The Sun. — London, England, 1850-07-06 00:00:00

-1847,,, 31,200,000 bushels. 1848... 30,200,000 ~ 1849 ... 33,160,000 ~ This increase, toe, was in the face of a steady and g..hrae dual increas e in the importation of foreign grain. 1 answer for • was, therefore obvious, that the importation of ump egn corn did not influence injuriously the cons _ tioa f the de malt. The Hon. Gentleman had attributed creased consumption of beer to the malt duty, as well es the increased consumption of other liquids. This, however, of the Exchequer's) was in his (the Chancellor ° P ill ion produced by other causes—among them the great change that had taken place in the habits of the People of this country. Every Hon. Gentleman was ;7 4 . r e of the great diminution that took place in his own crlll4llY n the con sum pti on o f malt liquors, and of the in ease i in the consumption of tea, coffee, and cocoa. The of the propo s iti on held good as regarded the great . bulk "I, the worki ng classes of the country; and in his opi. r ten the c h ange was a salutary one. Referring to the tlYea furnished in the report of the Lords' Committee, he la n I — "nu, taking the consumption of 1839, and conapara ; it with that of last year—a period of ten years alli rg-off of about 1,000,000 bushels of malt annually. The c onsumption was in 18 39... 39 930,000 bushels. 1849.„, „.. 38,935,000 ~ „ It the con sump ti on o f tea, co ff ee , an d cocoa in that l' e ried had increased enormously, viz.— Tea from ... 35 000,000 to 50,000,0001b5. Coffee ... 26,000,000 34 000,000 'pi Cocoa ... 1,600,000 3,200,000 'ae consumption of spirits had also thefallen off in about same proportion within these last 10 years—n . at h nel, e ab eet 1 0 . 00,000 gallons annually. So likewise wit the 'oreption of wined, which was in 1839 7,000,000 gallons. 1819 „.„ 6,240,000 91 of e r esult of thi s comparison was, that the consumption 1p * al l intoxicati ng liquors had fallen off within the last /care, while the consumption of all liquors which h ere not intoxicating had considerably increased. This b:lo)ked upon as anything but an unsatisfactory result, ee call se, in his opinion it contributed to the advantage 1 : 11 . 9 Working classer. 41 decrease was not owing to the height It was a convincing proof that ea the of the duty , re-- especially upon malt liquors — in compari -B°4 With the cost of the article, for the duty on malt aPproached in nothing to that levied upon tea or ,‘, / P e rt coffee, the articles that most entered into "rc,nePetition with it for consumption. The Honourable trtlernan argued that if the duty was taken off malt r tasted elelsumption of beer would be increased to an . uh eX. tent, and he referred . , in proof of his proposition, articles increased consumption ot tea, coffee, and other e laon which a similar reduction had taken place. (t th fl e "e Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not deny that th-Pduction in the case of these articles had increased til:Lr co nsurnption,• but he insisted also that it was owing p eo e i l i se, as he said before, to the changed habits of aom e e * A- much better criterion, however, of the pro h,7"en as to the increase in the consumption of beer, he re i ° agh a reduction in the duty on malt, existed in t t e tt e r ns of 30 to 35years since, when the war duty upon ,; was reduced as well as the beer duty. It Has 82ated before the Lords' Committee that, taking the war trettalt duty ea and the beer duty together at that period, the tor 4 —.Quoted to about 755. 2d. per quarter upon malted r then for the „, w stronger beer, and about 60s. per quarter fo Itlearntee..aker. The existing ' duty . on malt was 20s. 81 per of 1 . But though a reduction of duty to the extent ae c i e 4 a n r Y 60s, per quarter in the one of these instances,. th en per quarter in the other, had taken place since that were the fact, what effect could the further reduc giaeof 20s. 8d• . proposed by the Hon. Gentleman be sup of b e d t° , have in the way of increasing the consumption be e " e rr The evidence of Mr. Barclay, the eminent t i n ier, taken byithe Lords' Committee, was, however,:con efts,tre on this point. He admitted that the total repeal a am 'me malt tax would make a slight increase in the con eetetti°n, but in s t ea d o f b ene fi t i ng t h e consumer t o th e sai d "b of 500 per.cent., as the Hon. Gentleman stated, he he that the utmost reduction in the price of beer would or on e h 3 par quart, which it was at present, to 3d., date - " e lf Penny. But the experiment of taking off the th e ; malt and putting it on again had been tried, and pe r - h e were the results:—ln 1816 the duty was 4e. 6d. Ye er ; us ael, and the average annual consumption in three red — was 25 ,000,000 bushels. In 1817 the duty was 22 aced to 2s. 6d. per bushel, and the average fell to the' l:) ,?„,' °o of bushels consumption • while in 1819, when se a , l ,l was again raised to 3s. 7d. per bushel, the con thatPtion rose to 25,000,000 of bushels. This showed d et , g , a dimini s h e d consumption followed a reduced T he at least, in the instance quoted.—(Hear.) th at . 40nourable Gentleman seemed to think Dred, i , t wa s monstrous th e duty should be paid by the lie ta " e erl but th e C omm i ttee o f t h e ot h er H ouse o f P ar - Pre e ent, aPPoint e d t o i nqu i re i nto t h e b ur d ens on rea l 4" er tY, had come to the conclusion that the duty fell f•- at g e neral tax on the consumers of the article. If the 1,70..,ers and labourers were benefited, the consumers tietZatr.l therefore be equally benefited by other reduc-_ Z,, but then came the question whether this should i tla e article. On that head Lord Stanley said that he amill,ttt believe the reduction on this particular tax de e ,: ,e the b est mode of apply i ng relief. The en erree or Alr. B arc l ay was to the effect, that no great eoe su t would be produced in the way of benefit to the gre at by the total repeal of the malt duty, while a (ientien,l°B ba l d accrue to the revenue. The Hon. Rardee —tt° the opinion of Mr. Elman as re ditty. , t "e benefit derivable from a reduction of the malt th e B._,Out that gentleman had, at a mee:ing Sussex on t he efe l e °Jeet of agricultural distress, moved a resolution to Per t, that, if foreien barley was allowed to enter at Is. othelrwiltter, the benefit which the British farmer would W eabi se receive from the repeal of the malt-tax 11,,, go entirely to the foreign grower. The Hon. eou -e rs o e er f or r North Lincolnshire, however, stated in the dik ed t ° ' the debate that that the malt-tax shoud be re ttad tha°t ls., as a protection against the foreign g He rower, (th e ce a duty s h ould be placed on foreign barley. g reat Lusliceller o f t h e Exchequer) had shown that no setneeuenelit could arise to th e producer or to the con great be tae rep ea l o f the malt-t ix. If , h owever , no at e nrfit aro se f rom it, and if its trivant . egea would • least b e tisk so Only partial and equivocal, was It right to Me n l arge a revenue as 5,000,0001. per annum, and to t a Wi thit, whatever the Hon. Gentleman might say blisbmeontrary, the public faith, and the national este so ea eat s? The lion. Gentleman knew that it was not %ea !): to imp ose a new tax, or even to retain the old ~oulda e rlv- then, would he provide for results which eieendanger the credit of the country and the effi teo,'?,of its institutions ? By taking off the tax they vitn u t i: ieneur great risk without any corresponding ad ieu' . 1 . ? • The benefit would be but slight and partial, eafeluunder these circumstances he thought he might sistia i e ?,all upon the House to concur with him in re laidi the motion of the lion. Member for the North kr tig. p rr effe ct ' —s'UNIOND said when they remembered the th e _ 0 the first enactment of the excise -laws, and that pr od aced a convulsion scarcely less violent than that that thed by the ship money—when they remembered kr. teed were constantly and repeatedly denounced by tonti ne and Mr. Grey in that House during the whole the ' at lee of their operation — he was surprised that Right 80 have heard so great a panegyric from the to °II- Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer merit Javour. Accoiding to him they contained every se re u ". a fiscal r egulation--facility of collection, pres treabira nobody, an immense mass of money,'with little blea se d — in short, there was not a single advantage these so excise -laws did not possess.—(A laugh.) He felt eatittntaseh_ethe impropriety of interferine' with the arrange tiaee the Government that he sh'ould not venture to the the part he was about to do without, at cllorBsnie offering a pledge to the Chan any of the Exchequer to give him his support for Bother tax ho pleased to lay on.—(Laughter.) to bOuld like to see him muster courage enough ----Ma? h ear x on th e M anc h ester manu f acturers Gelle th e roan was obliged to pay attention to the shakes of tb ea u e ead he saw th ere, but be could afford to despise th e of the agricultural b o d y —(H ear, h ear)—to whom astpestion was a matter of quite as much importance u t onepe a l of the corn-laws.—(Hear, hear.) The let ti ! i was, he believed, th e rea l test o f t h e h onesty a tea which the repeal of the corn-laws was carried. t_s it truly on account of the labouring classes?— to that' hear.) W as i t indeed in order to give cheap food tontn people, or was it solely to get rid of so much cot trenufactures?—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") The eesent question would bring them to the test. It had wean thrown out too much as if the question was some w h Y or another connected with the landed interest. en they spoke of the manufacturing interest, there Iv . _ as the merchant who supplied the raw material, the t a anufacturer who converted it, and the operative whom 4 'e employed. The interests of these three parties were not, however, altogether identical. It was the interest of the merchant to sell his cotton dear; it was the inte rest of the manufacturer to buy it cheap; and it Was the interest of the operative to . get his wages as high a s he could, and all these three interests were wholly different. So it was with land.