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

IMPE R IA AMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, July 5. Their Lordships mpt at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. Lord FOLEY presented a petition from the inhabi tants of St. George's Hanover square complaining of the defective state of the sewerage. The Marquis of LONDONDERY presented a peti tion from Sunderland in favour of the Small Tenants Rating Bill. Lord BEAUMONT presented several petitions in favour of the County Cuurts Extension Bill; also several petitions in favour of a real Ten Hours Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND presented several petitions complaining of agricultural distress. He hoped the House of Commons would do their duty to-night, and repeal the malt-tax, and then the agriculturists would have justice done to them; also several petitions against the relay system. The Bishop of MANCHESTER presented a petition against the relay system. E irl GREY presented several petitions in favour of the Marriage Act Amendment Bill. Lard S PANLEY presented several petitions in favour of a real Ten Hours Bill. EXHIBITION OF 1351. Lard CAMPBELL explained, in allusion to what fell from the Noble Lord last night, that his Hon. Relative had signed an address in favour of the Exhibition, with out any allusion to Hyde-park as the place in which it was to be held. He lamented that the trees had been cut down, and he did not I Ament it the less because a new grove was to be planted in lieu of it. The Earl of GRANVILLE could not draw back from the statement he made yesterday, which was, that in the month of April last, two months after Hyde-park had been fixed upon as the site of the exposition, Mr. Campbell ha-I signed an address stating that the pro posed exhibition would be most beneficial to the metro polis, particularly to the western part of it. He had also to state that Mr. Juatice Cresswell had stated that he thought that the exposition would be most incon venient to himself and his neighbours, but that he had never given any opinion as to its legality. Lord CAMPBELL said that his relative had signed an address, in which no reference had been made to the site. Mr. Justice Cresswell's opinion would be best gathered from the petition to which he had attached his signature. The Earl of WICKLOW said that there was a locality in the neighbourhood of the Regent's-park, near the railway, admirably adapted as a site for the exhibition. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH wished to know what understanding had been come to with Foreign powers in the event of any malicious injury being done to the property of foreigners exposed in the exposition. In Edinburgh some years ago dama?,e was done to goods ' but as no buildings were demoli s h e d no d amages could b s recovered. He wished to know if they were to act on the precedent of D an Pacifico ? The;Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no doubt but that if, in the case alluded to, the son of the Secretary at War had joined in the spoliation, compensation would have been given. DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES. Lord BEAUMONT asked if it was true that the ne gotiations which had for the object the termination of the differences between Denmark and the Duchies had been successful ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he had the sa tisfaction of stating that under the mediation of this country a treaty had been concluded settling all the dif ferences existing between Denmark and Prussia. THE UPTON CUM-CHALVEY MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL. On the motion of the Bishop of OXFORD, this Bill passed through Committee. THE PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL. The House having resolved itself into a Committee 011 this Bill, The Nlsrquis of lANSDOWNE moved an amend• ment, that the measure should commence to take effect on the 9th of August next. Lord S CANLEY opposed the amer.dment, and pro posed that the Bill should not come into operation until the Ist of June, 1851. In his opinion it was quite pos sible, considering the various stages through which the Bill would yet have to pass, that it might not receive the Royal assent becore the period fixed by the Noble Marquis for its bei❑g carries into effect. But even though it should be passed by the 2d or the 3d of August, it would in that case be impossible for the clerks of the peace in Ireland to make out those lists, and to effect those other arrangements which they would be required to effect before:the 9th of that month, if the proposal of the Noble Marquis was adopted. The Noble Marquis further proposed that the re gistration under the Bill should take place this year between the 29th of November and the end of December. But that would be a most inconvenient period to adopt fir the purpose, as the days would then be nearly the shortest, and the weather nearly the se verest in the year. He had further to observe that after the passing of the measure some technical objection might be successfully urge i against carrying it into operation ; and in that ease it would be found extremely advantageous that they should nut have caused it to come into effect until after Parliament should have again assembled, and should be enabled to remove any such technical objection. He had another reason to advance against the proposal of the Noble Msrquh , . According to that proposal the registration under the Bill would not be completed until the month of January, and the pariiea registered wouli he entitled to vote in the month of February following. But the re-registry would com mence on the first of Jule; s that t'lere would be only four months between the completion of the o❑e and the commencement of the other. He did not think the de lay in p assing that Bill would be a consideration of suffi cient importsnen, nor was it nece.sery that it should come i❑to operation on the Ist of June, 1851. He ob jected to the insertion of the words " 20th of July," and proposed that other words should be substituted. - The Nlsreisis of LANSDOWNE thought any altera tion like that propose I by the Noble Lord ought to be proposed at the last stage cf the Bill. Parliament had already during two sessions determined on enlarging the constituency of Ireland, and the effect of the Noble Lord's proposition would be to postpone the passing of a measure on that subject for another year. Lord MONTEAGLE and the Earl of WICKLOW were understood to support Lord Stanley's proposition. Earl GREY said the proposition of the Noble Lord opposite, it adopted, would have the effect of preventing the new franchise and the new registration from coming into operation until the end of the next session of Par liament. The Crown was armed with a certain power— namely, that of dissolving Parliament. The Noble Lord's proposition would even interfere with that, be cause in case of a dissolution between the periods re ferred to, the new Parliament was to be elected by a body of electors which had been already condemned. Lord STANLEY briefly explained, and asked the Noble Marquis to postpone that question. As for his alteration he could net postpone it until the last stage, for all the dates depended upon it. lie had a strong ob jection to the inconvenient time at which it was pro posed the registraions should take place. He said he should be obliged to cake the sense of the House upon the question as to whether the Noble Illtrquis's words should be inserted or not. The &Aria S P. Li EH AI ANS thought there was a good deal of force in the observations which had fallen from the Noble Lord. Eid GREY thought the Bill might be made to com mence on the lit of June, 1851; but the second regis tration need not take place until June, 1852, and thus they would have a registration on a proper basis. Lord 510NrEAGLE did not see much in the objec tion as to the present period of registration; but cmsi dered the last suggestion a fair compromise. After a long and desultory conversation, in which many Noble Lords took part, it was understood that the question was to be postponed for the present for reconsideration, but without detriment to the progress of the Bill. