The Sun. — London, England, 1851-06-18 00:00:00

ad change h a d occurre d f or the last twenty-one years.— (Iz r, and laughter.) There were many reasons fit the juility at the p r i c e of that article which did not exist in e trades. When barley was very high the brewers had t re :posed raising the price of small liquor, but the publicans Zeeme to them and said they could not carry out the 67 , and that the beer should sell at the same rate—the th ra should balance a good year with a bad year ; but it e price of beer could not be raised by the publicans, sell as they did by retail and in sin quanthies. He .. _ 40 :1 ask the H o n. Member opposite ( Mr. Frewen) not to , ri v " 3 -his motion, as it was nut likely a continued change I ke that he proposed would be acceptable, when a much refer troublesome one was rejected. He would, then, briefly t: to the case of articles on which reduction; in duty had I ,„ e `n nude. On coffee the duty had been 16d., and the re ',`Lne had then been a million; but when it had been re -I,`!eed to 4d. it had produced a revenue of 3,000,000 1 . In :gar they had received a revenue of 5,000,0 007 . , yet , a lthough ; r educti on of one-half in the amount of duty had been made 4, l o British plantation sugar, the revenue had reached 000 /., and he had no doubt would bring more. a,, tin on the article of brandy, in 1846 the duty had been re v:44d from 225. to 15s. ; and yet for the two successive years Ahad derived a larger revenue; and in 1849 the revenue e . ls rendy had increased by 400,0001., but he admitted that t ee " owing to the cholera. He thought there were as many rs ene drank beer as drank tea and coffee and those other a Ir rages, and he could not but think the same rule would fee to it if the duty were reduced. They had reduced f a_tltity on bread; and without giving any opinion upon the rstion he might state that the consumption of corn of all L o r ts had increased by 10,000,000 of quarters. The Noble j a c i (Lord Naas) who had introduced the motion relative bogie -made spirits, had said that he would improve the ;?rel condition of his countrymen by giving them more Wit hout to consume, but having it of a better quality. Now, out pretending to advocate that proposition, he would a t ' Y that if the facilities for increased consumption of malt s c ene of good quality and of moderate strength, rather as article of diet than of intoxication, were afforded the a rPie of this country, it would tend much to improve their 41041 and social position. He would then conclude by !now jogt,that one-half of the malt-tax should be repealed on the of October, 1552, with a view to the relief of the pro leiter of b ar l e y and the consumer of beer, without a material " 88 to the revenue.—(Hear, hear.) • „ o ilir. CAMPBELL, i n oppos i ng th e mo ti on , would endea ler, in the few remarks which he would submit to the Q:use, to let fall nothing disrespectful either to the Hen. atlerna n who had brought forward the motion or to the perage which had had the advantage of his advocacy.— e Z e a e ie and laughter.) The Hon Gentleman did not reckon ene brewers or multsters as friends of his; but however en' interests might be concerned, their opposition would be :, teound for condemning a measure for which larger or ere important public reasons could be urged. A very few R eeks ago it had been settled by that House that the abro ultion of the malt-tax was not to be carried. Now, after all a t had been urged on that occasion on the subject of what could be a great fiscal revolution, he did not see how it that b e proved to be a beneficial matter to do away with tax. There was one argument in favour of the malt :" which he would state. It was this, that the farmer Zuld have recourse to that manufacture ithout encroach 'll,l ~ s uch upon his other resources, the grain from which it .as Made being one which would be least required in any du ty emergency or necessity. It was said that a fixed Sty of le. 6d. would fully indemnify the agriculturist for m 7 -loss. It appeared to him that to reduce the malt-tax by But a half would be more desirable than to abrogate it. he would ask, had they no other duties to consider the Unction of? Were there not the tea duties to deal with? , s e confessed he would rather see a duty of 2s. on the im- Zrtetion of corn than the abolition of the malt tax, however se tirnposition of that duty might be productive of agitation confusion.—(Hear.) FREWEN begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman oppo site Whether he would be disposed to vote for that for which the majority of the agriculturists were anxious, namely, total repeal of the malt tax ? He wished to know W hether his present motion was to be looked upon merely as an instalment of justice, and as one step towards total re ."4l?—( Hear.) Mr. BASS thought it would have been hardly necessary ?for him to answer that question, as he had already voted more than once for the total repeal.—(Hear.) 1,. 411 r. FREWEN then said, that under the cirumstances Would not press the amendment of which he c k ad given notice-- (Hear. ) ALe()Cli said the agricultural classes had reason to be grateful to the Hon. M e mbe r f or having brought forward :net motion. There was so much justice in the proposition that if it were not for the difficulty, as a matter of finance, l i e believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be , t r . t e PPY if he could see his way to grant that which was asked He would take the liberty of suggesting one thing, iernich he thought might be as good for the agricultural in rests as the repeal of the malt-tax, and that was to th reaten to put on a duty of 101. a ton on Peruvianguano, W es, would tend to make that article cheaper than it now ils, owing to the monopoly of the Peruvian Government. ete had n o h e sit a tion iu saying that it entirely depended on Could pay a farthing on their 3,700,000/. of bonds. Sir W. JOLLIFt E said that the farmers of England ' Wo Z uld, no doubt, be glad to obtain guano at 5/. a ton ; but he Zevnid not understand how that result was to be obtained. He erould, however, tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that tnder our altered commercial system it would be impossible j fiele longer to continue to raise our revenue in the mode in eenich it had been hitherto raised. For his part, he should re glad to see that tax entirely repealed. He believed that Zrewing had become a monopoly through the agency of the c old ; and he said that they could not go on blowing hot and eeld with the same breath, raising a revenue of 5,000,0001. tinder a system of protection, while they carried out their "e-trade theories in articles of agricultural produce. In C.olieltision, he should observe that he would only support th at motion as an instalment for the total repeal of that most unjust and objectionable 'impost. Mr. HEY WORTH said he quite concurred in the state bent of the Hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, that W ith free trade it would be impossible to maintain that tax, because the direct object of free trade was to increase con 'amption by diminishing the prices of co mmoditiee. FRESHFIELD said he readily admitted that, at the moment they had abolished protection and had adopted free trade, they had condemned the malt-tax, and that it would be impossible to carry out the two systems together. But he Ras not prepared to vote, either immediately or gradually, for a repeal of the malt-tax. It appeared to him they ought not to lose sight of that very important consideration—how the lose of the revenue derived from the' malt-tax could be i tiPlelied. In his opinion that was a matter of so much im portance, that it was the duty of any g entleman who pro- Posed a repeal or a reduction of the tax to state how he Would raise an amount of revenue equat to that which he Would repeal. He should further observe that he did not think the repeal of the malt-tax would afford any very general relief to the agricultural interest., although he ad ratted that it would be productive of some partial benefit to that interest. He should also say it was a matter of the utmost importance to the agricultural interest, in consider ing that question, to know what tax they were to have as % substitute for the malt-tax ; for it was quite possible that the substitute might be worse than the tax itself. Mr. SANDARS said he believed that the brewers were the only parties who would derive any benefit from the repeal of that tax. He should feel it his duty to oppose the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that that motion resembled so much in spirit, if not in substance, motion for a total repeal of the malt-tax, which the House had not long since negatived by a majority of about two to one, that he should not think it necessary then to repeat the arguments he had used Upon that former occasion. But the motion then before the House was liable to special ob jections. If that ° motion was agreed to, and if half of the tax were removed, it would still be necessary to maintain the Excise restrictions, and the same expense would be in curred in collecting a sum of 2,500,0001., which was at pre sent incurred in collecting a sum of 5,000,0001. He knew no tax' of the same amount which was raised so easily as the present malt-tax ; and the House ought not to consent to its repeal or its diminution without having seriously considered what was the substitute which they would adopt in place of it, for no one would be sanguine enough to suppose that so large an amount of taxation could be remitted . without having recourse to some other expedient for replenishing the Exchequer. The Honour able Member for Buckiughamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had, on the preceding night, announced his intention of taking the sense of the House on the question, whether in the exist ing state of the finances of the country there should be any remission whatever of taxation. And surely those Hon. Gentlemen who had the other day voted for the repeal of 5,000,0001. of income-tax as the most valuable measure of financial reform, could not at present be guilty of the incon sistency of voting for the repeal of another tax producing an equal amount of revenue. By pursuing that course they would not only render it necessary to maintain the income tax, but they would probably render it necessary to double it. His Hon. Friend the Member for Surrey (Mr. Alcock) had suggested that he should impose a duty to the amount of 101. per ton on guano manure; but as that was at present the whole cost of the article in this country, he confessed that he could not think such a measure would be of the slightest ad vantage to the revenue, for it would amount to a prohibition of the article, while it would be productive of considerablo disadvantage to the farmer. He entirely agreed with the Honourable Member for Wakefield (Mr. Sanders), that the probability was that the repeal of the malt-tax would be beneficial not so much to the consumer of beer or to the pro ducer of barley, as to the maltster and the brewer. He would remind the Hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), that although the price of malt had of late years considerably de clined, the price of beer had not been in the slightest de gree reduced to the consumer. A most strenuous advocate for a repeal of the malt-tax, Mr. Baker, of Writtle, having been asked before the Committee of the House of Lords on the burdens on land, what had been the effect of the reduc tion of the duties on malt and barley from 70s. to 505., which had formerly been effected, had candidly confessed that the 8,000,000/. of duty which had been so removed had neither led to an increase in the price of barley, nor to a reduction in the price of beer.