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

110 (li e Z ch ango had occurred for the last twe :,r-ene .. r, a n d l aug h ter. ) Th ere were many reasons far the lability of the price of that article which did not exist in ' l :trades. When barley was very high the brewers h ad ° pcsed raising the price of small liquor, but the publicans ccome to them and said they could not carry out the and that the beer should sell at the .same rate—the Jerters should balance a good year with a bad year ; but i ( n le price of beer could not be raised by the publicans, sell wg it as they did by retail and in small quantities. He 4 ° l lld ask the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Frewen) not to l i Z e k s,his motion, as it was not likely a continued chan g e tzar he proposed would be acceptable, when a much 4 / 8 troublesome one was rejected. He would, then, briefly 6: l ' to the case of arti,ies on which reductions in duty had d p„„ 11 rude. On coffee the duty ha be 16d., and the re- et iuxe had then been a million; but when en it had been re eed to 4d. it had produced a revenue of 3,000,000/. In 4 ger they had received a revenue of 5,000,090/., yet, although o„retluction of one-halt in the amount of duty had been made 4:lo...British plantation sugar, the revenue had reached t i uo ,ooo/., and he had no doubt would bring more. ( 1 4 41, 0 a the article of brandy, in 1846 the duty had been re thred from 225. to era yet for the two successive years 04 e Y had derived a lerg revenue • and in 1819 the revenue brandy had increased by 400,01101., but he admitted that a 9 owing to the cholera. He thought there were as many rte drank beer as drank tea and coffee and those other er-aes a , „, ea nhe could tbt think the same rule would '7, )14 3' to it the no u duty were reduced. They had reduced 1 duty on bread; and without giving any opinion upon the t ertion he might state that the consumption of corn of all lo rd bad in cre ased by 10,000,000 of quarters. The Noble 1 0 „ I 'd (Lord Naas) who had introduced the motion relati ve "Ile-made spirits, had said that he would improve the „;tal condition 'of his countrymen by giving them m ore to consume, but having it of a better quality. Now, ithout pretending to advocate that proposition, he wo uld , a 4 3 ' that it the facilities for increased consumption of m alt 4(tiltter 'of good quality and of moderate strength, rather as article of diet than of intoxication, we r e afforded the ZuPle of this c o untry, it would tend muchl to improve their j 4 o rel 'and social position. He would then conclude by mov logtithat one-half of the malt-tax should be repealed on the d i , aof October, 1852, with a view to the relief of t he pro -IQtar of barley and the consumes of beer, without a material lo se to. the revenue.—( Hear, hear.) CAMPBELL, in opposing the motion, would endea tf,,tlr, in the few remarks which he would submit to the elee, - to let fall nothing disrespectful either to the Hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the motion or to the ierag e which had had the advantage of his advocacy.— .!`, and laughter.) The Hon Gentleman did not reckon q et the brewers or maltsters as friends of his ; but however S interests might be concerned, their opposition would be to grohnd for condemning a measure for which larger or ,; (I re important public reasons could be urged. A very few 4 ,.eeks ago it had been settled by that House that the abro eieo of the malt-tax was not to be carried. Now , after all th at had been urged on that occasion on the subject of what to woula be a great fiscal revolution, he did not see how it that be proved to be a beneficial ma ter to do away with tai which he would rtate. It was this, that the farmer 1•!ald have recourse to that manufacture t. ithout encroach -48 ranch upon his other resources, the grain from which it Ra s Made being one which would be least required in any c ase „ of emergency or necessity. It was said that a fixed ci „ I tY of Is. 6d. would fully indemnify the agriculturist for i73' loss. It appeared to him that to reduce the malt-tax a half, would .be more desirable than to abrogate it. ct he, would ask, had they no other duties to consider the re dactiona t of? Were there not the tea duties to deal with? 4 e confessed'he would rather see a duty of 2s. on the im- T rtation Of corn than the abolition of the malt tax , however ▪ impbSition of that duty might be productive of agitation ▪ confusion.—(Hear.) k• r. PREWEN begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman oppo -lite whether he would be disposed to vote for that for which , 3 great majority of the agriculturists were anxious, ntimely, 11 4 ,r 1 total repeal of the malt tax ? He wished to know 7Oether his present motion was to be looked upon raerely al an instalment of justice, and as one step towards toaal re- Peal ?--( Hear.) , Mr. BASS th oug ht it wo u ld have been hardly necessary . 4 _ o for him t o answer th a t que stion, as he had already voted more than once for the total repeal.—(Hear.) Mr. FREWEN then said, that under the circumstances he Would not press the amendment of which he had given Zotf ee. _ ( H ear. ) Ur. Ata.ooii. said the agricultural classes had reason to `.? grateful to the Hon. Member for having brought forward t motion. There was so much justice in the proposition that if it were not for the difficulty, as a matter of finance, he believed the Chancellor of the • Exchequer would be 4): him, if he could see his way to grant that which was. asked ' lie would take the liberty of suggesting one thing, Which he thought might be as good for the agricultural in terestsin as the repeal of the malt-tax, and that was to threaten .to put on a duty of 10/. a ton on Peruvian ;piano, Which would tend to make that article cheaper than it now Vila owing to the monopoly of the Peruvian Government. e had no'heaitation in saying that it entirely depended on the farmers of England whether the Peruvian Government could pay a farthing on their 3,700,0001. of bonds. Sir W. JOLLIFrE said that the farmers of England Would, no donbt, be glad to obtain guano at 5/. a ton ; Out he Could not understand bow that result was to be obtained. He _would, however, tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that !Oder our altered commercial system it would be impossible Stanch longer to continue to .raise our revenue in the m ode in Which, it had been hitherto raised. For his part, he should ,ce glad to see that tax entirely repealed. He believed that urewing_had become a monopoly through the agency ot!' the t ax ; and he said that they could not go on blowing hot and cold with the same breath, raising a revenue of 5,000,000/. !Ender a system of protection, while they carried , out their free -trade theories in articles of agricultural produce. In c onclusion,' he should observe that he would only support that motion ae, an instalment for the total repeal of that most Unjust and objectionable . impost. Mr. HEY WORTH said he quite concurred in the :state 'tent of the Hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, that With free trade it would be impossible to maintain tha t tax, because . the direct object of free trade was to increase con- Ihroaption b_y diminishing the prices of commodities. Mr. PRESHFIELD said he readily admitted that, at the moment they had abolished protection and had adopteil free trade, they had condemned the malt-tax, and that it a tould be impossible to carry out the two systems together. But he Was 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 loss of the revenue derived from the malt-tax could be supplied. In his opinion that was a matter of so much im portance, that it was the duty of any gentleman who pro- Posed a repeal or a reduction of the tax to state how he Would rare an amount of revenue equal 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 h e ad mitted '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 conitider jag that question, to know what tax they were to have as a substitute for the malt-tax; for it was quite possible that the sub, ititute might be worse than the tax itself. Mr. SANDARS said he bel eyed that the brewers ware the only parties who would derive any benefit from the repeal of that tax. He should feel it his duty to oppose the motiion. The GHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that that mo tion resembled 80 much in spirit, if not in substance, a modal: for a