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then proceeded to propose soave verbal amendments in line 35 of the 3d clause. Thy Earl of Sr. GERNIANS said he had introduced a Bill into the other House of Parliament, in which there was a short clause giving a 5L franchise where a freehold existed. lie suggested that example to the Noble Marquis. The Earl of ST. GE/MANS brought up the clause re ferred to and handed it to the Marquis of Lansdowne. Lord REDESDALE was understood to support the principle of a franchise where there was a freehold and occupation. Tile Marquis of LANSDOWNE was then understood to agree to insert the words " shall be of the net annual ♦alue of 51. over and above all charges thereon." After a conversation in which Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Stanley, and other Noble Lords took part, Lord MONTEAGLE said it was of essential import ance to Ireland to increase the number of small proprie tors; but then they should be in the occupation of the land. Lord BE ALIMONT suggested a means by which the manufacture of improper voters could be prevented, by a slight change in the working of the Bill. The Eart of WICKLOW had no apprehension that fictitious votes would be c►eated, because before that could be done a person would have to make a convey- ante of his property. Earl GREY said the object of the Noble Baron would be obtained by leaving out of the clause the words "at a rent," and substituting the words " or under lessee. ' The clause, as so amended, was then agreed to. On clause 6, Lord STANLEY said, though *he had no amend ment to this clause, he, nevertheless, wished to direct the attention of the Government to a difficulty with respect to it, which would equally have arisen if the 81. qualification had been retained. The present clause did not relate to the borough franchise alone, but to the mixed franchise of counties and cities, and provided that any person rated with respect to any lands, tene ments, or hereditaments, to the va l ue o f 8/., shoul d be en titled to a vote. By excluding house occupation, a county franchise would thus be created on a rating of 84 only. He did not wish to raise the borough franchise to a 151. rating; but, at the same time, he aid not wish to lower the county franchise to the same amount as that for boroughs. Another point required attention. It was provided in the clause that in boroughs persons should be entitled to vote on an 81. rating, if such per sons had paid the poor-rates due by them. Now, under the poor• law, as it at present stood, persons who occupied a house of the value of 81. only, were exempted from the payment:of poor-rates, these being paid by the lessors. —(flear.) The result would be a class of voters who might vote without having paid any rates at all. The Earl of CARLISLE said there was another clause which providel that all these 81. occupiers should pay their own rates. The clause was then agreed to, On clause 7, Lord STANLEY said this clause would enable per Oult to rota for boroughth a 3 Occupiers. lie did trot, TILE SUN, object to a bond fide joint occupancy, but the clause as it stood would lead to the creation of faggot votes. He objected to a person who he'd premises rated at say 241. having the power of putting in the names of two other persons as voters under thee holding, though they might have no real interest in it. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to say that he had no objection to any amendment of the clause, such as that suggested by the Noble Lord. On claase 9. Lord STANLEY said that in several of the boroughs of Ireland there was a class of 51. householders, whose rights of voting were preserved by the Reform Bill. He wished to propose the insertion of the words:—"or 54 householders qualified to vote;" and to strike out the words relating to persons qualified to vote in respect of habitancy. After a few words from the Earl of CARLISLE, The clause, as so amended, was understood to be agreed to. On clause 15, Lord STANLEY said they had now come to a clause on which he proposed to raise a question of considerable importance, as t 3 whether there should be an option on the part of the voter as to whether or not his name should be placed on the register. It was proposed in the Bill that the clerk of the peace should in the first instance send to the clerk of each union a list of the existing re gistry, excluding from it persons entitled to vote from occupation, whose names might be struck off by the clerk of the peace. It was proposed by the Bill that the transmission of the list by the clerk of the union shoul I have the effect of placing the new s of those voters on the registry who had paid their rates, whether they were inclined to become voters or not. He wished to propose an amendment to alter the mode of proceeding so far as that the clerk of the peace should prepare the list of the existing register, and should transmit so much o f that register as related to the respective baronies to the clerk of the union; but instead of excluding all those persons whose franchise depended on occupancy, he should transmit a separate list of all such persons, who, if not rated to a certain amount, shall be struck off the list. The clerk of the union should then return to the clerk of the peace the list of persons on the registry by virtue of occupancyyrith the words "objected to" before those persons not properly rated. The clerk of the union should not be called on to introduce into the register any new name whatever; but all persons not on the register, or all persons objected to by the clerk of the union, would be at liberty to make separate claims. Those persons would make their claims according to the prac tice observed in this country, and, if unobjected to, their claims would be allowed. According to his proposal, the duties of the clerk of the union would be limited to objecting to persons whom he might find on the register without having paid their rates, but he would have no power of placing new names on the register. The Noble Marquis had expressed the other night his opinion that great indignation would be excited in Ireland by the number of persons who would be without a vote in consequence of the 151. rating being eel opted. He wished to ascertain the value which the people of Ireland placed on the exercise of the franchise. Were they anxious to obtain the franchise? He had no wish to give she voter the trouble of attending to defend his vote. He - should leave the onus probandi on the person who objected to it. All that he required was, that previous to having his name placed on the re gister, he should express a desire to have his name placed on it. If the people of Ireland were so indifferent to the franchise as to refuse to sign an application for it, not only would there be no injustice in not placing their names on the register, bat there would be great injustice in forcing them to register.—(Hear, hear.) Everybody was aware of the influences which might be broaeht to bear in Ireland on the voter with respect to his fran chise. a man's name was on the register he would be pressed upon by the priests or the landlords, and between the two he would be placed in the most painful circum stances. He admitted that in the exercise of the fran chise every voter ought to act conscientiously; but to say that it was a solemn trust, and that a man entitled to the qualification was bound to claim it, and to insist on the right of voting, was as absurd as it would be to say that it was incumbent on every one of their Lordships to at tend from the commencement of the session to the end without exercising any option. A Noble Loin—And the appeals in the morning.— (Laughter.) Lord STANLEY—Yes, that he must attend the ap peals in the morning, and never abstain from voting on any question.—(Hear.) The question for their Lord ships to consider was this—would they compel a man to be a voter or not ? —(Hear, hear.) By compelling him to become a voter they would, theoretically, perform an act of injustice ; but practically they would be sowing the seeds for constant ill will and constant conflicts be tween the landlord, the tenant, and the priest. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said it was of infi nite importance that that class of persons who, from their possession of land or other property. were considered entitled to vote for Members of Par liament, should, without any effort or exertion on their part, be placed in a position to vote. He believed the adoption of the suggestion of the Noble Lord would lead t a considerable restriction of the franchise. The Noble Lord had spoken of the position of Members of their Lordships' House. Now, he wished to remind the Noble Lord that this Bill would not compel a person to vote, and that it would place him in a similar position to that of a Peer or a Member of the House of Commons. The elector exercised the right of voting, not fir his own good but for the general good of the community. It was a trust conferred upon him, and the right could not be justifi-d on any other principle. It was fre quently the case that those persons who were the best qualified to exercise the trust were the least desirous of making an effort to obtain it; whilst, on the contrary, those who wished to make " political capital" were per petually endeavouring to acquire an interest in the representation, and their proceedings often tended to bring the representation into the worst possibly He believed the effect of the amendment would be to increase the influence exercised by particular indivi duals in particular constituencies, and in some parts of England and Scotland, where the register had not been attended to, the remedy had been taken into the hands of the managers of different parties, depending upon local interests; and when by any accident that local interest ceased to operate, the effect was that the registry dropped altogether, or was confined to a very small number of persons; and he knew one case in which it was limited to between ten and twenty per cent. He trusted their Lordships would not agree to the amend ment.—(Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM said that what applied to Eng land did not apply to Ireland, the state of the two coun tries being so widely different. In this country, scarcely any one entitled to register abstained from obtaining the right, but in Ireland it was perfectly the reverse. The question then arose, whether there were not reasons which induced persons to abstain from registering. Now, if a man was deserving of being intrusted with the discretion of electing legislators, surely he was entitled to exercise the minor discretion of saying whether he chose to vote or not.—(Hear.) But the matter did not rest there, for if the Legislature once compelled him to have the right to vote, why not compel him to exercise that right ? (Hear, hear.) It was said this was a duty. But was not a man compellable to do his duty?