—( Hear, hear.) Under those circumstances he confidently hoped that the House would not accede to the motion. Mr. NEWDEGATE said he hoped the Hon. Member for Derby would not divide the House up on that occasion. e He had always voted for a total repeal of th e malt-tax but could not vote for a measure of partial r e p eal, which would not in any way diminish the Excise restrictions created by the tax, or the coast of its collection. He should also beg the Hon. Member to recollect that those who might vote with him had no prospect of a substitute for the amount of revenue which . they would sacrifice. For his part, he should much rather support the partial reduction of a custom duty, than o an excise duty, because a reduction in the form er case would lead to a diminution in the staff for collecting the customs, while no such advantage could be obtained by the partial re peal of an excise tax. Mr. BROTeIERTON said he wished to remind the Hon. Member fsr Darby that there was every reason to apprehend that an increase in the consumption of beer in this country would only lead to an increase of public immorality. He be lieved that half the crime committed in England and in Scot land was owing to the use of intoxicating drinks ; and he was certain that there was more real nutriment in twopenny worth of bread than a shilling's worth of beer. Mr. H. DRUSIMOND said that the Hon. Member who preceded him did not seem to know the difference between whiskey and beer. Ha (Mr. Drummond) admitted that the use of whiskey was productive of much evil, but he also be lieved' that' beer was nourishing and refreshing. The effect of retaining the malt-tax was to drive the people out of their own homes to the beer-houses, and in that way there was produced an incalculable amount of public mischief. Mr. HUME said, he was prepared to vote for a total re peal of the malt-tax; and he would tell the country gentle men how they could render the attainment of that object per fectly practicable. Let them instead of maintaining an army of 100,000 men, have only 60,000 • and let them, instead of ma i n t a ining a naval force of 4 0 ,000 men, have only 25,000. They might then remove the malt-tax without any difficulty whatever; and he firmly believed that to that we were com ing. He would, however, advise his Hon. Friend not to press his motion to a division. Colonel SIBTHORP said, he could not, like the Hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), live on cabbage water.--(A laugh.) He believed that the adoption of that motion would confer an essential benefit ell the agricultural body. LONDON, WEDNESDAY THE SITN,, Mr. BASS replied. He believed that a reduction of the -- in having the force on the Pacific station at that time we malt-tax to one-half of its present amount would not be ki I reference to the force kept by France. So if we kept attended with a loss of one-half of the present revenue, be- " forces in the Pacific or the Mediterranean, could we not, by cause the effect of such reductions has always been to in- mutual agreement with France, lessen that force? He might crease consumption, and to render a larger quantity of pro- be told there Were other nations to be considered; but duce liable to the duty. i neither Spain nor Holland were naval nations. The other The House then divided, and the numbers were— j naval nations of the world were France, Russia, and America , For the motion .. . .., ... 31 and it was with these nations only we need enter into Against it ... ~,, „.. ... 76 treaties. America bad a commerce extending as wide as . Majority against the motion --- —45 our own e and if she went on extending her commerce at the REDUCTION OF NATIONAL ARMAMENTS. same rate she had done for the last few years, she must be. Mr. COBDEN rose to move "an humble address to her come eventually the greatest mercantile and maritime power Majesty, praying that she will direct the Secretary of State in the world. If America could carry on her commerce for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with the without the aid of one line-of-battle ship, there could hardly Government of France, and endeavour to prevent in future be any fear from that quarter. Then as to Russia, he did that rivalry of warlike preparations :in time of peace which not share the fears of some Hon. Members as to Russia ever has hitherto been the policy of the two Governments; and becoming a great naval power. Russia had, no doubt, a to promote, if p oss ibl e , a mutual reduction of armaments." number of large ships; but if she had a large naval force The Hon. Member said it had been remarked in the cours e of she kept it at home, and for good reasons, for if she exhibited the discussion which had just terminated, that we were ap- her maritime power to the inspection of maritime countries proaching times when it would be impossible for certain like America it was possible she would not inspire any very interests to support their present amount of taxation; an d great admiration or respect. With the large number of sailors he confessed that o ne of his motives for bringing forward we had in our mercantile marine, he did not think we need that motion was, that he believed it would be so far suitable fear anything from those countries which did not possess a to present circumstances, that it would tend to produce a marine. Well, then, America offered no obstacle to the plan diminution of our national burdens. Before he entered upon he suggested, but rather invited co-operation ; and France the subject he wished it should be distinctly understood what certainly would see it was her interest to come into the was the scope and purport of his motion. He did not want proposition under these encouraging circumstances. Were that motion to be taken for more than it meant. He did not we then to go on for even in the same course? He propose that they should enter in any way into a consider- thought not. 'He might be told this was not the proper ation of the amount of the armies maintained in continental moment for such a proposition. He believed that was a nations. In alluding to the warlike preparations between mistake; no better time than the time presen t could be se- France and England, he wished to refer solely to their naval lected. He would quote a short extract from the Times to preparations and fortifications. It was very well known P that our armies bore no reference to the armies of the coati- rove the state of public opinion on this q uestion. (The Hon. Member read an extract, which was to the effect that nent, and it was equally well known that the armies of the the people were not disposed to war either here or on the Continent were never formed with any reference to the continent.) lf this were so, where was the use o f France armies of England. For his part, he could not help think- keeping up her present enormous naval force? No one ing that the immense standing armies of the Continent were, could suppose that France would not willingly save the ex the curse of the present generation. Those armies were pease. He had conversed with French politicians, who told maintained, not for the purpose of meeting foreign enemies, him France kept up her navy because England ke p t u p her but for the purpose of repressing domestic foes.—(Hear, navy, and that France would be glad to be released from hear.) But he wished it to be understood that his object that burthen. There would be no sacrifice of dignity on the was that we should enter into negotiations with part of England to make overtures to France—for I , ranee France for the reduction of the navies and of the fortifies- never pretended to rival England as far as her navy was tions of the two countries, while he hoped that that example fica- concerned. France always conceded the superiority to Eng land, and, therefore, overtures on the part of England could if successful, would ultimately be imitated by , other nations' not be placed to the account of fear. He was sure that the with respect to their armaments generally. He hoped Hon. resent rivalry must cease, because the force kept up on both Members would agree with him that the maintenance in 1) sides was so equal that neither could expect to gain an time of peace of any amount of naval force beyond that which vantage. If one country was weak and the other strong ad was required for the protection of our commerce against pi there might be a motive for going to war, but in the case Kates, and the attacks of barbarous nations, - was in itself an France and England every step taken towards aug evil. They might, however, tell him It was a necessary evil ; of - !fear t naval strength was taken out of respect but why waslt necessary?' It was „only • necessary because other countries were armed as well as ourselves, aria because and fear of each other. At present if England -aug it was necessary that we should be preparedto defend our- mented her navy, France did the same. We were acting selves against them. Now in that case he contende d that not for the purpose of gaining an advantage over the force maintained on both sides, was a pure waste of France, but for self-defence. No one could doubt that a war money, and more than a pure waste of between France and Edgland would be mutually disadvan because- the money spent, it also prevented the employment of the armed tageous, and therefore the strongest motives existed for troops in profitable and productive employment. It was Putting an end to the present state of things. He wished to clear that if the object of two countries •in maintaining a hear the Noble Lord's opinion of his proposition, and whether force was to be prepared for mutual hostilities, that object he was disposed to entertain and support the principle in could be attained by the . employment of one man or volved in it. What he asked was, that at least an endea one vessel on each side as well as by the your should be made to diminish the existing forces, and to employment of twenty men or twenty - vessels. B ut put an end to rivalry. He should, be content if he only saw he might be asked, why he assumed that England an attempt made to prevent waste and expenditure for the armed against France, and France against England? He future. If something of the sort was done, it would be per was prepared, however, to substantiate that point by evi- fectly consonant with the altered temper of the times. dence which could not be disputed. He was not often in the (Hear, hear.) Private enterprise Was doing much to bring the two nations together.years ' ago 34 hours were habit of reading quotations to the House; but he shouldA few r read a few upon that occasion. In the course of a debate in required for a post to Paris; now the journey was performed the French Chamber of Deputies in the year 1 846, whe n it in 11 hours. Formerly a person talking a foreign tongue in had been proposed that a sum of 100,000,000 of francs should this country would have been called a Frenchman and in be voted for the purpose of effecting a vast augmen tation in suited ; now we saw all kinds of foreigners in the streets of the navy,.in consequence, almost exclusively , of a n au g men- London—a grand meeting of nations who could assemble in o lotion which had taken place in our navy duri n g the two one common temple for harmonious and peaceful purposes. preceding years—in the course of that debate Al. Thiers had fie asked Government to go with the spirit of the age, and said :—" There is nothing offensive to England in citing her to adopt the principle of the plan which he ventured to sub example, when our navy is under considerat ion, an y more mit to the House. He should be glad to hail that Minister than there would be in speaking of Prussia, Austria, or Rus- who, casting aside the old and stale maxims of foreign di sia, if we were deliberating on the strength of our army. plomacy, and adopting new and more suitable principles, We pay England the compliment of t hinkin g onl y of her earned for himself endless renown. He begged to move his when determining what shall be our na val force. We never resolutions. count the ships which leave Trieste or Venice ; we " care for Mr. URQUHART rose to move, by way of amendment, those only which leave Portsmouth or Falmouth. These "That it is inexpedient, by reselutions of this House, to move were the words of M. Thiers. And lang ua g e of an equivalent the Crowd to originate negotiations on abstract questions." character had been held by the Noble Lord the Secretary for Previous to the last war, England maintained but a single F ore ign Affairs in this country in the course of the debate frigate in the Mediterranean. This was by compact with upon the financial statement of the Prime Minister i n the other nations, for it was generally understood if a naval force year 1848, The Noble Lord had then said that—" So far was sent abr •ad it was sent for