—(Hear, hear.) If the Government refused that boon because they conceived that it would be a boon to the landed interest, they Would be exceedingly mistaken. Therefore, it was, that certitia persons, finding no good in it to the landed inte rest, saw no good in a repeal of the tax. He did not ad of ate it ea any such ground—he would say th t it was of essential importance to all the labouring classes, and on their account alone he advocated it. Under the pre. se their the only good they could conferena on .e ;It: people was to cheapen their food, so as to bl ' a lra to live as well upon ss. a week as they formerly d, or b e n °Pon 10s. In no other way could they do an the the farmer. No diminution of that tax would goo do off g ° °d nor no good would there be in taking the tax -- beer th For the ben e fit o f b o th f armer an d l a bourer, t b:y should be encouraged to take the labourers into tm it hones and feed them there. In that case the most aogrttant article of consumption would be good whole leightTr- He doubted if the 'louse knewwhat it was. The - ion• Gentleman said there was a great alteration to betaste, and instanced the case of his own servants; but „orlight they were wise not to take beer. In the re t-be''° acct he evidence given before the House of Lords, tb'veunt the owners of beer-houses gave of beer was, j a g b e t t a Y did not mix it up as it was done by the trade tra,h. t T he h r e s b a e id er it fro , m the beer-shops was inf e rior was generally a mu dd y , i n f er i or , a nd del e terious 9 article, and could not afford any nourish ment to too working man. Another witness said the Owners brewers, who of beer -shops were in the hands of particular other said the supplied them with the worst article; au beer was very bad but very intoxicating. krennett.aer......aehete beer sold in beer-houses was very indiffe eme much her said, the beer sold in beer-houses That witnes s than that sold in public-houses. l said, if the publicpublican.--(A. laugh.) Another and, cheese, the eclould buy beer as th e y b oug ht b rea d Th at w ee quality. Y w ould have it o f a muc h b etter std of the interme& what he wanted—he wished to get etters a reasoadling I the excise. Were not these ti r , or the dislike of the servants of the " veatlelzan * beer? Could they !Nader when they heard a brewer's account of the way in which beer was made? Why, one of the witreises said that it was not beer the people were drinking at all; and that was fully evident from the fallowing list of ingredients: It contained copperas and allum, capsicum, Spanish liquo rice, coculous indicus, commonly called occulus, India berries, salt of tartar, ginger lime, linseed, and cinnamon. I—(Great laughter.) A friend of his took much t r ouble and vt e t to considerable expense in obtainining the proper tests fur vegetable solutions. He procured some beer, and evaporated it to a residuum, but not wishing to taste it, he gave it to a cat—how the cat liked it he (Mr. Drummond) could not tell, but in a few minutes it was dead.—(Great laughter.) He kn w a town, not far from the place where he stood (he did not mean his own town), in which several persons obtained grains from the brewers to feed their pigs ; all the pigs died, and that was all he would say. How could it . be surprising, under these circumstances, if people altered their taste for beer ? If they chose to buy the blacking that was sold for beer, they must take the consequences ; and unless they gave the labourer a facility for making his own beer he did nothing. He had at home an Eng.- liah edition of the " Georgics," in which he found the following paems;e : " Be. r veniente die, beer decidente canebo"- -(Cheers and laughter.) Mr. BASS said the Hon. Gentleman appeared to be acquainted with a great, many things that no brewer in the trade was conversant a ith. If he stood there merely as the organ of the public brewers, he would feel it his duty to support the tax upon malt—nay, if there was a question whether it should be removed or doubled, he was oersuadt d that their interest would be to invite the House to double it. He should be the last man to impair the credit or tamper with the resources of the country, and although he had always been the advocate of proper reductions, he did not wish them to be carried to such an extent as to endanger the defences of the country. There were many grounds on which he thought the tax on malt ought to be abolished, for al though he was a free-trader he sympathised strongly with the condition of the agricultural classes, and he was compelled to state that he believed them to be at the present moment in a state of con siderable difficulty and depression, and that it was the duty of the House to alleviate these difficulties and endeavour to restore that class to a state of prosperity. It was his opinion that if they took off the malt-tax there would be certain and endur ing advantage to the agricultural interest. He had seen calculations which went to show that the absolute duty upon malt to be paid by the farmers of this country amounted to something like 6 per cent. on the rental. The abolition t f the tax would therefore be a relief to that class if it went no further. But he maintained tbat there must be a great increase in the consumption of barley if this tax were abolished. The Right Hon. Gen tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued in reference to cases iu which there had been only a dimi nution of the duty. He granted, then, that in many of the cases in which there had been such diminution of duty, that act had net been followed by such an increase in the consumption as they might have anticipated. If, however, they tried the experiment of total abolition, he was persuaded that it would be followed by an enormous increase in the consumption of barley. The result of this increase in the consumption would be an increase in the price of barley, which was not confined to one description of land, but might be produced upon any land in the c eintry if properly cultivated. That in crease in the price, he thought, would amount to about 4s. a quarter. He was also of opinion that the least re duction that would take place in the price of beer to the consumer would be about 25 or 30 per cent. The capi tals employed in the brewing trade were greater than in any other business in the world. The returns of one of the brewers in this town were a great deal larger than the returns of sale of any manufacturer of any other description of produce in the world. If this tax were abolished, a competition would be created of a totally different kind than what now existed, and he was sure that reductions would take place to the amount of 33 or 35 per cent. He believed that it was the duty of this House to give the labourers of this country a greater access to their favourite beverage than they had hereto fore enjoyed. If the consumption of beer were not impeded by these enormous duties, he did not think that the people would have such re course to that 'slip-lop beverage of tea—(Laughter) —that could do them no good.—(Hear, hear.) There was an article, fur instance, in respect to which the duty had been wholly abolished—namely, salt. The annual consumption of it previously had been 2,000,000 of bushels; but the very next year the consumption in creased to 7,500,000, and the latest returns showed that the increase had arrived at 13,500 bushels.—(Hear, hear.) Similar results might be anticipated from the abolition of this tax, and he considered it was the duty of the House to make the trial. Should, however, the House not be willing to abolish it altogether, he did not think that they could find any excuse for refusing t) reduce it by one-half. Looking at the great reduc tion that had taken place recently in the price of barley, he was persuaded that the great brewers of this country would feel it to be their duty to concur in such reduction, though they might not consent to its entire abolition. He had some reason to think that such was the feeling of the trade, although he did not mean to represent himself as their organ.—(Hear.) And upon some future occasion, if this proposition be not agreed to, he would take an opportunity of bringing forward a distinct proposition that the amount of the duty up m malt be reduced by one-half. We have been taught by the experience of that great statesman whose recent loss we all of us so much deplore, that the reduc tion of duty was not necessarily a loss of revenue.— (Hear, hear.) In many instances, instead of such re ductions entailing a loss upon the revenue, they actually resulted in an increase. For example, the duty on brandy was reduced from 225. Bd., some three years ago, to 15s. In the following year there was sery little dif ference in the revenue, and in the last year the revenue derived from brandy at the reduced duty was greater by 20 per cent. than ve received from it when it was 225. BJ. He hoped that the House would excuse him for oc cupying so much of their time. Mr. M. GIBSON said there was much force in many of the observations of•his Hon. Friend as to the mis chievous effects produced by an excise duty like the malt-tax upon the manufacture of malt, and also as to its effects upon society generally in giving this dangerous monopoly to large capitalists. But the question for our consideration at this moment was, whether we could conscientiously bring ourselves to the opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the House had de cided upon the expenditure of the country, could afford to remit an amount of revenue something like 5,000,000/. a year? His Hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire bad never proposed, irrespective of the reduction of the expenditure, and irrespective of other considerations, that there should be an unconditional repeal c f the malt-tax. No; but he pro posed to pave the way for the repeal of the malt-tax, as well as other taxes that pressed upon the industry of the country, by the only practical mode it could be effected, namely, by a large reduction of the expenditure.—(dear, hear.) But as the House had determined to maintain these large war establishments, he found be would be in a great difficulty if he supported the motion of the Hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire. lie wanted to reduce the expenditure of the country so as to relieve the agricultural and manufacturing interests of many of those excise duties that now pressed upon them. He had presented himself recently there as a tax repealer, though on a more moderate scale than the lion. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire proposed. He thought it would be much better to repeal the taxes upon knowledge than the taxes upon beer. The fi st be thought much more important, as affecting the welfare of the country. Under these circumstances ho felt it was his duty to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member. Mr. SPOONER said the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that, the duty on malt having been lowered in 1815, in 1816, and 1817, instead of an increase there was a decrease of the con- sumption. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman recollec that in 1816 the harvest was an exceedingly wet one, and the barley consequently good for nothing; and that in 1817 there was a failing crop, and that the price greatly increased?—(Hear, hear.) He would not confine him self, however, to those two years, but would take the average of ten years. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman recollect the bad harvest of 1821, the distress of 1822, and the panic cf 1825, which threw the whole commer cial world into confusion? Taking the average of the whole period, he maintained that the Right Hon. Gen tleman's argument could not be sustained. If the re mission of duties did not increase consumption, what be came of the argument in favour of free trade—that such was the tendency of every reduction?—(Hear, hear.) The present system compelled the labouring man to go to the beer-shop instead of drinking his own ale at home. He did not understand why they should take off the tax on food coming from other countries, and put heavy taxes on their own produce. He was quite astonished at the speech which was made by the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opposition to this motion; but the fact was, there were so few Members in the House he thought he was at liberty to say anything. He deprecated the notion of the Govern ment coming to their conclusions on the evidence of theorists, n instead of obtaining the opinions of practical me • Instead o f th e resu l t o f the experiments of the professional men being the true one as to the advantage of grain s over every other kind of food in feeding cows, it was well known to any persons who were, as he was, ac customed to vi s i t the milk houses in the metropolis, that where their fuod was composed two parts of grains, and the other o f any other kind of f oo d, th e y gave th e b est m ilk, and also got at; to Smith and if it was necessary to sen d t h em good meat as any for s l aug h ter t h ey were f oun d to be as any other.—(H ear , h ear .) I t was discovered also, i n opposition to the evidence of thos e theorists, that very beer could be made of dried barley, with a small mixture of malt. And at one time till the beer in Edinburgh was of raw grain : the Excise, however, put a stop to it; , so _ using his own raw that the Government ro n m d w ere actually preventing a l man eased, a produce in any way he p compelling produce malt and g e t beer therefrom him to Should of getting the duty from him. —( Hear , hear. , othe not be asked to allow every man to us e hi s own o they commo dity as ho pleased?—(llear, hear.) Th re was no class of productiun taxed iu the sine way, and he thought that a great case of injusice and 'Hardship had been made out. 'I his he thought was proved to be a most unjust and oppressive tax, and one that should speedily be repealed, and he would therefore give his cordial sup port to the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire. Mr. HEYWORTII considered that all such taxes should be removed, and the expenditure of the country maintained by a direct taxation on every individual, from the highest to the lowest. As, however, no substi tute was proposed for the abolition of this tax, he could not (as we understood) support the motion. Mr. PACKE, in dissenting from the motion, said that he bad ever opposed the repeal of the malt-tax, particu larly on the ground that it should be considered as a mere portion of the revenue. He also had another rea son for opposing it, namely, Oat present 4 WAS ina* possible for foreigners to introduce malt into this coun try, and that he was of opinion that if this tax were once repealed the restriction on them could no longer be kept up, and that then they would be enabled to com pete with success against the home-producer.—(Hear, hear.) He should like, therefore, to have a pledge from those Honourable Gentlemen who supported this motion, to the effect that foreign malt should not be introduced into this country free of duty. He was one of those who would vote for the motion if he thought that such a measure was likely to benefit the farmers; but, as ho was of opinion that if they once rerealed the malt tax they could not allow malt to be an exception to all other importr, and that foreign malt would then come in duty free, and undersell the home produce, be could not give his support to the motion. If he thought that the repeal of the malt tax would serve the farmers he would rote for it, but as he thought it would have the re verse effect he would give it his decided opposition. Mr. L. HODGES opporei the motion on the grounds that he did not see how the deficiency in the Exchequer was to be supplied otherwise than by an enormous in crease i❑ the property tax. He hoped yet to see an abatement of the duty on malt and hops, but be would oppose the motion because he thought that a total repeal of the malt tax would press heavily on the farmer, par ticularly on the poor ones, by compelling the Govern ment t, adopt an increased taxation on property. Mr. K. SEYMER said the regulations of the Excise were very vexatious. It was anomalous to maintai❑ the principle of free trade and retain these excise duties. He thought the pressure of free trade bore so heavily on the agricultural classes, as to impose upon them the ne cessity of giving them all the relief they could. The late small mrjority of twenty was in fact a proof that it was the opinion of the House that some relief should be given to agriculture. Ho considered protection some. thing more than a landlord's question. Under a system of free import, they could only have the continental prices of corn. It was said it was of no consequence to the farmer whether the price of wheat was sixty or thirty shillings a quarter, provided he produced double the quantity. This was a fallacy, for he contended that the farmer could never double his produce without proportionally increasing his expenses. He did not think that the labourers or farmers could ever return to the old practice of brewing their own beer, but the repeal of the duty- would make beer cheap, and he was satisfied that beer could not be too cheap for the people of this country, for it was a beverage abso lutely necessary to enable them to execute the heavy work they had to do. It was not only necessary for working men, but for women also, who worked hard. In fact, ladies in their own class drank beer at their meals. —(Laughter.) They were often ordered by their physi cians to do so. But whether they were or not, he knew they drank it. It was therefore incorrect to say that the taste for drinking beer had decreased. He would sup port any tax that did not press unfairly upon the agri cultural interest, and he could not say more. The Mem ber for Montrose in 1834 said that if the agricultural classes obtained the repeal of the malt-tax they would be content to yield the principle of free trade. Well, he would now take the converse of that statement.— (Hear, hear.) If the farmers from the present pres sure could not go to the grocer, that might not be a reason for protection, but certainly it was one why they should be relieved from an unfair tax. He called upon them all, in the name of free trade, to vote for the motion. Mr. WILSON said, the meaning which he attached to the phrase "free trade," was this, that duties on im ports should be imposed, not for the purpose of protec tion, but of revenue, and that their produce should go into the Exchequer instead of into the pockets of a class. A question had been raised as to whether the malt duty was a tax on the producer or the consumer. Operating as it necessarily must as a restriction on the consumption of the article, like all similar duties, it was undoubtedly a tax upon the producer. At the same time be must ask what were the peculiar circumstances connected with the malt-tax which should induce the House at this time to repeal it, and thereby sacrifice 5,000,000/. of revenue? The tax on malt did not operate as prejudicially as many other taxes on articles of consumption, and its repeal would afford but little relief to the agricultural interest, because the anticipated increased consumption of the article must be supplied by importations from abroad. It was said, however, that our farmers would be able to grow more barley in place of wheat, which could be supplied by importation. Bat it bad been stated in the course of the discussion that eve imported large quantities of barley as well as wheat ; the amount of barley imported last year being not less than a million quarters.—(" It will not malt.") Well, a large por tion of the barley grown in this country would not malt. Tt e Hon. Mover compared the tax on malt with that which formerly existed on raw cotton, but the Hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the tax on cotton was applicable to the export trade. The Hon. Mover re ferred also to the drawback of half the duty on soap which was allowed to cotton and other manufacturers; but, when beer was exported, the exporters obtained a drawback equal to the amount of the duty on the malt employed in the manufacture of the article. Hon. Gen tlemen opposite said that a new policy had been intro duced—that the corn-laws had been repealed, and that, therefore, they were justified in asking for the repeal of the malt-tax.—(Hear, hear.) Admit the principle and it would be impossible to stop there. What was the story brought by every %Vest India mail? Why, this:—" By your free-trade measures you have deprived us of protec tion, and therefore we have a right to be placed on an equal footing with the home farmers, and our produce should be admitted duty free."—(Cheers from the Oppo sition.) Hon. Members cheered, but did they not see if they acted on that principle it must had to the repeal of the Customs duties altogethe r?—(Cheers repeated.) He could not understand those cheere, because Honourable Members who supported the motion bad pointed to the Customs as the source from which the deficiency of re venue that the repeal of the malt-tax must occasion might be supplied. The Honourable Member for Warwick shire, in particular, suggested a duty on corn. What as that but a proposal to untax beer in order to tax bread.