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Marquis said that those whom he wished to possess the eh ctive franchise were just those who now abstained from it, and not jobbers, of whom, he was sorry to say, a good deal was known in Ireland, some thing in Scotland, and not a little in this country. Now, was it not very hard that a person not wishing to job should not be allowed to live quietly and peaceably under the shelter of his own roof, but be compelled to become a politician?—(Hear, hear.) It was very desi rable no doubt that such persons should vote, and he would do everything to tempt them, but would not com pel them, when they had good reasons of their own fir keeping in the back ground.—(Hear, hear.) But if that part of the argument of the Noble Marquis was good for iny thing, why not carry it further, and compel the freeholder to register as well as the tenant? He looked on the measure as neither more nor less than making the legislature ancillary to the power of the priest.—(Rear.) Earl GREY said he had never heard a speech so en tirely founded on a misunderstanding. The Noble and Learned Lord seemed to think that the Bill would com pel a man to vote, but there was no compulsion in the case.—(Hear, hear.) Now what was the state of the case? In 1832 the system was altered, and registeration became necessary. When the Reform Bill was intro duced, it was meant to have a registration requiring no personal interference on the part of the voter. And why was that altered? A deputation from Manchester waited upon Lord Althorp and said, " You require us to send in a list of freeholders; we have no means of knowing them." Now that was a complete answer to the latter cart of the speech of the Noble and Learned' Lord, and it was on account of the impossibility of the parties called upon to make out the lista being able to distinguish between a freeholder, a copyholder, or a leaseholder, that a personal claim was made neces sary for the purposes of registration. But in boroughs that was not the ease, the overseers being re quired to make out the lists from the rate books. By the Registration o Act 1844, ev er y b oroug h vo t er w as placed nthe of register without any application on his part. It was said that the voter mig ht desire to escape from the necessity o f vot i ng; his answer was, that the exercise of the franchise was a duty from which no man ought to shrink, and that it was not desirable fhata personal application on th e p art o f the voter should to enable him to exerc i se t h e right to which h be i w he was entitled.—(Hear, hear.) Th e quest i on then a roseeh whether the same principle did not e x t en d to thoseen en titled to the elective franchise. It was a g reat m i stake on the part of the Noble and Learned Lord, arising n o doubt from his not having sat in the other House since the registration; system was adopted, to suppose that there was a general disposition on the part of the voters to put in claims; every one who had aught to do with contested elections knew that nothing was more difficult than to get voters to make their claims; and hence had arisen the machinery:of registration societies on both sides ef politics, in every borough and county in the king dom. In the counties, if committees were not f firmed, end great activity displayed, a large proportion of quV r fi . ed an p d er i s t o w ns as gis , wetorerea l ways t o h m is i" t e h d at fr r o e m cou t r h s e e had been had to the registration societies,by to ywhiecan ha con tinualTbe agitation was kept up from year effect of the clause under discussion would be to secure he sa ba registration only. It wasof all impossible qualified persons, deny erson spressure insteadha t ono pabine rilreland were much exposed tound ue side or the other—from the landlord or the pr:est; but he only remedy for this tyranny was largely to increase 'he number of electors—(Hear, hear.) A body of 20 or 30 might easily be marked out and coerced, or punished if they refused to be so; but where the voters numbered hundreds, this would be impossible—(Bear, hear.) The clause sought only to carry out the principle of the Re- Form Bill, which was also the old principle of the English •onstitution—that every qualified person should have a vote without the necessity of making a claim, and he was convinced that this was the only sound footing on which the county franchise in Ireland would be placed. LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1850 Lord BROUGHAM said the land-tax schedule was the register before the Reform Act passed. Earl GREY sa'd it frequently happened, nevertheless, that parties were prevented voting through having omitted to get their names inserted in the land tax sche dule. At present th• greatest inconvenience arose in English counties from the necessity of each voter making a claim. Lord REDESDALE said it was unfair to county voters to be obliged to send in a claim, whilst borough voters were exempt from that necessity, as well as those county voters who voted in respect of their rating. The principle of claiming to be registered was the only fair one and ought to be made general. Lord MON TEAGLE said, if ever there was an inge nious invention to overthrow the agricultural interest in Ireland, an - I to give the town population an unjust su periority, it would be the present step. He had fre quently heard those men who were political agitators state that a registration of agricultural voters would be fatal to the liberal interest. The Earl of GLENGALL said, when once a voter was put on the registration list in Ireland he was com pelled to vote. and he could assure their Lordships that that vote would not be an independent one. He would recur to a case, the troth of which had been sworn to in the law courts. At one of the elections for Carlow 120 voters were seized by a large body of men and carried out of the county. They were tied up and put into boats and transported t ) another county, until they signified their willingness to support another party in whose favour they generally voted. The it wives were also ill treated. The Noble Lord went oil to describe similar scenes of violence arising from similar causes. Lord EDDISBURY said the effect of this would be to create an annual instead of a septennial agitation. The amendment arose from a dislike to Irish represen tation, and the less that country was represented the more pleasing it was to their Lordships themselves. This was not the way to govern that great and generous people. The time might C3lllO, if this measure were re jected, when their Lordships would have to assent to a more sweeping measure of reform. They had been obliged to do so with regard to Esst Retford, and with regard to an Bs. duty on corn.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of ST. GERMANS said the amendment, if carried, would render the Bill a mockery. The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For Lord Stanley's amendment ... 53 Against it ... ... 39 Majority against the Government... —l4 Thevarious clauses of the Bill being then agreed to, Lord STANLEY gave notice that he would not op pose the adoption of the report, or the third reading of the Bill as amended. THE AUS MALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL. Earl GREY having moved the third reading of this Bill, . _ Lord LYITELTON said that that measure bad been somewhat altered in Committee; but he entertained some very serious objections to it even in the shape in which it then stood. He believed that by passing it in that shape they would be foregoing the best opportunity which could possibly present itself of effecting a real reform in our colonial system. The great principle which he wished to see established, was the principle of local self government in the colonies. It had been said that there l were no materials in the Australian colonies for a second chamber; but if any such deficiency existed, he attributed it solely to the policy we had hitherto pursued of refus ing to those colonies those free institutions, and that control over their own local affairs, which were en joyed by the people of this country. It appeared to him that it was a most unfortunate error to rest the the power of the Crown over our colonies in a Minis ter of State residing in this metropolis, when it could be much more advantageously vested in the governor of each colony. It should be remembered that a governor was under the control of the Crown quite as much as a Colonial Secretary in this country; and with a view of adding to the dependence of the colonial go vernors or the Crown, he (Lord Lyttelton) would pro pose that they should be paid out of the funds of tha mother country, instead of out of the funds of the colo nies. The disallowing power vested in a Colonial Se cretary in this country was a power unknown in the ancient colonial charters granted by this country. It might be said that the colonial authorities would be enabled to suspend the machinery of government; but that was a theoretical objection which might be urged against the working of our own constitution just as much as against the working of a colonial charter. There was no public opinion in this country to act upon the Colonial-office, which was really the depositary of all power in colonial affairs, and the power which it pos sessed was of an irresponsible nature. The only way to give the colonies the real right of legislating for themselves was to destroy the power of the Colonial-office. The colonies relied on the faith of Parliament, and would be content only with the best security which, considering ;the nature of things, it was possible for them to have. With respect to a vast ma jority of subjects of local importance no dispute could possibly arise amongst the colonies themselves. They had an excellant analogy in the example of America, by which they could legislate for these colonies. How was it proposed to settle all disputes that might arise? Why by a reference to the Colonial-office alone. According to the analogy to which he had referred, namely, the United States, such questions were settled by judicial tribunals. —(Hear.) Tne colonies, he maintained, would have con fidence in a judicial system, but woulal not have the same confidence in the decisions of the Colonial-office. He could not help thinking that in course of time the Aus tralian colonies would obtain self-government for them selves.