The Sun. — London, England, 1849-06-23 00:00:00

IMPERI ;AI ENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 22. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock The Bart ctt .XALILESBITRY presented petitions from Lincoinshith, complaining of agricultural distress. Lord POLVirARTH presented a petition against the admission of,,,T4ainto Parliament. The Earl ort r ARLISLE presented a petition from a place in Siotland, in favour of the Health of Towns Lor,l COLVILLE presented a petition against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill. The Bishop of SALISBURY presented petitions to the sank effect. PASSENGERS BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed, after cer tain amendments had been. introduced by Esrl GREY. INCUMBERED ES'PATES (IRELAND) BILL. Lord CAMPBELL had to report the Bill to their Lordships' House from the Committee to whom it had been referred, with amendments. It would be remembered that when the Committee was moved for, a fear was entertained that it could not pass this session. He, however, objected to the appoint ment unless a pledge was given that the principle of the Bill should not be opposed in Committee. That pledge was readily given, and he Was glad to say it had been faithfully kept. In his opinion, the Bill had been judiciously amended by the Committee. (Hear, hear.) One of these amendments would limit the power of the Commissioners in reference to the sale of incumbered estates, when an application was made to them for that purpose, on behalf of the party who held the incumbrance; while if it was ascertained that the interest of the charges on an estate was less than one-half of its annual in come, the power of sale was taken away altogether. It was proposed also to introduce a clause empowering the Commissioners to partition estates held by bodies in a copartnership shape. He had only to move now that the Bill be reprinted, with the amendments, with the view to its re-committal. Lord STANLEY was glad that there was a pros pect of this Bill being passed in the course of the present session. The most important amendment which the Committee had introduced was the clause- briefly referred to by the Noble and Learned Lord, empowering the Commissioners to sanction the division of properties held conjointly by a number of individuals, The Inclosure Commissioners of this coun try exercised a similar power, but he was afraid that fact was not sufficiently known, or it would have been more extensively resorted to.—(Hear, hear.) The Marquis of LANSDOWNE also approved of the amendments which had been introduced into this Bill, and was rejoiced that the Noble Lord who had just sat down had called the attention of the House to the ex change clause in the Inclosure Act. The Duke of RICHMOND observed that the In closure Act gave the Inclosure Commissioners power to negotiate an exchange of estates between two landowners under a very inexpensive process; indeed, a man with a property valued at 20,0001. could exchange it for another of equal value, with the assistance of the Commissioners, at an expense of only 5/. Lord MONTEAGLE anticipated that great benefit would result to Ireland from the passing of this Bill in its amended form. The Earl of GLENGALL urged upon their Lord ships the expediency of accompanying this measure with a reduction of the stamp duties. Lord CAMPBELL would communicate the suggestion of the Noble Earl to his Right Hon. Friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, but he was afraid, in the exist ing state of things, there would be some difficulty in adopting. The Earl of WICKLOW took exception to the amendment which prohibited the Commissioners or the incumbrancer from sanctioning the sale of an estate where the rental was double the interest of the incum brance. Lord BROUGHAM was still adverse to the measure, no:wittstat..ding the amendments which had been in troduced into it. His main objection to it was, that it dealt with vested rights. It was admitted by his friends that it was an arbitrary measure, but the circumstances of Ireland would justify its passing. He did not think so. He did not think any circumstances would justify the passing of a measure which enabled a man with a flaw in his title to sell an estate which he unlawfully held. Suppose 'now a man died, leaving his estate to ba partitioned between his eldest and youngest son, and the eldest son managed to conceal the will, would he not in law be come entitled to the whole? Well, then, such a man had only to mortgage a portion of the estate, and this Bill would enable him to dispose of it in such a manner that the wronged party never could obtain redress. The Bill was then ordered to be reprinted. The. Earl of REDESDALE presented a large number of petitions against the admission of Jews into Par liament. Lord STANLEY had been entrusted with a petition by the London and North-Western Railway Company to present to their Lordships on the subject of railway amalgamations, but as no member of the Railway Com mittee now sitting was present, he thought it best to give notice that he would present the petition on Monday. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Norfolk complaining of agricultural distress. POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS. Lord HOWDEN wished to ask the Postmaster-Gene ral if any negotiations were going on for the reduction of postage between this country and France. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE replied that such negotiations were going on. The post office authorities of France had made a pro posal to her Majesty's Government on the subject, to which he had sent a counter proposal, which was likely to lead at no short distance of time to a ma terial reduction in the postage between London and Paris. SPAIN. The Earl of ABERDEEN gave notice that on Mon day he should call the attention of the House to the present state of our relations with the Government of Spain. HEALTH OF TOWNS. The Earl of GLENGALL, seeing the First Commis sioner of Woods and Forests in his place, wished to ask him if Government had any measure in contem plation for extend the Health of Towns Bill to the me tropolis? The Earl of CARLISLE replied that such a measure was in preparation, but he was afraid he should not be able to introduce it this session. TENANTS-AT-RACK-RENT RELIEF BILL. The Earl of HARROWBY moved the second reading of this Bill. Lord PORTMAN opposed the motion, remarking that the only way the tenants of the country could be relieved from the existing distress was to remodel the county rate, and to place the charge of the prisons and lunatic asylums on the Consolidated Fund. The Noble Lord moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. Lord WHARNCLIFFE also objected to the Bill, as did also Lord REDESDALE, who thought the Bill was a most unjust measure. After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY in reply, the original motion was negatived without a di vision, and the amendment agreed to. THE AFFIRMATION BILL. Lord DENMAN then moved the second reading of the affirmation Bill. The measure passed the House of Commons, and he thought he might venture to say that no Bill was brought forward with respect to which such misconception existed as the present. Some Noble Lords who came down with the avowed intention of:op posing it, had not the slightest notion of the evils it rnent to remedy, and, of course, those to benefit whom it was intended were those who entertained religious scruples. Some years ago he brought in a Bill, which was referred to a Select Committee, and the evidence given on that occasion was now reprinted and brought forward, and placed before the House by some Noble Lord. But the truth was, he did not place the Bill on that evidence at all, and the opinions then given by the parties examined had nothing whatever to do with the reasons given for the present Bill. The fact was that those parties were eager for the present measure, and gave it every support in their :power. If he thought Noble Lords came down to support it, the appearance of the House would fill him with satisfaction ; but he feared that such was not the case. It was said that a person in his situation ought Lot to bang forward so sweeping a measure fur the abolition of oaths ; but such a supposition was absurd; it had not the slightest intention to effect such an object, nor would one oath the less be takes should it pass into a law. The persons on whose behalf 1 - le appeared were those who came often to courts of justice to give evidence, when they respectfully declined to take the oath outhe ground that it wasopposed to the word of God, and surely a matt refusing to take such an oath, did it from the best and most worthy o f motives, and deserved better treatment than to be sent to gaol as a companion to felons, while very often the felons themselves escape. What he proposed, therefore, was, that an affirmation should be taken instead of an oath; and in support of that, he had petitions from seve• ral persons, complaining of the lsardships they were exposed to, among whom was Mrs. Watson, who was im prisoned at the last Assizes at Devon, for refusing to take an oath; Mrs. Lane Ashbey, examined some years ago before Baron Alderson, and who afterwards paid the entire expense of an arbitration (it being a civil case) to which the case was referred, which amounted to more than a year's income. He believed there was no instance on re cord of a Quaker being prosecuted for perjury, and on that account, as well as for those he had stated, he did not believe the fears entertained respecting the measure were founded on any just or sufficient ground. His at tention was first drawn to the subject by the acquittal of a highwayman in Ireland, who escaped because the principal witness refused to be sworn on a book; and he remembered another case where a Quaker, who left that Society, but who still entertained scruples respecting the taking of an oath, was actually committed for not giving evidence. Now, suppose in that dreadful murder case which occurred lately, a principal witness refused to be sworn on account of her religious opinions, the person must have been acquitted, notwithstanding the opinions generally and justly entertained of his atrocious guilt. There was a case where the present Bill proposed to give a remedy, iraleperidently of that to be afforded to those who entertained cceascientions convictions. Under all the circumstances of the case, he should with very great confidence propose'the second reading of the Bill Lerd BROUGHAM felt great pain in beine obliged to differ from hie Noble and Learned Friend, but he had great difficulties and doubts respecting the present Bill. His difficulty arose not from being asked to admit a principle, but from being asked to extend it so much. If the lawgiver was to listen to the private scruples of tender consciences on all occasions, there would often be an end of all law. One man might say, m y conscience is against paying my debt at the expense of my children, which is contrary to the commandment. Another man's natural feeling to save property for his relatives might, to his understanding, be a sufficient rea son for claiming exemption. But there was no end to the difficulties that might beset tender consciences.