total repeal of the malt-tax, which the House had not long since negatived by a majority of about two to one, theft he should not think it necessary then to repeat the arguments he had used upon that former occasion. .But the motiion 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 ifs collecting , a sum of 2,500,000/., which was at pre sent inctarred in collecting a suns of 5,000,0001. He knew no tax of the same amount which was raised so easily as the present malatax ; 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 iin place of it, for no one would be sanguine enough to suppose that so large an amount of taxation could b e remitted without having recourse to some other expedie at for replenishing the Exchequer. The Honour able M ember for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had, on the lireceding night, announced his intention of taking the seines of the House on the question, whether in the exist ing state , of the finances of the country there should be any retnissio a whatever of taxation. And surely those Hon. Gentleroien 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 at nount 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 suggesteiet that he should impose a duty to the amount of 101. per ton fan guano manure; but as that was at present the whole coat 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 a; stick, while it would be productive of considerablo disadvat itage to the farmer. He entirely agreed with the Honountkile Member for Wakefield. (Mr. Sanders), that the probabilfitty was that the repeal of the malt-tax would be beneficieflt not so much to the consumer of beer or to the pro ducer of: barley, as to the maltster and the brewer. He would rt 'mind the Hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), that althougl 1 the price of malt had of late years considerably de clined, the price of beer had not been in the slightest de gee red.uced to the consumer. A most strenuous advocate for a rei teal of the malt-tax, Mr. Baker, of Writtle, having been aslted before the Committee of the House of Lords on the burdens on land, what had been the effect of the reduc tion oft tie duties on malt and barley from 70s. to 505., which had fort rterly - been effected, had candidly confessed that the 3,000,0 C kW. of duty which had been so removed had neither led to at t increase in the price of barley, nor to a reduction in the pric e of beer.—(Hear, hear.) Under those circumstances he confidently hoped that the House would not accede to the motion. Mr. WEWDEGATE said he hoped the Hon. Member for Derby would not divide the House upon that occasion. H e had always voted for a total repeal of the malt-tax ; but he could not vote for a measure of partial repeal, 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 h which they would sacrifice. For his pa rt, be should muc rather support the partial reduction of a cus tom duty, th nof an excise duty, because a reduction in the former case woulda 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. BROTdERTON said he wished to remind the e Hon. Member f r Derby that there was every reason to apprehnd that; an increase in the consumption of beer in this country wet mid only lead to an increase of public immorality. He be lied ed 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. DRUMMOND said that the Hon. Member who preceded him did not seem to know the diffarence between whiskey and beer. He (Mr. Drummond) admitted that the nee of whiskey was productive of much evil, but be 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 preparei 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 maintaining a naval force of 40,0e0 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. lie 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. 'fold confer all euential benefit on the aKricultural body. THE SUN, Mr. BASS replied. He bell ved that a relertion of the melt-tax to one-halt of its present amount would not be attended with a less of one-halt of the present revenue, be cause, the effect of such reductions has always been to in crease consumption, and to render a larger quantity of pro duce liable to the duty. The House then divided, and the numbers were — For the motion 31 Against it „, „, 76 Majority against the motion ••• —45 REDUCTION OF NATIONAL ARMAMENTS. Mr. COBDEN rose to move " an humble address to her Majesty, praying that she will direct the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with the Government af France, and endeavour to prevent in future that rivalry of warlike preparations in time of peace which has hitherto been the policy of the two Governments; and to promote, if possible, a mutual reduction of armaments!' The Hon. Member said it bad been remarked in the course of the discussion which had just terminated, that we were ap proaching times when it would be impossible for certain interests to support their present amount of taxation ; and he confessed that one of his motives for bringing forward that motion was, that he believed it would be so far suitable to present circumstances, that it would teed to produce a diminution of our national burdens. Before he entered upon the subject he wished it should be distinctly understood what was the scope and purport of his motion. He did not want that motion to be taken for more than it meant. He did not propose that they should enter in any way into a consider ation of the amount of the armies maintained in continental nations. In alluding .to the warlike preparations btween France and England, be wished to refer solely to their naval preparations and fortifications. It was very well known that our armies bore no reference to the armies of the conti nent, and it was equally well known that the armies of the Continent were never formed with any reference to the armies of England. For his part, he could not help think ing that the immense standing armies of the Continent were the curse of the present generation. Those armies were Maintained, nut for the purpose of meeting foreign enemies, but for the purpose of repressing domestic foes.—(Hear, hear.) But he wished it to be understood that his object was that we should enter into negotiations with France for the reduction of the navies and of the fortifica tions of the two countries, while he hoped that that example if successful, would ultimately be imitated by other nations with respect to their armaments generally. He hoped Hon. Members would agree with him that the maintenance in time of peace of any amount of naval force beyond that which was required for the protection of our commerce against pi rates, and the attacks of barbarous nations, was in itself an evil. They might, however, tell him it was a necessary evil ; but why was it necessary? It was only necessary because other countries we're armed as well as ourselves, and because it was necessary that we should be prepared to defend our selves against them. Now in that ease he contended that the force maintained on both sides was a pure waste of money, and more than a pure waste of the money spent, because it alio prevented the employment of the armed troops in profitable and productive employinent." It was clear that if the object of two countries in maintaining a force was to be prepared for mutual hostilities, that object could be attained by the employment of one man or one vessel on each side as well as by the employment of twenty men or twenty vessels. But he might be asked, why he assumed that England armed against France, and Franca against England? He wee prepared, however, to substautiate that point by evi dence which could not be disputed. He was not often in the habit of reading quotations to the House ; but h e should read a few upon that occasion. In the course of a debate in the French Chamber of Deputies in the year 1846, when it had been proposed that a sem of 100,000,000 of francs should be voted for the purpose of effecting a vast augmentation in the navy, in consequence, almost exclusively, of an augmen tation which had taken place in our navy during the two preceding years—in the course of that debate M. Tillers bad said :—" There is nothing offensive to England in citing her example, when our navy is under consideration, any more than there would be in speaking of Prussia, Austria, or Rus sia, if we were deliberating on the strength of our army. We pay England the complimeht of thinking only of her when determining what shall be our