blame. But he did not think it was u nconstitutional ; and he thought moreover that if the Government were more frequently to consult the Irish Members on Irish subjects, it would be better for 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 me rely a ch o i ce b etween t h e d agger an d t h e bowl— hear)—between an income tax and a rate in aid; whereas, as he had sa id, h e as we ll as o th er 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 because they wished the taxes to be readjusted first.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Kerry had said that th e introduced proposal of the rate in aid had been under circumstances very unusual. On the contrary, be (Colonel Dunne) thought that the introduction of the measure was in perfect accordance with the whsle conduct of the Government on the subject of the Poor -law. They had introduced a measure for allowing outdoor relief to the poor of Ireland, con trary to the opinion of Mr. O'Connell and of the com Inissioners, who had previously conducted an inquiry into the subject; and they had introduced this rate in aid exactly in the same way, contrary to the opinion of a large body of th e I r i s h Members, as well as contrary to the opinion of their own commissioner, Mr.Twisleton. --(Hear.) The time 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 Liverpool, th e I r i s h merchants exporting corn to were b to import it f rom America. Add d a d s ot o this p r t e h p e a ri lo n s g s sustained from t h e f a il ure of the potato crop, with the consequent los ses on f eeding pigs and cattle, which had not been e s ti mate d too highly at 42,000,000%, and they night hesitat e b e f ore they thought this the most proper time to put an income-tax on that country. He could not understand h ow hi s lion. Friends (Mr. Herbert and lilt, Fox) could vote for an increase of taxation, but if cri a readjustment of the taxation it appeared that 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 burd ens w hi ch it appeared right that they should pay The revenues of Ireland were no less than ',400,000/. It was obvious she did not require such te 'tn for her o wn p ur p oses . Her military este iutushment this year w ould cost nearly 2,500,0001, but w as quite u n f a i r t o ke e p up such an army to en tire() the poor -rate in a country so obedient to the law as Ireland for the most part was. The analogy be tween the rate in aid and the Scotch tax of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, and which the noble Lord (L or d J . R usse ll) h a d re f e rred to, did not til s because, as he (Colonel Dunne) was informed by h Ron. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that tax la id been imposed in accordance with the old Scotch ek w. The f ac t was t h ey must ma k e l arge an d ra di ca l e !.. l a . nges i n t h e whole of the Irish poor-law. The cost its : . administration was enormous. Last year they lai d out 700,0001., of which 500,0001. went to feed the P e ople, and 200,0001. to pay the poor-law officials. With such a system the rate in aid must be eternal. With all that had been said aga i ns t th e p o t a to, he very mu c h do ubted wheth er i t was not b etter t h an cerea l f oo d , nd he thought it impossible by any system of al tern • Mien of crops to support the people on the western Coast,. exp ose d as i t was to the winds from the Atlantic. . 1! nder any circumstances, s uc h a s y s t em cou ld not b e " e growth of a year, a n d meant i me t h e peop l e wou ld Buffer from the want of food. The same objections applied to the 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 being adopted for the discouragement and difficulties thrown by the Government in the way of those Irish Members who would otherwise have given it their sups Port. After the intimation of the Noble Lord, and the strange way in which it had been given,. that if the amendment was carried he should consider it his duty to matte additions to it, the nature of which he did not state but but which might plainly be understood to point to fresh taxation for Ireland, no Irish Member could run the risk of voting for the amendment; but not being de rrred by the responsibility attaching to representatives from Ireland, h e (Mr. Bankes) would give that amend mexit his su p port. H e was not pre p ar ed to sit still and e the Irish people starving ; and Government must either carry out other measures better suited to the ferg en bY, or into other hands the arrangement must ate and relief must be administered under other circum utz"enes• - It would be with great grief he saw an incomes ,‘,...enir on Ireland. When the income-tax was pro r'o3_ols.ot.r three years longer he had concurred in the r t ion of the Hon. Member for Montrose to extend moire Ireland. B u t he would exempt that part of the fr o would give the tax