—(Hear, hear.) In Canada it had been obtained by a large and powerful community. Our American colonies could not be treated in the same manner as the Australian colonies, for the latter were still in their infancy. He contended that we ought not to look at our colonial empire as a great machine alone for our own benefit or for the advancement of our trade. He always wished to look at the question thus— namely, to see what kind of people we could make of our colonists. He would not divide the House upon the motion for the third reading of the Bill, but he would certainly say not content when the question was put. Earl GREY said, that on three or four occasions he ha-I addressed the House at great length on that subject. He could only then repeat the arguments which he had adduced on former occasions; but, as he did not find anything in the arguments of his Noble Friend to alter his views, he hoped their Lordships would agree to the motion before them. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Their Lordships adjourned at near a Quarter to Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 5. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following Bills were recd a third time, and passed : River Lea Trust. West Cornwall Railway. Mr. MACKENZIE moved that the minutes of evi dence taken before the Committee on the River Lea Trust Bill be laid be fore the House, and that so much of it as relates to the quality of the water of the River Lea be printed.—Agreed to. Mr. E WART moved that it be an instruction to the Select Committee (preliminary inquiries), to consider the expediency of altogether releasing Members whose constituents were locally interested in opposed private Bills, from forming a part of the Committee on such Bills. Mr. W. PATTEN said the subject had been brought under the consideration of the House on two former occasions, when it underwent ample discussion, and on eoeh occasion the House affirmed by large majorities that it was necessary there should be a certain amount of local representation on all private Bills, except rail way and divorce Bills. He suggested that the Hon. Gentleman should postpone his motion, and he (Mr. Patten) would bring the subject before the House in some other shape. Mr. E WART acceded to the suggestion of the Hon. Member and agreed to postpone his motion. After a short discussion the motion was withdrawn. PETI TIONS. Sir J. DUKE presented two petitions from the ward of Farringdon Without, one against the window-tax and the other praying fur a commutation of the land -tax. Several petitions were presented against Sunday la bour in the Post-office. Mr. MILES presented several petitions from clergy men and others against the Jews Bill. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition complaining of agricultural distress, and praying that farmers might be released from the income-tax, and other burdens which pressed upon them ; also a petition from Dover against the Jews Bill. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented two petitions from Rochdale in favour of the Friendly Societies Bill. Major BERESFORD presented a petition from a place in Essex, praying that the present Post-office regulation might have a fair trial before it was abandoned. Mr. JOHN ELLIS presented a petition from the Mid land Railway Company against the Railway Audit Bill. Mr. CEIRISTOPIIER presented sixty-two petitions from different parishes in Lincolnshire complaining of agricultural distress and praying fur the repeal of the malt- tax. _ Mr. BRO WN presented a petition from the solicitors of Prescot, in Lancashire, praying for the repeal of the attorneys' certificate duty. Mr. JOHN NEELD presented several petitions from places in the county of Middlesex, praying for the re peal of the malt tax. Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from Lin coln against the admission of Jews "and all unbelievers" into Parliament. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND presented a petition from the county of Surrey, praying for the repeal of the malt tar. Mr. FORSTER presented a petition from the notaries public of London against the certificate tax. Viscount NEWPORT presented a petition against the admission of Jews into Parliament. Mr. K. SEYMER presented a petition from a Savings' Bank, in Dorsetshire, against the Savings' Bank Bill. Mr. WADDINGTON presented a petition against the admission of Jews into Parliament. Sir J. TYRELL presented sixty petitions from places in Essr-x praying for the repeal of the malt tax. Mr. HENLEY presented similar petitions from Ox furdihire. Mr. SLANEY presented a petition from Chorley, in the county of Durham, against the admission of Jews into Parliament. Sir EDWARD BUXTON presented a petition from a place in Essex against the admission of Jews into Par liament. Mr. NE WDEGATE presented a petition from North Warwickshire, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for a return to agricultural protection. Lord BROOKE presented a petition signed by up wards of 6,000 of the most respectable inhabitants of the southern division of the county of Warwick, complain ing of agricultural distress consequent upon the with drawal of protection, of the unequal share which the agricultural Merest boars is the pow -rites, county. rates, and income-tax, and of the unjust operation of the malt-tax, and praying the House to grant them relief.— (Hear, hear, from the Protectionist benches.) An Hos. MEMBER presented a p Aition from West bourne, in Sussex, against the admission of Jews to Par liament. Sir W. JOLLIFFE presented a petition from a place in Sussex praying for the repeal of the malt and hop duties. WOODS AND FORESTS.-REVENUE FROM THE PARKS. Lord DUNCAN gave notice that on Tuesday next he should move a resolution that, as it appeared that during the period of the last seven years, from 1842 to 1849, a gross income of 2,446,0004 had been derived from the public parks, and that out of this 774,0001. had been paid into the Exchequer, and 1,800,0001. withheld for manag ing this department, it is expedient to place this branch of expenditure more directly under the control of Par liament, and that the sums necessary for their manage ment should be voted with the rest of the estimates. PARTY PROCESSIONS IN IRELAND. The LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN wished to ask the Secretary of State fir the Home Department, whether he had received any ieformation that the Orangemen of the county of Down were in the habit of parading by night, playing party tunes, such as the " Boyne Water" and "Croppies lie down?"—(Laughter.) There was some fear in those districts of a repetition of the Dolly's Brae aff At. on the 12th of July. Sir G. GREY said that he had received no such in formation, neither had his Right Hon. Friend the Secre tary for Ireland received any on the subject. As t ) any expected disturbances, the Lord-Lieutenant would no doubt exercise the powers placed in his hands to preveLt any repetition of the disturbance. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion that the House at its rising adjourn until Monday, Sir G. GREY said that he wished to correct a mistake into which ho had fallen last night, in spaaking of Mr. Denison having signed an address whic's he had re ceived. Upon looking again at the petition, he found that that gentleman's name was not attached to the address. ASSISTANT-SURGEONS IN THE NAVY. In answer to Captain BOLDERO, Sir F. BARING said that the Government had issue. orders regarding the furnishing of an extra cabin for the purposes of study for these officers, but they had not yet been carried out. He was as anxious as possible to give new cabins to assistant-surgeons, but unfortu nately it was not possible, by a vote of the House, to increase the accommodation on board a ship. Many officers connected with the navy doubted very much the wisdom of the vote which had been come to by this House. PRUSSIA AND DENMARK. Mr. DISRAELI—I wish to ask her Majesty's Go vernment whether they have received any information as to the conclusion of a treaty of peace between the King of Prussia and the King of Denmark, and, in the event of their having received such informatiqn, whether they will inform the House in what capacity the King of Prussia signed the treaty, whether as sovereign of his own dominions, or on the part of the Germanic Confederation, or in both those capacities? Lord PALMERSTON—I am enabled to inform the House that the Government have received a dispatch from her Mijesty's Minister at Berlin, enclosing a copy of a definitive treaty of peace which was signed on the 2d instant, and concluded between the King of Den mark on the one hand and the King of Prussia on the other, acting in his own behaif and also on behalf of the Germanic Confederation, and that treaty was to be rati fied in three weeks.