naval force. We never count the ships which leave Trieste or Venice; we care for those only which leave Portsmouth or Falmouth." These were the words of M. Thiers. And language of an equivalent character had been held by the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in this country in the course of the debate upon the financial statement of the Prime Minister in the year 1848. The Noble Lord had then said that—" So far from its affording any cease of offence to France that we should measure our navy by such a standard, he was sure that any one who had followed the debates in the French Chambers when their nava' estimates had come under dis cussion, must know that they had followed the same course, and had adopted the natural standard in such cases—namely, the amount of the naval force maintained at the same time by other nations." The Noble Lord at the heed of the Govern ment had stated upon the same occasion that—" although it had never been our custom to allude to the military force in other countries, he thought that such a great increase as that which had taken place in the naval estimates of France required the attention, and ought, at all events, to come under the knowledge of that House " These were the highest authorities, and he apprehended it would be considered, after hearing them, that he had indulged in no baseless as sumption in stating that the two countries were guided in their policy by each other's expenditure. What was the consequence? He had two objections to urge against that policy ; first, that it was an irritating policy, and one con stantly tending to increase the evil which it engendered; and secondly, that it induced the two countries to proceed on exaggerated accounts of each other's armaments.—(Hear, 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 were alarmed. A Ccmmittee was appointed by the French Chamber to inquire into the state of the French navy. A report was made, which stated that the English Government, with its usual foresight, under the modest pre tence of providing eight guard ships, had fitted out an armament of floating batteries, of the destructive powers of which some idea might be formed by comparing their broad sides with the most formidable batteries on land for the destruction of fortified places, and that it was absolutely necessary for France to prepare an armament of similar character and equal force, so as to have nothing to dread in future in case of a possible misunderstanding with England. Here was it stated broadly that the eight steam guard-ships were preparing against France. But what was the fact? When he sat on the Committee in 1848 it appeared, on examining the authorities at the Admiralty, that only four of these guard-ships had ever been completed, and instead of being, as was stated in the French report, capable of remaining at sea for fourteen days, it would have been im possible for them to remain more than three or four days from their want of capacity to carry sufficient coal. He would now show how the two nations had been playing see saw with each other. in 1545-1846 we increased our navy a million sterling. In 1846 France voted a proportionate 100,000,000 francs. The next year, Mr. Ward, the Secretary of the Admiralty, in again proposing an increase, cited the example of France. After giving a de tailed account of the augmentation of the French estimates in the previous year, he added that he found no fault w ith France, who had only done what she thought right and ne cessary for the maintenance o. her position, and that she had set us in many respects a noble example; that these facts ought to be a lesson to us, and imposed a very heavy respon• sibility on those u ho were in power in this country. Ot course it could not stop there. It ran our estimates up to 42,000 men, and he believed that 41,000 or 45,000 men were borne. This could not fail to produce its effect in France. He held in his hand an extract from a report to the present National Assembly of France on the navy, in 184 1 . "Let us see," said the report, " whether foreign powers set us the example of reducing their naval armaments. This very spring England has voted 40,000 men for the sea service. (Hear, hear.) - Wetontinue to maintain'our 24 vessels of the; line afloat, and 16 on the stocks, whilst England has her 70'. ships afloat, besides those in the course of building." But the; thing could not be complete, the farce could not come to its climax, without another quotation. In 1851 Sir F. Baring' —and he would mention• it incidentally had induced' him to give notice of this motion—Sir F. Baring, in moving the navy estimates, said " it was impossible to fix upon what would be necessary for our, own establishments, without looking to those of foreign countries. He might, however, observe, that they had had sufficient proofs in the course of last ye, -, r that a gallant, active, and intelligent people, not far off, had not by any means neglected their naval establishments or their naval Power."—( Hear. ) The Right. Hon. Gentleman then went on to describe the evolu tions at Cherbourg. He held in his hand a report of the Commission appointed by the National Assembly, to consider a vote of 6,800,000 f. for the works at Cherbourg, dated April 11,1851, " What," asked the report, " were the defen. sive works at Cherbourg ? If they wanted any reasons for no longer allowing their coasts to remain in a defenceless state, they had only to listen to the opinion expressed by one of England's most renowned sailors, Admiral Napier, in his letters to the Times, and look at the map and observe the vast works which the British Admiralty were executing at Jersey and Alderney.—( Hear.) This was the more necessary, inasmuch as the railroads and steam-boats of England were every day increasing, which gave the means to the power which possessed them of concentrating at any given point a sudden expedition." One of the best things which the House had done since he (Mr. Cobden) had entered it was to suspend these works at Alderney. the continuance of which was an affront to France. Cherbourg, as every one knew, was a most valuable and indispensable harbour of refuge foe' merchant ships, and its breakwater might well have been made by contributions raised from the maritime states of all Europe ; while Alderney was nothing but -a great fortifica tion, so close to our neighbour that we might be said to be holding our fist in her face. The history, if you got at all the secret movements of the panic, would be a most amusing and instructive history. The country in 1845 was persuaded we were going to be invaded. Engineers had a roving com mission given them to see where money could be spent to fortify England, and afterwards Guernsey and Jersey. One of the officers so employed said at Plymouth he met with a person who believed his throat was about to be cut by fo reign invaders, and the officer added, he shared in the panic. It was under this panic that 3,000,000/, or 4,000,000/. were spent, and the works of Keyham and other expensive pro jects were commenced. England had not the monopoly of this fear, for France shared it with her. In a pamphlet written by Mr. Chevallier, to prevent the consequences of the panic in France, it was there stated that France had gone to an addi tional expense of 10,000,0001. or 11,000,0001. The writer showed that in a limited period England and France had expended about 13,000,000/. each on naval purposes. As suming that no one would attempt to contradict the asser tion that there was a spirit of rivalry, the q uestion arose, was there a remedy f or it ? Could human reason be brought to bear against this mass of folly ? lle would not go back to treaties for disarming or demolishing certain fortresses, or en armed neutrality, and such things, in olden times , b ut there appeared a case in modern times which bore completely on this matter, and he would refer to it. We had a treaty with America for the purpose of limiting the amount of nava l force on the lakes dividing Canada from the United States. He would read the treaty. The Hon. t the treaty, the substance of which was that there should be on of vessels of war. It must be borne ininin l‘a d ine d m h eb a ge t ur t a h rl i e s a t d re all the lakes no more than a limited and was made at the conclusion of a very Duke of Wellington had written a letter sanguinary tn w th a e r. . e fr T e e t that naval superiority was necessary for