— (Hear, hear.) He doubted very much whether it was the duty of lawgivers to provide for all these exceptions. It was in vain for his Noble and Learned Friend to say, that unless a man's conscience would enforce truth, tI e mere kissing of a piece of leather would not do it, be cause it was well known that many men would not scruple to tell an untruth, who would greatly scruple to swear to it. Bat independently of these objections, the Bill was very badly drawn. The Noble and Learned Lord here entered into a verbAl criticism of the Bill. He would take every security for obtaining truth in the administration of justice. This Bill applied to all per sons, to jurors amongst others, and he thought that the exempting of the oath in the case of jurors would give facilities to some persons to take a factious view of any subject. With regard to affirmations, the result of his experience was that in the case of Quakers their evi dence upon affirmation was often not so satisfactory as others. He thought that more persons would scruple to speak falsely under an oath than after an affirmation. He would not make any motion up the Bill, but he could not help expressing his doubts and feelings upon the Bill. Lord CAMPBELL said that if he thought the legis lature had gone too far in this direction he would humbly ask it to stop; but this Bill, in fact, hardly went a line beyond the existing law. This Bill, instead of tending to abolish judicial oaths, tended to take away many of the blemishes now existing upon judicial evidence. The question was, were there not individuals, sincere Chris tians and good citizens, who conscientiously believe that they ought not to take oaths? In point of fact, had there not been such individuals? Within his knowledge there were such individuals. Was it not desirable for their sakes that they should be relieved from the possi bility of being committed to prison with burglars and felons? Suppose a murder or great crime had been committed, would it not be right to offer every facility for the discovery of the crime? He was surprised at his Noble and Learned Friend's experience concerning Quakers. Lord BROUGHAM said he was speaking of Sepa ratists. Lord CAMPBELL—WeII, that included Quakers. — (Hear.) His Noble and Learned Friend would go back and place himself with those who, in the reign of Charles the Second, were opposed to all relaxations in regard to judicial oaths. Many persons might believe it contrary to ' religion to take oaths. Why should they not be allowed the same privilege as Quakers? The evidence given by Quakers, in his experience, was most downright and I most sincere. Why should not Members of the Church of England have the same indulgence that was conceded to Quakers? This Bill was in the right direction. It was a safe and salutary measure, and he hoped their Lordships would give it their sanction. Lord BROUGHAM explained, but was unintelligible in the gallery. The Duke of ARGYLE said, he was desirous of ex plaining in a few words why he supported this Bill. He thought it needful to give effect to the rights of indivi dual conscience. It was impossible to allow political opposition to assume the form of religious scruples. Cer tain Dissenters had refused churcbrates, because they objected to the application which the State might make of them after collected. If that was admitted, the au thority of the State was at an end.—(Hear, hear.) It might be contended that the scruples of these persons should also be respected, but he thought that there was no difficulty in drawing the line where such scruples should not be permitted. But there was another class. Those whose perverted minds entertained opinions so absurd and fanatical, that they could not in regard to them depart from the ordinary course of law. Happily these cases were exceedingly rare. Neither of these classes were referred to by this Bill, nor would they be benefited by it. They had already been obliged to admit the existence of conscientious scruples in the case of sects, and to alter the law in order to enable them to give evidence on affirmation, and the question now was, whether they would give the same right to individuals that they had granted to certain sects.—(Hear, hear.) It was not incumbent upon those who advocated the claims of these individuals to argue these claims in de tail. The onus lay with those who resisted them. They were bound to give some valid and tangible reason r•hy the right should not be thus extended. If they had granted such a privilege to bodies of men wbo held cer tain opinions . pimost hereditarily, and in consequence of those brought up in the midst of a particular sect, he thought they were much more called upon to allow it in the case of an individual who, by an earnest study of the Word of God, had come to the conscientious conviction that he ought not to take an oath.—(Hear, hear.) He asked if they would subject such men to persecution, for such it was?—(No, no.) He repeated it was persecution to deprive man of civil rights on account of conscientious religious convictions. When they admitted sects and excluded individuals, they were not only persecuting the letter, but acting inconsistently. Nothing could be more absurd than the present state of the law. They admitted Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, to give evidence on affirmation. What was a Separatist ? Could any define the exact meaning of the term ? Nobody knew. But apart from this there was no check against the law being misapplied. The la w did not require any proof that the persons who claimed this privilege really belonged to the bodies they said they did. All that was necessary was for them to say they be longed to one of the three sects named, and their evi dence was at once admitted. There was the further gross absurdity, that any person who might have once belonged to these sects, though he might have been ex pelled for misconduct, and have ceased to have any con nexion whatever with them. was still admitted to give evidence on affirmation, while men of good character and strong religious convictions were sent to prison be cause they refused to take oaths.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that there was no great pressure on their Lord ships in regard to this Bill, and he knew also that it was said their Lordships never passed any progressive or ameliorative measures, unless there was either a strong pressure from without or they came backed by large ma jorities from the other House of Parliament. He would not admit that such was the case, and he was anxious their Lordships should pass the Bill, because, in his opinion, it was not only founded on justice and provided for the free exercise of the rights of conscience by in viduals, but also because he was anxious their Lord. ships should pursue a generous course, and add one to the other examples, in which they had already, without extreme pressure, improved the laws and the institutions of the country.—(Hear.) Lord ABINGER opposed the Bill. The experience of all those engaged in the profession of the law was that the sanctity of an oath was the very foundation of the proper administration of justice, and believing that this Bill would impair that defence of our institutions, he could not consent to its passing. At present it was ad mitted that the administration of justice in this country was superior to that in any other nation, and he had heard no reason to induce him to interfere with it. The Earl of WICKLOW said the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) who had so ably opposed the Bill, had omitted to conclude with the motion which would have been its appropriate conclusion. He rose, therefore, to supply the omission, by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. They had fre quently had similar Bills under their consideration, and lie must say, that upon that occasion he had not heard any new arguments adduced by the Noble and Learned Lord who had moved the second reading. As to the ... grant to sects, he thought that stood upon a very dif ferent footing to the case of individuals. If the Noble and Learned Lord could have shown that any consider able sect or body entertained these notions, and came to that House, praying to be allowed to give evidence on affirmation, he would not have opposed them. But this Bill was, in fact, a Bill to do away with oaths altogether. —(hear, hear.) He saw no reason why such a wholesale alteration should be made to gratify a few individuals. The Noble and Learned Lord could not, from all his own experience, show more than five or six persons who carried their refusal to take oaths to such an extent as to go to prison; but if this Bill was passed they would have hundreds of thousands refusing to tak3 oaths.