—(Hear, hear.) DI3TURBANCES AT DOLLY'S BRAE. In reply to Sir W. VERNER, Sir G. GREY said he had not received any com munication from the Lord-Lieutenant respecting the prosecution of parties concerned in the late disturbances at Dolly's Brae, and therefore he was unable to say whether any proceedings against those parties were at present pending. SAVINGS' BANKS BILL. Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether the Chancel lor of the Exchequer intended to proceed with the Savings' Banks Bill, and if so, whether he woull fix a day fur its being brought on? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had stated last night, in reply to the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that he hoped to proceed with the Bill before the end of the session, but he was not able at present to fix a day for the purpose. REPEAL OF THE MALT DUTY. _ _ Mr. CAYLEY presented a great number of petitions ,iotnahe malt-tax.differentparts of the country praying for the repeal of Mr. PORTAL presented a large number of petitions from Hampshire to the same effect. Mr. CAYLEY then rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the malt duties, and in doing so he asked the extreme indulgence of the House, because averse as he always was to intruding himself upon its attention, it was still more difficult for him to explain as clearly as he should wish the object of this motion.—(Hear, hear.) He brought this motion forward entirely upon his own responsibility, without any promise of support from any cleaner of the House, nor could it be con s id ere d a party motion, for his Noble Friend at the head of the Government and another member of the Government in the other House had declared that they could not give their support to a motion which threatened to rob the revenue of so large a sum.—(Cries of " Hear, bear.") He was, therefore, instigated by no other mo tive than a conscientious conviction that in the present depressed state of agriculture, and under the nos el circumstances in which agriculture was now placed by our late commercial changes, in the absence of a re imposition of the old system or a modified system of pro tection, nothing could conduce so mach to the well-being of the agricultural interest of this country as the repeal of that oppressive tax which he now sought to thing in o r , any h e a shape—itr . ) a wa st s ill ne l t e e s r s a very popular popul ar thing when it was not only oppressive but inq iisitorial aanbdolish— partial,th as this tax was.—(Hear, hear.) Wh at was taxation?—(A laugh.) After all, it was nothing but a nation having run up a long score, the Chancellor of the Exchequer being paymaster, who called upon us all to pay what was known by our shot. --(A laugh.) After half-a-dozen gentlemen bad in dulged themselves at an entertainmeLt the bill was called for, when sometimes four or five of the half-dozen were r p e e a n d o y e t e o pay e or t i w t i t c h e e i m o s a e I way, ves, but itwthough never,that if mightthe e same plan were adopted on every occasion. —(A laugh.) What he complained of with respect to this tax was, that it was more oppressive upon agricultural than any other tax that nad been imposed upon British in du-try.—(Hear.) After a long period of protection British industry and agriculture were deprived of that protection under which they h a d t h r i ven f or so whathe a werer:purpose) h ltoh a ne r g d e l o y na imagine, that the corn -laws It the h eh he be en the could subject st p a e n r t io h d ab o i f t t t o ica s e t . a — te, li fe e r ar ' of late enactment, and that 1815 was the period at which they were enacted ; but it was perf, ctly well known that no less a price for 170 years prior to 1849 was given than 48s. per quarter for wheat.—(Hear, hear.) In 1670 that system began, and it ended in February last year; though it was true in 1815 a higher range of prices had previously existed, and a higher range of protection was established com mensurate with that higher range of prices. H e mentioned that because he thought those were circumstances under which agriculture was fairly entitled to justice, and after that long system of protec tion entitled perhaps to some'hing even more than jus tice, and, if they requi re d i t — which they did not—to some more tender consid erat i on, i f he might use that term. During that lon g p er i o d o f protection the landed interest of this country was chiefly i n power, and so long as that interest prevailed their motto had been "Live and let live."—(Elear.) (The Hon. Member here read an extract from Mr. Porter's " Progress of the Nation," to show that protection watt first extended to the woollen manufacturer.) He was stating those facts with the view of showing that it was no selfish policy, on the part of the landed interest, which established the system of protection.—(Hear.) Oa the contrary, it began with manufacturers. From 1770 to 1825 there was a discriminating duty between Indian and English cot ton manufactures. English cottons were introduced into India at a rate of 5/. per cent. duty; whilst In dian cottons were admitted into England, from 1770 to 1825, at an average duty of 751. per cent. Having thus shown that there was a precedent in the conduct of the agriculturists towards the manufacturers, which would justify them in their present claim, what he asked for now was for nothing but justice, and he thought he could show that the present duties, which he wished to remove, were unjust. He had great authorities to quote upon this subject. The Right Hon. Member for Ripon in 1839 had said that after the repeal of the corn-laws the malt-tax would not survive one year.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Wolverhampton had at the same time spoken of the malt-tax and the corn-laws as indissolubly joined together. There was also another autho rity which he could quote, if under the pre sent circumstances it would be decorous for him to do so; but as he could name no higher authority perhaps the House would allow him to mention the late Sir use his malt untaxed. He would now proceed to men- Robert Peel, who had expressed his wish that he should tion the absurd penalties which were imposed upon this tax. Such was the evil effects of the present imposts, that the preparation of malt and brewing had become a great monopoly, small capitalists being unable to encounter the losses to which those particular trades were liable. There were fewer maltaters now than there were five years ago, and it was a well-known fact that eight out of every nine public-houses in the metropolis belonged to brewers. The malt-tax not only crippled the trade of those who prepared it, but deprived the poor of obtaining a cheap supply of their most wholesome beverage. This was notorious to all prize cattle societies; indeed, the value of it was shown by the willingness of farmers to pay 7s. a week for the washings of distillers. Nor would this be considered fair upon any other manufacturing interest. In former times, when the duty was lower, a malt-house was attached to every farm-house, and if this tax was repealed there would again be a malt-house joining every farm-house. Well, but this tax was said to be a tax on the consumer ; so it might be, but if they taxed every other branch of industry—the lawyer or the phy sician, for instance--cent. per cent., did they think the country would stand it; or did the House imagine the lawyer or the physician would do so much business as when he was untaxed? He did not dispute that taxa tion was necessary, but the gravamen of his complaint ' was that this tax was unequal and unjust. The House was not aware of the extent of the exemp tions enjoyed by manufacturers from duties on articles used in their manufactures. Thus, for example, in the article of soap, they had enjoyed a total, and now en joyed a partial exemption. The Hon. Member here re ferred to the following statement as to the use of soap fa Dl* lll( 4o4res;- - Former rates on soap used in the manufacture of— Hard. Soft. Woollen goods 2id. per lb. ld. per lb. Flax or cotton l ll ~ Silk Linen 3d. „ 1:41. „ Amount of allowances in the year 1832, 100,2911. 7s. 3d. From May 31, 1833, the allowance was reduced one-ball, awl on the 15th of May, 1840, 5 per cent. added. Present rates— Hard. Soft. Woollen goods .. ld. per lb. id. per lb. and 5 per cent. and 5 per cent. Flax and cotton ...... Silk d. ft Linen .. Amount of allowances in 1849, 85,2861. 17s. 7d. Then, again, as to the duty on paper, as to which there had been great complaints. The Hon. Gentleman here referred to the following statement as to the EXCISE DUTIES ON PAPER. Yeir. Rates of Duty. Amount of Duty Charged. 1835. Millboard glazed paper, sheathing paper, button board, &'.—lst class, 1/. Bs. per cent. ; 2d class, 1/. ls. per cent Pasteboard—lst class, 11. Bs. per cent ; 2d class, 14s. per cent 1836. The same rates as above to the 10th' Oct., 1836 ... From 10th Oct., 1836, all kinds of j ( paper, lid. per lb. 1837. All kinds of paper lid. per lb 55 5 .942 15 7 1838. Do. ... 1 8 8 3 40 9. . All kind Dos oof pap r D I o il . I;er 610,290 18 0 and 5 per cent. from May 626,663 10 69 15, 1840 ... 1841. Do. Do. ... 