England e on the lakes, and was essential in case of anotherruto ture. But the country had the good sense to limit force to be kept on those lakes. What had been the result of this frien dl y conven , ion? It had not only limited the force, but had abolished the armed force altogether. He had sat on a Committee on the navy estimates at that time, an d could find no vesse l o n the lakes of t he nature of an a rmed force. This was the effect of the friendly convention _neither country at last cared to keed up any manifesta tion of force at all. He would ask, could it n( t be Feasibl e to devise some plan, if not a convention—was it not practi cable to make a communication to France, saying, " We are willing to reduce our navy, having now so many line-of battle ships in commission and building, our relative force being three to two ; and if you go on the same way the same proportion will a , ntinue to exist. Will you do the same? Can we not put an end to our rivalry and fears, and reduce the number of our naval force ?" He contended that it was perfectly practi cable —our naval stations permitted such a plan. The Pacific station might be relieved of the armed force we kept up there. Lord Auckland, in 1848, stated that having the force on the Pacific station at that time we hL I reference to the force kept by France. So if we kept forces in the Pacific or the Mediterranean, could we not, by mutual agreement with France, lessen that force? He might be told there were other nations to be considered; but neither Spaiu nor Holland were naval nations. The other naval nations of the world were France, Russia, and America, and it was with these nations only we need enter into treaties. America had a commerce extending as wide as our own, and if she went on extending her commerce at the same rate she bad done for the last few, years, she must be come eventually the greatest mercantile and maritime power in the world. If America could carry on her commerce without the aid of one line-of-battle ship, there could hardly be any fear from that quarter. Then as to Rus-ia, he did not share the fears of some Hon. Members as to Russia ever becoming a great naval power. Russia had, no doubt, a number of large ships; but if she had a large naval force she kept it at home, and for good reasons, for if she exhibited her maritime power to the inspection of maritime countries like America it was possible she would not inspire any very great admiration or respect. With the large number of sailors we had in our mercantile marine, he did not think we need fear anything from those countries which did not possess a marine. Well, then, America offered no obstacle to the plan he suggested, but rather invited co-operation; and France certainly would see it was her interest to come into the proposition under these encouraging circumstances. Were we then to go on for eves in the' same course? He thought not. He might be told this was not the proper moment for such a proposition. He believed that was a mistake; no better time than the time present could be se lected. He would quote a short extract from the Times to prove the state of public opinion on this question. (The Hon. Member read an extract, which was to the effect that the people were not disposed to war either here or on the continent.) If this were so, where was the use of France keeping up her present enormous naval force? No one could suppose that France would not willingly save the ex pense. .He had conversed with French politicians, who told him France kept up hernavy because England kept up her navy, and that France would be glad to be released from that burthen. There would be no sacrifice of dignity on the part of England to make overtures to France—for prance never pretehded to rival England as far as her navy was concerned. ' France always conceded the superiority to Eng land, and, therefore, overtures on the part of England could not be placed to the account of fear. He was sure that the present rivalry mutt cease,.because the force kept up on both aides was so equal that neither could expect to gain an ad vantage. ,If one country was weak and the other strong there might be a motive for going to war, but in the case of France and England every step taken towards aug menting their naval strength was taken out of respect and fear of each other. At present if England aug mented her navy, France did the same. We were acting not for the purpose of gaining , an advantage over France, but for self-defence. No one could doubt that a war between France and Edgland would be mutually disadvan tageous, and therefore the strongest motives existed for putting an end to the present state of things. He wished to hear the Noble Lord's opinion of his proposition, and whether he was disposed to entertain and support the principle in volved in it. What he asked was, that at least an endea vour should be made to diminish the existing forces, and to put an end to rivalry. He should be content if he only saw an attempt made to prevent waste and expenditure for the future. if something of the sort was done, it would be per fectly consonant with the altered temper of the times. (Hear, hear.) Private enterprise was doing much to bring the two nations together. A few years ago 34 hours were required for a post to Paris; now the journey was performed in 11 hours. Formerly a person talking a foreign tongue in this country would have been called a Frenchman and in sulted; now we saw all kinds of foreigners in the streets of London—a grand meeting of nations who could assemble in one common temple for harmonious and peaceful purposes. He asked Government to go with the spirit of the age, and to adopt the principle of the plan which he ventured to sub mit to the House. He should be glad to hail that Minister who, casting aside the old and stale maxims of foreign di plomacy, and adopting new and more suitable principles, earned for himself endlesa renown. He begged to move his resolutions. Mr. UR4UHART rose to move, by way of amendment, " That it is inexpedient, by res lutions of this House, to move the Crown to originate negotiations on abstract questions." Previous to the last war, England maintained but a single frigate in the Mediterranean. This was by compact with other nations, for it was generally understood if a naval force was sent abroad it was sent for aggressive purposes. A. na tion's naval force was usually kept at home. lie tendered to the Hon. Member his thanks f)r bringing forward this sub ject, but the lion. Member had left out some material cir cumstances in his otherwise lucid and valuable statement. It was not correct to attribute the increase made by France in her navy to the previous increase made by England ; that increase had its origin in the growing jealousy in France to wards England, ' and the hostile feeling attempted to be created in the minds of Frenchmen. The man who had bad the greatest action on French affairs was M. Thierr, whose policy was to increase the naval strength of France, more especially on account of the repulsive attitude assumed by the Noble Lord at the head of foreign affairs. The late Sir Robert Peel was of opinion there was no reason for the Syrian treaty, which (we understood) had then taken place, because i.s effect was to sow estrangement rather than to prove the friendly feelings, between the two coun tries. The Nobls Lord had not carried out a conciliatory coarse of feeling towards France, and this was the real origin of the increased armaments which had taken place. He agreed with the Hon. Member fur the West Riding that there was little cause for difference between this country and France. The misunderstandings of late years had arisen solely from the iriteiference of the Government in affairs in which they had no concern. As the resolution at present stood he could not give it his unqualified support. Mr. MACKINNON, after complimenting Mr. Cobden on the speech he had just made, said he differed from the Hon. Member who had last spoken as to the effect of our inter vention in other countries, which he contended had been productive not of war but peace. With respect to war itself, they were all aware that it had been too common even from the earliest ages. He did not think there were likely in future to be wars of a similar nature. He had no desire to deprecate the advantages of peace or to deny the evils of war. One writer had remarked that man had destroyed a greater, number of