—(Hear.) He had looked over the evi dence taken by their Lordships' Committee, and he meant to say it was exceedingly meagre. The clerk to the Central Criminal Court, since 1834, could not specify a single instance in which imprisonment was inflicted, though he said he had heard of such cases. Two other witnesses, who gave evidence against oaths, went the further length of objecting to affirmations also. Lie thought there should be no solemn asileveration whatever; and it would be found that the framework of the Bill had been prepared in this spirit, for there was no form of affirmation contained in it. He asked their Lord- ships, therefore, if they were on such grounds prepared to alter the law, and incur all the risks of passing such a measure. With respect to the opinions of the profession, the parties who would be most immediately affected by this Bill were those who came before the inferior courts, and not those with whom the Noble and Learned Lord came into contact. The opinion of the judges and magistrates in the inferior courts was against the aboli • tion of oaths. Looking at the whole of the case, he confidently appealed to their Lordships to support his amendment. r c a P d i d i e ut dlin e fav o urmatted that no new arg L u o m rd en D ts E h N a M d b A e N en and be must add, he had heard no now °f ( As to the argument that only five or six s)nment for refusing to take oaths the measure, etw el n atitnst it. could be e i t i Zt; would remind the House that thousands had petitioned against what they felt to be an injustice and a severe species of persecution. As to the mischief which it was said would ensue if the Bill passed, ha had shown clearly the futility of such objections; and with respect to the opinions of the profession, the Bill came up to their Lordships after having been fully debated in the House of Commons. 21 members of the profession took part in these debates, 18 voted in its favour, and three or four against it; and among these 18 were included many of the most eminent men in Westminster Hall, and thoroughly acquainted with the administration of justice. It was said that the Bill was not founded upon experi ence ; on the thought, he thought it was so founded, and that the opposition to it was based upon speculation. Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared for the second reading— ..._ Content v lO Non-content 34 Majority against... The Bill was consequently lost. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 22. The SPEAKER took the Chair at five minutes to Four o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS. The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were considered and agreed to:— Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway and Edinburgh and Glasgow Union Canal (Amalgamation, or Sale, or Lease of the Unio n Canal to the Railway Company) Bill. Windsor Extension of the Windsor, Staines, and South- Western (Richmond to Windsor) Railway (with power to the London anti South-Western Railway Company to subscribe) Bill, York and North Midland Railway (Deviation and Abandonment of part of the authorised Lines of Railway between Market Weighton and Beverley, and Copman thorpe and Tadcaster) Bill. The reports of Committees on the following Bills were considered and agreed to:— Eastern Counties and Norfolk Railways Amalgama tion Bill. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Con. solidation and Amendment of Acts) Bill. ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATES. Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from certain solicitors in Lincoln, praying for a remission of the at orneys' certificate duty. BEER SHOPS. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition from Devon, complaining of the great increase of beer shops in that county. Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from Wool wich, against the establishment of beer-houses. ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATES. Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition from solicitors at Ulverstone, in Lancaster, praying for the remission of attorneys' certificate duty. COUNTY COURTS. Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from Bridport, praying for an extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts. PALACE COURT. ► Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from John Brown, a market gardener, now a prisoner in Whttecross-street prison, for a contempt of the Palace Court regulations, complaining that that court, by a legal fiction, has a power to imprison for debts under 20/., which no other court possesses, and that he has been imprisoned for the non-payment of a debt of 6/. 65., which it is not in his power to pay. DUTY ON PAPER. Mr. HUME presented a petition from a bodyof work ing men, complaining of the injurious operation of the taxes on paper and the newspaper stamp duties in checking the diffusion of knowledge. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY -EVENING, JUNE 23, 1849. AFFAIRS OF ROME. Mr. ANSTEY said, in the documents which had been laid before the House with respect to the affairs of Rome, a letter from her Majesty to the Pope, expressing her sympathy with him, had been omitted, and he wished to know whether the Nobl© Lord (Lord Palmerston) had any objection to lay it before the House? LordPALMERSTON said the letter of her Majesty was in theusual terms, and expressed her regret that the events alluded to had occurred, and that it would be a matter of great satisfaction to her to learn that the differences between the Pope and his subjects were amicably settled. That letter was not included among the printed docu ments, but the Government had inserted all the papers which they thought necessary to lay before the House. Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether her Majesty's Government were responsible for the letter. Lord PALAIERSTON was understood to answer in the affirmative. RIO DE LA PLATA. In reply to Mr. SMYTHE, Lord PALMERSTON said be thought' it not advis able to make any statement with respect to Rio de la Plata, in the present state of the negotiations. He, however, might state that communications were passing between the Argentine Government and the Governments of England and France, and he was induced to hope that the negotiations would end in a satisfactory manner. ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS. Mr. HORSMAN said, as he did not wish to stand in the way of the financial statement, he would with draw his motion with respect to the present state of legislation on ecclesiastical affairs.—(Hear.) The question of which he had given notice had reference to an order in Council, and emanated from the circum stances which arose from a petition, signed by upwards of 50,000 of the inhabitants of Sunderland. The Noble Lord had favoured him with a communication stating that the matter would be disposed of under the orders of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and by the authority of an order in Council. Now, an order in Council was a secret thing, and the particular question which he hac to ask was, whether the Noble Lord would, in the event of the decision being against them, allow the petitioners time to appeal to Parliament. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in the surmise which he had thrown out, that the matter had been referred to the Ecclesias tical Commissioners, and though it was impossible for him to say that the decision of those Commissioners might be or that it might not be very different from the scheme which had been propounded by the petitioners, yet this much he would assure him, that the matter should not be settled without an oppor tunity being afforded to them of being heard before the Queen in Council. SCOTCH MARRIAGES BILL. In reply to a complaint from Mr. HUME, saying that this Bill was passed against the will of the whole people of Scotland, at three o'clock in the morning, Sir G. GREY stated that the Bill passed through Committee with the consent of all the Scotch Members, and with the understanding that a full opportunity for discussion should be allowed on the third reading. HEALTH OF TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL. In reply to Sir H. W. BARRON, Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that the provisions to which the Hon. Baronet had referred would be carefully made in the Bill. IRELAND (REGISTRATION). Sir H. W. BARRON inquired if it was the intention of*the Government to introduce a Bill for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland. t Sir V. BOM.RVILUE was understood to azq that he Government had no such intention. TRANSPORTATION FOR FELONY BILL. _ _ Mr. ANSTEY inquired when the Bill was appointed for the next stage, as he intended to oppose it. Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to say that he would mention when he intended to take it later in the evening. _ _ ROME. Mr. ROEBUCK rose to ask the Noble Lord the Se cretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question respecting our diplomatic correspondence with France on the sub ject of Rome, in order to ascertain whether any disap probation has been expressed by her Majesty's Govern ment of the proposed bombardment of Rome by the French. He said the position of this country was such, that from time to time their interference was asked by other countries. Knowing our power—the high posi tion which we occupied in the world— theywere often called upon to be arbitrators between contending Powers, an evi dence of which was to be found in the papers he held in his hand. But the application to which they related was a most remarkable one. Unfortunately for Europe and this country, a rupture occurred between the Pope and his subjects. With these disputes they had nothing to do, except so far as other nations had chosen to interfere. Early in the present year the Pope thought it wise to leave his dominions, and take up his residence at Gaeta. He applied to foreign na tions for their interference, and amongst them was England. The mode in which this was done was most remarkable. A letter from the Minister of the King of the Two Sici hes was sent to the Noble Lord, asking him to take a part in the negotiations that were about to take place for the restoration of the Pope. Two modes were mentioned—by negotiation, or by force of arms. While these negotiations were going on France interfered, and not only interfered by way of negotiation, but by arms. Now, considering the position in which England now stood, con sidering that her atmosphere was serene, a n d that sh was now in the proudest position that any nation could bo placed, her opinion going forth to the world through the regular channel, the Minister of the Crown, must have the greatest weight. What, therefore, he desired to obtain from the Noble Lord was his unqualified, marked, and plain disapprobation of the interference on the part of France with the Roman people.