—(" Oh, oh I") if every article the pro d uce of British industry was to be imported duty free, am House must be prepared to repeal at one fell swoop about 32,000,000 E of annual taxation.—(" Oh!" and laughter.) Tho tax on malt was not so onerous as the taxes on some other articles of consumption. The tax on malt was 57 per cent.—(" . A hundred per cent.") It was 100 per cent. on the raw barley, but only 57 per cent. on malt.—(" Hear," and laughter.) He would deal with the malt tax as the tsx on other articles, and estimate its amount when the article reached the con sumer. The tax on malt was 57 per cent.; that on English spirits 333 per cent.; on tea, 200; and on to bacco, 1,200 per cent. Under these circumstances there was no ground for urging that the tax on malt was ex cessively heavy. Viewed in any light the malt tax was undoubtedly a consumer's tax, and it must be ad mitted that the House was never better employed than in reducing the burdens which pressed upon consumers It must be admitted, too, that in the course cf the last eight or ten years Parliament had travelled very far in that direction. Mr. Tierney's authority had been ap pealed to, in order to show that an Opposition was en titled to vote for the repeal of any tax, without regard to consequences; but he dissented from that doctrine, and thought that no Member was justified in voting f,l* such a reduction of taxation as would impair the revenue, and endanger public credit.—(Cries of " Divide.") He had not yet heard how the expenditure was to be re duced by 5,000,000/., or how the deficiency was to be supplied, and until he saw how that was to be done, he WAS entitled to say that a vote of that House to throw away 5,000,0001. of revenue would be tantamount to a breach of faith with the public creditor.—(" Oh, oh!" and " Divider) He repeated it; and he knew no class in this country who were so deeply interested in the maintenance of the public credit as the working popula tion of this country; for the first intimation that this vote had been agreed to would paralyze private credit, and create such distrust in the manufacturing districts as must end in throwing a large number of the working population out of employment.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI should have been content to give a silent vote upon this subject had not a reference made by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer permitted him to hope that the House would excuse him for stating the reason of the vote he was about to give. He could not consider the proposi tion before them to repeal the malt-tax without taking into consideration the state and condition of the agricultural classes of this country, inasmuch as barley was one of the principal articles of the produce of those classes.—(Hear, hear.) Great and grievous as was the depression of the agri cultural classes, it was not, upon his side of the House, unr xpected.—(Hear, hear.) Under the circumstances he thought he had a right to expect from the Government (and he was surprised that so few members of the Go went had spoken), before they negatived the proposition of the Hon. Member for the North Riding, some clear and succinct view of what they thought would be the future condition of the agricultural classes.—(Hear, hear.) They (the Protectionists) knew that it was one of great distress —they had predicted that distress, and they were prepared, if they had an opportunity, to at tempt to remedy it. Those on the other side of the House had denied that this distress would occur, and yet so great session had been the severi t y that the y had b een obliged to ac knowledge it, and alm ost from the first drayoifstihne g t h t it they had, with the v iew of cheerin g and s olacing the agri cultural classes been p redictin g and promising was transient, and would soon pass away. Now he wished the House to observe the conduct of those who particularly represented the agricultural classes in that House. Very early in the session he himself had had the honour of proposing a measure of a remedial cha racter to the consideration of the House. There were many gentlemen present who might have conscientiously believed that had that measure been carried it would not have produced the good effects which he anticipated; but all would acknowledge that a very great party in that House were not of that opinion, and that, though that proposition was net carried, it was:negatived, in one of the fullest Houses of the session, only by a bare.ma jurity.—(Hear, hear.) What was the character of that measure. Was it of an extravagant kind? Was it of a very unreasonable and intemperate nature? On the con trary, all acknowledged its moderation, and es en the Mi nisters who opposed it adduced as one of the arguments against it that it was really of too insignificant a charac ter to effect any good object. That measure was op posedilr instance, c h e y , the Government, and negatived by the House. A apg g ric i t n uic_ , lat a ul t a subsequent period, another Hon. Member— faegmenatrind a h on er t p h r e ep o e th si e t r ien sid t e e o r f em th ed e yallthe House—brought aileged distress and suffering of the agricultural classes. In one their attention had been called to an essentially ral e measure asses t o Treducehey rejectedt e p e cu i l t i . a r I b n u r t d h e e n n s e o x n the in stance they were asked to agree to a motion, the virtual character and acknowledged tendency of which was to im pose a moderate du a ty r o e n foreign agricultural produce. They H rejected ouse it by majority; but all that time the the acknowledged, nevertheless, the distress and Well, the distress still al de pression ofagricultural classes.—(Hear, hear.) and the lielsi9ll drawing $o existing, increasing in severity, It close, azzoher proposi tion was made again by a Whig Member, the tendency of which was again to relieve the suffering of those classes. He could not consider that question upon its mere abstract merits or demerits. He must look at it with reference to the class on whose fortunes it was par- titularly calculated to bear an influence.—(Elear, hear.) After the speech which they had just heard from the Hon.plember for Westbury, he must take a general viow of the mode in which the taxation of this country was produced, and he would do it in one sentence. It was pro duced, generally speaking, by three modes—firstly, by duties on imports; secondly, by a system of inland taxa tion; and, thirdly, by a system of local contribution. Now, there was not a single article of our imports which could come into competition with our home agricultural productions which was not at this moment, generally speaking, admittrd free.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the second source of revenue—the inland taxation—a great portion, he might say the greater portion, was di rectly contributed by the land or its productions. — (Hear, hear.) And with regard to the third branch of the revenue—the local taxation—the whole c f it was raised from the land and its adjuncts. Now, he asked the House could that system go on much longer?—(Cheers.) He said that that was a state of things that could no longer be endured, and he must consider the propaition now before the Helm with reference to recent legislation, and the suffering conditicn of the agricultural classes. It brought them to this point, that the House and the country must decide the triuciples upon which the re venue c,f the country must in future be n ainly raised. That was the point which the people of the United Kingdom must ultimately, must even speedily decide upon. Acknowle,lging the burden of public taxes, they must decide whether those taxes were most grievous when they were raised externally or int, rnally.—(Elear.) It was a controversy, he would not say whether the fo reigner paid any portion of a Customs duty,—he hardly thought that there was any gentleman who would maintain that thesis; but it was a controversy to what degree the foreigner might contribute to a Customs duty. However, no one would maintain that a fo reigner paid an Excise duty, or that he contributed any portion to that duty. He maintained, therefore, that in considering the financial condition of this country they should adopt it as a principle that all alleviation of tax ation should arise from the reduction of Excise, and not Customs—(Hear)—and he must repeat th he could not understand the chain of reasoning rf the Hon. Member for Westbury, by which he seemed to infer that gentle men upon his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of the House were attempting to substantiate a proposition quite the re verse of that.—(fiew.) The Hon. Member drew an illustration, pursuing the same fallacious argument, from the condition of our colonies. If there were one propo sition which was more generally admitted than another it was the necessity of consolidating our colonial empire. Now, he did not understand by what means they could consolidate it unless they reduced to a fact the phrase of the political economists, that the colonies of England ought to be upon the same feting as the counties of England.—(Hear.) But it was always said that it was impossible to put the colonies upon the same footing with the counties, because they did not bear the same Excise duties. Now, if upon a late occasion the House had directed their attention to the Excise, and not to the Customs, they would have destroyed that great barrier to colonial consolidation ; and, while they relieved the distress of the people, they would have increased the imperial strength of this still great empire.—(Cheers.) He warned the House against the dangerous fallacy of taking the state of the revenue as the index of the national prosperity. He never would admit that the state of the revenue was an infallible or the only test. or even the principal test of the prosperity of the country.—(Hear, hear.) But he would say to the Government, that if they were pre pared to come forward and do justice to the land of the United Kingdom, then the land could take into conside ration what degree of sacrifice it could make for the common good.—(Hear, hear.) But when the Govern ment pursued a course which grievously injured that great interest, with whose welfare the interests of millions were bound up, and when the Government declared they would offer no relief to that interest, then they forced the Opposition to support measures of relief that, if the Government had exhibited a different disposition, they might not have supported.