his kind in one year of war than savage animals had destroyed of their species since the creation. With respect to a relative reduction of force he did not see if we were to reduce our fleet to two men-of-war on condi- tion that France reduced her fleet to one ship, how we could protect our colonies and transport troops to and from our various possessions. He thought the Hon. Member for the West Riding ought to be satisfied with having made his statement, and leave to the Noble Lord the Foreign Secre tary to take what steps he might think fit in the matter. Lord PALMERSTON said that in offering his opposition to the motion he hoped the House would not suppose that he wished'to express, or that he _was actuated by, any feelings or by any principle at' variance with the fundamental prin ciple on which the proposition before them was founded. However he might differ from his Hon. Friend—if the Hon. Member for the West Riding would permit him to call him so—with regard to the many practical opinions which he from time to time expressed in that House, and however little he might think of the methods by which he endea voured to give practical effect to the general principles which he thought best calculated to , obtain his ends • yet with regard to the international principles and feelings l i which influenced him as an advocate of peace he was ready to do most ample justice, and to subscribe implicitly to the general tendency of the views which he had from time to time expressed upon that point. He .trusted that the part which it had been his lot to take in the administration of one department, of the Government of this country had not shown that there was anything inconsistent with the opi nions he was now expressing.—(Hear, hear.) However easy it might be for some Honourable Members — in that easy, colloquial, happy style—(A laugh) which belonged to the Hon. Member opposite—to talk of him as an intermeddler, yet he could appeal to facts that during ,the considerable period for which he was responsible for •the foreign relations of this country— a period during which there had happened in Europe events of a most remarkable kind, attended with great commotions of public feeling during which great agitation bad existed in the social and political systems of Europe—during which events had hap pened which had brought the interests of Europe, he would not say into conflict, though it might be in opposition to the interests of other great and powerful nations—peace had been preserved between this country and other nations; and not only that, but there had been no international wars of magnitude between any or the other great powers of Europe. —(hear.) If, therefore, he was taunted on the one hand with perpetual interference and intermeddling in the affairs of other countries, credit ought to be given him that that intervention and that interference had been accompanied by the continuance of peace. He ought not to be accused of constant interference, and yet he refused the credit of the results of that interference. With respect to the question more immediately before them, he might remark that in seeking to attain any great object they might not fix their eyes exclusively on the object itself, but ought to cast a glance at the rcad by which it was proposed to reach it; for many people were so devoted to the end that they never looped to the means, and did not choose the most judicious mode of accomplishing their purpose.—(Hear, hear.) Now, if all nations were composed of philanthropic and philo sophic men—exempt from the influence of the passions— with enlarged minds and comprehensive views, then it might:be proposed—and he thought justly proposed—that the best mode of obtaining peace would be to proclaim that we were totally unarmed—to throw ourselves on the good feelings of other countries, and to assure them that we had none but friendly feelings towards them. But man was not of such a nature. The world had not arrived at that pitch of civilization when one country could rest for its safety on the forbearance of its neighbours.—(Hear, hear.) The world had not arrived at that pitch of civilization at which a country, possessed of a number of things which its neigh bours might desire to acquire—a country the commerce of which attracted the jealousy of rival merchants— a country possessed of colonies and possessions which might be the ob jects of covetousness to other maritime nations—he said the world had not arrived at that pitch of civilizatiOn when such a country, so rich, and possessing'so many objects of desire, could rest its security simply on the rgood intentions of its neighbours and its own perfect incapacity to defend itself. — (Hear, hear.) The objection which he took to the means by which the Hon. Member for the West Riding from time to time endeavoured to force on the country his laudable and pacific views was, that the Hon. Gentleman aimed too much at divesting this country of its means of defence before other nations had put themselves in a position similar to that in which he wished this country to stand.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman began his speech by stating that he put the comparisbn of military means out of the question, and that he confined the question to the compara tive naval strength of different countries. To a certain de gree he would accept the standard of comparison proposed— viz., the relative power of England and France ; but he must observe that it was impossible, in taking that comparison as a standard, to throw out of the question - as the Hon. Gen tleman had done—the military force of France; because, if unfortunately any event was to arise which should lead to hostilities between two countries so near to each other, and brought still nearer than formerly by modern improvements in navigation, it was impossible not to see that the country which possessed an army of 350,000 men, with a national guard of about 1,000,000, as compared with another which had net a standing military force within the realm of more than 40,003 men, with neither militia nor national guard—it was impossible, he said, not to see that in comparing the means of offence and defence in these countries, they could not confine themselves to the number of line-of-battle ships, but must take into account the military strength which each possessed for attack or defence.—( Hear, hear.) The Ho nourable Member for the West Riding had been in the habit of underrating the works at Cherbourg, and tp speak of that harbour as if it were simply a port of refuge; but when the Honourable Member talked of the works in Alder. ney being aggressive, against Cherbourg he might as well have said that a sentry-box was an aggression against a foitified town.—(A laugh.) Cherbourg was, in fact, a great naval arsenal, the works of which—according to the very report referred to by the Hon. Gentleman—had been in progress for nearly 50 years, at an expense of be tween 7,00.9,000/. and 8,000,0001. sterling, and the value of which to fiance was represented to be as an advanced port within 01 miles of the English coast, and, as incapable of being blockaded, a most important port . of attack or aggres eiowagainst England, —(gear, hear.) lie did not wish to LONDON, WEDNESDA.Y exaggerate at all the relative means of Franco for aggression and attack as compared with those of this country, still less did be wish to imply that the, continuance of the Cherbourg, or any other works on the part of France, was to be consl dered as, an indication of existing hostile feelings towards England. For his own part he utterly disclaimed any such belief.—(Hear, hear.) He 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 most 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 most important services, and capa ble —if actuated by feelings fatal to peace—,Of inflicting great calamities on each other—it was, he said, most gra tifying to see that every day that passed, that every month, every year that elapsed was giving rise to more generous and friendly feelings between these countries, and that the feelings of mutton friendship aid esteem were rapidly succeeding those antiquated notions of antipathy of which he trusted nothing would remain except the record of them in the history of the two ,countties. But he still main tained that if it was the wish of a sich country like ours to main ain relations of friendship vith a powerful neighbour, we must be able to repel attack.a-(Hear, hear.) He did not ask the country to arm itself wine the means UP - aggression. Ho did not wish to see anything hour 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 Franee.