1842. Do. Do. ... 1843. Do. ... 678,888 3 54 1844. Do. Do. ... 1845. Do. Do. ... 815,371 8 lz 1846. Do. Do. 1847. Do. Do. 1848. Do. Do. ... 1849. Do. Do. ..• There had been a good deal said in a leading journal which greatly influenced the councils of the country (the Times), as to the extent to which this duty affected it; although, according to the argument of that journal on the malt-tax, the duty should be immaterial to it, being " paid by the consumers," that is, the purchasers of the paper.—(Hear.) However, a copy of the Times weighed four ounces, and the paper tax upon it was one farthing and a quarter. The stamp was only one penny, and thus the total duty on such paper was not three half pence, that is, less than 25 per cent.; whereas the malt tax was 100 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) It should be re collected, too, that for the penny so paid on the stamp the - paper was carried free; whereas the farmer had to pay the carriage of his malt.—(Hear, hear.) And as to the advertisement duty, it was disposed of by a single observation, that there was at least one paper containing solely advertisements, which showed that they were of themselves remunerative. Now, with reference to what the farmers thought of this tax, he held in his hand a letter of Mr. Ellman, of Sussex, who, after referring to the opinions of his father, who lived to a great age, and whose memory went back to the time when cottagers brewed their own beer, stated, as some prof of the very injurious effects of this tax, that the barley grown on his farm, near Lewes, was now nearly unsaleable, and that, in his opinion, nothing could benefit the farmer more than the repeal of this odious impost.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member (whom, from the low tone in which he frequently spoke, we had the greatest difficulty in hearing) also quoted from a pamphlet written by a captain in the navy, who was also an ex cellent practical farmer, to the effect, that whereas he could grow seven quarters of barley per acre on his land, for which he got 91. 168., of which the Government took 71. 4s. Bd., and yet it was said that this tax was paid by the consumer.—(Hear, hear.) But even if it was, were not the azricultural labourers the chief consumers of beer? And yet these were some of the parties whom they boasted of having exempted from the payment of the income-tax, though they threw upon them, the payment of a ten times heavier burden in this tax upon malt.—(Hear.) But there were other ways in which this tax operated injuriously, and among them might be named the fact that farmers had now their labourers much less in their houses than used formerly to be the habit, a circumstance that was mainly to be attributed to the excessive duties levied on malt, and the conse quent dearness of the beer they would have to give them. Now, malt liquor was, and always had been, trom the earliest period of the history of this country, the class of drink peculiar to the nation, and such, in. leed, was the national taste for that beverage, that it had required all the oppression of Chancellors of the Exchequer and Excise officers to limit its consumption. —(Elear, bear.) But this tax, which was as much as 100 per cent. on production, was, as the subjoined statement would show, a tax of some 500 per cent. on the poor consumer:— Price of Beer to the Poor, with no Tax on Malt and with Tax. A bushel of good malt will produce 12lbs. of saccha• rine matter, and will make 36 gallons of good whole. some beer for the cottager's table. With the tax off, suppose the price of malt ... . - Brewed at home £368,439 1 5 790,677 9 10 4s. a bushel, 1 s. for 11b. of hops ss. for 36 gallons, or a fraction over lid. per gallon. This beer at any public brewery would be 81. per gal lon, or 245. for a 36-gallon barrel—saving 500 per cent. The yeast and grains would pay for the brewing. The cottager could also malt for himself. Price of Ale, without and with Malt-tax. In most public breweries, 321bs. of saccharine are all >wed to one barrel of ale of thirty-six gallons, and re ;ailed of this quality by publicans at 6i per quart. If no Tax. Three bushels of malt at 45.... Thre) pounds of hops at Is.. ... 12s. ... 33. Total... 156, or IV. per quart for ale instead of 61. or nearly (1. e. within a farthing of 500 per cent.)—(Hear, hear.) The following table would also show the operation of the tax on consumption at two distant periods, for England and Wales:— Population. Bushels Duty Consumption of malt per per head. made. bushel. bush. gal. 1730 ... 5,687,993 28,410,421 W. 6d. 5 0 1845 ... 16,711,725 30,508,840 2 7 1 6 2-3 Which makes a difference in the consumption, of 300 per cent. The following was an extract from the manu scripts at Euston, written by the Duchess of Grafton, mother of the present Duke, who gave him (Mr. Cayley) this extract. It was supposed to have been written in the year 1792:—" The two great oppressions which the poor labour under are the low price of *ages and the exorbitant tax upon malt. The duty upon malt in a political, as well as in a private view, is a most cruel grievance. The cottager, who could formerly brew his own little cask of beer, returned from kis day's labour and partook of his home-brewed liquor With his family. This he can no longer do, but the de-hotises are open and his thirst great; his family at home can afford him nothing but water, and he is tempted to spend the best part of his wages upon himself, which formerly was applied to the common stock." Extract from manuscript of Countess of Euston, 1792:—" But this is not all I see," she added. " Let the minister tax all the luxu ries of life, but let him not encroach upon the subsist ence of the most useful part of the creation ; but unfortunately the cry of the poor cannot easily penetrate, stid.Athe sufferings of the country cannot be thought of in a great city. Heaven and earth will be moved to repeal a shop-tax, or, indeed, any tax that principally afncts the opulent London tradesman; they are too near not to be treated with respect; but still our people are happy, and as long as we are governed by a parent, and not by a despot, we need not fear the influence of incendiary writers." He then went on to observe that it was impossible this tax could be continued under their altered commercial code.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Noble Lord at the head of the Government would take it into his consideration how severely, under the competition to which the farmers of this country were now exposed, this excise system pressed upon the industry of the people. The Noble Lord might depend upon it that if he did not take steps to remove this tax ere long it would be found to be wholly intolerable. Our agricultural industry could never be carried on under the pressure of this taxation. He did not see why their home industry was to be selected for taxation.—(Hear, hear.) A report of the Committee of the House of Lords upon the state of beer-houses showed how they tended to the increase of crime. —(Bear, hear.) He might observe that amongst the petitions presented by him there was one signed by 92 clergymen, and it was not to be supposed that they would have consented to place their names to it if they were not convinced that what they asked for would te n d t o t h e sprea d o f mora li t y. O ne o f the witnesses examined before the Committee stated that upon consultation with ten clergymen the conclusion all had come to as to the best means of diminishing drun kenness was the repeal of the malt-tax.—(Hear.) He next referred to the evidence of Mr. John Wood, chair man of Inland Revenue, as to the increase of consumption of spirits, tea, and coffee, as compared with the con sunntion of beer._(" Hear, hear," from a Member on the Ministerial benches.) He heard some Honourable Member say "hear, hear," but did that Hon. Member know why the consumption of tea had increased so much? It was not because it was to be considered as a substitute for beer. It had increased because of the diminution of the duty. He referred to the following extract from Mr. Senior's pamphlet:—" We now purchase annually in China about 30,000,0001b5. of tea, at about ls. a pound. On the tea so purchased we im pose, in different ways, taxes to the amount of about 200 per cent. Were we to repeal that taxation, and the price in China were to remain unaltered, our consumption would probably quadruple." The duty on tea was re duced from 4s. to Is., and from 730,0001b5. it had in one year increased to 2,358,0001b5. The consumption then in a few years rose to 17,000,0001b5. The increase arose from the reduction of the duty on tea, and so it would be with malt, and so it had been with coffee. In 1791 the consumption of coffee in Great Britain was 1,247,2761b5. ; so that i n 1808 it the did customs n t exceed re It was the same or th erea b ou t s i n 1795, a t w hi c h per i od the duty was rais e d f rom 6d. t o I s . Id. Th e resu l t was, that in 196 the con sum pti on f e ll o ff t o 396,95 3 1b 5. T here were fluctuations in the duty up to 1804, wh en th e d uty was raised and the consumpti o n d ecrease d duty thatfro 6 i of . t 0 1791. 4d. In p e l r B l o u 9 . h o w The e yL and the excise duty was lowered from Is. Id. t o 3d . per lb suit was— Consumption. 1808 ... ..• 1,069,6911 b. 1809 ..• ..