—(Cheers.) If Ministers had said that the Government would take the present state of the agricultural interest into its consideration, that ap peal, upon an occasion like the present, would have been listened to with respect and attention. But Parliament had now been sitting for six months ; during that time the distress had been aggravated, but had the Government taken one step to alleviate it ? Why, if they were a Ministry of the Manchester school they might say, " What you consider depression we consider prosperity; and we regard low prices as a source cf general content." But the Opposition faced a Ministry who, when the agri cultural interests complained of suffering, rose to acknow ledge it, but who said that higher prices were coming.— (Hear, hear.) Now that Hon. Members around him were going back to their counties, he wanted to know what they were authorised to say to their constitu ents.—(Cheers.) He wanted to be enabled to tell them at what point, in the opinion of the Government, cheap ness would become a curse.—(Cheers.) Because, if he were able to tell that her Majesty's Ministers, while consistently acknowledging that cheapness was the only object that the Government ought to attempt to realise, were prepared to recognise increased evidences of na tional prosperity in wheat at 20s. a quarter, then their constituencies would be able to comprehend their posi tion and their chance of relict from the existing Go vernment.—(Cheers.) But if they found themselves in this awkward position, that they had to meet their suffering constituents, and to tell them that, while the Government deplored their distress, they were sanguine it would soon pass away, and that they would receive remunera'ing prices; that meanwhile they were to continue to bear the whole local taxation of the country, with slight exceptions; that they were to endure unrestricted competition with the foreign producer; —then he could understand them to say thet such a Government, sympathising with their suffering and promising them relief , but not attempting by their policy to accomplish that relief, was a Govern ment entitled to their indignant opposition.—(Cheers.) But if, on the other hand, they were to be told that affairs were administered by a sincere free-trade Go vernment, who held free trade to be the greatet.t blessing to this country—that land was to continue to bear its disproportionate share c f local burdens and inland taxa tion, and the farmers were still to meet unrestricted corn petition with the foreigner—if they were to be told that there was to be no steps taken to remedy their suffer ings, and that the Government could hold out no hope of relief from more remunerative prices, then he could understand their constituents to say, " We observe you are in opposition to a free-trade Government act ing on distinct principles and aiming at distinct re sults; such men we fear, b u t wo respec t. In them we know what we have to deal with—we have to encounter in such an Administration a real and avowed foe. The course of such a Government will neces sarily' be the course of men of spirit and honour. From principle and conviction they will feel bound to take every possible means to aggravate our sufferings 'and to prevent a recurrence of circum stances likely to prove remedial to us; and unless the Government were removed, of which we are not very sanguine, we see nothing before us but a career of des pair."ththe,,cyonsusptiptuaernteedie, sentiments H e was e entertained nvnced that b y i f success, Suoh was the language that would express the s w ( i f th li a n u g c l the motion of the Hon. Member fur the North Riding of Yorkshire the effect would be to bring the House to its senses. If the motion were carriei, it would not be pos sible any longer for a Ministry to exist which would not definitely announce that it was not its object not only to perpetuate the present sufferings of the agricultural classes, but to increase them. The • question would then be intelligible to them; they would thus terminate for ever a series of experiments ; they would make the House, and the Government which that House supported and created, acknowledge their purpose, and strip away the veil which had too long clouded their features. With theie feelings, then, he should support the :notion, and he should do so sustained by the sentiments of all the eminent men who pronounced any opinion upon the corn-laws, for they held that the abolition of the one necessarily see quired the repeal of the other. To confirm this, he could quote many authorities, and ho could show from the language which they held that the country had often been told that they must submit to the malt-tax in order to avert an income-tax; but now they were burdened with both. The House should consider all this, that the agricultural interest was in a state of unprecedented depression; that th e con di t i on o f the agriculturists was without hope; and they should consider the enormous injustice of continuing this impost.—(Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL said that in one part of.the speech of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire he told the House that the question then before them was.. not a party question, and that he had that night not dis cussed it as a party man, though the cheers with which that remark was received might naturally have led to an opposite conclusion. Still he accepted the sen timents of the Hon. Gentleman as they were stated, and he derived great consolation from that declaration; but there were some of the statements of the Hon. member the influence and tendency of which were not quite free from danger. 1 he Hon. Member placed the land apart from and in opposition to all the other inte rests of the country.—(No, no, Hear, hear.) Th e Hon. Gentleman certainly told the House that if the land re ceived just and fair consideration the owners and occu piers of the soil would then consider what sacrifices they would make for the good of the community at large. In that statement there was at least some a . mbiguity. Sup pose they were to repeal th e sum, nearly amounting to 5,000,0001., which constituted the malt-tax; suppose they were to repeal the rest of the :excise, to the extent of 10,000,000/., and that public credit was shaken to its base, what consolation would any _Government have in being able to say that they had followed the advice of Hon. Members on the other side of the House? He saw, however, with great satisfaction, that the leader of a great party in another pl ce gave an opinion op posed to the present motion, and said that if be were a Member of the House of Commons he should not vote nroduced a revenue of for a repeal of a tax uhie h 4,500,000/. That was the opinion L ord S tan ey— rty. He said— the opinion of the leader of a great pa_ n r of the Home of " confeis that if I were a Igemb.. Commons, I should be rather inclined to coincide with de d - think no officer in the latter than the former, oppo sition would vote for the rernis-A-n ot a daty involving 4,500,000/. without being provided with some means by which the deficiency might be made good." (Pleat-.) For his own part, it was satisfactory to him to find that the lion. Gentleman did not represent the sen timents of Lord.Stauley. At that late hour he should not enter in.to the . particulars which the Hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire had given them. There were so many particulars in his speech that there would not be time to enter into them, but he might ob serve that for not less than three-quarters of a century, namely, from the year 1775 to the present time, the principle of the malt-tax had been recognized by Mem bers of that House, giad by political economists. No less a Pail tbas 44§m Smith bad Paid OA 265, or 27i, per quarter might be collected from malt more easily and without so much burdening tt e community as it might be from other articles. The Hon. Member for Buck inghamshire bad told the House that the present policy of the Government had proved destructive to the agri cultural interest, and they had also been told that the unexampled distress of that part of the community had token the Government by surprise. He must say that they had not experienced any surprise whatever—he never supposed that, in the great transition which the country bad undergone, suffering could have been alto gether avoided. The Hon. Member oppositeasked, with great appearance of triumph, whether this was a benefit or an evil; on these points, however, he had given opi nions frequently upon former occasions when other op portunities of discussing them had been afforded; but, considering all the circumstances of the country, whether living under prce.ection or free-trade, he could under no circumstances resist the conclusion that whe ther prices were high or low, whether they tank or rose, the Government should never seek by the intro duction of an Act of Parliament to produce artificial prices. That was a plain proposition. Whether Hon. Gentlemen considered that prices were at present not re munerative to the producers of the country, or whether they considered them generally beneficial to the country; whether they considered them one thing or another, the principle of legislation on the subject was a principle per fectly clear, and by which the Government meant to abide.—(Cheers.) Whether prices remained at their present level, or whether they sank below it, they would not attempt to raise the price of the food of the people of England.—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh!") And that was his answer to the question of the Hon. Gentleman. He would leave prices to he regulated by the supply of this country and of the world, and he would not inter fere with prices, whatever they might happen to be.