aggressive purposes. A na from its affording any cause of offence •to France that we tion's naval force was usually kept at home. He tendered to should measure our navY by such a standard, he was sure the Hon. Member his thanks fer bringing forward this sub- • that any one who had followed the debates in the French ject, but the Hon. Member had left out some material cir- Chambers when their naval estimates had come under dis- cumstances in his otherwise lucid and valuable statement. It cussion, must know that they had followed the same course, was not correct to attribute the increase made by France in and had adopted the natural standard in such cases—namely, her navy to the previous increase made by England; that the amount of the naval force maintained at the same time by increase had its origin in the growing jealousy in France to other nations." The Noble Lord at the head of the Govern- wards England, and the hostile feeling attempted to be ' ment had stated upon the same occasion that — " although it created in the minds of Frenchmen. The man who had had had never been our custom to allude to the military force in the greatest action on French affairs was M. Thiers, other countries, he thought that such ' a great increase as whose policy was to increase the naval strength of France, that which had taken place in the naval estimates of France more especially on account of the repulsive attitude assumed required the attention, and °ugh+, at all events, to come by the Noble Lord at the head of foreign affairs. The late under the knowledge of that House" These were t h e highest Sir Robert Peel was of opinion there was no reason for authorities, and he apprehended it would be considered, the Syrian treaty, which (we understood), had then taken atter hearing them, that he had indulged in no baseless as- place, because its effect was to sow estrangement rather sumption in stating that the two countries were guided in than to prove the friendly feelings between the two coup their policy by each other's expenditure. What was the tries. The Noble Lord bad not carried out a conciliatory con sequence? He had two objections to urge against that course of feeling towards France, and this was the real origin policy ; first, that it was an irritating policy, and one con- of the increased armaments which had taken place. He stoutly tending to increase the evil which it engendered; agreed with the Hon. Member for the West Riding that and secondly, that it induced the two countries to proceed on there was little cause for difference between this country and armaments.—(Hear, The misunderstandings of late years had arisen exaggerated accounts of each other's ar which they had no concern. As the resolution at present solely from the interference of the Government in affairs in hear.) He would give an instance. He had mentioned on the discussion of the naval estimates that there had been a great increase in the year 1845 - 1846 . The French stood he could not give it his unqualified support. the speech he had just made, said he differed from the Hon. were alarmed. A Committee was appointed by the Mr. MACKINNON, after complimenting Mr. Cobden on French Chamber to inquire into the state of the French navy. A report was made, which stated that the E vention ,in other countries which - he contended had been Government, with its usual foresight, under the modest pre productive not of war but peace. With respect to war , tence of providing eight guard ships, had fitted out an itself, they were all aware that it had been too common even armament of floating batteries, of the destructive powers of from the earliest ages. He did not think there were likely sides with the most formidable batteries on land for the which some idea might be formed by comparing their broad in future to be wars of a similar nature. He had no desire destruction of fortified places, and that it was absolutely to deprecate the advantages of peace or to deny the evils of necessary for France to prepare an armament of similar war. One writer had remarked that man had destroyed a character and equal force, so as to have nothing to dread in greater number of his kind in one year of war than savage future in case of a possible misunderstanding with England. animals had destroyed of their species since the creation. Here was it stated broadly that the eight steam guard-ships With respect to a relative reduction of force, he did not see were preparing against France. But what was the fact? if we were to reduce our fleet to two men-of-war on condi- When he sat on the Committee in 1848 it appeared, on tion that France reduced her 'fleet to one ship, how we could examining the authorities at the Admiralty, that only four protect our colonies and transport troops to and from our of these guard-ships had ever been completed, and instead various possessions. He thought the Hon. Member for the of being, as was stated in the French report, capable of West Riding ought to be satisfied with having made his remaining at sea for fourteen days, it would have been im statement, and leave to the Noble Lord the Foreign Sucre possible - tars to take what. steps he might think fit in the matter. for them to remain more than three or four days from their want of capacity to carry sufficient coal. He Lord PALMERSTON said that in offering his ,opposition would now show how the two nations had been playing see- to the motion he hoped the House would not suppose that he saw with each other. In 1815-1846 we increased our navy wished to express, or that he was actuated by,eany feelings a million sterling. In 1846 France voted a proportionate or by any principle at variance with the fundamental prin -100,000,000 francs. The nextear, Mr. Ward, the ciple on which the proposition before them w i lts founded. Secretary of the Admiralty, in again proposing an However he might differ from his Hon. Friend—if the Hon. increase, cited the example of France. After giving a de- Member for the West Riding would permit him to call him regard to the many practical opinions which he tailed account of the 'augmentation of the French estimates so—with Fora time to time expressed in that House, and however in the previous year, he added that he found no fault with little l. he might think of the methods by which he endea- France, who had only done what she thought right and ne vdired to give practical effect to the general principles cessary for the maintenance of her position, and that she had which he thought best calculated to obtain his ends; yet set us in many respects a noble example; that these facts ought to be a lesson to us, and imposed a very heavy respon- withregard to the international principles and feelings sibility on those who were in power in this country. Of which influenced him as an advocate of peace be was ready to do-must ample justice, and to subscribe implicitly to the course it could not stop there. It ran our estimates up to general tendency of th e v i ews w hi c h he had from time to 42,000 men, and he believed that 44,000 or 45,00 0 men were time expressed upon th a t point, He trusted that the part borne. This could not fail to produce its effect in France. He held in his hand an extract from a report to the present which it had been his l o t to take in the administration of one department of the G overnmen t of this country had not National Assembly of France on the navy, in 184 e. "Let shown that there was an y thin inconsistent with the opi ne see," said the report, " whether foreign powers set us the nions he was now expressin g g.—(Hear, hear.) However example of reducing their naval armaments. This very spring England has voted 40,000 men for the sea service. easy it might be for some Honourable Members — (Hear, hear.) We continue to maintain our 24 vessels of the in that easy, colloquial, happy style—(A laugh)—which belonged to the Hon. Member opposite—to talk of him line afloat, and 16 on the stocks, whilst England has her 70 ships afloat, besides those in the course of building." But the as an intermeddler, yet he could appeal to facts that during the considerable period for which he was responsible for thing could not be complete, the farce could not come to i t s the foreign relations of this country—a period during which climax, without another quotation. In 1851 Sir F. Baring there had happened in Europ e events of a most remarkable -,-and he would mention it . incidentally had induc ed kind, attended with great commotions of public feeling - him to give notice of this motion—Sir F. Baring, in: during which great agitation had existed in the social and moving the navy • estimates, said "it was impossible to political systems of Europe—during which events bad hap fix upon what would be necessary for our own establishments , petted which had brought the interests of Europe, he would without looking to those of foreign countries. He might; not say into conflict, though it might be in opposition to the however, observe, that they had had sufficient proofs in the s o 'interestf other great and powerful nations—peace course of last year that a gallant, active, and intelligent eace had been preserved between this country and other nations; and people, not far off, had not by any m not only that, but there had been no international wars of naval establishments or their naval pew e e a r n . Lngl ( e ue e a c r t . e ) d their , Right. Hon. Gentleman then went on to describe the evolu- magnitude between any of the other great powers of Europe. Lions at Cherbourg. He held in his hand a report of the —( Hear.) If, therefore, he was taunted on the one hand Commission appointed by the National Assembly, to consider a vote of 6,800,000 f. for the works at Cherbourg, dated with perpetual interference and intermeddling in the affairs of other countries, credit ought. to be given him that that April 11,1851, " What," asked the report, " were the defen- intervention and that interference had been accompanied by Moe works at Cherbourg ? If they wanted any reasons for the continuance of peace. lie ought not to be accused of no longer allowing their coasts to remain in a defenceless constant interference, and yet lie refused the credit of the state, they had only to listen to the opinion expressed by results of that interference: With respect to the question one of England's most renowned sailors, Admiral Napier, in more immediately before them, he might remark that in his letters to the Times, and look at the map and observe the seeking to attain'any great object they might not fix their vast works which the British Admiralty were executing at eyes 'exclusively on the object itself, but ought to cast a Jersey and Alderney.—( Hear.) This was the more necessary' glance at the read by which it was proposed to reach it; for inasmuch as the railroads and steam-boats of England were many people were so devoted to the end that they never every day increasing, which gave the means to the power looted to the means, and did not choose the Most judicious mode.of accomplishing their purpose.—(Hear, hear.) Now, which possessed them of concentrating at any given point a su dden expedition. One of the best thi ngs w hi c h th e if all nations were composed of philanthropic and philo- House " had done since he (Mr. Cobden) had entered it was to sophic men—exempt from the influence of the passions— suspend these works at Alderney. the continuance of which with • enlarged minds and comprehensive views, then it was an affront to France. Cherbourg, as every one knew, mighr e be proposed—and he thought justly proposed—that was a most valuable and indispensable harbour of refuge for the best mode of obtaining peace would be to proclaim that merchant ships, and its breakwater might well have been we were totally unarmed— to throw ourselves on the good ma d e by contributions raised from the maritime states of all feelings of other countries, and to assure them that we had none but friendly feelings towards them. But man , was not lion, so close to our nei g hbour that we mi g ht be said to be Europe ; while Alde rne y was nothin g but a g reat fortifies= none such a nature. The world had not arrived at that pitch of civilization when one country could rest for its safety on h o lding our fist in her face. The histor y , if you got at all the secret movement s of the p anic, would be a most amusin g the forbearance of its nei g hbours.