so long as famine continued; it th e i ne t7 him great pain to vote for the extension of the Irish ax to Ireland at a moment like this, when but that _ &mitoses declared not only that famine existed, by -the d'oen.l..F.oondition had been deteriorated, as stated ad o o r p e ti on of e.4leTber fur Portarlington, by the unhappy El sever e i n n- tu .' i ge Which had subjected land lreto perienced tetio ne taxation of Ireland the tax (ne ar) than ever this country hx- This was not the time to add to f the and • ofGovernment th 'and it was not to much to ask moment some of th at they should have waved for the stood in the way ose Collo • • n am principles which alone witho u t • , t o ut filing' an , .1.,..0rd J. RUSSEL L furnish money to Ireland taxation on the country. BANKE , s_ ti — Yoll opposed that. Porn Len ef the House a e was not aware that from his I°....en'opposed. je _nything such as he referred to had 'opposed. lad the Noble Lord continued the ina 'would wi corn he would have bad a revenue which distress r r ° , Produced last year 900,000/ applicable to of a d Ireland, and operating as a remedy to the evil Tae the Hon. Member for Portarlington had spoken. 3) 1 Noble Lord would not evade any tide, b Pled but It would have promises he had gek been well had he given no rash se b remedy of easy application were to be re ght, why a !e n — not double tbe rate of postage that Source would not be doubled, but uO/,. or 300,0004 might be realised, which was /.11 the G ivernment said they wanted for the 'resent emergency. Had ho not as much right to isk the economists of that House to adopt that proposi ion as th y had to ask him to vote away the money of ;iis constituents, who could not pay it without adding to the sufferings they already endured? The present oc rupants of the Treasury benchts used in Opposition to aunt the Governcarnt with having produced the un 'nappy disunion in feeling which existed between the in tiabitants of what ought to be a unitad empire. Tne acople 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 stocks and crops of their debtors, the people of Ireland. Such was the po sition in which the Government bad 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 ask it as they might, entitling Hon. Members to give it not or.ly readily but cheerfully, with the sanction of their constituents. With respect to the plan propund , d 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 Cockermouth had occupied 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 inrormed as to the scenes there passing. He 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- ther must ii 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 cf 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. He 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 Hoa. 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. He had estates in two different unions. He had paid rates of 55., 33. 41, and again 34. 4d. in the union of Ennistymon, three rates amounting is all to I Is. Bd. in the pound. If bread were left for himself end 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 fur 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 as 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 Hon. 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 transfer 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 Tamworth. The Hon. Member was the last man in the House from whom euch an objection 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 Hon. Baronet, calling upon him to help Ministers in their embarrassments, and the empire in its difficulty.—(Hear, 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 b e th 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 Hon. Member was as little contented with the Right Ilon. Baronet's sug gestion as he had Le eu with his government when he was the leader of a great united party on the op posite benchei. The Hun. Member's conduct justified the application to him of the words of the old epigram matist,' 66 p l eneilie, facilis, jucundus acerbus, es ideal ; Nec tecum possum vivere, nee sine te." The course taken by the Hon. Member for Cocker mouth last night was even more extraordinary. That Hun. 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 ho 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 lion. Member's commentary on it. Though the Right Hon. 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 House, 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 Hon. 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 Hon. 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 Right Hon. Member for Tamworth— whether it were apposite or iiiapposite —must have been as little regarded by their object as his censures by the Government. The sensitiveness of the Right Hon. 