— (Eleir.) But how was the prosperity of the agricultural interest consistent with the prosperity of all the great interests which together formed the well-being ot this country? It appeared to him that they were perfectly consistent with each other. The ordinary taxes of the country were taxes imposed for the benefit of the state. But there were other taxes of very great amount, some part of which went into the Exchequer, but the greater part of which went into the pockets of particular classes and interests, and which were a very great burden on the people, without yielding any benefit whatever to the Exchequer, or assisting to pay either the debt or the establishments of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Some of these taxes were no longer maintained, and their di munition tended to increase the prosperity of the people and enabled them to bear the taxes which were abso lutely necessary. He would instance the case of sugar. The diminution of the revenue from sugar was not very considerable. But if they compared the price of the 200,000 tons of sugar consumed in 1845 with the price of the same quantity consumed in the present year, they would find that the diminution of the price to the consumer in the present year was no less than 5,000,000/. But the loss to the revenue was not 5,000,0001, but much less. It was obvious then, that when such a great diminution of taxation took place, and when the people were enabled to consume articles of necessity at a much less price than before, they had the greater means cf consuming exciseable articles, and the greater ability to contribute to the revenue of the country.—(Hear, hear.) This result was seen that very day in the returns of the revenue, in which they found, that notwithstanding the diminution of taxation that had taken place in exciseable articles, the Excise revenue had not only increased, but the general state of the revenue was also increasing and advancing.— (Hear, hear, and cheers) Another proof of the ad vantage of the plan which the Government had been pursuing was the return of the exports which had lately been laid on the table. He found that while the value ot the exports for the month of June, 1849, amounted to 4,355,7831, the exports fur the corresponding month in 1850 amounted to 5,959,9491., being an increase of no less than 1,604,1601. on a single montb.—(Hear.) If, again, he took the first five months of 1849, and com pared them with the first five months of 1850, he found that in 1849 the value of the exports was 21,191,9731., while the value of these of 1850 was 26,027,9481., being an increase of nearly 5,000,0001. If, again, they compared those with the exports of the same period of 1848, they would find that the increase was about 8,000,0001.—(Hear, hear.) What did this imply? It implied that great numbers of people were employed at good wages, that they were able to consume the corn of the agriculturists and the sugar of the colonists, and all the various articles which contributed to the Excise and the other branches of the revenue of the country. — (Hear, hear.) It was in vain to tell him that in a country where manufactures were advancing at such a pace the agricultural interest would be left behind, and must long remain in a state of suffering.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) represented the landed interest as if for a long series of years they had ' been falling into a state of depression, from which they could never recover. He maintained that the reverse was the case—(Cheers)—that in consequence of the in crease in the manufactures and commerce of the country, both the owners and the occupiers of the land had been enabled to exchange their products at a much greater value than they formerly did.—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh!") He regretted he had not the tables there to prove it; but would Hon. Gentlemen who cried " Oh !" bo good enough to look at the rent of land and the re turns of the income-tax for the last year, and compare them with the returns for the years 1775 and 1790, and then tell him that the rent of the land and the returns received from land had not greatly increased in the course of that time?—(Loud cheers.) And what had been the main cause of that increase? The main cause had been the increase of our manufactures, and the pro digous exertions of those who were engaged in the trade and commerce of the country. The Hon. Gen tleman had asked him for the decision of the Govern ment upon this question. Ho begged to tell the Hon. Gentleman that what the Government main tained was this, that whatever immediate loss or im mediate difficulties might be caused to the agricultural interest by the great transition which was taking place in our social laws, that loss and those difficulties would be more than obviated by the general increase in the prosperity of the country, and that to enable the people to obtain their food at the cheapest rate at which it could bo procured,'and to exchange the products of their industry with foreign nations, would afford the best foundation for the increased prosperity of the land.— (Cheers.) He' believed that it would be an entirely false and injurious policy if, like the Hon. Gentleman, they at easpled to found that prosperity upon the princi ple of separating the prosperity of the land from the welfare of the other interests of the country. He be lieved that the welfare of all the great interests of the country were inseparably bound up with each other, and that the welfare of all these great interests was that which the Government bad consulted.—(Hear, hear.) With these principles therefore he asked the House not to consent to the motion of the Hon. Member for the North Riding. The Honourable Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had said that they overtaxed land, and that Customs' duties wero almost entirely rejected by them. The fact was, however, that the Customs' duties amounte I to nearer 23,000,0001. than 22,000,0001., which, according to his view, was charged upon the consumer, but which, according to the Hon. Gentleman's theory, was charged upon the foreigner. What would he have more ? (Hear, hear.) Even if they took the income-tax and the local taxation of the country, of which so great a portion was charged upon the commercial and manu facturing interests of the country, they would find that there was nothing like the sum raised from those sources that was raised from Customs' duties.—(Hear, hear.) He did hope, then, that the House would, as they had hitherto done, maintain that system of commercial policy they had of late years adopted—that they would not endanger the national credit by taking away at once nearly 5,000,000/. of taxes; that they would not reject the wise advice of Lord Stanley, who had declared that if he were a Member of that House he would vote with the Government on this occasion; but that they would save the credit of the country and persevere in that system which he considered wise for all the interests of the country.—(Cheers.) Mr. CAYLEY replied. The Hon. Gentleman con tended that no valid argument had been offered against the repeal of the tax, which was only an act of justice both to the producer and the consumer.—(Hear.) The House then divided. The numbers were— For the motion 123 Against it Majority —124 The motion was consequently lost. RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL. On the motion that this Bill be read a third time, Mr. CHAPLIN moved that the proviso to the 19th clause be omitted. After a conversation, in which Mr. Page Wood, Mr. Stephenson, and Mr. Newdegate took part, The SOLICITOR-GENERAL consented, on the part of the Government, to the withdrawal of the proviso. Mr. TURNER and Mr. HENLEY supported the proviso. The House divided, when there appeared— For the retention of the proviso l5 Against it Majority —62 The Bill was Passed with verbal amendments. The other orders were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half past Two. MARYLEBONE SAVI WELBECK-STREET.—EstabI COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF FRO PERIODS, DURING THY LAST On JULY 5,1844...1 Open Deposit Accounts. „ „ '1845 ...I .£14,638 1f , ,724 16,729 17,939 18.564 19,848 20,866 D. FINNEY, Se :NGS' BANK, ished July 5, 1830. OGRESS, AT SPECIFIXII SEVEN YEARS. Suing invested with Na tional llebtCommissioners £340,509 356,265 346,977 319,340 284,757 301,663 315,638 1846 .. n 77 • „ „ PP „1848 ... f , 19 1849 ••• _ _ PP VP 1850.. :cretary and Actuary. Dispatches were sent off last evening from the Co lonial-office, for the governors of the North American colonie , . [ADVERTISEMENT.] — Cured by Holloway's Oint ment and Pills Wounds in a Leg after more than Th ree Y ears ' suffering.—The wife of Mr. James Springle, schoolmaster, of the town of St. Patrick, Grenada, had been suffering from an ulcerated leg for more than three years, which was so bad that it baffled the skill of the professional practitioners in the island, who could not possibly heal it. After every other remedy had failed, Holloway's Ointment and Pills were resorted to, and by their powerful efficacy the wounds were soon healed, and a per fectly sound cure effected. These medicines excel all others in the cure of scrofula or king's evil, glandular, and other. un natural swellings.—Sold by all Druggists, and at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. Lately, as a railway train was approaching Cork, a man was observed with his neck lying over one of the rails. On the instant the driver sounded the whistle, the man awoke, quickly drew back his head, and the train p a ssed within a hand's breadth of his face. A moment ilufaced for the Whcie treiliigtiO4* PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons. THURSDAY, JULY 4. HOME-MADE SPIRITS IN BOND BILL. Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Ques• tion proposed, "That. the Bill be now read a second time."— Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the question to add the words " upon this day three months :"—Question proposed, " That the word 'now' stand part of the Question :' Deba e arising ; Motion made, and Question put, " That the Debate be now adjourned." The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 95. Acland, Sir T. D. Hatchell, John Paget, Lord Clarerice Adair, R. A. Shaft° Hawes, B. Palmerston, Via. Baines, M. T. Hayter, W. G. Parker, John Baring, Sir F. lleadlam, T. E. Price, Sir R. Bellew, R. M. Heald, James Pusey, Philip Berkeley, Henry F. Henry, Alexander Ricardo, Osman Bernal, Ralph Heywsod, James Rich, Henry Birch, Sir T. Heyworth, L. Robartes, T. J. Ilouverie, B. P. Hill, Lord M. Rom illy,.Colonel Boyle, Colonel Hobhouse, Sir John Romilly, Sir John Brocklehurst,• John Holihouse, I'. B. Russell, Lord John Brotherton, Joseph Hodges, T. L. Russell, F. C. Carter, J. B. . /lolland, Robert Seymour, Lord Cavendish, C. C. Howard, Lord E. Smith, John:Abel Cavendish, G. H. Howard, C.W. G. Somerville, sir W. Cavendish, W. G. Howard, E. G. Spearman, H. J Chohneley, Sir M. Butt, William Stanstleld, W. R. C. Clay, James Jackson, William Stabton, W 11. C,,'te, E. K. Jervis, Sir John Thornely, T. Cowper, W. F. Kershaw, James Tollemache, F. S. Craig, Sir W. G. Lascelles, W. S. Tufnell, Henry Dundas, Admiral Lewis, G. C. Vivian, J. H. Duudas, Sir D. Martin, C. W. Wakley, Thomas Ebrington, Viscount Ma:heson, Colonel Watkins, Colonel Elliot, John E. Maule, Fox Willcox, Brodie Foley, J. 11. Melgund, Viscount Wilson, James Fortescue, J. W. Mitchell, T. A. Wilson, Matthew Fox, W. J. Morison, Sir.W. Wood, Sir Charles Freestun, Colonel Morris, David Wood, W. P. Grey, Sir G. Mostyn, E. M. L. G•ey, R. W. Mulgrave, Earl Hardcastle, J. A. Ogle, S. C. Harris, Richard Paget,;Lord A. TELLERS. Bass, M. T. Wyld, James MAJORITY—NOES, 135. Fitzpatrick, J. W. Moore, G. H. ' Floyer, John Mundy, William Forbes, W. Muntz, G. F. Fortescue, Chichester Norreys, Sir D. Fox, S. L. Nugent, Sir Percy Frewen, C. 11. O'Brien, Sir Lucius Gaskell J. M. O'Brien, John Goddard, A. L. O'Brien, Sir Timothy Gooch, E. S. O'Connell, Maurice Gordon, Admiral O'Connell, M. J. Gore, W. R. 0. O'Flaherty, Anthony Grattan, Henry Packe, C. W. Greenell, Gilbert Pilkington, James Greene, John Plowden, W. H. Grogan, Edward Plumptre, J. P. Hallyburton, Lord I. Portal, Melville Halsey, T. P. Rawdon, Colonel Hamilton, Geo. A. Reynolds, John Hamilton, J. H. Roche, E. B. Hamilton, Lord C. Sadlair,John Hastie, Alexander Sanders, George Hastie, Archibald Scully, Francis Henley, J. W. Smythe, George Herbert, H. A. Somerset, Captain Hildyard. T. B. T. Sotheron, T. H. Hill, Lord E. Spooner, Richard Jon Etre, Sir W. G. Stafford, Augustus Jones, Captain Stanley, Edward Keating, Robert Stuart, Henry Keogh, William Sturt, Henry G. Knox C o l o nel Sullivan, Michael Lewisham, Viscount Talbot, J. H. Lockhart, W. Taylor, T. E. Lowther, Colonel Tenison, E. K. Lowther, Henry Tennent,;R. J. M'Cullagh, W. Thompson, Colonel M`Gregor, John Trollope, Sir J. Meagher, Thomas Verner, Sir W. Mahon, O'Gorman Vesey,:.Thomas Manners, Lord J. Vyse, R. H. Masterman, J. Wawn, J. T. Maxwell, J. P. Williams, T. P. Miles, William Wynn, Sir W. Milner, _W. M. TELLXIB. Moffatt, George Naas, Lord Monsell, William Mackenzie, W. F. Adderley, C. 13. Archdall, Captain Baldock, E. li. Buteson, Thomas Beresford, William Blackall, S. W. Blair, Stephen Blake, M. J. Booth, Sir R. G. Boyd, John Bramston, T. W. Bremridge, Richard Buck, Lewis W. Buller, Sir J. Y. Burghley, Lord Burke, Sir Thomas Carew, W. 11. P. Chichester, Lord J. Christy, Samuel Clements, Charles Clive, H. B. 6obbOld, John C. Cole, H. A. Colvile, C. R. Conolly,Thomas Corry, H. L. Cotton, W. H. Cowan, Charles Crawford, W. S. Davie, Sir Henry Devereux, John T. Dod, J. W. Dodd, George. Duckworth, Sir J. Duff, G. S. Duff, James Duncan, George Duncuft, John Dundas, G. • Dunne, Colonel Du Pre, C. G. Edwards, Henry Ellice, E., jun. Fagan, William Farrer, James Ferguson, Sir R. FRIDAY, JULY b. MALT-TAX. Motion made, and Question put, " That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Malt-tax." The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 123. Adderley, C. B. Drummond, Henry Mundy, William Aglionby, H. A. Dunne, Colonel Neeld, Joseph Alcock, Thomas Du Pre, C. G. Newdegate, C. N. Anstey, T. C. Edwards, Henry Nugent, Sir Percy Arbnthnott, 11. Evelyn, W.J. O'Connor, Feargus Archdall, Captain Farnham, E. B. Palmer, Robert Bagge, William Fellowes, E. Pechell, Sir G. Baget,..llon. W. Floyer, John Plumptre, J. P. Bailey, Joseph Fuller, A. E. Portal, Melville Baillie, H. J. Galway, Viscount Pusey, F. Barrington, Viscount Gooch, E. S. Raphael, Alexander Bass, Thomas Gore, W. 0. Rendlesham, Lord Bennet, Philip Gore, W. R. 0. Rushout, Captain Beresford, William Granby, Marquis of Salvvey, Colonel Best, John Grattan, llenry Scholefleld, William Blackstone, W. Greene, John Scott, Francis Blair, Stephen Guernsey, Lord Seymer, H. K. Blake, M. J. Halford, Sir Henry Sibthorp, Colonel Bramston, T. W. Hall, Colonel Simeon, John Broadley, Henry Harris, Captain Smyth, John George Brooke, Lord Heneage, Edward Somerset, Captain Bruce, C. L. C. Henley, J. W. Sotheron, T. H. S. Buck, L. W. Hildyard, T. B. T. Spooner, Richard Burrell, Sir C.l Hood, Sir Alexander Stafford, Augustus Burroughes, H. Hernby, John Stanford, J. F. Cabbell, B. B. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Stanley, Edward Cayley, E. S. Kerrison, Sir E. Stuart, J. Chaplin, W. J. Knight, F. W. Sturt, H.:G. Chatterton, Colonel Knightley, Sir C. Taylor, Thomas E. Cholmeley, Sir M. Lacy, 11. C. Thompson, Colonel - Cobbold, J. C. Lascelles, E Thornhill, G. Codring,ton; Sir W. Lennard, T. B. Trollope, Sir J. Coles, Henry B. Lennox, Lor i A. Tyrcll, Sir J. Compton, 11. C. Lennox, Lord HG. Vyse, H. R. H. Cotton, W. 11. Lewisham, Vis. Waddington, David Crawford, W. S. Ling, Walter Waddington, 11. S. 1 Cuhitt, William Manners, Lord G. Wegg-Prosser, F. Curteis,:ll. M. Manners, Lord J. Worcester, Marquis Devereux, J. T. 7 March, Earl of Wyld, James Dickson, Samuel MaunselL:T. P. TELLERS. Disraeli, B. Miles, W. Christopher, R. A. Dod, J. W. Mullings, J. R. Frowen, C. U. MAJORITY—NOES, 247. Abdy, Sir Thomas Gladstone, W. E. • Norreys, Lord Acland, Sir T. Greene, Thomas Norreys, Sir D. Adair, Hugh E. Grenfell, Charles W. O'Brien, I. Adair, R. Shafto Grey, Sir G. O'Connell, Maurice Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, R. W. Ogle, S. C. Arundel, Earl Of Han, Sir B. Ord, W. Ashley, Lord Hamilton, Lord C. Owen, Sir John Baines, M. T. Hanyburton, Lord Packe, C. W. Baring, Sir I. T. Harcourt, G. Paget, Lord A. Barnard, Edward G. Harris, Richard Paget, Lord C. Berkeley, Admiral Basile, Alexander Paget, Lord G. Berkeley, H. F. llastie, Archibald Pakington, Sir John Berkeley. C. L. G. Hatchell, John Palmer, Roundel' Bernal, Ralph Hawes, Benj. Palmerston, Viscount Birch, Sir T. Hayter, W. G. Parker, John Blackall, S. W. Ileadlani, T. E. Pelham, D. A. Bouverie, E. P. Heald, James Peto, Samuel M. Bowles, Admiral lleathcote, G. J. Pilkington, James Boyd, John lleneage, G. H. Plowden, W. H. Boyle, Colones Henry, Alexander Price, Sir R. Brand, Thomas Herbert, H. A. Rawdon, Colonel Bright, John Herbert, Sydney Reynolds, John Brocklehurst, J. Hervey, Lord A. Ricardo, Osman Bromley, Robert Heyworth, L. Rice, E. R. Brotherton, J. liobhouse, Sir John Rich, Henry Brown, William Hobhouse, T. B. Richards,_ Richard Buller, Sir J. Y. Hodges, T. L. Robartes, T. J. A. Bunbury, EH. Hodges, T. Twisden Roche, E. B. Burke, Sir T. J. Ilogg, Sir J. Romilly, Colonel Buxton, Sir E. Hollond, Robert Romilly, Sir John Carter, John B. lloward, Lord E. Rumbold, C. E. 1 Cavendish, C. C. Howard, C. IV. Russell, Lord J. Cavendish, G. H. lloward, E. G. Russell, F. C. Cavendish, W. G Howard, P. 11. Sandars, George Childers, J. W. Howard, Sir R. Scrope, G. I'. Christy, Samuel Hughes, W. B. Seymour, Lord Clay, Sir W. Humphery, Ald. Shell, R. L. Clay, James Ilutt, William Sianey, R. A. Clerk, Sir G. Inglis, Sir It. 11. Smith, Vernon Cockburn, Alex. Jackson, William Smith, J. A. Coke, Edward K. Jennyn, Earl Smith, John B. Coiebroeke, Sir T. Jervis, Sir John Somers, J. P. Collins, William Kershaw, James Somerville, Sir W. Cowan, Charles Kildare, Marquis of Spearman, Henry Cowper, W. F. Labouchere, henry Stansfleid, W. R. Craig, Sir W. G. Langston, J. 11. Stanton, W. 11. Crowder, R. B. Lascelles, W. S. S.ephcnson, Robert Davie, Sir 11. Legh, G. C. Strickland, Sir G. Denison, J. E. Lemon, Sir C. Stuart, Lord Dudley D'Eyneourt, C. T. Lewis, Sir T. Stuart, Lord J. Divett, E. Lewis, G. C. Stuart, H. Douglas, Sir C. Lindsay, Colonel Talbot, J. 11. Douro, Marquis of Littleton, E. R. Tancred, 11. W. Duff, George Locke, Joseph Tenison, E. K. Duff, James Lowther, Colonel Thompson, Colonel Duke, Sir James Lowther, Henry Thornely, Thomas Duncan, Lord Lygon,lGeneral Towneley, John Duncan, George Mackie, John Townley, R. G. Duneuft, John M`Cullagh, W. T. Tufhell, H. Dundas, Admiral M'Gregor, John Tur ner, George Dundas, Sir David M'Taggart, Sir J. Tynte, Colonel East, Sir:J. B. Mahon, Viscount Vane, Lord H. Ebrington, Lord Mangles, R. D. Villiers, Charles Egerton, Sir P. Manners, Lord C. Vivian, J. H. Ellice, Edward Marshall, J. G. Wall, C. B. Ellice, Edward, jun. Martin, J. Walter, John Ellis, John Martin, C. W. Watkins, Colonel , Elliot, John Martin, Samuel Wawn, J. T. Estcourt, J. B. B. Matheson, A. Wellesley, Lord C. Euston, Earl Matheson, J. Weathead, J. P. Evans, J. I Matheson, Colonel Willcox, Brodie E wart, William Mauls, Fox Wilson, James Fagan, William Melgund, Viscount Wilson, Matthew Ferguson, Colonel Miles, I'. W. S. Wodehouse, E. Ferguson, Sir R. blither, W. M. Wood, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, JW. Mitchell, T. A. Wood, W. P. Fitzwilliam, G. W. Moffatt, George Wortley. S. Foley, John H. Molesworth, Sir W. Wrightson, W. B. Forster, Mathew Monsell. William Wyvill, M. i Fortescue. Chichester Moore, G. IL Fortescue, J. W. Mostyn, E. TELLER/. Fox, W. J. Mowatt, Francis Hill, Lerd Marcnil ' Freestun, Colonel blulgrave, Earl Bellew, it. M. Gibson, Thomas M. Noel, G. J. RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL, Read a third time; Amendment proposed page 8, line 32, to leave out from the word "performed" to the end of the Clause : Question put," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." The House divided:— MINORITY—AYES, 15. Banbury, E. H. Inglis, Sir B. Spooner, R. Christy, S. Newdegate, N. Wawn, J. T. Estcourt, J. B. B. Ricardo, Osman Wodehouse, E. Evans, John Scholetleld, W. TELLER'S. Galway, Viscount Sibthorp, Colonel Turner, George Henley, J. W. Sotheron, T. Wodehouse, Edmund MAJORITY-NOES, 77. THE LATE SIR It. PEEL. Before this announcement meets the public eye, all that was mortal of this distinguished statesman and lamented individual will rest under the roof of his own much-loved paternal residence of Drayton Manor, in Staffordshire. About six o'clock last evening a plain hearse, drawn by four horses, and followed by a moult:di g coach and four, entered Whitehall-gardens. On nearing the resi dence of the lamented deceased, a handsome coffin, co vered with crimson velvet, was removed from the hearse and carried on the shoulders of eight men into the man sion. Tho hearse and mourning coach presently withdrew into Privy gardens, where they remained in waiting. At seven o'clock they returned into Whitehall gardens, and in a very few moments afterwards the coffin, containing the remains of the lamented deceased, was borne from the mansion through the court-yard, and deposited in the hearse, which had been drawn up at the gates to receive it. The coffin was enclosed in a dark wrapper, but not covered with any pall. It was preceded by two footmen in livery, and followed by Mr. Townes, steward for many years past in the Right Hon. Baronet's family. After the coffin had been placed in the hearse, the coach drew