—(Hear, hear.) For himself he could not but express his astonishment, and that astonishment included his disapprobation, of the course that had been pursued by France. What had the French done? They had girted Rome with their armies, in order to prevent the Roman people from carrying out such a revolution as France had effected for herself. He said he wanted England not to participate even by its silence in this matter, but that the Noble Lord should come forth boldly, and plainly state that England did not let all approve of this interference with Rome, and that when Rome had appealed to her, to state that England had nothing on earth to do with the matter. That was not the language for England to hold. He asked this plain question of the Noble Lord, whether he had al ready by any of the papers in his hand explained defi nitively to the Government of France that the transac tions now going on before the walls of Rome were not only by the whole people of England, but in the opinion of her Majesty's Government, worthy of se vere reprobation ? (Hear, hear.) Rome was at this moment being bombarded by French troops, and they could not throw a shell into that city without destroying some beautiful relic of art—(Hear, hear)—and even on that ground he would ask that England should come forward and employ its high authority and its moral influence, of which the Noble Lord spoke, not simply for the sake of peace, but for the maintenance of all that was precious in art, and o a r g d e.FE L h m ee E r. it s s ) outrage.—(Cheers.) for the sake of those very principl e s o n w hi c h th e revolu lion of Fra nce it se lf d e p en d e d, an d s t ay t hi s atroc i ous TON said the House would see the delicacy of a M . The W.r. calledGovertater of the cou n t r y. —(H ear , h ear .) con uct of a on umto pronounce Ju d gment on t h e business, he appreiumde . n d t like o France. It was no t th e standing in this House, to b a Minister of th e C rown roceedings of the Freecnpere r let defender of the matter on which the British &vernment on a declined altogether to be a party°.vame a nt had Ile could certainly say that we had not been eeaar.) suc h circumstances as those complained of by t it, Honourable and Learned Member. It would be seen by the papers that we had always deprecated anything like armed intervention. We had declined to participate in the negotiations which had been carried on in Milan, and therefore he could not be expected to be acquainted with the whole of the circumstances which had led to the pre sent state of affairs. Mr. HUME thought the House would be glad to see that this country had not been a party to the interven tion at Rome. He wished to know if the Noble Lord had any objection to produce the papers which he had lately asked for. Lord PALMERSTON said that the papers had come to him in the form of a dispatch to a French Ambassador, but the French Government not having expressed any objection to it being laid before the House, he would not decline to do so. Mr. HUME, amidst loud cries from all sides, rose to ask whether this Government, having acknowledged the Government of France as a de facto Government, had also acknowledged the Roman Government. Lord PALMERSTON said that this country had not acknowledged the French Government until it had obtained a firm and settled standing; nor would they do that of Rome until it had acquired the same. THE BUDGET , The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply; Mr. BERNAL in the Chair, The CHANCELLOR of tha EXCHEQUER rose to make his financial statement to the Ho sail, although the statement which he was about to submit to the House was not as favourable as he could have wished, or as favourable as he should have been justified in making at an earlier period of the session, he believed and hoped, considering the circum. stances and times in which they had been placed, that it would not be altogether unsatisfactory to the House and the country. They would ill appreciate the value of a statement of the financial resources of the Government, if they did not take into their consideration the circum stances not only of this country, but of those other coun tries with which we had commercial relations.—(Hear, hear.) They must remember that, a year and a half ago, severe commercial distress prevailed in this coun try; that there had been a famine in Ireland, and that the state of continental Europe was such that the greatest interruption had taken place in our com mercial intercourse with it. He would ap peal to those who were best acquainted with our manufacturing towns as to the truth of this,— ( Elear, hear.) And when he stated that our trade with Germany was supposed to be equal to two days' working of our cotton mills in a week, he thought the interruption which our trade had felt would be sufficieet to account for a diminution of those sanguine expectations which were entertained.—(Hear.) They were deeply interested in the peace and tranquillity of neighbouring countries, and he would appeal to that circumstance as confirming the propriety of the course he had adopted at an early part of the session, in refusing to comply with the request which had le!en made to make his financial statement earlier. Large works had been undertaken by the Government. With regard to those works, the Government had been advised to borrow money to complete them, but they had decided that it would be more equitable to meet this outlay by a temporary increase of taxation. In that view the House bad coincided, the plan had accord ingly been adopted, and the borrowing of money had been avoided.—(Hear, hear.) That plan had been adopted because it was thought to be the best for the interests of the country. The burden, it was true, might be extended over some years, but he believed that when three years had elapsed the country would have obtained all the benefit, and the expenses would have entirely ceased. He might have made this state ment at an earlier period of the session, but it could not have been so effectively made as at the present time, and the House would now be able to, judge as to how those expectations had been realised. The House would remember that he had anticipated that when the falling off of business, the general agricultural diffi culty, and the distress in Ireland had been con sidered, that there would yet be a surplus of 290,0001. He had then said that it would be difficult to form an estimate of the probable expenses, or to make any statement upon really solid grounds, but he had, if the House remembered, estimated the whole of the na tional income at 51,550,000/, and in this return he had counted upon the returns of the temporary tax. Allow ing then the 640,000/. which he anticipated in excess, and deducting the expenses which it seas then known must•arise, there would still be a surplus of 640,0001., of which 420,0001. might be considered as clear gain. Taking the ordinary expenditure of the year the actual deficiency was only 50,000/. The House would recol lect that he had anticipated that the income of the year would be 52,130,0001., but it had only produced 52,067,731/, being 62,000/. less than he had anticipated. The actual expenditure had been 5 3,287,1101. But in that expen diture there were included two sums of con siderable importance and amount, which he had not anticipated would be required namely, the grant in aid of Irish emigration, voted last year, amounting to 389,9201, and a naval ex cess of 323,807/. of the preceding year, which was carried into the expenditure of the present—making together 713,727/., which being deducted from the ordinary ex penditure, showed the expenditure upon the year to have been 52.573,403/, exceeding the estimate (as we under stood) by 120,000/. The total expenditure, including the two items he had mentioned, was therefore 53,237,1101. ['he total receipts, including 950,000/. received from corn in the course of the year, was 53,017,732/. The deficiency was 269,378/, but if Hon. Gentlemen would compare the receipts of the year with the expenditure, excluding those two items (he was now speaking of last year)—if they would compare the receipts of last year with the current expenditure of last year, they would find, as he had said, that the expenditure was 32,573,4031, the cur rent expenditure being less than the income by 444,329/ The surplus of income above expenditure was 444,329/, and if they added to that the expendi ture of the preceding year, deducting the expenses for Irish purposes and for emigration to Canada, there still would be a surplus of 120,000/. He now came to the prospects of the present year. The re ceipt of Customs was 21,879,000/.,; and of that amount 950,000/. was for corn. The receipt of Custom duties, excluding corn, was 20,220,0004 Early in the year, as he had already stated, he was led to expect there might be no inconsiderable increase ; that expectation had, however, in some measure, not been realised, but still the receipt of Customs for the present year, he anticipated, would not be less than the last. Last year the receipt of Customs for corn was 920,0001., and as they had now a fixed duty on corn, at least one more easily estimated, he thought he might fairly estimate the duty in that respect.—(Hear.) Now, he found that in the course of the last year there was received upon Indian corn and meal no less than 96 000/. He took the income derived from grain at between 200,0002 and 300,000/. He proposed to take it at 250,000/., making a total income from the Customs duties of 20,450,0004 The income derived from the Excise duties last year was 13,932,270/. He proposed to take it at 13,710,0001. The Stamp duties produced 6,565,364/. They were, he was happy to say, improving since the beginning of the year. He proposed to take them at 6,750,000/. The taxes produced 3,318,900/.; he proposed now to take them at 4,300,0001. The income-tax pro duced 5,725,000/.; he proposed to take it at 8,000,000/. The Right Hon. Baronet went a little further into detail, and then stated that the whole revenue of the year was 52,252,000/. He now turned to the expenditure side. The expense of managing the public debt was 27,635,0271.; the interest on Exchequer-bills, 4 80,000/. odd, making the interest on the public debt 28 ,243,527/. The whole andAretie wasexpedition,an another t her charge on the Consolidated Fund w as 31 , 7 50,083 / . The naval expenditurewas6,26o,74ho: p ; e f x or e p n a s c e fkeotrthe army ser vice, 248,296/. • sumfor the there 12,6881.