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 whieh had been broken in consequence of its promulgation. In short, the Hon. 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 Lion. 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 bad 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 thus point he (Mr. M•Gul lagh), although the youngest and least experienced Irish representative in that House, was as competsnt 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 bad proved the greatest traitor to them, and which had made them alternately sponges in the h and s of absentee proprietors and stipendiaries on the Imperial Exche quer.—(Hear, hear.) The question on the tight footing when he said that the Irish representatives had now an opportunity of determining whether or not personal pro perty should not, as well as real property, be made liable to the support of the poor. The Hon. Member wished to fight over again upon Irish ground the battle in which he had recently been defeated; but h M'Cullsgb) warned Irish Members that if they should (Mr. bhould once admit the principle that an income-tax might be applied in aid of poor-rates the time would come when it would be applied instead of them. The Hon. Mem bers for Buckinghamshire and Cockermnuth were agreed in demanding a policy. It was undoubtedly true that the measures now proposed were merely temporary, and 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 loug as the potatoes lasted, 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 die and labouring classes, who had been too long the vic tims of bad men's crimes. Half the landlords of Ire land 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 Member for Kerry. He could not conceive how Honourable Gentlemen could reconcile it to their consciences, knowing the distress which existed in Ire land, 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.—(Bear, 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 cult. 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. Monadll) believed that if the Noble Lord had dealt not more candidly, but more openly with them, they would have been much more able to come to a conclusion. But to those lion. Gentlemen who had been alarmed by the Noble Lord, and particularly to the Noble Lord the Member for Down, ho 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 whether 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 ,have 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 tho boari 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 occurred in the twenty-third year of George 111., 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. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he believed, had stated the former at 103,000,0001. a year, the tax upon it being 12,000,00 W., or about Is. Bd. in the pound. In Ireland, before the potato failure, the amount of rateable property might be valued at 13,000,0001. a year, a low average, he admitted, but adding 15 per cent., he would take it at 15,000,000/., which no lion. Gentleman would think was understated. From that must now be deducted 20 per cent., which left the amount at 12,000,0001. The county cess on the average of three years, without any repayment of ad vances, was 1,142,000/ a year. The poor-rates lest year were 1,600,000/. ; the repayment of relief advances, 272,3211. ; and the amount charged under Sir J. Burgoyne's Relief Commission was 952,000/., part of which was, he believed, paid, making altogether 4,200,000 i., or he might fairly state it at 3,800,0001. So that the rateable property in England, which was 103,000,000/., paid but 12,000,0001. of taxation, whilst that of Ireland, Amounting to only 12,000,0001., paid 4,ooo,oool.—(:fear, hear.) Was not that a state of things which fairly claimed their liberal consideration? If the representatives of Ireland 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 Hsu, Baronet the Member for Tatnworth, on two former and remarkable occasions. He would refer to one case within his own knowledge which illustrated somo of the important measures that were absolutely necees try for Ireland. At a distance of 10 or 12 miles from Limerick 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 bef ire, but ren dered 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 fur his own property, there was at the same moment, in the same electoral divi sion, another estate, which had been, !leaven only knew how long, in the Court of Chancery. Misery existed there to a frightful extent, and in consequence his rates were riot 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 of Clifden. In the first instance, they would find :1,000 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 drag ging on a miserable existence. Ho could only declare 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 eircum stanees of Ireland be could not vote for any addition of taxation. In that country everything was hastening to ruin, and how could this House fix an additional tax upon 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 abandoned 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 taxatien, they proposed 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, for tho tax was imposed under the pretext of a repre sentation which did not really exist. He 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 °melon 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 the courage to advocate what ho called justice to Ireland at the hazard of off2nding 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 subjects. 