• 9,251,837 Increase in one year, after reduction of duties, 800 par cent. It had not superseded the taste for malt. The reduction of the duty on spirits had increased the con sumption of that article, He was now referring Par' ticularly to Ireland. In 1823 there was a reduction of the spirit duties in Ireland. What was the result? In 1822 the number of gallons was 2,328,387; in 1823, when the duty was reduced, the number of gallons was 3,348 505; in 1824, 6,090,315 gsllons; in 1825, 9.262,744 gallon , . This was an increase in four years of 400 per cent. in consequence of the reduction of the duty.— (Hear.) At and previous to the beginning of the 18th century every publican in Scotland (being every man who chose to embark in the trade) brewed his own ale, and the resort to his house dep.:nded on the quality of his liquor, which—when thunder or witchcraft did not in terfere—wss generally excellent. Toe strong ale was re served for holydays and the tables of the great; but the two-penny (so called because it was sold at 2d. the Scotch pint—equal to nearly two English quarts) was so much esteemed as a national beverage that it was inserted by name and guarded by peculiar privileges in one of the articles of the Union. Another article, how ever, in the same Act secured to the Scottish brewery an Exch.' quer Court; and this, conjoined with the enor mously-increased malt duties, so lessened the exhilarat ing qualities of this ancient ale that it has now lost its fame. In its stead a kind of anal drink is brewed, but it is destitute of all the qualities which were so often ce lebrated in Scottish song, and is scarcely superior to the trash termed table-beer in the workhouses of the metro polis. What had been the effect in Ireland, which was now a whisky-drinking county? In 1792, 5,000,000 bushels were consumed, when the duty was lid. per barrel; but subsequently, when the duty was 3e. 61 per barrel, the consumption fell to 1,733,000 bushels. Sub sequently there was a decrease of the duty and the con sumption rose to 700 per cent. In England the taste for beer continued, because the spirit duties here conti nued high. They were lower in Scotland than in Eng land; and lower in Ireland aga in th a n i n Scotland. Let them now see what had been the effect of this reduction. Thus stood the consumption of spirits at one time in the three countries:— In England ... ... . . 4,352,000 gallons Scotland ... ..• ... 1,277,000 gallons Ireland ... ... ... 1,330,000 gallons In 1845, this was the consumption for the three coun , tries : England ... 9,000.000 gallons Scotland ... ... ... 6,441,000 gallons Irelaqd ..• 7,240,000 gallons The incresse in England was twofold, in Scotland fis a fold, in Ireland sixfold.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member then entered into a calculation to show that upon an acre of barley the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the publican, and the maltster took 401., whilst cut of the same acre the landlord had 255., and the tenant-farmer might be said not to receive anything. The sum which the malt ster, publican, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer got out of an acre of barley :—Suppose the acre produce on an average five quarters of barley, and one qu4rter of barley to produce one quarter of malt. One planer malt (good) equal to 961bs. saccharin•, which equals three barrels of ale, or 321bs. gravity before fermentation. Al low seven gallons waste for the fermentation, leaves 10 gallons for sale. 1 qr.... 101 gals. at 6d. per quart .. £lO 2 0 5 qr...... 505 gals. ditto including f taxed cost £5O 10 0 hops ( untaxed... 10 14 0 £39 16 0 £5O 10 0 1 qr. of malt, present price about ... £2 14 0 8 lb. of hops, average price .. 0 8 0 5 qrs. of malt with hops Deduct malt and hops £3 2 0 5 ....£l5 10 0 ... 15 10 0 £35 0 0 The spoil divided between, the Chance'ler of the Ex chequer and publican out of an acre of barley—besides tithes, poor-rate, and local and general taxation. Out of this acre of barley the landlord's share is about 255.; the tenant's share 15s. perhaps; the share of the maltster, brewer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nearly 401. (391 165.) The duty on British spirits was 6/. per quarter on raw grain. Now, if they repealed the duty they could not expect less than treble the amount of the present consumption. By trebling the consumption they would add to the demand for malt 10,000,000 qrs. He told those who talked to them so much of the improve ment of agriculture, that in prohibiting the further growth of barley they interfered with the laws of nature. Their oppressive taxation interfered with the laws of na ture ; it prevented the people from farming their lands to the best advantage, and in that manner which was cal culated to make them most productive.—(Hear.) It ap peared to him that of all other measures short of a re versal of our present commercial system, there was none that could so materially benefit the interest of the Bri tish farmer as the repeal of the malt-tax. Notwith standing the increase of price in oats and barley which would resell from that repeal, it need not be feared that foreign corn would come in to preve n t suc h a r i se of price, for the English barley w as so super i or i n weight and saccharine matter that it would always command a higher price than foreign barley. The Seal barley, of which we obtained 100,000 quarters last year, sold from 21.. 6d. to 235. per quarter; Danish barley from 17s. to 203. per quarter; while English average barley sold at 235, per quarter, and the best English barley at 255. to 275. per quarter. They had, therefore, little to fear from the import of foreign barley. The repeal of the corn-law had not had so great an effect as had been an ticipated upon the barley market, on account of the su perior growth of English barley; for before the passing of that measure we had imported about 1,000,000 qrs. a year, and the present year we only imported 1,500,000 qrs. Shipped barley was generally inferior, from its exposure to damp and other injurious influences, and malt was equally subject to deterioration from being shipped. Foreign importation, then, was not to be so much feared, while the additional demand for 8,000,000 qrs. of barley would displace so much oats and wheat.—(Hear.) The price of all three kinds of grain in England, Ireland, and Scotland, would be raised in a manner to neutralise the effect of the repeal of the corn-laws. Besides, there would be a corresponding large increase in the growth of hops; and upon the whole, the alteration would give increased employment to 100,000 people; and counting the families of those people, it might fairly be said that 500,000 persons were interested in the repeal of the malt tax, while it would confer vast advantages upon the consumer. The Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer) would say, perhaps, that he could not spare the tax. But could not other articles be taxed in case of de ficiency? Cider, for instance, was once taxed, and might be taxed again; so were linen and other yarns. But it would not be necessary to have recourse to those. The malt duty in the year 1849 on 44,749,000 quarters was 5,145.000/. ; from which, deducting for cost of col lection, and drawback allowances, 523,000/., there was left a net revenue of 4,612,7001. a deficiency certainly enough to make Hon. Gentlemen somewhat nervous. But how stood the case really ? In the Budget this year the Right Hon. Gentleman stated that out of his expected surplus of 1,500,0001. he proposed applying 750,00C1. to the repeal of the brick duties and an alte ration of the stamp duties, and the other 750,0001 to pay off a portion of t h e p u bli c d e b t. He (Mr. C.) did notintend to interfere with the financial arrangement of the present year, and if he should be so fortunate as to carry his proposal he should propose that the re peal of the malt duties should not take effect until the sth of April next year. Well, then, the estimated surplus for the year might be taken at 1,000,0001., the decreased ex penditure at 500,000/, ; increase en hop dtey, 500,0001.; excess on the corn duty, 300,000/. ; and abolition of the expense of the African squadron 1,000,000/. all those items would firm together about 3,310,0001, which, contrasted with the remitted malt duty of 4,612,700/., would leave a deficit for 1851 of 1,302,0001.; but as he saw by an evening newspaper in the interest of the Government that there was an increase of 300,000/. or 400,000/. in the present quarter's revenue, as com pared with the corresponding quarter of last etear, a proportionate increase was expected on the whole year,. Under those circumstances, it was not likely there would be a greater deficiency than 100,0001. or 200,0004; and believing, therefore, that the revenue of next year would be amply sufficient, if proper steps were taken, for all the purposes of the national expenditure without any increase of taxation, he had great confidence in proposing the repeal of that oppressive —he had almost called it atrocious duty.—(Hear, hear.) But who (said the Hon. Gentleman)—who objects to the repeal of this tax for fear of a deficit? Any member of the last Government— which repea'ed the corn-laws? on which repeal this demand is irrefragably founded—the single condition of which change in our policy was a free and unfettered trade to all. Is a tax of 100 per cent. on one important process of industry an unfettered trade? 