—making a separate ng a total for navy, packet service, and a Arctic m a expedition, ounted to of 7,021,7241. T 6,142,0001., te vote of 31,872/.; for militia, 113,000 4 —making a total of 6,287,Q83/. In the Ordnance department there were votes of 2,654,270/, 3,924,731 e, and of 520,1731. These were the total expenses of the year. But Hon. Gentlemen were aware that he had not yet finished. There was a naval excess for the years 1847 and 1848, amounting to 23,708/, an ordnance excess, up to April, 1848, of 97,9841., in the commissariat; there was also an excess of 642,632/., and the total expen ses, including all the excesses of the year, would amount to 52,157, 6961 ; deducting th en the total amount of expenditure from the amount of re ceipts, there remained a surplus of 104,7041. Hon. Gentleman should remember that these estimates were 500,000/. or 600,000/. higher than those of preced ing years. The Government had used every exertion to redeem the pledge they had made to keep the expen diture under the income, and if their anticipations were realised, there would be an excess on income over expenditure this year; and he, therefore, did hope, when they recovered from the excesses of former years, even though there might not be any increase of income, or any reduction of expenditure, that there would still be a considerable surplus of income over expenditure. In former years there had been surpluses which had been invariably placed to the account of the public creditor, of course surrendered for the common benefit. But the greatest saving would arise from the plans which had been adopted for improving the dockyards of her Ma jesty's navy, and which, but for the plans which had been adopted, would have shown an excess in the outlay. Bitter experience had, however, enabled them to follow ( . a more economical system.—(Hear, hear.) But he thought it right to show upon what their expectations of an increased income were founded.—(Hear, hear.) Their expenses they knew, but income arose from many uncertain sources.—(Hear, hear.) Their expenditure they were certain about, but income was at all times uncertain. The financial year, as all knew, began on the sth of April, but the three-quarterly ac counts were made up on the sth of January. The greatest falling off since that period was in the Excise, and the deficiency in that department since the date which he had just given was upwards of 496,0001.; but since the sth of April, the commencement of the finan cial year, the deficit waa only 400,0001. Then, again, in compliance with the wishes of the hopgrowers, he had postponed until the autumn the payment of the hop duties. The half amount of those duties was 180,000/. Then again the payment of the malt duties had been postponed six weeks later than it was last year. In the last year there had been an increase of nearly 200,000/., and taking the effect of the law for re gulating the excise upon spirits in Ireland and Scot land, which affected the revenue to the extent of 400,0001 from the beginning of January in the present year, it was gratifying to find that there had been an in• crease in the revenue from Stamps of 40,0001. a gratifying proof of the revival of trade. — (Hear, hear.) In the Excise (as we understood, for it was most difficult to catch the import 01 many of the Right Honourable Baronet's statements) there appeared a falling off of 58,000 L; but in reality it he e w n ass gradualonl y 570 , i O n l e . and r , eas e, idne during income-taxthe s same h e period, e t r i e e r d e , had the increase being 9,7001. "With regard to Ireland he was sorry that he could not tell the same good story. He would now go a little further back, and glance at the incomes of former years. If they went six or eight years back, and glanced at the circumstances of each of these years, they would agree with him that his antici pations were based upon the best grounds. For the year ending April: the .sth, 1842, the ordinary income was 4 8,000,0001.; in 1843 it was 45 ,500,000/.; in 1844, 4 6,500,0001; in 1844-5, it again attained 45,000,000/, the amount realised being 48,110,0001. Considerable reductions were made at that period, .and in 1846 the income fell a little under 46,000,0001 ; but in 1847, notwithstanding great reductions had been made in taxation, it rose to upwards of 48,000,000/. That was a peculiar year, and its revenue was swayed by various real and fictitious circumstances. He thought he was right in assuming that the ordinary income of the preseat year would amount to 46 3 000,0001.; that it would be kept up notwithstanding the recent reductions in taxa tion. The reduction of the income of the country in eu the s mafeedar redaction 1081 th e present 7 was 344,8821., year wouldBB2/., and the be about 385,8651., principally on sugar, and yet, notwithstauding that reduction, he thought the income for the present year would not fall short of 46,000,0001 —( Hear, hear.) He would say further, that it was his belief that the state of the country was such that he felt warranted in making that antici pation. In ordinary circumstances he should have felt it to be his duty to go into the state of the country, but as the Honourable Gentleman the Member for Buckingham had given notice of his intention to bring the subject forward he would not go into it now, because if he did it would spoil the discussion that would take place on the Hon. Member's motion. He thought it better that should be taken as a whole.—(Hear, hear.) He would only say there was a decided improvement in the manufacturing districts, and the amount of bullion in the Bank of England bad considerably in creased, and money was easy.—(Elear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet then proceeded—l now come to the expenditure, and I must express my expectation that in future years we shall be able still further to reduce our expenditure.—(Hear, hear.) I will not go back to the expenditure of 1835, because so many changes have taken place in the circumstances of the country since that time. Many charges have been thrown upon the public revenue which were not heretofore borne by it; and I must again, as I have done on former occasions, express my regret that so strong a disposition exists, even among the most economical Members of the House, perpetually to increase the charges made upon the public revenue of the country. I think that course is a great public evil and misfortune. It is not altogether a very agreeable thing for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is gene rally charged in this House with being a most wasteful administrator of the public money, to be told the mo ment he gets out of these walls that he is refusing money for the most necessary and advantageous expen diture; and I hope the majority of this House will assist me in resisting the imposition of any further charges upon the public revenue. I will go back with regard to the expenditure only so far as 1845. In that year, when the Right Hon. Baronet opposite introduced the income-tax, he stated most fully and fairly to the House—and the House accepted the proposals—that the income-tax would bo renewed, accompanied by re duced taxation, but accompanied by some increased ex penditure. The Right lion. Gentleman stated that with due consideration for the real comfort and the necessary relief of the British army, with due regard to the protection of British trade abroad, and in order that the national defences of the country might be placed in a proper state of efficiency, it was necessary to increase the public expenditure; and the House approved and agreed to that proposition. Now, we have been told that a House of Commons more popularly constituted would not have incurred this additional expense. I cannot say that such is my opinion—(Hear, hear)—for I believe no proposal was ever submitted to this House which at the time was more universally popular than that to which I have referred. I remember perfectly well that, not being an alarmist myself—having disregarded the warnings of an Honourable Gentleman opposite as to the descent of the Russians, and not being afraid of an invasion of the French—l was not anxious that a very large expenditure should be incurred for the purposes I have mentioned, but I always found myself in a very small minority, and even gentlemen who have taken a most active part in the Financial Reform Association were at that time strong supporters of an increased expenditure for the national defences.—(Hear, hear.) I find that so lately as December, 1847, the Honourable Member for Middle sex (Mr. Osborne) had a motion on the paper to call the attention of the House to the state of the national defences in Great Britain and Ireland. Now, I appre hend that gentlemen do not call the attention of the House to matters which they conceive are sufficiently and adequately provided for. The Honourable Gentle man withdrew his motion at the request of my Noble Friend, but the only inference I can draw from his notice is that, in his opinion, the national defences wore insuffi cient. I must say that I think, when these works had been commenced, it would have been most absurd and injudicious to put a sudden stop , o them; and I find that in the present session, when the Hon. Member for South wark (Sir W. Molesworth) proposed to abandon the works at Keyham, he was supported by only 27 gentlemen, while a large majority of the House decided that it was most expedient to p:cceed with those works, rather than to throw away the 200,000/. or 300,000/. which had already been expended upon them.—(dear.) With regard to the army, I think we are justified by the circumstances of the country in refusing to make any reduction last year. It is true that some Hon. Gentlemen are now dis posed to underrate the danger which then existed. It is said that the outbreak in Ireland was only a mock in surrection. Ido not think that was the general opinion at the time.—(hear, hear.) No doubt, nothing is so difficult to prove as the necessity for taking measures of prevention which succeed.--(Hear, hear.) There were last year two serious insurrections in Paris, which were only put down at the expense of great bloodshed and slaughter, in consequence of the want in the first in stance of au adequate number of troops. On a recent occasion the presence of an adequate military force pre vented an insurrection in that city; but were the Go vernment to be condemned because by such precautions they put down an insurrection without bloodshed, in stead of risking a repetition of the scenes which took place in 1848? As soon, however, as we found that we could reduce our military force, that reduction was made; and in the course of this year a reduction of 3,000 men in the navy, and of 10,000 men in the army, has taken place, we having gone as far as, in the circumstances of this country and of Europe, we thought we were justified in going. The only arm which has been increased is the artillery, and I must say I think, f rom our recent Indian experience, that we should greatly neglect our duty if we did not maintain that force in a state of efEciency.