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 bad 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 made for the purposethe boufrednenabslwinhglethhefaliarinydlboerldosnateodetso cape from bearing them. Now his H on .Frieiidt i l n ie p A r l o e v na os b i e n r g a fo n r e l w ier ta ry x might be accused of presumption who him o k n ue l ty rela h n is d t u o o a n n . F l r m te p n er d ia a l s P h a e rli d a i m a en w t n ; n b ld ut ab t s h o o l s r e e fromere did ii t thatch arife course uHefeoltf a t s be ma d n e y bat o e the o r n Irish s Il Te e x m eci b 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 t: runs of his resolution, or the mode in which he had placed it bsfore 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 o bj ecte d to b ear i ng 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 f ew guar di ans w h o re t u rned replies to the queries addressed to them, and their decisions should not be held binding upon parties who had not given their assent to the proposition. Mr. MARTIN said he had been acquainted with the farmers of Ulster from an early age, and knowing, as he did, that of all classes of her Majesty's subjects they were most opposed to the rate in aid, he v!as. anxious to state publicly the reasons why he intended to vote in favour of that rate. The distress in the 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 R;ght Hon. 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 tor 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 England 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 sa i d that the Hon. M em b e r w ho had just s a t d own was one of the on l y two English Members who s p o k e i n support of the propos iti on o f th e Government, and if h e l oo k ed at t h e su pport which the Hon. Member f or P ontefract and the li on . M em b er f or 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 ono year. Again, the Hon. Member fur 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 luxur': for, to morrow, when the division lists were scrutinized in Downing street, all the attention of the Government would be turned to the majority er minority of Irish Members who had voted on 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:— ilnteo pound on that --- ;l4co;,Ei;ma, now, thy last refection mak e , Which, thou wilt follow, which thou must forsak e; For, by ill-omened stars and adverse heaven, No middle object to thy choice is given." Whatever the decision of the Irish Members might b e , the House would still have the unpleasing but in e vit a bl e duty of voting 100,000/. on account, or as a loan ; and i t behoved them, as men of business, to see which alterna tive offered the best security. The Chancellor o f th e Exchequer had stated last night that the sum he ex pected to raise from the rate in aid was 2,5030 stated, 250,0001. Now a annually, ow a but, as th e Ch ance ll or c an t l a n : e d e o val ueuut hn a et t i w o or uopnilndl pope ty in a du r d eb c oe s . 3a s o f a e u ttri3aml2t Irel and • of d w;• at s 3 officially,o. b calculated that a sixpenny rate would produce only 250,0001., the value of the property could be only a the at'in the opini on o f t h e value of property i n I re l an d Rightbo about H 1 0 0 , n 0 . 0 0 , Gentleman, o°O/. , h had sunk to the amount of 3,000,0001. since the valua tion referredtafford) that it was made. appeared from he papers e tmust l whi c haaid s before remind he (Mr. t hSe House, Parliament, that on the 25th o f Sep tember, 1848, the amount of uncollected rate due in Ireland was 800,000 L, and that more than 7,000 armed men were last year engaged in the collection of rates in the Exchequer had e the distressed unions was becoming worse, and that the an w d h l i h c e li Cshhoawnecdelltohra of t the circle of destitution was spreading. He (Mr. Stafford) read that ad country;s t atements thought, looking at these circumstances, that it became the House to consider whether the security upon which it was proposed to advance the 100,0001. now a'ked for was good.—(Elear, hear.) The Honourable Mem ber for Kerry (Mr. li. Herbert) proposed to offer as aecurity for this grant the whole of the property in Ireland which was not at present subject to th. income-tax. The Right lion. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), when he brought for ward h:s income tax scheme on the 1 1 th of nirch, 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 an 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 ca l cu l ations his statement was founded, or what suppl ementary tax he would propose. He (Mr. Stafford) consid ere d, t h erefore, that the Government ha d not put the two alternatives fairly before the Irish Mem bers. lie 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 he might consider the morning party—the Irish Parliament—held thr other morning in Downing-street, he could not complain 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 be 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 lion. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) had stated at one of the large assemblies he had graced with his presence 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. Gentleman attributed the difference of 265. a quarter to the effect of the free importation of corn. This reduction of price Hon. Gentlemen opposite 'The Right would say would b ene fi t the consumer while i t might be likely to inj ure t h e pro inter. Honourable Member fo r T amworth (Sir It. Peel) brought forward the Bdl which, accor d ing to the sta t emen t of the Member for the West Ridi ng , wou ld n ow have made wheat 70s. a quarter, and th e same Ri g ht Hon. Baronet brought in the Bill under the op era ti on of which foreign wi for s e h ig ed n wheat was now admitted at a nominal duty. il to ask the Right Hon. Baronet and the Hon. Member the West Riding, whether they would vote i n favour et upon the agri this rate, which would be mainly imposed cultural classes—those who he ( Mr. bt h law to which he had just referred—thus visit in g with sti ll heavier a e frd) believed ' had suffered much from the change in for taxation those who were likely to su ff er from the men surea which they had brought forward? Surely th e y must feel the impolicy of selecting the present moment to tax a class on which the effect of dimitsished prices must tall. He hoped that the Right Hon. Mem ber for Tamworth, if he were going to vote against the proposition of the Hen. Member for Kerry, would fa vour the House and the people of Ireland by explaining 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 subject was so eagerly debated as the scheme which he had put forth, to effect, as he (Mr. Stafford) in a great measure be lieved it would, the amelioration of Ireland and the re generation of Connaught. But if the Right Hon. Baronet was about to give a vote against the agricultu ral interest in that country, how could he expect capitalists to invest money in land there, when he lent his assistance to a proposition decidedly against that species of property? It might be well for Hon. Gentlemen connected with land, who were prepared to vote against the proposition of the Hon. 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 feather that broke the camel's back, would just complete the difficulty and render the confusion in terminable. 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. Oa the other hand, he had the opportunity of sup porting the proposal of an income-tax in Ireland, an offer which he thought uncalled 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 ; if it was the pleasure of the House to vote it, let them do it.--(Laughter.) The distress in Ireland had been recognised as an Impe riia calamity, and in 1816 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 b 3 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 CASTLEREAGH 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 fur Ireland in the event of the proposal of the Hon. Member (Mr. Herbert) for an income-tax being carried?—(Latreiter and Ilear, hear.) He (Lerd Castlereagh) never was called on in that House to take such a leap in the dark. He was asked to vote for an income-tax, not knowing fur 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 J2RUSSELL could not, consistently:with his duty, give any further explanation to the Noble Lord beyond what he bad already stated.—(Laughter.) The Committee then divided on the amendment,when the numbers were— Ayes Noce Majority — 48 On re-entering the gallery, we found Mr. HUME stating that it was not necessary for him to more 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 assent. 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 give 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 afterwards 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. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 21, 1849. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Conunons. ) FRIDAY, APRIL 20. POOR-LAWS (IRELAND—RATE IN AID—ADVANCE OF MUNEY.) (IN THE COMMITTEE.) Motion made, and Question proposed, 1 ‘ 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 Property-tax be assessed on Incomes and Property in Ireland not liable to Income and Property Tax under the Act 11 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. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Patten, J. W. Grenfell, Charles W. Fechell, Captain Grey, Sir G. Peel, Sir Robert G ey, R. W. Peel, Frederick Guest, Sir J. Pennant, Colonel Hallyburton, Lord Perfect, Robert. Harris, Richard Pigott, Francis Mastic, Archibald Pinney, Wil lam Hawes, B. Flowden, W. 11. Ilay, Lord John Power, r , icholas Mayes, Sir E. Pryso, Pryse Ilayter, W. G. Reid. Colonel Ileadlam, T. E. Ricardo, J. L. Heywood, James Ricardo, Osman Heyworth, Lawrence Rice, E It. lloblionse, Sir John Rich, Henry Holthouse, T. IL Romilly, Sir John Hogg, Sir J. W. Russell, Lord J. Howard, Lord E. Russell, Eduard S. Howard, C W. G. Itutherfurd, A. llovrard, E. G. Satileir, John Hume, Joseph Sal wey, Colonel Jervis, Sir John Sanders, J. Johnstone, Sir J. Scholefteld, William Keating. Robert Scully. Francis Kopp 1, G. T. Seymour, Lord Kershaw, James Shafto, R. D. Labouchere, Henry Shell, It. L. Langston, J. IL Shelburne, Earl of Lascelles, W. S. Sheridan, li. B. Lawless, Cecil Smith, R. V. Lennard, T. B. Smith, J. A. Lewis, G. C. Smith, M. Tucker Littleton, E. R. Smith, J. Benjamin Loch, James Somerville, Sir W. Locke, Joseph Staunton, Sir G. Lockhart, A. E. Stuart, Lord Dudley Lushington, Charles Stuart, Lord J. M'Cullagit ' W. T. Sullivan, Michael M'Gregor, John Talbot, C. R. Magan, W. Talfourd, Sergeant Meagher, Thomas Tancred, 11. W. Maitland, Thomas Thicknesse, R. A. Marshall, J. G. Thompson, George Marshall, W. Thornely, Thomas Martin, Samuel Towneley, John Masterman, John Townshend. Captain Matheson, J. Trclawny, J. S. Matheson, Colonel Vane, Lord 11. Manic, Fox Villiers, Charles Mitchell, A. T. Wall, C. B. Mowatt, Francis Walmsley, Sir T. Mulgrave, Earl Ward, H. G. Norreys, Lord Watkins, Colonel Norreys, Sir D. Willcox, Brodie O'Brien, Sir Lucius Williams, John O'Connell, John Williamson, Sir H. O'Connor. Feargus Wilson, James: O'Flaherty, Anthony Wilson, Matthew Ord, W. Wood, Sir Charles Paget, Lord A. Wood, W. P. Paget, Lord Clarence Wyvill, Marmaduke Paget, Lord George Pakington, Sir J. S. MUMS. Palmerston, Viscount Tufnell, Henry: Parker, John Hill, Lord Marcus Abdy. T. X Adair, B. Shafto Anderson, Arthur Anson, Colonel Anon, Viscount Armstrong, Sir A. Baines, M. T. Baring, Sir F. Bass, M. T. Bellew, It. M. Berkeley, Captain Berkeley, 11. F. Berkeley, C. L. G. Birch, Sir T. Boyle, Colonel Bright, John Brockman, E. D. Brotherton, J. Brown, W. Browne, It. D. Bulkeley, Sir It. B. Butler, I'. S. Buxton, Sir E. Cardwell, Edward Carter, J. B. Chaplin, W. J. Childers, J. W. Clay, James Clerk, Sir G. Clifford, 11. M. Cobden, B. Cockburn, A. J. Coke, E.K. Cowper, W F. Craig, W. G. Crowder, R. B. Dalrymple, Captain Devereux, John T. Douglas, Sir C. Duff, G. S. Duff,yames Duncembe, 0. Duncuft, John Dundas, Admiral Dunne, F. P. Ebrington,"Lord Ellice, Edward Ellis, John Elliot, John E. Emlyn, Viscount Etuiten, Earl Evans, John Evans, William Ewart, William Fergus, John Ffolliott, J. Filmer, Sir E. Fitzrry, Henry Fordyce, A. D. Forster, M. Fortescue, J. W. Gibson, T. 31.3 Glyn, G. C. G..ddard, A. L. Graham, Sir James Greene, John MINORITY—NOES, 146. Estcourt, J. B. B. Mundy, William Adair, Hugh H. Mure, Colonel Farnham, E. Fenowes, E. Neeld, Joseph Ferguson, Sir R. Newdegate, C. N. Fuller, A. E. Newry, Viscount Gaskell J. M. Nugent, Lord Gladstone, W. E. Packe, C. W. i Godson, Richard Palmer, Robert I 3 IBBBBBAI ecaaaaarnnrrrnikrrditnkwin:ennegnertgeikkgt Thomasl. 4'oi , I Sir H. ''' Philipi George r i dl T. George Viscount Goulb it r n , Henry Philips, Sir G. R. Beresford, William Granby, Marquis of Pigot, Sir Robert Blacken, S. W. Granger, T. C. Plumptre, J. P. Biackstone, W. S. Greenall, G. Portal, Melville Blair, Stephen Gwyn, Ilowel Prime,lltichard Blandford, Marquis Ilaggitt, 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 llarris, Captain Rushout, Captain Brainston, T' W. Heald, James Sanders, George Bremridge, Richard Henley, J. W. Scrope, G. P. Brisco, M. Herbert, Sydney Shirley, E. J. Broadley, H. Herries, John C. Sibthorp, Colonel Bromley, Robert llildyard, T. B. Sidney, Alderman Buller, fir J. Y. Hindley, C. Simeon, John Burroughes, 11. N. Mood, Sir A. Smyth, John G. Charters, Francis rlornby, John Somerset, Captain Christy, Samuel Howard, Sir R. Stanley, H. H. Clements, Charles Jocelyn, Viscount Stuart, H. Clive, R. H. JollitTe, Sir W. G. Stuart, J. Cobbold, J. C. Jones, Captain Tenison, E. K. Cochrane, A. King, P. J. Thesiger, Sir F. Cocks, Thomas S. Knox, Colons Thompson, Colonel Codrington, Sir W. Lennox, Lord G. 11. Trollope, Sir J. Cole, Hon. H. A. Leslie, C. P. Turner, G. J. Colebrooke, Sir