—(Heara hear.) 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 interpretaticn.—(Hear, hear.) On the other hand, he did say it was e duty which we owed to ourselves—which we owed to bore functions which Pro vidence had destined the couniy to fulfil—which we owed to those who were to succeed us, that we should place the country in -a position, ,ant-_ keep it in 'a position, to be able to repel attack, if tarough unforseen and un fortunate circumstances such I, necess ity should arise.— (Hear.) It was his (Lord Palmerston's) misfortune to be always pursued by the Honoirable Member for Stafford with that reckless feeling of condemnation which the Honourable Member had shows 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 the 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 collected that these two transactions occurred when the Government of this country vas administered by the late Sir Robert Peel.—(Hear, hear The Honourable Member must, therefore, retract the corden3nation he passed_ on the Government, or must modify ii some degree the panegyric he bestowed on others.—(Hear.) The Honourable Member had naturally remarked that tle proposal that an arrange ment should take place between France and England for the reduction of their naval forces was open to the objec tion that these countries were not the only.naval powers in Europe, and that bott might reply to each other that there were °ther considerations by which their respective arrangements must be guided. It was proper to recollect, when the lion. Member . said that for a long time the two countries of France and England had been struggling to outvie each other in their naval arma ments, that the facts were net ; ss the Hon Member had re presented. True, the events .ccnnected with the expulsion of the Egyptians from Syria in 1840 and 1841 had led to an augmentation of the naval forces , 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 it' ad 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 while 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 (lid make. It was, as was afterwards per ceived and stated, that the navel defences were not at all in keeping with the question which then agitated the two countries. It was stated, however, that in 1846 there was a debate in the French Chamber upon 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 England had at that time, and which, according to his Honourable Friend, was the foundation of the French armament, was this—one sail of the line 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 (Lbrd Palmerston's) fortune to hear, turned upon this, that Vs e Governmentof 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 es question of two sail of the line. The Hob. 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.—(A laugh.) M. Theirs took him around the fortifications of Paris, which cost, he believed, something like 12,000,000/. 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 ()Pillion 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) had 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 regulatieg 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 geeat and manifest distinction between inland lakes and the seas of the world. That distinction had been marked broadly by the conduct of the two powers, because having made it as to the inland lakes, they did not go further and make it in regard to the seas of the world ; but for the reasons he had already stated, it was manifestlyimpossible 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 comingto 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)—that if common sense actuated those who on both sides had the management of affairs, Englaud 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 disappear, 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: knove atactly 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 appropriate time than the present for a de monstration of th,is nnture, because we had Just, as the Hon. Gentleman had' 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 in 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 had done us the honour of visiting us on this occa sion than the spirit of order which they observed to p er vade every rank of society in this country, and that they had expressed their wonder at seeing 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 excellenc e of those laws—thou g h he did not mean to say they were perfect any mo re th an an y other human institution could be—but the comparative ex cellence of those laws which secured to every man, from the highest to the lowest, throe full enjoyment of the ' honest fruits of his industry, and pected him alike against op pression from above and insult from below--(Loud and ge neral cheering)—he said he was g lad the Hon. Gentleman general meeting of the world in Parliament those p r i nc ipl es hhearde,tatkoenpraodevlaainnitaignehoisf pthlaices of universal peace which did honour both to him and to the country ; and if he (Lord Palmerston) objected to being sent b,.und and fettered into a in which they were proclaimed negotiation in which he confessed he could not see his way practically, it was not that he objected to the end which the Hon. Gentleman proposed to accomplish, but because he thought that that end was more likely to be accelerated by the language of the lion. Gentleman, and by the sentiments which lie and the House w ere expressing, th an i t would be by the particular and specific motion which he had this evening laid on the table of the House. Upon these grounds, then, he trusted his Hon. Friend would be satisfied with those expressions of approbation 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 t his country, or in th e wo r ld, 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, hear.) When he (Lord Palmerston) assured the House that the endeavours of her Majesty's Govern ment would be continued in this direction he must say be 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 that the diffusion of constitutional Government throughout 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 in 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 unto hostile conflict without the shedding of a drop of blood.—(Hear, hear.) He said, then, he thought the pro gress of civilization in Europe was mast encouraging 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 as 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 of 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 farther 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.) Ho 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 in 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 Howe to bear in mind that the maintenance of an efficient fleet was essential to the protection cf 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*ivi sion of opinion in that House upon this most important subject.—( Hear, hear. ) 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 hero 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 R. 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. Guam{ and Mr. PIZYCE also expressed a hope that the f s t a h i d e h d e i s h e a u d s e e x n p w e rhi which hc hade d e t x a t k r e e mat e e p s ae i f e a n c d - Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his moti on . ti at Mr C t the n E e N o 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 exnpbatically 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. Member's motion, which he conceived to be, not only the maintenance of peace with France, but the inspiring the two countries 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, via., 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, bear.) The motion was then withdrawn. BIBLE MONOPOLY. Mr. HUME rose to move " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be gra ciously pleased to direct that measures may be adopted to I 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" tas " 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 press 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 boaril 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, net 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 10d. 