—(Clear, hear.) I informed the House at the end of the last session that in the estimates for that year we had made reductions to the amount of 828,7001 I stated early in the present session that upon the estimates as they then stood there was a reduction of 1,447,000/. Since that time further estimates have been laid upon the table, and in the whole of them, or nearly so, there is a reduction. ,Now, I wish to show the House that the Government, or the Trea sury, whose special duty it is, exercise a constant and all-pervading control over the expenditure of the country, and that that supervision takes place not merely with regard to the larger, but also to the smaller items of expenditure. There are, in the estimates for civil ser vices, 103 votes, of which 45 are less than the correspond ing votes of last year, 24 are larger, 32 are the same, 2 are new votes, 10 are given up, and one is transferred to another department. There is a decrease in every class but two—classes 3 and 6; and the increase in these votes is quite beyond our control. The increase in one of those votes arises from an increase of the expenses attending the administration of justice—from an in crease in the number of prosecutions, and in the charge for the transportation of convicts. In the other vote the increase is owing to the superannua tions, which have been more numerous in consequence of the redactions made in many of the public depart ments. Upon the whole, however, there is a diminution of expenditure. The two new votes are votes of abso lute necessity—the one for repairing the Caledonian Canal, and the other for repairing Lybster Harbour in the north of Scotland, which is, a great resort of the fishermen on that coast. I will now state the whole amount of reduction in the estimates for this year. The reduction in the navy estimates is 718,1681.; in the army estimates, 433,9141.; in the ordnance estimates, 337,8731.; and in the miscellaneous estimates, 21,5001., being a de crease altogether of 1,511,4551. in the course of this year; and, if that amount he added to the reduction of 828,700/. effected in the preceding year, it will be seen that the total reduction in the estimates for the last two years is 2,340,1551, I hope that even my Hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Hume) will take this as a proof that we have not been unmindful of reducing the expenditure to as great an extent as we thought possible.—[Mr. Hume was understood to say that his objection was to the in crease.] 'Well, my Hon. Friend will at least give us credit for the reduction.—(A laugh.) But I wish to show by an instance, that even in th ose it ems which do not come under the cognizance of Parliament, we have not been unmindful of the principle of reduction. Early in this session I introduced a Bill to carry into effect the largest reductiou-which has been made for years with respect to the revenue—l allude to the Bill for consolidating the Beard of Excise and the Board of Stamps and Taxes. Since a relative of mine became Chairman of the Board of Stamps and Taxes, very considerable reductions have been effected in that department, and it is bet just to him that I should state the reduction in the number of per sons employed and in the salaries paid. The paper lam about to quote is "An Account showing the Decrease in the number of Officers and Salaries of the Board of In land Revenue, in 1849, as compared with the Boards of Excise, Stamps, and Taxes, in 1833." In 1833 the number of persons employed was 9,083, it is now 7,329, being a reduction of 2,054. The amount of salaries in 1833 was 962,266/., it is now 715,092/., being a decrease of 247,174/., or nearly a quarter of a million of money.— (Hear.) This statement, I may observe, does not include income-tax, who employed in the collection of the who could not be fairly included in the comparison. The Committee on the miscellaneous expenditure recom mended that persons who had been employed in Govern ment offices should not, if it could be avoided, be placed upon permanent retired allowances, but that their services should, when possible, be made available. Now, last year a Bill was passed abolishing the Excise survey upon spirits, and the number of stations conse quently discontinued was 600. At the time of the abo lition there were 51 of those stations vacant ; 90 officers were superannuated, for the Government find it quite impossible to re-introduce very old men to active em ployment, and therefore persons above 60 years of age are allowed to retire upon allowances; five officers have died; one has been discharged; 188 have since been re appointed to other stations; and 325 are remaining to be absorbed as vacancies may occur. The whole patronage of the Government has been given up in order to carry out this plan—(Hear, hear)—and I therefore believe that the whol e o f t h ese persons will be re-employed.in the public service. An inquiry is proceeding with the view of carrying out a similar plan with regard to the Cus toms (as we understood), and I hope that we may be able to carry on this system of reduction, which I believe not only tends to economy, but also to the efficiency of the public service. I have not before stated that I have thought it right to reduce the salaries of these officers, because I do not believe that, as a class, they are overpaid— (Hear)—but we have reduced the numbers; and I think the public service can be better conducted by a smaller number of well-paid officers than by a large number of under-paid men who are not so well qualified to discharge the duties which devolve upon thom.—(Hear.) I will only say that I can give no better assurance to the House as to the course the Government have been pur suing for some time, and in which they are determined to persevere, than the statement I have made.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot, of course, at this time foretell what reductions may bo made in future years; for in such times as these, when no man can say what the morrow may bring forth, it would be absurd to predict what amount of force it may be necessary to keep up in sub sequent years ; but with r egar d to t h e expenditure which has been undertaken for the completion of the works, and for the incee tee of se eres. I can oelv sev that who a rhea w. ate , e :ere ' -, • 1.1- .es! proper quantum of st gyres is oetaraed, the s;ty to that expenditure will cease. I hope there is every pros- pect of the revenue of the country increasing, sod that in subsequent years we may see such a surplus of in come as will place us in a more comfortable position than I must admit we stand in at present. It is impos sible not to be uneasy at so small an amount of surplus as that which I have anticipated in the course of this year.—(Hear, hear.) I considt r that it is neither safe nor creditable that a surplus should not be perma. nently maintaiued sufficient to meet the extraordi nary contingencies that may occur in a country like this, and I should :not think that anything but the peculiar circumstances of the time would justify us in going on with so small a surplus as I have anti cipated; but, as long as there is a surplus, I do not think that it is necessary to impose, or to at tempt to impose, any new burden upon the country for the purpose of creating a further surplus. I must say, however, to those gentlemen who have given notice of their intention to move for the reduction or re peal of some existing taxes, that, with the present amount of surplus, I think they cannot expect me to accede to any such measures.—(Hear, hear.) I also wish to put; another consideration before those; gentle men;—that if, as soon as we get any moderate amount of surplus, it is to be given up in repealing some smail amount of taxation, we never shall be in a condition to make any of those large changes which would be most beneficial to the country.—(Hear, hear.) Last year a proposal was made to reduce the duty on tea—a mea• sure which would cause the risk of some 2,000,0001. of revenue. The tea duty produces nearly 5,000,0001. It was proposed to reduce that duty from 2s, and a fraction to ls.; and will any Hon. Gentleman contend that such a change would not involve the risk of at least 2,000,0001.? If the House is prepared to impose other taxes, in order to enable such an experiment to be made, well and good ; but if it is not so prepared it must not throw away in the reduction of small items of taxation the nucleus of a future sur plus which may be applied to more beneficial reductions. Another measure which was pressed upon the Government was the revision of the Stamp duties—a step which would involve, in all probability, a loss of some 300,0001. or 400,0001., with the risk of still further loss. I must, then, impress upon Honourable Gentlemen that if they really wish any of those changes in taxation to take place which past experience has shown to be beneficial in the end, it is utterly impossible that such changes can be made until in some way or other a surplus is obtained which would justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making the experiment. —(Hear, hear.) As I have shown before, it is a perfect mistake to suppose that the country is not at this moment enjoying, year by year, the advantage of reduced taxa tion in respect to those duties which, by the operation of Acts now in force, are diminishing year by year. That will go on a year or t wo more, an I hope the expendi ture will be brought down, while the ordinary revenue will be increased, and that we shall be 4 .n a more favour able position then that at present. The circumstances which occurred last year, the famine , and distress in trade, were such as to account for the depression in the or dinary revenue; and, in such a case, th.e sa'eat course to pursue is to avoid all rash experiments, and to do nothing which might disturb the ordinary course of trade or oppose any impediment to the advancement of that improvement, which I hope will gradually progress. Thus we shall be in a better situation to bear the continuance of un favourable circumstances, if they should continue; and, if a favourable change should occur, 'we shall be in a better condition to take advantage of the return of prosperity.