T. Lincoln, Earl of Tyrell, Sir J. T. Coles, 11. B. Lindsay, Colonel Vyse, R. 11. _ . Compton, H. C. Lockhifit, W. Corry, Henry Long, Walter Currie, 11. Lowther, Colonel Currie, ltaikes Lowther, Henry Darner, Colonel Mackenzie, W. F. Dick, Quintin M`Naghten, Sir E. Disraeli, B. Mahon, Viscount Drumlanrig, Vis. Manners, Lord G. Drummond, Home March, Earl of Duncan, Lord Meux, Sir Henry Duncan, George Miles, P. W. S. Edwards,' Henry 3foffatt George 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 . . Egerton, Sir P. Egerton, W. T. Ellice, E., jun. Mooself, William Morris, David Runts, G. F. TIMMS. Herbert, Henry A. Stafford, Augu3tus 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, vice 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. [ADVRISTIBRMENT.]—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 Dupr ez, Ro y al Academy of Music; Miss Erwood, 72, Ne w Bond-street ; Miss Robb, at the Baroness Bassett's , Tehid y Park, near Truro, Cornwall; Mrs. Thurmott , 29, Bedford-street- Covent Garden; Mrs. Williams , P ortobello Arms, Kentish New Town; —, 14 , Leicest er- p lace, Leicester, square. IADvERTIBEMENT.J—Tus EARL OF ALBBOROUGH AND HOLLOWAY'S Pum.—An astounding cure by this miraculous medicine, after every other means had failed. Sea extract from his Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 1845. 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 facility, at home and all over the continent, had not been able to effect ; nay, not ever the waters of Carlsbad or Ma rital:od. (Signed) " ALnaolounn." These wonderibl pills will cure any disease of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also Holloway's Ointment) at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, and by ali Oligiolo YOU4Ori thrOUghat the Citliag world. THE QUARTERLIES. THE EDINBURGH REVIEW. 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 paper 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 membrance of posterity, simply because they have en dited a successful in :gaziae story, a tolerable pamphlet of 32 p igea, 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 sufficiency, 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 nations of the reviewer are dependent upon the prefix of that very remarkable and alarming work, " The London Catalogue of Books published in Great Bri tain, with their Sip.s, Prices, 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 Milnes, 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 barbariam; 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 up( n life (though as yet raw and inexperienced), 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 Hers-versnee, build such a superstructure as should justify some pretensions to accurate and sound s:holar ship. But alas: wo tOrgot that, even then, the old ob structions to universal knowledge would soon be repro duced in a nQw form. The same insatiable curiosity, mad the same restless activity, opt 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 Bsxter, Voltaire and Walter Scott, would ap Arer but pamphleteers in comparison. Their opera omnia' would extend to libraries. Novels would be written to which the Great Cyrus and Clelia would be mere novellettes, wherein the heroes and heroines would be married, hanged, or drowned, after a courtship and adventures of three or four 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 metions 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 Protegee,' would be but a type of the prodigious gyrations of such writers; so that the hopeless student, toiling after them in rain,' would be obliged to exclaim with Voltaire's 'little man of Saturn,' who only lived during five hundred re►olutions (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 whole gigantic growth of human knowledge and science may be compared to those deposits which geologists describe, full of the remains of animal and vegetable life—beautiful once, and 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, that in both alike Death is itself the germ of life; and new forms of glory and beauty 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 "History 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, will to many be almost a compensation for the delay of the criticism which is looked for ultimately in the E d n- burgh. It rather strikes us that the tremendous re view of no less than 36 pages upon the Duke of Argyll's " Presbytery Examined , " would_ have been considerably abbreviated in length, if not lessened in enthusiasm of pane gyric (upon the style), h a d t h e pamphleteer been anything less than a Duke. Up on the extravagant notice of Monsieur Gu'z )t's " De mocracy in France" we have already commented in our leading columns. Besides a paper on our " Ei. nancial Prospects," there are " Reflections on the Political State