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 • Stuart Wortley, Mr. John Evans, Mr. torney-General for Ireland, Sir FredHenenelkewTh, Mr. Crowder, Mr. and mGero.rfveriAalhetxsoann.der. Hamilton, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Baines; Mr. FREWEN rose to move the second reading of the Sir G. GREY aid Mr. fi OT B RHE RTON, on agreedinterp to postpone , Squestration ofßeneces Bill ; but, the osition it of and The other orders baying been disposed of, the House ad . iourned at a Quarter to One o'clock. [ADVERTISEME ]llolloway's Pills a wonder ful Remedy for Bau Digestion, Bilious Complaints, and Sick Headaches. —Thomas Goodman, Esq., of Baker-street, had for years suffered from b ad digestion and frequent bili ous attacks, - and was very seldom free fromsevere sick headaches. He had consulted the most eminent physicians and surgeons of the metropolis, but could derive no permanent relief from their renaeciies; at last, tired out by their ill success, he re.o r t e d t o the use of Holloway's Pills, which have so renovated his sys tem and strengthened his constitution that he now does not suffer either from bile, indigestion, or headache, but enjoys the best of health.—Sold by ali Druggists, and at Professor Hol loway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. A TWO.FIEADED CALF.—.A. person residing near Llandilo, Carmarthenshire, has now in his possession a living 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 interview yesterday with the Chancel ' for of the Exchequer, PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS :From the Vacs and .Proceedir.ps of the House of Commons.) TUESDAY, JUNE 17. MALT-TAX. Motion made, a7al Question put, " That on and after the 10th day of October, 1852, one half of the Malt-tax be re pealed." The House divided MINORITY-AYES 31. Barrow, W. H. Galway, Viscount Scholefleld, W. Bennet, Philip Gilpin, Colonel Spooner, Richard Cayley, E. S. Halford, Sir Henry Stanley, Edward Child, smith Hatiewell. E. G. Urquhart, David Cohbold, J. C. Halsey, T. P. Waddington, H. S. Codrington, Sir W. Jolliffe; Sir W. G. Wakley, T. Colvile, C. R. Keating, Robert Williams, W. Cubitt, William Lewisham, Vis. Drummond, Henry Meagher, Thomas TELLERS. Farnham, E. O'Connor, Feargus Alcock, Thomail Forbes, W. Prime, Richard Bass, M. T. Frewen, C. H. Solway, Colonel MAJORITY-NOES, 7G. Adair, R. A. French, F. Price, Sir Robert Anson, Colonel Geach, Charles Ricardo, Osman Baines, M. T. Gibson, T. M. Rich, Henry Baring, Sir F. Granger,:T. C. Richards, Richard Bell, Jacob Grenfell, C. Pascoo Roebuck, J. A. Bellew, li. I , lf. Grey, Sir George Russell, F. C. H. Bentiuck, Lord H. Grey, It. W. Sand ars, George Birch, Sir T. Harris, Richard Smith, J. Benjamin Boyd, John Hatchell, John Somerville, Sir W. Boyle, Colonel Hawes, Benj. . Stanton, W. S. Bright, John Heyworth, L. S , ephenson , Rober t Brotherton, J. Howard, Lord E. Strickland, Sir G. Brown, W. Hume, Joseph Thompson , Colo n e l Carter, J. B. Ilumphery, Ald. Townshend , Captain Cobden, R. Kershaw, James Trelawny, J. S. Cockburn, Sir A. Lewis, G. C. Verney, Sir 11. Cowper, W. F. Loveden, Pryse Vivian, J. H. Craig, Sir W. G. ICiackie, John Walmsley, Sir J. Crawford, Robt. W . Mackinnon, W. Wilson, James Crowder, R. B. Mitchell, T. A. Wood, Sir Charles Dawes, Edward liorgaii, H. IC. Wood, Sir W. P. Dundas, Admiral Mostyn, E. M. L. Young, Sir John Dundas, Sir David Mowers, Francis Ellis, John Palmerston, Viscount TELLERS. Evans, J. Parker, John Hayter, W. G. Ferguson, Sir li. Perfect, R. Hill, Lord Marcus Fox, W. J. Pilkingten, James LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, ✓une 1;. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. HARMER. showed Mr. Chambers, Mr. Atherton , and Mr. Hugh Hill, cause against a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show why t h e Master should not be at liberty to tax the defendant's costs of the first trial which had been bad 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, which 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. TnastesEn was heard in support of the rue, and said he belived the proposition put forward by the Learned Counsel on the other side, that the Court could net 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 plaintiff's 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 v. 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 Weehly 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 Weekly 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 liheinhold 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 lit 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 rtheinhold, 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 Casimarltheinhold's name was not once mentioned, nor any attempt whatever made to deny the 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 hiinself, 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. The defendant in fact had been compelled to pay costs by reason of the deli berate perjury of Itlaeinbold, while what took place on the second trial established beyond all question that the Duke had been fully aware of the fact that Rheinhold's evidence was not true. Now, had the Court been aware of that when they made the original rule, would they not have made the order for which he (the Learned Counsel) was now contend ing? If the Court had been aware that the plaintiff obtained his verdict by such scandalous means, would they not at once hove ordered that he should pay the costs of the other side? He 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 ParrEsose asked if there was any instance wheie the Court had ordered the successful party in a trial to pay the costs ? Sir F. THESIGER did not know of any; but this case, as it now stood, was precisely the same as if there had been no verdict in the plaintiff's favour ; and their Lordships would not be doing justice to the deendant 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 immediately connected with this perjured testimony, and justice could only be done by making this rule absolute. Mr. Jamas,Q.C., and Mr. Boma, were heard on the same side. Lord CAIkErnELL, after consulting with the other Learned Judges, said, with some degree of warmth—ln this case I 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 ' rule ought to be made absolute. The first questio p n oi whe ther the Court has power to award that the costs sl;allbe paid by the Duke of Brunswick. Upon that action ; is, I can have no doubt ; the defendant has succeeded i there is a particular verdict in his favour, an ti the has been entered up upon that verdict. New and judgment i suc ceeded in the action, ought he not to be inderne-jaeve'da g for the costs he has incurred in defending it? Ought he not to have the costs of defending himself u 1 )onth s e first trial when a wrongful verdict was returned a gaiiit him. Generally speaking, where there is a new trial granted, it is upon the payment of costs, becaus e i t i s to be supposed that no fault can attach to the Win n : appear clearly and distinctly that the first verdict had been winning party ; but if it should obtained by perjury, and there party obtaining the verdict is reason to believe that the was privy to the perjury , he ought not only to be deprived of costs, but to pay the co sts of the other side. Such was the opinion of Lord Mansfiehl in the case to which reference had been made" Anderson r. George," where h e says that if a plaintiff obtained a ver dict by a trick, and the verdict was afterwards set aside the Plaintiff should be compelled to pay costs. low surely, in in a case where it bee 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 he 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 in cases where the verdict has ower hung exercised? It is said that there is no precedent for such a proceeding; well, then, if there is no precedent, I think it is tit that such a precedent should be made. I have rule no scruple in giving my opinion that this is atjettn inttghhetxca sion for m akin g that precedent. To be sure, w was made by the Court for a new trial, i t was not or dered that the ver dict should be set aside, with the costs tstobe paid by the plaintiff; because the facts were not then f u lly complete or properly before the Court,otherwise m y opinion, the Court ought then to have set aside the ‘,,c irri. diet, and ordered the costs to be paid by the plaintiff. But the Cart, upoa that occasion, poly set aside the verdict, ..