—(Hear, hear.) The an d instructive history . The countr y in 1845 was persuaded world had not arrived at that pitch of civilization at which a we were going to be invaded. Engineers had a roving come country, possessed of a n u mb er of things w hi c h its neigh mission given them to se e where mone y could b e spent to bows might desire to acquire—a country the commerce of fortify England, and afterwards Guernsey and Jersey. One which attracted the jealousy of rival merchants— a country world of covetousness to other maritime nations—he said the of the officers so employed said at Plymouth 'he met with a posiessed of colonies and possessions which might be the ob person who believed his throat was about to •be cut by fo reign invaders, and the officer added, he shared in the panic. world had not arrived at that pitch of civilization when such It was under this panic that 3,000,0001, or 4,000,0001. were a country, so rich, and possessing so many objects of desire, neighbours and its own perfect incapacity to defend itself. — spent, and the works of Keyham and other expensive pro- could•rest its security simply on the tgood intentions of its (Hear, j f e e c a t s r , w fa e r r eFcroamn France commenced. it with England her.had not n t the e pamphlet m onopoly w o r f i t t t h e i n s hear.) The objection which he took to the means by by Mr. Chevallier, to prevent the consequences of the panic in which the Hone Member for the West Riding from time France, it was t h ere s tated that France had gone to an addi- to time endeavoured to force on the country his laudable and tional ex ense o f 10000,000/. or 11,000,0001. The writer pacific views was, that th e H on . G ent l eman a i me d too muc h showed that i n a li m ited per iod England and France had at divestin g this country of its means of defence before sutnhga that that there no expended about 13,000,000/. each on nava l p ur p oses. As- other nations had put themselves in a p osition similar to m i • w o a n s e a w sp o i u r l i d t e f attempt to the contradict eue stion arose, was hear.) The lion. Gentleman began his the riser- that in which he wished this cou n t ry to stan d . —(H ear , lion us speech by stating there a remedy for it e C ou ld human reason be brought to that be put the comparison of military means out of the bear against this m ass o f f o ll y ? H e wou ld not go back to question , a nd that he confine d the question to the compare treaties for disarming or demolishing certain fortresses, or an tive naval strength of different countries. To a certain de armed neutrality, and such things, in olden times, but there g ree he would acce p t the standard of com p aris on proposed— appeared a case in modern times which bore completely on viz., the relative power of England and France; but he must this matter, and he Would refer to it. We had a treaty observe that it was impossible, in taking that comparison as purposeof 1. • • ofn ava l a standard, to throw out of the question —as the Hon. with America for the lending the amount force on the lakes dividing Canada from the United States. tleman had done—the military force of France •, because, if He would read the- treaty. The Hon. Member read the unfortunately any event was to arise which should lead to treaty, the substance of which was that there should be on h o stilities between two countries so near to each other, a n d all the lakes no more than a limited and an equal number brought still nearer than formerl y b y modern im p rovemen t s o f vessels of war. It must be borne in mi n d that this treaty in navigation, it was impossible not to see that the country was made at the conclusion of a very sanguinary war. The which possessed an army of 350,000 men, with a national Duke of Wellington had written a letter to the effect guard of about 1,000,000, as compared with another which that naval superiority was necessary for England had not a standing m ilitar y force within the realm of m ore on the lakes , a nd was essential e i n case of anothee - rup e than 40,000 men, with neither militia nor national guard—it ture. But the country had the good sense to limit the was impossible, he said, not to see that in comparing the force to be kept on those lakes. What had been the result means of offence and defence in these countries, they could of this friendly convention? It had not only limited the not confine themselves to the number of line-of-battle ships, force, but had abolished the armed force altogether. He but must take into account the military strength which each had sat on a Committee on the navy estimates at that time, possessed for attack or defence.—( Hear, hear.) The Ho and could find no vessel on the lakes of the nature of an nourable Member for the West Riding had been in the habit armed force. This was the effect of the friendly convention pf underrating the works at Cherbourg, and to speak of that --neither country at last cared to keed up any neanifesta- harbour as if it were simply a port of refuge; but when tion of force at all. He would ask, could it act be 1 ossible the Honourable Member talked of the works in Alder to devise some plan, if not a convention—was it not practi- ney being • aggr essive against Cherbourg he might to saying, We ca ble to make a communication France, s • ymg, We are as we ll h ave said that a sen t r y-box was an aggression willing to reduce our navy, having now so many line-of- against a fortified town.—(A laugh.) Cherbourg was, in battle ships in commission a nd b u ilding, our relative force fact, a great naval arsenal, the works of which—according being three to loo; and if you go on the same way the same to the very proportion will continue to exist. Will you do the same? been in progress for nearly 50 years, at an expense of be- Can report referred to by the lion. Gentleman—bad 7,000,0001. and 8,000,0001. sterling, and the value of we not put an end to our rivalry and fears, and reduce tween the number of our naval force?" H e conten d e d t h a t it was which to France was represented to be as an advanced port perfectly practicable—our naval stations permitted such a within 61 miles of the English coast, and, as incapable of lan The Pacific station might be relieved of the armed being blockaded, a most important port of attack or aggres p . force we kept up there. Lord Auckland, in 1848, stated that , sion against England.- (um, hear.) He did not wish to exaggerate at all the relative means of France for aggression and attack as compared with those of this country, still less did he wish to imply that the continuance of the Cherbourg, or any other works on the part of France, was to be consi dered as an indiction of existing hostile feelings towards England. For his own part he utterly disclaimed any such belief.—( Hear, hear.) 1 - 1 e was convinced that the greater intercourse which had taken place of late years between the two countries had dispelled many prejudices—had removed many foolish hostile feelings which had long survived the causes which had given them birth.—(Hear, hear.) It was one of the mo , t gratifying circumstances of the times in which we lived to see two great nations close to each other—each gifted by nature with various qualities entitling them to the esteem, friendship, and he would say, the admiration of each other—capable of ren dering each other rne.d important services, and cepa. ble —if actuated by feelings fatal to peace—of inflicting great calamities on each ether—it was, he said, most gra tifying to see that every day that passed, that every month, every year that elapsed.wts giving rise to more generous and friendly feelings between these countries, and that the feelings of mutual frieneship and esteem were rapidly succeeding those antiquated notions of antipathy of which he trusted nothing would remain except the record of them is the history of the two countries. But he still main tained that if it was the wish of a rich country like ours to main ain relations of friendahip with a powerful neighbour, we must be able to repel attack.— (Hear, hear.) He did not ask the country to arm itself with the means of aggression. He did net wish to see anything in our arrangements in time of peace which should not only indicate an intention of ag gression, but which any Frenchman could regard as the means of aggression against France.—( Hear, bear.) We had no feeling to induce us to take such a course, and he was the last man to wish that anything they did should be capable of such an interpretation.—(Hear, hear.) On the other hand, he did say it was a duty which we owed to ourselves— which we owed to thou functions which Pro vidence had destined the tountry to fulfii—which we owed to those who were to succeed us, that we should place the country in a position, and keep it in a position, to be able to repel attack, if through unforseen and un fortunate circumstances stch a necessity should arise.— (Hear.) It was his (Lord Palmerston's) misfortune to be always pursued by the Ilononrable Member for Stafford with that reckless feeling of condemnation which the Honourable Member had clown to-night in his very elo- ' quent condemnation of him for having interfered and inter meddled in the affairs of other countries. The Honourable Member had referred to tie affairs of Tahiti and Morocco in 1844. Now, if the Honourable Member's memory had been equal to his eloquence—(A laugh)—he would have re cellected that these two transactions occurred when the Government of this country was . adminietered by the late • Sir Robert Peel.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member must, therefore, retract the condemnation he passed on the Government, or must modify in some degree the panegyric he bestowed on others.—(Hear.) The Honourable Member had naturally remarked that the proposal that an arrange ment should take place between France and England for the reduction of their navel forces was open to the objec tion that these countries were not the only naval powers in Europe, and that bath might reply to each other that there were other considerations by which their respective arrangements must be guided. It was proper to recollect, when the Hon. Member said that for a long time the two countries of France and England had been struggling to outvie cash other in their naval arma ments, that the facts were net as the Hon Member had re presented. True, the events connected with the expulsion of the Egyptians from Syria it. 1840 and 1841 had led to an augmentation of the naval foxes both of France and Eng land; but the Administration of Sir Robert Peel, which succeeded to office after these events, reduced our naval force to a greater extent than had ever been reduced since the peace of 1815. We had one sail of the line in the Medi terranean, and no more, at the time he referred to. It was well known, when the Tahiti affair took place, one ship of the line at Spithead was the whole force at Spithead, and that that ship was on its way either to the east or west station of America, and was detained. It could not, there fore, have been from any over-armament of naval force in this country at that time that France was led to make the exertions she did make. It wee, as was afterwards per ceived and stated, that the naval defences were not at all in keeping with the question whi , eh then agitated the two countries. It was stated, however, that in 1846 there was a debate in the French Chamber apon the subject of a great augmentation of the French navy, to be founded upon the augmentation of the English navy. But the great naval force which Englsnd had at that time, and which, according to his Honourable Friend, was the foundation of the French armament, was this—ore sail of the ;ine in the Mediterranean, and one sail of the line caught and detained at Spithead, instead of being on the coast of America. Therefore, there was no great naval force on the part of England which could have occasioned any great exertion on the part of France. In point of fact the debate, which it was his (Lord Palmerston's) fortune to hear, turned upon this, that the Government of France proposed forty sail of the line as the permanent naval force of the country; whilst M. Thiers, and those who opposed the Government wanted to have forty-two; so that it was simply a question of two sail of the line. The lion. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart), who saw further into millstones than he (Lord Palmerston) could pretend to do, appeared to see in that a most treacherous scheme on his part, "for," said he, " it was a remarkable fact, and I beg the House to remember it, that at that moment there was a reconciliation between the Noble Lord and M. Thiers.—(A laugh.) And what was that moment? The moment when M. Thiers was recom mending a great augmentation of the French navy." And the Honourable Gentleman added, " Rely upon it, whenever the French augment their navy they intend to attack England; therefore the Noble Lord chose that very moment for a reconciliation with M. Thiers."—(A laugh.) Now the reconciliation, or rather the renewal of acquain tance between himself (Lord Palmerston) and M. Thiers, he could assure the Honourable Gentleman was founded on principles very different from those to which he had been pleased to ascribe it. M. Thiers was then kind enough to show him that the French, however powerful they might be, still thought that there were works necessary to enable them to defend themselves against attack, and that, although with an immense army and armed population, they did not disdain to spend large sums of money to secure themselves against the attacks of foreign powers; and those works were defensive, because no man could say that fortifi cations could march to attack foreign powers.—(4t laugh.) M. Theirs took him around the fortifications of Paris, which cost, he believed, something like 12,000,0001. sterling ; and though there were many different opinions as to the value and merit of those works, and though he was aware that the opinion of a non• military man was worth little, yet he (Lord Palmerston) must say the balance of opinion was decidedly in favour of their utility, and that they did add greatly to the defensive strength, and by that means to the security and the peace of France.--(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) bad stated, as an illustration of what he would wish, that there had been concluded between this country and the United States of America a convention for regulating the amount of naval force which each power was to maintain upon the in ternal waters of North America.—( Hear, hear.) That cer tainly was a very wise and good arrangement, and he (Lord Palmerston) believed it had worked advantageously to both powers; but, at the same time, he was sure the House would see there was a great and manifest distinction between inland lakes and the seas of the world. That distinction bad been marked broadly by the conduct of the two powers, because having made it as to the inland lakes, they did not g o further and make it in regard to the seas of the world • but for the reasons he had already stated, it was manifestly impossible that England and France could have any hope or expecta tion of coming to such an arrangement in regard to their naval forces, the augmentation or decrease of which was calculated upon a great variety of circumstances of a totally different character. And really he should feel that no such negotiations could he entered into, especially with the obli gation of a request from this House, with any possible pros pect of coming to a practical result. At the same time, he was ready to adopt the motion and the speech of the Hon. Member as the expression of opinion by an influential Member, responded to, he should hope, by the unanimous feeling of the whole House of Commons (Cheers)—th at if common sense actuated those who on both sides had the management of affairs, England and France must be, as far as human foresight could extend, friendly towards each other, and that those mutual suspicions and reciprocal jealousies which might from time to time have misled the calculations of the Governments of the two countries would disappt ar, and mutual confidence take place of reciprocal distrust.— (Cheers.) At the same time, his Honourable Friend had a little exaggerated the want of information which either party possessed in regard to the arrangements of the other; for it was not necessary that either should send out those spies whom the Honourable Gentleman spoke of, inasmuch as in regard to our naval arrangements no thing more was necessary than to read the debates which took place in this House and to look at our estimates, in order to know exactly how these matters stood here; and there was no greater secrecy with respect to the naval arrangements of France. But again he (Lord Palmerston) said that he accepted with pleasure the speech and the pro , position of the lion. Member as the right hand of friendship ' tendered by this country to Foreign Powers; and he agreed with the Hon. Gentleman in thinking that there could not have been a more appropr i a te time than the present for a de monstration of this nnture, because we had just, as the lion. Gentleman bad described it, converted this country into a temple of peace for the whole world—we had invited the natives of every civilized land on the face of the earth to come here, not iu a rivalship of strength or of brute force or of the arts of human destruction, but to compare the progress which each nation had made in those arts which constitute the happiness and the ornament of the human race.— (Cheers.) It was no less a satisfaction to see the confidence which had been reposed in this country by those who had brought themselves and their goods to our great and mighty Exhibition than it was a source of honest pride to know that there was nothing which had more struck the strangers who bad done us the honour of visiting us on this occa sion than the spirit of order which they observed to pervade every rank of society in this country, and that they had expressed their wonder at see_mg . that respect for the laws which was a spontaneous feeling from the highest to the lowest in this land, and which arose very much perhaps from the excellence of those laws—though he did not mean to say they were perfect any more than any other human institution coed be—but the comparative ex cellence of those laws which secured to every man, from the highest to the lowest, the full enjoyment of the ' honest fruits of his industry, and protected him alike against op pression from above and insult fro g n lad e betlhowe —4oL:.uudenatnidemgaen neral cheering)—he said he w as had taken advantage of this general meeting of the world here, to proclaim in his place in Parliament those principles of universal peace which did honour both to him and to the country in which they were proclaimed ; and if he (Lord Palmerston) objected to being sent bound and fettered into a negotiation in which he confessed he could not see his way practically, it was not that he objected to the end which the lion. Gentleman proposed to accomplish, but because he thought that that end was more likely to be accelerated by the language of the Hon. Gentleman, and by the sentiments which he and the House were expressing, than it would be by the particular and specific motion which he had this evening laid on the table of the House. Upon these grounds, then, lie trusted his Hon. Friend would be satisfied with those expressions of apprebation which the sentiments he had uttered had been met with by the House, and with the concurrence of her Majesty's Government, in the most ardent desire that any man in this country, or in the world, could have, that they should, for this and for all other na tions, as far as their influence and power of persuasion might extend, avert, as long as it might be their lot to have anything to do with the affairs of this country, the miseries and calamities of war; and he trusted the Hon. Gentleman would be content with that, and not press his motion to a division, which might be liable to misconstruc tion, and as a consequence of which it might be thought that they who opposed his motion differed with him in the end which he sought to obtain, instead of really objecting to the means by which he would endeavour to accomplish that end.—(Hear, bear.) When he (Lord Palmerston) assured the House that the endeavours of her Majesty's Govern ment would be continued in this direction ho must say he • thought that experience of recent times was highly encouraging to those who wished for the continuance of peace.—(Hear, hear.) He quite agreed with the Honourable Gentleman i that the diffusion of constitutional Government throughout 1 Europe must tend greatly to the maintenance of general EVENING, JUNE 18, 1851. peace; for it not only rendered it necessary for govern ments to persuade their parliaments that there was a just cause for imposing burdens upon nations, but it also thereby placed governments upon their trial, and prevented them from bringing matters in dispute to such a point that it would be impossible for them to recede with honour if they should not be convinced entirely that they were in the right.—(Hear.) There was a growing disposition is Europe to settle quarrels between nations by amicable intercourse and negotiations. — (Hear, hear)—and we could not have a greater instance of that than what had taken place in the course of the very last year, when we saw the two mighty military Govern ments of Austria and Prussia arming themselves to the teeth, calling out on both sides hundreds of thousands of men, ap parently on the point of battle with each other, and yet, from the effect of good sense and of reason on both sides, entering into preliminary communications, and finding a method of terminating the dispute which had nearly brought them into hostile conflict without the shedding of a drop of blood.—(Hear, hear.) Ile said, then, he thought the pro gress of civilization in Europe was m o st encourag i ng to the views of those who attached the greatest importance to the maintenance of peace, and he could assure his Honourable Friend and the House that her Majesty's Government were es anxious as the Hon. Gentleman himself could be, not only to preserve this country from the calamities of war, but upon every possible occasion to exert the influence which belonged to a country like this, and which was very considerable, to save other nations from those calamities.—( Loud and general cheering.) Mr. ROEBUCK said that no one could have heard the , speech of the Noble Lord without being highly pleased with its pacific nature, or without the certainty that it must of necessity exercise a most powerful influence upon the general peace of mankind. The Noble Lord had, however, while he concurred in the objects of the Hon. Member for the West Riding, said he could not adopt the means which the Hon. Member proposed. Yet the means which the lion. Member now proposed were clear, definite, and easy of attainment. All he desired was, to reduce the armaments cf nations in time of peace, within peace limits; and to effect this desire by operating upon the mutual common sense of the leading nations of Europe, and removing by obvious means their causes, or supposed causes, of mutual distrust. It was very true that England and France were shaking each other cor dially by the hand, but he wished further that the mailed glove upon that hand should be removed, so that there should be no aspect of war in the intercourse. All that the nations of Europe need to do in order to carry out the views of the Honourable Member for the West Riding was to follow the common sense example of England and the United States upon the great lakes of America; an example, the practical result of which had been to convert the mighty waters which might have become the highway of robbers and murderers, into a highway of merchants, benefit ing and benefited.