of Germany, givin g a very readable sketch of the present p o sture of that vast congeries of independent , yet coa l esc i ng prin cipalities. The reFnaining contributi yet noticed, is we ll worthy of a most serious pe rusal, being a n excellent commentary on th e recent reforms eff ec t e d i n one, and attempted to be intro duced into the other, of our tw ties. Gl a dl y s h ould we hear ofo t v b e e n e general Uadoption of that s uggest i on of Sir John Herscf ell, to the effect that young men should go through a course of the Novum Organum. Gladly would we recognise the elevation of the average standard of information among the pol by the carrying out of the improvemeats 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) to recom mend to its notice, as is done in 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. THE QUARTERLY REVIEW. 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 Bos well's " Johnson" should feel for a considerable time particularly tetchy and sensitive—like that assailant of Kompanee Jehan described by Mr. ThackeraT in a re cen t num b er o f the " London Charivar i , as being "as savage as a bear whose head is sore." Fur 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 have 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 e upon forgetting that Lucina was another name for Diana ; upon using the word Oyri-ras 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, hon ever, is so blind and overpowering as to miti gate in a great measure the effect of its violence. He is altogether too much in a rage to discriminate. He aims such hard blows, and so fast, that sometimes be 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. He says, "that some times Mr. Macaulay strains after verbal effect, and in his effort loses the point"—quoting in illustration that beautiful expression, " Arabian mothers long awed their infanta to silence with the name of the lion-hearted Plantagenet" (the italics are the Quarterly rev iewer'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 bad 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 " wane 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 Bureet, that William 111. was on one particular day " hunting," has the temerity to remark that the Stadthol.ler was then "many miles of after a stag." Upon this says the sagacious critic — 4 . Tnere wss probably no stag-hunt at all—William may have been shooting!" 0, wonderful subtlety of criticism I Probably Yes. Probably No. Qu'importe ! Then, again, bow the reri?.wer catches at the minutest slip of the pen imaginable—his eyes a- wide, and his ears 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 masters 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 an 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 I 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 bladdertul of infamy 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 pla;iarisms, 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, 605, 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 having af forded us the perusal of one -of the most amus ing articles we can recollect ever having examined. hile we agree with him cordially in his very son_ tentious opinion, that " the Temple of History is no t the floor for a morris-dance," and that " the Muse means coin e e r i P d; si Clio is not to be worshipped in the halls halls of T iwneviceawningofthceoularbsoeur course , b l y of Mr. M acau l ay as beciithnhg him,' tantamount to " th e squandering of SO much with melodramatic talent on a subject hitherto reverenced as men the s of figure of Truth arrayed i n t h e simple gar- Philosophy." Yet, while we would pre sume so far to differ with him as to regard Mr. Macaulay in the light of a very remarkable historian, a very great writer, and a very eloquent 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 new only the opportunity of enumerating the remaining seven :—" Popular Science," " Hutchinson and Hio• over, ." " The Skerryvore Lighthouse," " Cattle and Sheep," " The Germanic Confederation and the Austrian Empire," " Curzan's Visits to Monaste ries in the Levant," and " M'Farlane's Glance Revo lutionized Italy." Several of these, moreparticularly the first, the third, and the fourth, are worthy t h is o eminent publication. AN ENGLISH POTTERY' IN FRANCE.—AS a proof of the revival of confidence in the stability of the French Government, and of their p ower and willin gness to sustain order and protect pr o p ert y , it ma y be mentioned that an Irish gentleman has just purchased o ne o f t h e large factories on the banks of the Seine, which was abandoned during the revolution in February, 1848, and yesterday he left Southampton for Havre, in the Courier steamer, accompanied by about thirty o f bi a workpeople. A great number of his woamou 1 )6 4 c. ready preceded high_