—(Cheers.) The Right .Hon. Gentleman then concluded by proposing that the s am of 3,000,000/. be paid out of the consolidated fund towards making good the supply granted to her Majesty. Mr. HUME did not think the Government entitled to so much credit as they claimed for any reduction of ex penditure, because it had been brought about by a pres • sure on the Government. However, his complaint was, that a great increase of expenditure had taken place during the two preceding years without any reason. He did not deny that many obnoxious taxes had been re pealed, and he had often expressed his opinion that no man had done more good in respect to relieving the country from taxation than the Right Hon. Member for Tamwortb, who took off 8,000,000/. of taxation which pressed on the industry of the country, and substituted 5,000,000/. of taxation placed on the capital of the country. There was a return before the House of the public expenditure from 1822-23 to 1846.47 in elu-ive ; and, having divided that return from the year 1824 into periods of five years each, he found that the country had been subject during the last five years to a greater amount of taxation than during any other of the periods of five years. From 1824 to 1828 the average yearly amount of revenue was 56,418,0001., and the average yearly ex penditure 5 5,518,000/.; and those were years alien strong complaints were made of the amount of the public ex penses. In the next five years, from 1829 to 1833, the average revenue was 52,634,0001., and the average ex penditure, 51,605,0001. From 1834 to 1838 the average receipt was 51,000,0001., and the average expendii;ure, 50,000,0001. From 1839 to 1843 the average receipt was 52,400,000/., and the average expenditure 55,000,000/., showing an excess of nearly 3,000,000/. over the receipt ; and from 1844 to 1848, instead of their being a decrease of taxation, the average receipt was 57,000,0001., being 600,000/. more than the average for the period from 1824 to 1828, and 5,000,000/. more than the average of the other years ; and the expendi ture from 1844 to 1848 averaged 56,536,000/. Such was the state of the case, although they were eternally told that the country was relieved from taxation, and that it ought to be thankful for it. He therefore com plained that they heard nothing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening of measures for the relief of the country. It was quite true that the country could not be relieved if the army and navy were kept up to an unnecessary amount, if the artillery were trebled, and the miscellaneous expenses were increased. But he hoped the time was coming when the Government would feel a pressure from without on the subject. Prices were falling and rents were coming down, and he looked upon all these circumstances as aids towards pro curing that reduction which would give permanent relief to the country. He prayed that wheat might come and keep down to 355. a quarter, so that every one might feel the difficulty, for it was only the country gentlemen who supported extravagance.—(Laughter.) He found, among those who supported the motion for reduction and reform on a recent occasion, were the major part of the representatives of the great populous towns, but, un fortunately, the country gentlemen did not seem to know their own interest, and opposed it. The time was ap proaching when the people must be allowed to exercise all their constitutional rights, and then he had no fear but that they might reduce their expenditure by a sum amounting to,if not:exceeding, 1 0,000,000/. He was anxious to maintain public credit, but the best means of doing so was by economy and retrenchment, and not by extrava gance and the maintenance of large establishments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been persuaded to post pone the collection of the hop duty, but he might take it off altogether by cutting down some useless expenditure. The duty collected on the importation of foreign books amounted to 7,000/., and if they were to take away the salary of the Governor of Ceylon they needed not then to levy this sum on the introduction of foreign in formation. If the House would support him he would point out methods by which the duties on malt, hops, bricks, soap, windows, and paper, might be removed, and public credit placed in a better c. edition than at present. He wished to get rid of the Excise, transfer ring the only two sources of revenue he would leave under this head to another department, thus saving all the expense of the present establishment. He was anx ious to maintain an efficient force in this country, but he did not desire to see war establishments in time of peace; and though desirous that every one in the public service should be well paid, he wanted no more to be employed than were required. It was a mockery to keep up 150 admirals when only 14 were wanted, and 350 generals when only half-a-dozen could be employed. If the Go vernment went on recklessly in this manner the people must speak out and decide the matter for themselves at the next election. If every person who advocated re duction were to qualify himself as a voter the country would soon get relief. Ile was told that there was on the part of the Government a real and sincere desire to economise. Might God speed them! Let them direct their attention to the army, the commissariat, the local expenditure, the dockyards, and the waste of materials; and let them consider that they might save money by abolishing the Ordnance department and transferring the business to the army establishment. Sir J. TYRELL said that the Hon. Member had borne particularly hard on the country gentlemen, but he must have a short memory, or ho would have recol lected that only the - other night the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire, who ably represented the country gentle men, made a motion of a severe character with the view of effecting a material reduction.—(Hear, hear.) The lion. Member for Montrose had indulged in a variety of prophecies, but he (Sir J. Tyrol') had not the slightest faith in them, for he recollected the repeated prophecies uttered some years ago as to the advantages which the Reform Bill was to confer on the country—advantages almost as great as it had been promised would follow the adoption of free trade; and he asked whether those prophecies had been fulfilled? 'With respect to the statement of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, he thought it able in many respects, but the Right Hon. Gentleman had made an omission in not giving the House any insight into the extent of the financial responsibility which devolved upon him in re ference to the state of Ireland,--(Hear, hear.) Mr. HODGES was understood to state that great dis tress prevailed among the growers of hops, and to ex press a hope that some relief would be affirded to them in respect to the hop duty. Ile (Mr. Hodges) hoped that even now some measure of relief would be proposed. Lord R. GROSVENOR had to express his regret that no hope was held out of the repeal of that most unjust, most oppressive, and most iniquitous tax—the att,rneys' annual certificate duty.—(bear, hear, and a laugh ) He had to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer notice that this subject mus t now b e presse d on t h e first night when the ballot gave him (Lord R. Grosvenor)teßight the an opportunity of bringing on hi s mo tion, u nless h hear.) Hon. Gentleman, by yi e ldi ng , preven t e dneces a s n it d y , of it ha r. stating the case o f a hi g hl y use f u l, me ritorious, might be added, po wer f u l c lass.—(Hear, ) tuyssoefx,niinak;tnhge Hon. Friend (Mr. Hodges) on Mr. FRE WEN co u ld confirm the t s h u e b e s: t it statement en th t e of h h o i p s duties. When hol holidays, y h se, (Mr. M he n to F o r k ew th e e n) o w pp a o s rt i u n n S i payment, more than half inquiries upon the state of the country, and he found it was utterly impossible that the hop duties could be col- P b o e n sold up and incarcerated, col lected next October and November. If the Chancellor insistede lr t e o a u dy most cruelly been; some wq them e u hd a hd a as sf somas the E nt o x e f e r h s e whom the Excise officers suspected to he not likely to be from their unfortunate circum stances.—(Hear, to pay their duties had been proceeded against and rent to gaol, simply hear.) If the hop duty should be main tabled, the result would be that there must be WI out, broil( -.Sere The eel'estiee eeedd 'are MesCGßEniielS t aught the state of the revenue highly setisfacniry.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the expenditure, he could Lot expect any great reduction, uttiess Ireland could be rut in a very different condition, and the cost of the military establishment and consta bulary force in that country reduced; for it was to re duction in that expenditure and the military expende. tore in the colonies that he chiefly bolted. As to the abolition of duties, he wished to see such a revenue raised that the duties on hops, bricks, windows, paper and ad vertisements, might be repealed. Ile was decidedly of opinion that if the duty on tea were reduced to ls. we should not for the next three years derive a revenue of r 3 than 3,000,0001. from tee. He should be glad, with a view to a reduction of duties, to see the income-tax raised to 5 per cent., but was bound to say, that in the present state of feeling in the House, such a proposition would meet the same fate as the former proposal to in crease that tex —(Heer, hear.) Ile trusted the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would deal in the way of reform with the Customs' regulations, and the inconvenient re ' strictions involved in them. He had confidence in the Tight Hon. Gentleman, from his course since he had had the management of the public revenue.—(flear, hear.) Mr. COWAN had heard the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman with much gratification. It was evi dent thet the resources of the country, if rightly ad ministered, were amply sufficient to meet all the en gagements whickthe national interest and honour re quired. (Hear, hear.) But it seemed strange that, after showing that reeuetions of duties did not injure the revenue, the Right Hon. Gentleman declined to proceed further in that direction, and reduce the tea or other duties. He (Mr. Cowan) hoped that a revision of taxation would gradually take piece, always having in view the paramount necessity of keeping faith with the public creditor.