„ . .41777 k /r...., p , a.. : ,,,,..4. , ...--.Aki re, is' A vd9.1.44 ,t ot --...... """" 1 " 1 ""^:r174. , ..4 , ,...,... tN. directing that the costs should abide the event-athar4 ,ii k d say, if the plaintiff succeeded upon the second trial, li,, • ; eee should have his costs. At the time the rule was grstereedssalaiea . ni there was nothing to convince the Court that the vex 4i .c O z e ip e t in4 ' r c had been improperly obtained, while the Ciiiirt ehidoa at e u' ee , e ' ?' every reason to believe that Casimir Itheinaai; 74, ''... e 7 would be again called, to be confrontl . aselak ""+. of i those who could show that he had been gu4 - ' 4 a/ - "' of perjury. Under those circumstances, it would 'h* ..., been unbecoming in the Court to have pronounced thai Itheinbold 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 hem granted, it would have been impossible un til the second trial had taken place to apply to reframe the rule. Even if the defendant had been in pos session of any evidence to show that perjury was committed 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. He makes this application when the costs are to be taxed, and the question is what costs he 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 made it cannot be altered. The C urt has always in its own power to control any rule which it has pronounced until final judgment has been ob tained upon it. Well, then, is there nut strong evidence in this case from which it may be fairly inf erred that the first verdict was obtained by perjury, and that the plaintiff was privy to it? That Rheinhold perjured iiimeelf 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? H e was not forthcoming. Certainly he was not 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 be 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 rot have been cognizant of the perjury? Ile has denied what has been sworn by Eason, but he has taken no notice of what is sworn by Goddard. Now what does he swear? He swears that he gives salv no Casimir Rheinhold go into Brunswick House on the 18th of J anuary, a few days b e f ore t h e t r i a l, and the Duke cannot doubt thate x o p n la t n h a e ti j o s n th on of t j h a a n t u a p r o y int. c asi T m h ir er ß ef h or e e in l . hold was at Brunswick House, and I cannot doubt that the Duke of Brunswick knew where he was at the time of the second trial. He has not denied the allegations contained in the affidavits, nor does h e g i ve any exp l ana ti on of what took place on the 18th of January. Ile gives no informa tion whatever of the instruction svhich he 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 th erefore, however pain ful it may be to me to come that conclusion, I cannot help think ing that when Rheinhold showed himself in theawitness-box the Duke of Brunswick was fully aware and oogitizant of the nature of his evidence. I cannot bring my mind to doubt that Rheinhold was known to be a witness whom the Duke ought not to have brought forward, and if that be 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 PATTESOX 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 of indicting the parties guilty of committing it; but if the rule now pro posed was adopted, it would be very difficult to know where to step. 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 affidavit was suspicious; but suspicion was not sufficient. If the case had rested on laason'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 I:heinhold was not a witness to be trusted, but was not suffi cient to show that he was aware of it before the first trial. t-. 2.0 that if 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 Coes:rune:re 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 net 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 been 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. Rule discharged. COURT CIRCULAR. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester visited the Queen yesterday at Buckingham Palace. Ilia Royal Highness Prince Albert, attended by the Mar quis of Abercorn, Colonel Hon. Charles Grey, and Colonel Bouvcrie, 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. Th e P r inc e oF %Vales and Prince Alfred, attended by Mr. Birch, visited the Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations yesterday morning:, The Queen and Print:e, Albert, accompanied by th e P r i nce of Leiningen, honoured 'ter Majesty's Theatre with their presence last evening. The Royal suite consisted of the Viscountess Canning, Honourable Matilda Paget, Hon. Mary Seymour, Lord Carnoys, General Wemyss, and Colonel Bouverie. The Viscountess Canning has relieved the Countess of Charlemont in her duties as Lady in Waitinr , to the Queen. Her Majesty's privat e b an d was in attendance after dinner on Menday evening, in Buckingham Palace, and played the following pieces;— Overture, " Barcarolle" !tuber. Trio, " Pre aux Clercs" Herold. Bolero Selection, " Hans Hailing" Finale, Ist Act, " (Theron" 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 Dichess of Kent. The Rev. J. Carlile, D.D., F. Bossey, 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. Nukes, solicitor to the Commissioners, and Mr. Sargent, their clerk, had an interview yesterday with Sir George Grey, at the Home-office. The Cambridge University Commission had a meetingyes terday at the official residence of the First Lord of the Trea sury, in Downing-street. Present—The Bishop of Chester, the ean of Ely, Professor o S f e t cl h g e w L ic o k ra , andmay Mayor ofe Rev. D ub 1 .1 W n W. H. B aAt deputation, D on, se secretary. consistingry . Alderman Roe. Sir Lucius O'Brien, M.P , Mr. Grogan, 'M.P., Mr. G. A. Ham lton, M.P., and Mr. heron, had an interview yesterday with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at his official residence in Downing-street. TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION. (EVERY MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY.) Sir,—On Monday the 16th, the most remarkable re sult in the House, w as repairs at Maynooth by only a majority of two; th e numbers being 121 to 119. It, is to be regretted that by the forms of tho House, the indications of su 1 of the vote for e facts in what are called the .6 Votes," should . bhetappear exceed ingly obseure. In the present instance it I mig a l r pse as if no pains had been spared to prevent any glimpse the of the truth, that the deductioonmaof yno - oth, or that 5001. proposed vote was for repairs t nether vote, was an at proposed to be deducted from another to the Treasury. tack on the income of a Secretary splayed a marked absence of On Tuesday the lious s e efferin gs of incarcerated eon commiseration for the oro particularly when their name sakes of witnesses, kindred are supposed to be aiding in the sakes and near k t i o n f French cookery at Boulogne. Th e actual enjoyment t;on was contemptuously rejected by motion for lihere • t looks like the tre t • - 4•lt almos:ei ment which 133 against , • s inners a expect,nwhen finally t large may . tem pter. merc ies of their d the old question f 0 On the same aythe Malt Tax diffe rentunderslightly form, but with Was rerie .. dof result as before, in : !, of t he same kin 76 to 31 , against- a majority more two to on e, then After this came on what is called the Peace motion of the Member for the West Riding. Among the various d e b a ters on the subject, none appeared to state the ob jectl l with a. the clearness of which it was susceptible. It amounted to a proposal, that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs should say to the French Govern lent, " The two countries are maintaining thirty sail of the line each, to watch one another. Does it not seem possible that twenty would do?" The Foreign Secretary gave his adherence 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 censidered otherwise than as favourable to the object of the mover. I am, Sir, • your., , ve ry sincerely, AN OLD REFORMER. London, June le, 1551. r --- NUME&OLTS ROBBEMES.-1 esterday a gang of thieves made a regular foray in the vicinity of Camberwell, Peckham, &c. About eleven o'clock Mrs. Friers, Denmark. hill, was plundered of 40/. worth of silver plate ;about about twelve, Mr. Elwes, the Manor-house, Iligh-street, Peckham, was robbed of 00/. worth of silver plate. About nine, Mr. Cook s , 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 dwellings whilst the occupier were A the Great Lxhibition. ~. c II N I'