—(Hear, hear.) He accorded, and most willingly, to the Noble Lord the high glory of having maintained peace and kept England unscathed through a period of unexampled turbulence and agitation, and all he desired was that the Noble Lord should create for himseif the still higher glory of establishing throughout Europe, not simply present peace, but those great principles propounded by the Hon. Member for the West Riding, on which perma nent peace might rest. Mr. M. GIBSON said that, after the speech of the Noble Lord, so nearly iu the direction which his Hon. Friend de sired, it would be for his Hon. Friend to decide whether he considered his object would still be better effected by taking a division. If he did divide, he should, of course, divide with him. Sir H. VERNEY called upon the House to bear in mind that the maintenance of an efficient fleet was essential to the protection of our merchants in distant foreign ports. Mr. BROTHERTON trusted that the Noble Lord would take speedy and efficient means for carrying out the prin ciples he had so nobly enunciated. He should advise his Honourable Friend, after the speech of the Noble Lord, to withdraw his motion, so that there might appear no divi sion of opinion in that House upon this most important subject.—(Hear, bear.) Mr. HUME did not see why, with the opinions declared by the Noble Lord, he should not adopt the motion as it stood, which in no way fettered him in the means he might see fit to adopt for effecting the peaceful objects which he so desired to accomplish. It appeared to him that to withdraw the motion would produce an effect as though there were no support for the principle in that House. Sir B. INGLIS thought the Hon. Member for the West Riding would best secure the object he had in view by not pressing his motion to a division. Seeing the unanimity which prevailed, and the good understanding existing be tween him and the Noble Lord, who had accepted the spirit of the resolution at least, he did not think any good object would be gained by dividing the House, and incurring the risk of having the motion negatived. He hoped, therefore, the Hon. Member would rest satisfied with the admissions made by the Noble Lord (Palmerston), and withdraw the motion. Mr. GEACH and Mr. PRYCE also expressed a hope that the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his motion. Mr. COBDEN said he had experienced extreme satisfac tion at the tone of the discussion which had taken place, and at the sentiments expressed from all sides of the House. — (Hear, hear.) He was satisfied so far with the sentiments of the Noble Lord, and begged at the same time to say, that if any good result was to follow discussion, it must be done by some one in the position of the Noble Lord. After what had been said by his friends, he would not press the motion to a division, but he wished to state emphatically that he did so without prejudice to those out of doors, who took a deep interest in the question. In withdrawing the motion, he did so not without hope that the Noble Lord, who had expressed so much concurrence in it, would act up to the anticipations that seemed to be entertained by his friends. Lord PALMERSTON, feeling the full force of the responsi bility that attached to statements made by a Minister of the Crown, must request the House to understand correctly what it was he had said. He entirely concurred in the prin ciple and object of the Hon. Members motion, which he conceived to be, not only the maintenance of peace with France, but the inspiring the two couatries with that prin ciple of mutual confidence that would best put an end to those jealousies that he considered the cause of certain re sults. What he objected to was, the particular method which he recommended as the mode of arriving at that re sult, viz., to enter into negotiation with. France. He begged therefore not to be understood as undertaking that the Go vernment would enter into that negotiation, but be consi dered as perfectly free to use its discretion in all circum stances that might arise. —(Hear, hear.) The motion was then withdrawn. BIBLE MONOPOLY. Mr. HUME rose to move " That ema humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will bo gra ciously pleased to direct that measures may be adopted to cancel the Queen's printers' patent, so far as relates to the monopoly of printing of Bibles, psalms, and prayer-books, in England and Ireland; and, if apprehensions be excited for the correctness of the Scripture text, that a board be consti tuted in England and Ireland, as has been done in Scotland, for the revision before publication of all the editions that are to be printed." His object was to withdraw from the universities the letters patent for printing the Bible, and to leave the matter entirely free. The monopoly had been abolished in Scotland in 1839, and the result was a reduction in the price of Bibles of upwards of 50 or 60 per cent., while a considerable reduc tion had also taken place in England. The purity of the text was at the same time preserved. It had been proved before a Committee of that House that not fewer than 12,000 errors occurred in a Bible printed at one of the uni versities; and it was worthy of notice that since the patent was abolished in Scotland the number of errors that had crept into the printing of the Bible had been reduced to the amount of many thousands. In 1846 Lord J. Russell stated in that house, as reported in the Times, that " the degree to which the Gospel was a sealed book in this country was lamentable." The Queen, in her reply to the University of Oxford in December, 1850, on the subject of Popery, spoke of "the training of youth in faithful attachment to the truths of Holy Scripture" Las " one of the defences of our Protestant faith;" and the Archbishop of .Canterbury, at the opening of the Crystal Palace, prayed that " the event might tend to God's glory and to the diffusion of God's holy word." Now, if these things were so desirable, why should any impediment be thrown in the way of the diffusion of the Bible? With reference to Ireland, the patent had been renewed to Griersons, of Dublin, who, however, had not printed one Bible since the renewal. He (Mr. Hume) had been for twenty years engaged in pressing this matter; and it would be some gratification to him before he went hence—and that might not be long—to see a termination put to the monopoly. He thought the time had come when a Christian community ought to find an individual relieved from the necessity of renewing the proposition he had made. Mr. COWAN seconded the motion, and stated that since the cessation of the monopoly in Scotland, the price of Bibles had been reduced one-half, and the circulation doubled. Mr. BROTHERTON expressed the hope that the Hon. Member would at that hour (half-past 12 o'clock) have some mercy on the House and the Speaker. The House had met at 12, and must meet in the morning at 12. (hear.) Sir G. GREY thought it hardly necessary for him to ex preis concurrence in the policy which pervaded the House that the widest possible circulation should be given to the Scriptures. It was desirable that no monopoly should exist tending to enhance the price of the Bible, provided due means were taken to secure the accuracy of the text. The object of these patents was to secure the accuracy of the text ; and he was free to admit that, in Scotland, the board referred to had worked fully equal to the expectations of those by whom it had been constituted, and that beneficial effects had resulted. It was on the expiration of the patent, in 1839, not in its re vocation, that that board was instituted ;and, with respect to the existing patent to the Queen's printers in England, it was granted for thirty years in 1830, and nine years of it had to run. What his Hon. Friend asked, therefore, was, that the House should address the Crown to exercise a power which the Crown did not possess, that of interfering with a strictly legal right. It would be necessary that the Hon. Gentleman should ask leave to introduce a Bill on the sub ject. He (Sir G. Grey) held in his hand a Bible printed by the Queen's printer, the price of which in sheets was 6d., the retail price being Bd., and which could now be produced for 100.. There had been a reduction in price far beyond what had been anticipated when inquiries had been made on the subject by authority of that House. Sir. R. H. INGLIS was of opinion that, except by an extreme act of tyranny, to which past ages afforded no parallel, an end could not be put, without compensation, to the patent. Was the Hon. Member for Montrose, the great advocate of economy, prepared to grant compensation to the extent of 100,0001. or 200,0001. ? Mr. HUME replied. He held that it was in the power of her Majesty to compensate the parties who held those patents. The motion was negatived. On the motion of Sir G. GREY, the Select Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice Improvement Bill was nominated as follows : Mr. Attorney:General, the At - torney-General for Ireland, Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. John Evans, Mr. H e n le y , Mr. Crowde , Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Baines r , and Mr. Wrightson. Mr. FRE WEN rose to Bill mo , ve. but, onh 'the secondte readingtoiornthoe Sequestration of Benefices Sir G. GREY and Mr. BBOT HER TOX, agreed i to e pospf and The other orders having been disposed of, the House ad journed at a Quarter to One o'clock. [ADvnaysnainra]olloway's Pills a wonder ful Remedy for Bau D i g estion, Bilious Complaints, and Sick Headaches. —Thomas Goodman, Esq., of Baker-street, had for many years suffered from bad digestion and frequent bili ous a ttacks, and was very sel dom free fromsevere sick headache s . H e had consulted the mo st e m inent physicians and surgeons of the metropolis, but could derive no permanent relief from their remedies; at last, tired out by their ill success, he resorted to the use of Holloway's Pills, which have so renov a t e d hi s sys tem and strengthened his constitution that he now d oes not i suffer either from bile, ndigestion, or headach e , b u t en j oys t h e best of health. — So ld b y all Druggists, and at Professor Hol loway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. A T W O-HEADED person residing near Carmarthenshire, has now in his possession a li v ing calf, with two heads and four eyes. The animal takes food with both mouths, but has only one gullet. It is appa rently perfectly healthy. —.North Wales Chronicle. Mr. Pressly , had an iflteryi ew yesterday with the Chancel lyr of the Exchequer. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. :From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) TUESDAY, JUNE 17. MALT-TAX. _ Motion made, and Question put, " That on and after the 10th day of October, 1852, one half of the Malt-tat be re pealed." The House divided : MINOIZITY—AYES 31. Barrow, W. H. Galway, Viscount Scholefield, W. Bonnet, Philip Gilpin, Colonel Spooner, Richard Cayley, E. S. Halford, Sir Henry Stanley, Edward Child, Smith Ilallewell. E. G. Urquhart, David Cobbold, J. C. Halsey, T. P. Waddington, li. S. Codrington, Sir W. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Wakley, T. .. , Colvile, C. R. Keating, Robert Williams, W. Cubits, William Lewisham, Vie. Drummond, Henry Meagher, Thomas TELLERS. Farnham, E. O'Connor, Feargus Alcock, Thomas Forbes, W. Prime, Richard Bas., M. T. Frewen, C. H. Salwey, Colonel MAJORITY-NOES, 76. Adair, R. A. French, F. I'rice, Sir Robert Anson, Colonel Geach, Charles Ricardo, Osman Babies, M. T. Gibson, T. M. Rich, Henry Baring. sir F. Grangerj. C. Richards, Richard Bell, Jacob Greufell, C. Pascoe Roebuck, J. A. Bellew, R. M. Grey, Sir George Russell, F. C. H. Bentinck, Lord H. Grey, It. W. Sandars, George Birch, Slr I'. Harris, Richard Smith, J. Benja min Boyd, John Hatchell, John Somerville, Sir W. Boyle, Colonel Hawes, Benj. Stanton, W. S. Bright, John Hey - worth, L. S:ephenson, Robert Brotherton, J. Howard, Lord E. Strickland, Sir G. Brown, W. Hume, Joseph Thompson, Colonel Carter, J. B. llumphery, Ald. Townsheud, Captain Cobden, R. Kershaw, James Trelawny, J. S. Cockburn, Sir A. Lewis, G. C. Verney, Sir 11. Cowper, W. F. Loveden, Pry - se Vivian, J. H. Craig, Sir NV. G. Mackie, John Walmsley, Sir J. Crawford, Rob t. W . Mackinnon, W. Wilson, James Crowder, R. B. Mitchell, T. A. Wood, Sir Charles Dawes, Edward Morgan, li. K. Wood, Sir W. P. Halides, Admiral Mostyn,.E, M. L. Young, Sir John Dirndls, Sir David Mowatt, Francis Ellis, John __ _ Palmerston, Viscount TELLERS. Evans, J. Parker, John Hayter, W. G. Ferguson, Sir E. Perfect, R. Hill Lord Manta Fox, W. J. Pilkingteu, James , LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 17. THE DUKE OF ISRUNSWICK v. HARMER. , showed Mr. Chambers, Mr. Atherton, and Mr. Hugh Hill cause against a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show why th e Master should not be at liberty to tax the defendant's costs of the first trial which had been had in this case, so as to make the plaintiff pay the costs of that trial. This was in substance an application to alter the terms of the rule on which the new trial was granted. Such an application was the first of the kind. There were no new statements of fact which should alter the decision of the Court in this case. The action was brought in February, 1848, in respect of articles in the Dispatch newspaper of September, 1830, and of July, 1847. The plaintiff at the first trial obtained a verdict for 5001. damages, on the evidence of one Rheinhold. An application was made for a new trial, on the ground that the defendant was taken by surprise by that witness's evidence, whirls was alleged to be quite untrue. The rule was ob tained on the affidavits of Mr. Steele, the defendant's attor ney, and four or five other persons. On showing cause, the Duke of Brunswick, Rheinhold, and some other people made affidavits. The question was, whether Rheinhold's statement made at the trial, as to the mode of obtaining the newspaper, had been true or not. All that was said by these parties was duly considered by the Court when that rule was made ab solute for a new trial. The Court would therefore do nothing unless some new facts were brought to the notice of the Court. None such appeared here. There was no one of the affidavits, on either side, that at all implicated the Duke. On the contrary, there could be no doubt that he had been deceived by the statements of Rheinhold, and that when he called that person as a witness he fully believed Rheinhold's statements to be true. The only person whose affidavit went to impute to the Duke a knowledge of the falsehood of Rheinhold's statements was a person named Eason, who pretended to have been at Brunswick House, to have had conversations with the Duke, and to have informed him of the particulars of Rheinhold's evidence. Every statement of Eason's as to this matter was contradicted by the Duke himself, and by three or four other persons, who showed that Eason had not been at Brunswick House at the time stated. Sir F. MESMER, was heard in support of the ru'e, and said he belived the proposition put forward by the Learned Counsel on the other side, that the Court could not disturb a rule where the new matter; alleged was within the know ledge of the parties at the time when the rule was made, was a correct proposition, and would apply in the present case. He apprehended that their Lordships had an inherent jurisdiction with regard to costs on an occasion of this kind, when their Lordships found that they had been deceived, and that there had been a perversion of truth and justice, and he could undertake to satisfy them that not only had a verdict been obtained by wilful and deliberate perjury, but, in point of fact, that the plaintiffs conduct had been such, and the opportunities of explaining his conduct so striking, that their Lordships would come to the conclusion, under the circumstances, that they ought to indemnify the defendant against ;the costs which he had most unjustifiably been made to incur. Now, when his Learned Friends said nothing of the kind was ever heard of before, perhaps they were not 'aware of the case of "Anderson r. George," in the Ist vol. of Burrow's Reports, page 352, where the plaintiff obtained a verdict by a trick, and where Lord Mansfield set aside the verdict with out the payment of costs, but declared the next time a party obtained a verdict by an unfair or " unconscionable" advan tage, without trying the real qcestion, he should set aside the verdict and make him pay the costs. Now this was a case, not where there had been an " unconscionable" and unfair advantage taken of the defendant, but where, he should show their Lordships, the verdict had been obtained by perjury. The action was for several libels, one of them being for an article published in the Weekly Dispatch on the 19th of Sep tember, 1830 ; the other alleged libels were articles contained in copies of the same newspaper, published at different dates, in 1847. In answer to the charge for the libel on the 19th of September, 1830, the statute of limitations was pleaded, and therefore it was absolutely necessary for the Duke of Brunswick to have the means of proving the publication of the newspaper within six years, and for that purpose he called as his witness this Casimer Rheinhold, who declared that he had gone to the MTh& Dispatch office prior to the 14th of March, 1848, being the day on which the action was brought, and that he there bought a copy of the 'freckly Dispatch, which he produced at the trial. Of course the pro duction of such a witness was necessarily a surprise to the defendant, who was not in the least degree prepared for the evidence he gave. On inquiries being made after the trial the defendant had good reason to believe that the statement made by Rheinhold was entirely false—that no such newspaper was in the Dis patch office at the time. But Rheinhold alleged he purchased it there, and accordingly an application was made to the Court for a new trial, founded on the affidavits of various parties, which:were produced in order to show that Rheinhold had sworn falsely. Of course the Court on that occasion came to no conclusion on the subject beyond that there were circumstances in the case to justify the Court in sending it down for a new trial, and having investigated further the truth of the statement which Rheinhold had made; but the Court indicated its own impression with respect to the ex traordinary circumstances under which It heinhold's testimony was adduced by making a rule that the costs of the case should abide the event of the trial. When the Court sent down the case for a new trial of course it anticipated that Casimir Rheinhold would be called on at the second trial and would repeat the evidence which he gave in the first in stance, and that the evidence adduced in the affidavits would be brought forward in answer to the statements of Rheinhold, and that the whole matter would go to the jury for their consideration and determination. Their Lordships would see that this was not a case of disputed facts, in which there might be contradictory evidence, and in which it might be difficult to say where the truth laid, but there was a simple isolated fact to be ascertained for the purpose of getting rid of the plea founded on the statute of limitations. It was a remarkable circumstance, and one which should not be lost sight of, that from the beginning to the end of the Duke of Brunswick's affidavit Casimarßheinhold's name was not once mentioned, nor any attempt whatever made to deny tht t he had an interview with him, or that he knew his address. He contended that the defendant had been brought to his present position by the conduct of the plaintiff himself, because, had it not been for Rheinhold's evidence on the first trial, there could be no doubt whatever but that the verdict would have been in the defendant's favour. Th e defendant in fact had been compelled to pay costs by reason of the deli berate perjury of liheinbold, while what took place on the second trial established beyond all question that the Duke had been fully aware of the fact that Itheinhold's evidence was not true. Now, had the Court been aware of that when they made the original rule, would they nut have made the order for which he (the Learned Counsel) was now contend ing ? If the Court had been aware that the plaintifrobtained his verdict by such scandalous means, would they not at once hove ordered that he should pay the costs of the other side? Ile was prepared to insist that the Court had jurisdic tion over these costs; and, having that power, the next question arose was, how best they could exercise that juris diction for the benefit of the public. Ought they not to use it in favour of a party who had been most improperly loaded with expenses which he would not have incurred had it not been for the plaintiff's own misconduct ? Mr. Justice PArrxsoN asked if there was any instance where the Court had ordered the successful party in a trial to pay the costs ? Sir F. DIESIGER did not know of any ; but this case, as it now stood, was precisely the same as it there had been no verdict in the plaintiff's favour ; and their Lordships would not be doing justice to the defendant if they acted under the impression that the first verdict was good. Under these circumstances he submitted to their Lordships that it appeared clear that the plaintiff had been immediatecouldly connected with this perjured testimony, and justico only be done by making this rule absolute. Mr. JAmEs,Q.C., and Mr. Bova!, were heard on the same side. Lord CAltrnam, after consulting with the other Learned Judges, said, with some degree of warmth—ln this cas e 1 unfortunately differ from my brethren as to what ought to be done; and entertaining a strong opinion upon the subject, it is my duty to express that opinion openly. I think the ru le ought to be made absol u te . The first q uesti on is, a whe ther the Court has pow er to award that the co sts shall be paid by the Duke of Brunswick. Upon that point I can have no doubt; the defendant has succeeded in the action ; there is a particular verdict in hi s favour, and judgment , has been entered up upon tha t v e rdict. w having suc ceeded in the action, ought he not to be?inaemnitled for the c osts he has incurred in defending it have the costs of defending himself Ought he not to trial when a wrongful verdict was returned oagainsthet him.first Generally speaking, where there is a new trial granted, it is upon the payment of costs, because it is to be supposed that no fault can attach to the winning party; appear clearly and distinctly that the first b v er u d i t c t i f it had s should obtained by perjury, and ere is reason to believe that the party obtaining the verdict . was privy to the perjury, he ought not only to be deprived of costs, but to pay the costs of the other side. ld in the case to which was the opinion of lir,dnDlearn3oti c. reference had s n George," where he says that if a plbaienentiffmoabdteained "Anderson .verdict by a trick, and the verdict was afterwards set aside the plaintiff should be compelled to pay costs . Now surely, in a case wher e it h as been shown that a verdict was ob tained by perjury, should we not act upon the same rule, and order the plaintiff to pay the costs? Certainly I think we should, for the defendant is not indemnified unless lie ob tains the costs necessary upon defending himself when the verdict was obtained against him by perjury. Then, if the Court has power to award that the costs shall be paid by the plaintiff iu cases where the verdict has been obtained by perjury, what prevents that power being exercised? It is said that there is no precedent for such a proceeding; well, thou, if there is no precedent, I think it is fit that such a precedent should be made. I have no scruple in giving my opinion that this is a fitting occa sion for making that precedent. To be sure, when the rule wa s made by the Cour t for a new trial, it was not then or dered that the v erdict should be set aside, with the coststobe paid by the plaintiff, because the facts were not then fully complete o r p ro p erl y before the Court , otherwise, in my opinion, the Court ought then to have set aside the ver dict, and ordered the costs to be paid by the plaintiff. But the Court, Upon that occasion, only *et ft-Kit the Verdict, directing that the costs should abide the event—that is to say, if the plaintiff succeeded upon the second trial, he should have his costs. At the time the rule was granted there was nothing to convince the Court that the verdict had been improperly obtained, while the Court had every reason to believe that Casimir Rheinhold would be again called, to be confronted with those who could show that he had been guilty of perjury. Under those circumstances, it would have been unbecoming in the Court to have pronounced that Rheinbold had been guilty of perjury by ordering the plain tiff to pay the costs. Therefore I think the rule was pro perly framed, that the verdict should be set aside, the costs to abide the event. But what has since happened? Con sider what has taken place since that rule was made. One objection made to this rule is, that the application has