—(Hear, hear.) Those excise duties which tended to confine industry to the narrowest pos sible limits especially demanded consideration. Mr. EWART thought the Chancellor of the Exche quer had made a very clear statement—(Heal., hear) — and he could not be expected to make any reduction of duties without first considering the means he had of sup porting the credit of the country.—(Hear.) Agreeing that trade was fettered by our Customs and Excise laws, and that we had not carried out the principle of free-tradei to its full extent, he (Mr. Ee art) was of opinion that the first point should be to reduce the ex penditure, and the next to alter cur system of taxation ; and he hoped to see the country gentlemen, no longer supporting war and taxation, take their natural place as the guardians of the public press. But he was afraid they would never insist upon economy till low prices forced them to it. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND believed that in the de• bates in that House the country gentlemen showed themselves more masters of the question than gentlemen opposite; and if he desired to give an instance of the country gentlemen exposing an imposture attempted for a particular occasion, he would point to the exposure by his Hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pak ington) of that Lancashire statement made the other day with respect to the county expenditure.—(Hear, hear.) It was scarcely necessary for him (Mr. Drummond) to say, after the opinions he had expressed in that House, that he could not regard the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman as satisfactory; not that there was any thing not to be praised in it, but that it did not go to the root of this question. The Chancellor of the Exche quer was quite right in not repealing small duties; those which ought to be first repealed were those which pressed exclusively upon the poor. It should be consi dered that in this country and in this climate, beer brewed at home was a necessary of life; and the rule just suggested would include also the case of bricks and soap.--(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Drummond) was very sorry that the Government would not undertake to deal with this great question. He felt the deepest convic tion, tied pain commensurate with that conviction, that unless they did, the time was not far distant when the Ledru Rollins and Proudhons of this country would. The simple point was, whether these desperadoes were to be suffered to do that, and a great deal more. Mr. M. GIBSON thought his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) was fully justified in making the remarks he did, with the view of awakening the country party to resume their ancient influence, and exercise the great political power proper to them, in carrying reduction into effect. —(Hear, bear.) For himself (Mr. Gibson), not ex pecting much, he was not, ou this occasion, disappointed; but he would remark that the Gevernreent would never get much credit for economy—talk as they might about delaying the completion of docks, and so on, s o long as the taxgatherer c a ll e d u p on t h e taxpayer or the same amount of money as before.—(Hear, hear.) Vais seemed a fitting occasion to observe, that the Govern ment deserved great credit for the firm and successful manner in which they carried the repeal of the naviga tion laws—(Loud cheers)—assistecl, perhaps, in a reluc tant House of Lord s by t h e d read of a Protectionist Go vernment.—(Hear, hear.) But let not the Government repose too Lug upon their laurels; there were duties embarrassing trade, and yielding little revenue, still to be got rid of.---(Hear.) In regard to the excise duties that upon paper was most prejudicial to the export of English books—(Hear)—and the duty upon paper used for making cards in patterns was very objectionable. The British silk manufacturer was placed at a great dis advantage; a witness before the Committee on the School of Design stated that he paid 481. duty upon two patterns. The Whigs had always repudiated taxes upon knowledge; and the House had learned by a peti tion from Messrs. Chambers, of Edinburgh, that the ex cise duty on paper had caused them to discontinue the publication of a work calculated for the humbler classes, though the circulation was, or would have been 80,000. Then, too, there was the advertisement duty, and—still more important—the penny stamp upon newspapers— (Hear)—preventing the people from having the full benefit of a cheap press, as it was intended they should have when Mr. Chadwick took up that question.—(Hear, hear.) It was satisfactory to see the great success which had attended the commercial policy of the Right Hon ourable Gentleman the Member for Tainworth.—(Hear, hear.) If ever there was a policy, the success of which was capable of mathematical demonstration, it was this, both in respect to revenue and its effects upon trade. — (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gibson) might add that be be lieved in the cotton districts, trade was in a more satis factory position than it had been; and that our home trade had n o t b een so b a d as some gentlemen would wish to make out.—(Hear, hear.) He believed he might say that the labouring population in the north of England were never in a much better condition, and that their wages never commanded a larger share of the neces saries and comforts of life. There was still a large mar gin for improvement, and changes in the commercial policy of the country might still be made which would to a very considerable extent, further improve the condi tion of the people. Mr. STAFFORD said the Hon. Member for Mont rose had charged the country gentlemen with being blind to their own interests, and the agriculturists had been also accused of being a divided party; but the farmers were, he believed, still more opposed to free trade, and more favourable to a retrogressive policy than even the country gentlemen. The Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had told the House that the labourers in the north were well employed, and that their wages were good. Mr. GIBSON—No. Mr. STAFFORD --But in the district of England with which he was connected he regretted to say that so flattering a tale could not be told; for the population of Northamptonshire were suffering from decreasing em ployment and increasing poor -rates. There were some articles of food upon which a purely protective duty was now levied, and o f w hi c h great complaints used to be made during the corn-law agitation, but against which_ lion. Gentl emen h a d not on the present occas i on uttere d one word. Ho alluded to the duties on butter and cheese. Why was no voice raised for the repeal of these duties? Because Hon. - Members opposite knew that the revenue derived from these articles could not be spared; and what these Hon. Gentlemen said of those duties they (the Protectionist Members) affirmed with reference to other duties which had been repealed—viz., that they could not carry out their system of free trade and con tinue to maintain faith with the national creditor.— (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Stafford) believed, with the Right Hon. Gentletnnn, that free trade had still much further to go, and that the time might come when the country gentlemen wuuld find themselves placed in the difficulty of having to choose between following the opinions of those whom they represented and perform- • ing their public duty. It might happen that the farmers , believing that they had been deprived of protection disingenuously and unfairly, might no longer be favour able, as heretofore they had been, to the maintenance of our aristocratic institutions, and therein consisted the democratic nature of Mr. Cohdert's movement. Mr. COBDEN would not be seduced into a free trade discussion on the present occasion, and would merely express his opinion that the events and experience of every successive day were justifiying the views which the free traders took with respect to a free trade in corn. —(hear, hear.) He, for one, was perfectly prepared to abide by the results of that experiment. But when the Hon. Member (Mr. Stafford) appeared to claim for the farmers the credit of being the especially loyal class, and said that they were now becoming democratic, and r that the institutions of the country were not safe in tbei hands, he would deny that the farmers were an especially loyal body. He believed that there was as much_ . loyalty, in the true acceptation of the term, in the shopkeepers repeal, citiblieriEngxchequer ep , a of the to be the friend d o f i s t L r i o e n t s d . of ( f i eL s e example, r.) \v t With hs regardin te f t arm o tehres repeal the country malt-tax, he had made no pretension of the farmer, and he considered that there were a dozm • a o s th t e h r e could not possibly repeal them unless he did one of two t a a s x. inju ß r u ir tsb,eancdhaans Chancellor r h o r f e things, and either reduced his expenditure or increased t m ax a e lt s the amount raised by direct taxation. II e agreed with what had been said upon the extreme importance of re ducing excise duties, and principally on account of the necessity of removing the impediments which they offered to the indust ry o f the country. And he was glad to find that on the discussiot of the budget the attention of the House appeared to bo directed not so much to the amount of taxes rased • or remaks, but, what was much more important, to the way which they werelevied, in and the in j uries inflictedby the present mode in which the revenue was lev ied.—(H ear .) T ake the hop duty. He had r ecently received seve ra l l etters f rom Kent and Sussex, from parties who requested him to brieg forward a motion fur the repeal of the hop duty. Hop growers were subject to all kinds of natural casualties and discs. , tern—their crops were lieble to be attacked by flea, fly, and honey -dew, by all sorts of diseases and blights; but he was informed that blight, flea, fly, and honey-dew, were as nothing compared to the evils they suffered from the excise duties; and that this duty was like a pe riodical blight affecting the whole districts of the coun try. Now, was it desirable, for a beggarly amount of 250,0001., that they should levy a tax that produced desolation, want of employ meat, bankruptcy, and ruin, in four or five counties in England, and which he (Mr. Cobden) had been assured by a gentleman in Sus- - - sex was likely to produce tin outbreak in the county if .ouse ,