up, and received Mr. Frederick Peel, M.P., Viscount Hardinge, Sir James Graham, and the Right Hon. H. Goulburn, M.P. The hearse and coach then proceeded at, a slow pace through Whitehall, and u p St. Martin's-lane, in the direction of the North-Western Railway station. The removal was witnessed by et large number of per- Bons w h o had assembled in Whitehall-gardens, and as the cortege passed through the crowd' largely increased, many persons accompanying the procession throughout the whole line of route. Neither the hearse nor the coach had any feathers, and it was observed that no pages nor undertakers men accompanied the removal. Mr. Inspector Field, with Sergeant Kendall and Ser geant Thornton, of the Detective Force, and Mr. In spector Darken, of the A Division, were in attendance, the three former officers proceeding to Euston-square with the cortege. . _ Application bad been made to the railway authorities to allow the hearse to be placed o❑ a truck and conveyed through to Tamworth by the mail train. This proceed ing is not usual, in consequence of the objectioa many passengers entertain against travelling in the same train which conveys a deceased person. The company have carriages for the purpose, but, in consequence of a re quest on the part of the family, Captain Huish, the manager of the company, communicated with Mr. Glyn, M.P., chairman of the board of directors, and the result was that instructions were given that the hearse should bo conveyed as desired. On the arrival of the cortege at the station, the horses were taken out, and the hearse p'aced upon a truck, under the direction of Mr. Brooks, the superintendent of the btation. 'The truck was subsequently attached to the train, which left town at the usual hour—a quarter to nine o'clock. Viscount Hardinge, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Goulburn remained until after the departure of the train, and then returned home. Mr. Frederick Peel alone accompanied the remains to Tamworth, at which place arrangements had been made to receive them by a local undertaker. The funeral will take place on Tuesday next. We are happy to be enabled to add that Lady Peel was more composed yesterday. Iler Ladyship will leave town this morning for Marble Hill, Twickenham, the residence of Colonel and Lady Alice Peel, where she will pass a few days in retirement with her children. COURT CIRCULAR. Lord John Russell had an audience of the Queen yesterday at Buckingham Palace. Her Majesty and Prince Albert, with the Prince of Prussia, took an airing in an open barouche and four yesterday afternoon. The Equerries in Waiting, Colonel Buckley and Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. Alexander Gordon, attended on horseback. His Royal Highness Prince Albert rode out on horseback yesterday morning, attended by Lieut.- Colonel the Hon. A. Gordon. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, attended by Mr. Birch, took a drive in an open carriage yes terday. Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Royal, Prince Alfred, the Princess Alice, and the younger members of the Royal Family, took their accus tomed airings yesterday in the garden of the Palace. The Royal dinner party at Buckingham Palace yesterday evening included his Royal Highness the Prince of Prussia, his Excellency the Chevalier Bunsen, the Countess of Westmoreland, Lord and Lady John Russell, Count Herrman Puckler, Lieut.- General de Lindheim, and Count Charles de Golts. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester visited their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge yesterday, at Cambridge House. A Cabinet Council was held yesterday at the Foreign-office. It was attended by Lord John Russell, the Marquis of Lansdowne ' the Earl of Minto, Sir George Grey, Viscount ralmers• ton, Earl Grey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Francis Baring, Sir John Hobhouse, the Earl of Carlisle, the Right Hon. H. Labouchere, and the Right Hon. Fox Maule. The Council sat one hour. A deputation upon the subject of bonding in Man chester had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, at his official residence in Downing-street. The deputation consisted of Mr. Alderman Watkins, Mr. William Gibb, and the town clerk of Manchester ; also the Mayor of Salford, ac companied by the Right Hon. T. M. Gibson, M.P., Mr. Bright, M.P., Messrs. Brown, M.P., Brotherton, M.P., and Kershaw, M.P. Mr. Pete, M.P., bad an interview with the Com missioners of Railways yesterday, at their office in the Board of Trade. A deputation, consisting of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, the Lord Provost of Perth, the ex- Provost of Greenock, the Provost of Montrose, two of the magistrates of Glasgow, Baillie Puller, of Perth ; Baillie Watson, of Aberdeen ; Mr. M'Cullum, town councillor, of Aberdeen; Mr. Ness, president of the Tradesmen's Society of Aberdeen ; Mr. John Hen derson, of Glasgow ; Mr. F. Brown Douglas, of Edin burgh ; Mr. James Balfour, Edinburgh ; Rev. Mr. Graham, of Ayr; Mr. Blair, of Greenock ; Mr. James Watson, of Kelso; Captain Giberne, of Bath; Dr. Greville, of Edinburgh; Mr. Joseph Wilson, hono rary secretary of the Lord's Day Society ; Rev. G. Baylee, colonial secretary of the Lord's Day Society of London, had an interview with Sir George Grey yesterday, at the Home-office, to request that Go vernment oppose any alteration in the late postal arrangements. TO H. It. H. PRINCE ALBERT. THE PETITION OF THE TREES IN HYDE -PARR, ON LEARNING THAT THEY WERE TO BE SACRIFICED TO THE EXHIBITION OF 1851. A thousand years are pass'd away Since we hay., lived in hist'r3's page; The world grows grave, and grim, and grey, But ours is still a green old age. Dane, Saxon, Norman, Knight, and Thane Here roused at early more the chase, And tender maid and sylvan swain Made this at ere their treating place. Then, Prince, forbear; if ha wk;nor hound, Nor love, thy pity can provoke, Yet sympathy may still be found, In Mash hearts, for "hearts of oak." Our trunks lie rooted in the soil Which bygone generations trod, Our shade refresh'd their fathers' toil, Our heads point upwards to their God. Retraced in yonder Minster grave, By regal hands* cur beauty lives;t Their " home upon the mountain wave," Their " wooden walls" our bounty gives. When bluff King Harry's iron hand Made bondsmen of our Abbots free,t He seized the ground on which we stand, But wisely spared the old oak tree. He drove the virgin from her cell, The monk from Edward's Minster tower, While we survived to hear his knell, And graced his daughter's regal dower. Then rang again the sylvan glade With echoes of the royal chase, And courtly gallants wooed the shade Which great Eliza deign'd to grace. And when the summer tide came round, The May-pole deck'd our crowded green; For English sports aye most abound Beneath the sceptre of a Queen. Till Cromwell rose, and sports all fled,§ And we were left to mourn alone; — He tore the crown from Charles's bead, But axe ne'er touched our sylvan throne. And soon the Merry Monarch came, Our ancient honours to restore; And hound and hawk pursued the game, As in the good old days of yore. Then, Prince, forbear; vouchsafe to sparo The trees which sterner Cromwell sold;R The crown, of course, he scorn'd to wear, Yet deemed us worth our weight in gold. And when the mart of this world's art Shall leave no vestige of its fame, The greenwood tree will bloom for thee, And bless, for ever, Albert's name I Morniug Po: t. G. F.M. * Westminster Abt ev, built by Edward the Confessor in 1050. and rebuilt by - Henry 111., 1250. -t " No attentive observer ever viewed a regular avenu , of well-grown trees but it presently put him in mind of the long vista through a Gothic cathedral.' Wm burion's Notes on Pope. In the time of Henry VIII., Hyde-park formed part of a manor belonging to the abbot and monks of Westminster. In the reign of Queen Elizabath we read of its " herbage, pannage, and browzewood for deer."— Jesse's London. . . V § Under the rule of the Puritans, the May meetings —the merry sports and festive rejoicings—were declared to be abominable.—Jesse's London. 11 In the days of the Commonwealth, Hyde-park must have been extremely well N% coded, for we find the timber alone valued at 5,0991. 19.3. 6d., the deer at 7654 —Jesse's London. LORD PALMERSTON ABOUT 1820.—" Lord Pal merston came to town, sent for by Perceval. He was so good as to confide to me that three things were offered to him —the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, Secretaryship at War, or a seat at the Treasury, by way of introduction to the Seals, if he was afraid of entering upon them at once. These offers were, however, in the alternative of there being one of them declined by Milnes ( Member for Pontefract), to whom they were made in the first instance. Lord Palmers ton consurted me very frankly upon them, and asked if I thought he would be equal to the seals either in Cabinet or Parliament, particularly the latter, where he had barely made his debut. I told him, and was most sincere, that in common with all his friends whom I had ever heard speak on the subject, I thought him quite equal to them in point of capa city, but as to nerves in Parliament (of which he seemed most to doubt) nobody could judge but himself. He said, Petty (whom I had mentioned) had come forward after having felt his way and got possession of himself in the House, and that if he bad done t he same, he perhaps would not hesitate. As it was he inclined to the second place, but had written to Lord Malmesbury. We walked up to Hyde-park discussing the subject. Among other topics which I urged, one seemed to impress him much; which was, the great difference there would be in his situation and pretensions upon a ,return to office, in the event of our going out, if he retired as a Cabinet Minister, instead of a subordinate capacity. He allowed it much flattered his ambition, but feared the prejudice that it would occasion to his own reputation and the interest of his friends if he failed. I left him inclining to the Secretary at War, and admired his prudence, as I have long done the talents and excellent understanding, as well as the many other good qualities as well as accomplishments, of this very fine young man."—' Memoir of R. Plumer Ward. CHESTER AND HOLIELEAD RAlLWAT......Traffio for the Week ended June 30, 1850 ; C. and H. Main Line. 2,9571. 4s. 10d. ; Mold, 1061.61. ld. ; Steszo-boStei 1614 ss• Bd. i Wotal) 3,529.1, 16e. 7d. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1850.