come too late, but I think it could not possibly have been made sooner, because the former rule having been granted, it would have been impossible un til t he second trial had taken place to apply to reframe the. rule. Even if the defendant had been in pos session of any evidence to sh ow th at per j ury was comm i tte d on the first trial, the Court would not have entertained an application to alter the terms of the rule until the second trial had taken place. Therefore I think no delay is attri butable to the defendant. Ile makes this application when the costs are to betared, and the q uest i on i s w h at costs h e _ shall be allowed. Now I hope we are not to be governed by any technicalities, such as those which have been urged upon us, that after a rule has once been m a d e i t cannot be altered. The Court has always in its own power t o control any rule which it has pronohnced until fi na l j udgment has been ob tained upon it. Well, then, is the re not strong evidence in this case from whichit may be fairly inferred that the first verdict was obtained b . y perjury, and th a t t h e plaintiff was privy to it. That Rheinhold perjured himself I cannot enter tain the smallest doubt, because upon the application for the new trial there were the strongest affidavits to show that no copy of the newspaper had been published, that none could have been purchased in the manner described. But when the se cond trial took place, where was Casimir Rheinhold: lie was not forthcoming. Certainly he was net in the witness box. The Learned Counsel who conducted the case for the plaintiff said it is much to be regretted that Casimir Rhein hold cannot be called. He said he could not he found, but at all events he was not called, and therefore there was no evidence at all to support the libel of September, 1830, and the defendant obtained such a verdict as he would have se cured on the first trial, had it not been for this perjured evi dence. The defendant would have been entitled to his costs had Casimir Rheinhold not been called on the first trial, and surely it could not be said now that he was not equally entitled to them. What evidence is there to lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not have been cognizant of the perjury? He has denied what has been sworn by E ason , b u t he has taken no notice_ He swears of what is sworn by G o dd ar d . N ow w h a t does he swear? . that he sa w C as i mir Rheinhold go i nto Brunswick House on the 18th of January, a few days before the trial , and the Duke give s no explanation on that point. Therefore I cannot doubt that on the 18th of January Casimir Rhein hold was at Brunswick House and I cannot doubt that the Duke of B runswick knew w he re h e was a t th e time of the second trial. He hag not d en i e d t h e a ll ega ti o ns contained in the affidavits, nor d oes he give any explanation of what took place on the 18th of January. He gives no informa tion whatever of the instruction whi c h h e gave to the Learned Counsel, to the effect that Casimir Rheinhold had lett the country. There was no evidence to show that Rheinhold had left the country, and therefor e , however pain ful it may be to me to come that conclusio n , I cannot help think ing that when Rheinhold showed himself i n t h elwitness-box the Duke of Brunswick was fully aware and cogn i zant of the nature of his evidence. I cannot bring my paind t o d ou bt that Rheinhold was known to be a witness whom the Duke ought not to have brought forward, and if that b e so I think it is not now too late to make this application. I think it would not be creditable to the jurisprudence . of this country if the defendant, against whom an action has been brought, for which there was no foundation, and against whom a ver dict has been obtained by perjury, should not be indemnified by obtaining those costs which that perjury had produced. Upon this point my mind is made up, and I am clearly of opinion that this rule ought to be made absolute. Mr. Justice ParrEsox regretted that he could not concur with the Lord Chief Justice as to the rules of the Court, and the more so as he agreed with his Lordship as to the justice and propriety of the principles laid down by him. He (Mr. Jus tice Patteson) thought that the Court had no power to do what was now asked, and it was admitted that there was no former instance of such a proceeding. The opinion of Lord Mansfield had never been acted on, and with all due submission to Lord Mansfield, he (Mr. Justice Patteson) doubted whether that opinion was correct. If perjury was committed, the proper remedy was that o f i n di ct i ng the parties guilty of committing it; but if the rule now pro posed was adopted, it would be very difficult to know where to stop. It would likewise have been difficult to mould the rule for the new trial differently from what it was, for the same difficulty would still have arisen as to the application of it to the party himself. If a new prac tice was to be introduced it should be done on the very clear est case, and he was not satisfied that this was one of that sort. He was not satisfied that the imputation was brought home to the Duke. No doubt the fact that Rheinhold was not even mentioned in the Duke's ailidavit was suspicious; but suspicion was not sufficient. If the case had rested on Eason's testimony, it would be that of a person on whom much reliance could not be placed. All this led to the belief that the Duke knew at the date of the second trial that Rheinhold was not a witness to be trusted, but was not sufii cient to show that he was aware of it before the first trial. So that it the Court had the power, this was certainly not a case in which to exercise it; but he was of opinion that the Court had no such power, and that such a rule would only lead to an increase of perjury. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE was inclined to think that the Court might have the power to do what was now asked, if the circumstances justified it, but he did not think that the circumstances here did afford a justification for it. A jury would hardly have felt justified in finding the Duke guilty, and yet, if he was not, there was no ground for making this rule absolute. Mr. Justice ERLE, though well inclined to prevent from obtaining costs any person who had been guilty of suborna tion of perjury, he did not think that the Court could pro ceed to effect such a purpose by trying the question of per jury on affidavits. And for himself, he must say, that in this case he did not think that subornation or perjury had beers committed by the Duke; and that if that question had been submitted to a jury there might well have been a ver dict of not guilty. Ruls discharged. COURT CIRCULAR. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester visited the Queen yesterday at Buckingham Palace. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, attended by the Mar quis of Abercorn, Colonel Hon. Charles Grey, and Colonel Bouverie, presided yesterday afternoon at the third jubilee meeting of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, held in St. Martin's Hall. Her Majesty and Prince Albert, with the Princess Royal, took a drive yesterday afternoon in an open carriage and four; the Equerries in Waiting, General Wemyss and Colonel Bouverie, attending on horseback. The Prince of Wales and Prince Alfred, attended by Mr. Birch, visited the Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations yesterday morning. , The Queen and Prince Albert, accompanied by the Prince of Leiningen, honoured her Majesty' s Th eatre w i th their presence last evening. The Royal suite consisted of the Viscountess Canning, Honourable Matilda Paget, Hon. Mary Seymour, Lord Camoys, General Wemyss, and Colonel Bouvorie. The Viscountess Canning has relieved the Countess of Charlemont in her duties as Lady in Waiting to the Queen. Her Majesty's privat e b an d was in on Monday evening, in * Buckingham attendance palace and a p ft l e a r dinner Overture, " Barcarolle". Trio, " Pre aux Clercs" •. ' Herold. •••• •• • • Bolero Selection, " Hens Hailin g " Finale, Ist Act, " Oberon" Her Royal highness the Duchess of Kent, attended by Lady Augusta Bruce and Lord James Murrey, honoured her Majesty's Theatre with her presence yesterday evening. Lady Augusta Bruce has relieved Lady Fanny Howard in her duties as the Lady in Waiting on her Royal Highness the Dachess of Kent. The Rev. J. Csrlile, D.D., F. 13ossey, M.D., Mr. John Owens, and Mr. W. 'Stuart—a deputation from a public meeting at Woolwich ; Mr. R. Ruegg, Mr. Aslin, Mr. Jo seph Cowen, and Mr. John Hammond—a deputation from the Commissioners of the parish of Woolwich; Mr. Nokes, solicitor to the Commissioners, and Mr. Sargent, their clerk, had an interview yesterday with Sir George Grey, at t h e llome-office. . i C l3 Ze . Y s r t ea l ei . , The Cambridge University Commission ha t d h a e meet inn at the official residence of the First Lord of the T es. and d aor of Dublin, Mr. stay, in Downing-street. Present—The Bishop of the Dean of Fly, Prosifsetsisnogr of S e t d h g e w L i c o k rc , i Bil A te d so e n p , ut s a e t c i r o e n t , a c ry on . 11 1 ' ; Grogan, M.P., Alderman Roe,. Sir Lucius O'Brien, ALP , Mr. G. A. Ham'lton, M.P., and Mr. Heron,.. ad an interview yesterday with the Chancellor of the - residence in Downing-street. Exchequer, at his official 'ARY OF THE BRADFORD 'lO T . REFORM ASSOCIATION. (EVERY MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY.) Sir,—Ou Monday the 16th, the most remarkable re sult in the House, was the carrying o f the vote for repairs at Maynooth b y only a majority of two; the numbers being 121 to 119. It: is to be regretted that by the forms of the House, the indications of such facts in wh a t are called the " Votes, " shou ld be exceed. ingly obscure. I a t h e p resen t instance it might a pp ear as if no p a i ns had been s p ar ed to prevent any glimpse of the truth, that the deduction proposed vote was for repairs to ofy To3th6,Lori°ths.atmsOtha. propo o s n ed th t e o i b n e co d m ed e u o ot f e a d f r d o m y r at tack Secretary displayed a marked absence of On Tuesday the House con cealers of witnesses , 0 commiseration re particularly p sufferings tpeom s ep o d f t ut oowubils incarcerated eleyna irditheirneaiding t rejected adc name sakesobn they-r FrenchT d w ar as e c s c o u o n p okery at Boulogne. The and near actual enjoyment n mest looks like the treatment h . when finally giv en a ma y expect , p " to the ich sinners at larg ml3o3tionf againstor liberation r k l t a in t t o i a fd o l tempter. On question of the Malt Tax ' we d under a slightly different form, but with was r ene • dof result as before, i same kin 76 mercies o a ti 1 e o of samet h their r d t a e y m the n a majority of more than two to one, to 31, against any change. After this came on what is called the Peace motion of the Member for the We Riding. Among the various debaters on the subject, none appeared to state the ob ject with all the clearness of which it was susceptible. It amounted to a pr o p osa l , that the Secretary f or Foreign Affairs sh ou ld say to the Frenc h Govern ment, "The two co untr i es are maintaining t hi r ty s ail of the line each, to watch one another. Does it not seem pesiblo that twenty would do?" The Foreign Secretary , gave his vih erence to the principle , but declined bind ing himself by terms; and so the motion was not pressed to a division. On the whole, the result cannot be considered otherwise than as favourable to the object of the mover. I am, Sir, yourAsNveroyLsiin)ceurEel FORMER. 1 Louden, June 18, 1851. NUMEROUS ROBBERIES. —Yesterday a gang of thieves made a regular foray in the vicinity of Camberwell, Peckham, Src. About eleven o'clock Mrs. Priers, Denmark_ hill, was plundered of 401. worth of silver plate ; about twelve, Mr. Elwes, the Manor-house, High-street, Peckham, was robbed of 00/. worth of silver plate. About nine, Mr. Cooks, 1, Manor-place, Walworth, was stripped of all the workmen's tools; and about six o'clock, Mr. Hetzler's, I, Henry's Cot tages, Park-road, Peckham, of about 801. worth of silver plate and a quantity of wearing apparel. A great many robberies have lately been committed in dwelling* whilst the occupiers were at the Greet ack' and Pd a for r be [clod the this did N