100 per cent. on the producer-500 per cent. on the consumer! Is that just or free? The present Government—does it object— who by its own organ, at the commencement of the ses sion, declared that it had lowered agricultural produce, and thereby gained to the country 90,000,0001.? Can they set 5,000,0001. of revenue against a loss they have inflicted on British agriculture of 90,000,0001? Can they who have unlocked our doors to the inroad of the whole world, refuse to unloose the shackles with which our hands are bound, that we may use them in self-defence? I have shown how this 5,000,0001. of revenue can be dis pensed with; but if part of it, or even the whole of it, be imperatively required who can best afford to pay it— those who have lost the 90,000,000/. or those who, according to you, have gained it? Who, then, objects on the score of deficit? The free-trader, who promised so large an accession of wealth to the country, that if he be right the deficiency should be made up in one year by increase of prospe rity? The Financial Reformer, does he object on this ground, who is or was for a diminution of 13,000,0001. in the :expenditure, whereas the outside deficiency created by the repeal of the malt-tax would be only 2,000,000/. ? Can be discover so effective a means of reduction as not giving the money to be expended? The Protectionist, does he object, who knows that if free trade fail the deficiency can be easily supplied in a man ner unfelt by the general consumer through the system ho prefers? The Government, no doubt, will plead danger and inconvenience against the repeal of this tax. So did we against the repeal of the corn-laws. What did you answer then to us? Justice to the consumer. So my answer now to you is—justice to the consumer and producer both. Of that justice many doubted and still doubt—of this justice no man doubts, or can reasonably doubt. Who taught us to be cautious in our legislation in reference to the land? The Right Honourable Member for Ripon, who in the language of Mr. Burke told us, now many years ago, that " It is a perilous thine to try experi ments upon the farmer." If peril then there he i n thi s course, remember it is your seeking, not ours. It is a simple corollary to your own econonoi:nical problem. Will you plead public faith? Is no faith then to be kept with the land? Is there any man in this House who, either for himself or for his constituents—whatever branch of industry he represents—will consent that an analogous amount of taxation shall be placed on his own or on their produce? If not, let him, before deciding into which lobby he will go, call to mind that Dlo P ytt : which teaches us to do as we would be d see hY. ot iool faith! W e use d to b e taught, year by 3 ea', by (11) to I' from the sp-eches of th-.t illus.ri)us statesfasil'egla specs the opi n i ons _ an d reverence s h e name of Alr.vdo; Oar teacher was th a t em i nent man but r s ter ettO M. mles.r of Vas House, whose un timely loss it s° bec deplores. Wh at d oes M r. B ur k e say on this 65 1, IV public faith? " The first credi - or of the state e yed plough—this original indefeasible claim super ieu „ ° other demand." Bet can public credit be resi`X„stic‘ endangered than through a course of oppres sive ikl c oi ti by sapping the foundaons of that stable and P erco , to P interest—the land, every aCr e of which, accord o st o cod' Pitt, is mortg age d t o t h e pu bli c cre dit ae It is n i u to mon fairness to th a t great i nterest th a t I ask peal this tax. In the name of justice as we te eth' faith, I implore you to disregard all the stale re „ 0 0 inconvenience to the public service, of danger tc'uffrbest credit, of peril to the Ministry—those ancientb, `" p ti•A of Ministerial resistance to every reduction of ° l ot' that was over yet proposed. Above all I entres t 0 0 rise superior to the meanness of that Ensl ittl ott i ' would teach y ou t o d o r i g h t on l y w h en it is cony' de it. In the name of the largest body of produee r b kingdom, who aro at th e some ti me it s larg st w :es' / consumers, I aljere you to redress this crying yo e ' l: to be just and tear not.—(Hear, hear.) 1 beg ;pr.) brine in a Bill for th e repeal of the malt tax• s pee c Mr." CHRISTOPHER said that after the ab;le itar which had just been delivered, and consideriegs cot' sirable that the debate should be brought 10 n ottl ! vet itr elusion that even i ng , h e wou ld support th e mot briefly. Thi s was t h e fi rst t i me t h at h e had `' 1 for' tended to vote for a repeal of the malt-tax• . n te gcs,; met occasion he had f e lt it hi s d u t y , ou t of de' e l ;ieb the state of the revenue, and to the protection VI agricultural intere s t th en en j oye d , to o ppose 'W itt e' sure for the repeal of this particular tax. Wh t !, ri s eelb,l, peal was mo ve d in 1826, the protection then ey .lli t e 7 the agricultural interest amounted to so mething. o , o o / per cent. The average t rise of barley at that ti o; lb ti 325.; it was now onl 223. The agricultural distre si c ar ixisting did not arise'io consequence of univ ers o sed bi retition with foreign nations, but was mainly 0 111 0 excessive production in this country.: At p re° otee ti i: former comm erc i a l p o li cy h a d b een a b an d on ed, P e , c osq was withdrawn, an d t h e agr i cu l tura l i ntere st wss' volt: unprotected interest in the country. Under thel psi" stances he thought it r i g h t t h at the H ouse she° o fjo f ; upon the Gov e r nment app l y i ng the same measnr, e ifer i tice to the agri cu l tura l i nterest which t h e y bad 6 d. Il e applied to all the other great interests of Eng° soil could not conceive why they should subject the r eil li j e ! the country to a depression of' 100 err cent.; c Atr could he imagine how anyone who maintained fre f let s ; principles could object to the repeal of the °,," - 0 oa t He called upon the Government to grant the b.. )- erf ° ,,' asked for, and he also called upon the Hon. g ew oolil the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) to support the to e That Hon. Gentleman had on two occasions t e tefl i : his desire to have th e t ax repea l e d. At Mall e '.;itb was reported to have sa id : —" W e s y m p a thise " 01° I , farmers. We will n ever t o l erate one s hilling w i beto, l 6 protection to corn, but we will co - o p er ate with, v a getting rid of that obnoxi ous t ax , th e malt dt "h yb c el,'" owe the farm ers some thi ng, an d we w ill repay l eero„' kind."—(Hear, hear.) When the same non., wro; man joined th e Fi nanc i a l R e f orm A ssoc i a tion, " e ast otei a letter to its chairman (Mr. Robertson Gli„ so; at Liverpool, couched in these terms: -l a efi with regard t o t h e exc i se, i t may be laid cic bt . rule, that whenever yea touch the excise & t i t ebje",, it should be totally abolished, because the gr ea ,:iseo, r i tion to such tax is the interference of the elv p ort with the process of production, which appli es v eld whether the duty be great or small. This - a b e d, t - f m borne in mind if you deal with the malt te% , 'Wei" must deal with it if you would enlist the symPstlic fOr County constituencies on your side. To a cast" Sod' mers,, are in favour of a repeal of the malt%t a lbe upon these grounds, he was entitled to ask of the Honourable Member for the West I b l ader'., (Hear, hear.) With regard to malt being ° e n us( ful for th e f oo d o f catt l e, h e (Mr. Ch r istoP e ro o c, rather surpri se d t o fi n d t h at some off i cers o f th e o°:j had thought fit t o ma k e i nqu i ry i nto the subJectiaelidie how was that i nqu i ry con d ucte d ? H a d a ny i° A cr, agriculturists been consulted ? No such Wog tb was sent down to one or two chemists , t i "esl'i Board of Excise, upon that inquiry, were t he f fin satisfied that malt was of no use whatever to w a , b ° mars of England. Many eminent men, how el e - re written upon the subject, and their opinions , Ic ;„110,.r, titled to five hundred times the weight attachea Pi given by the chemists.—(Hear.) If it were said they malt tax was paid by the consumer, he would, uP 13/1; very principle, d eman d t h e vote of the F r ee-trstl er ;erl'; he denied that it was entirely borne by the co° s a ti n gea; , was mainly bo rne by t h e pro d ucer; an d i n the srer of that eminent man, Sir R. Peel, whose loss tbdo all so much depl or i ng —" i t was a h eavy duty %Xi! cultural produce, and mus t o p era t e di sa d v antage ° A. 0 ,10; the cultivation of th e so il." I t amounte d t o 205. 8 )05 , barley was 41s. 9d., an d it now amoun t e d 1° 5 tid' t when barley was o n ly 22 5 . If t h e pr i ce con tinne bigb e d cline, and there was no t th e s li g h test prospec t or ° e osts; price being obtai ne d, th e pro b a bi l i ty was that h Tli' would approach to something like 100 per cee"t As' , only argument again s t the repeal of the " i v - earl that the revenue of th e country wou ld not but the Hon. Mover had stated his willingness ‘ '," ti g O r d time for the repeal to come into operation. Fin" - ,.0 0 , there was no disposition to afford the suffering f' °- er) elf the community any relief, he (Mr. Christen!' „also himself justified in demanding the repeal of this '0 the tax, and leaving it to the Right Hon. Gentle ;or/ Chancellor of the Exchequer, to supply the de ft Lor d which its repeal might create. Ho believed, w i e i na tici i/ i G. Bontinck, that if they adopted more of the "' l ie policy of Mr. Pitt, and less of the financial "P ° he te a modern economists, a sufficient revenue wouki,,, - oli o' lised. He could not believe that the credit of t"" s ot: try would be affected by the repeal of the tab, e r r thy substitute could not be found, seeing that no felle, Al , , 30,000,000/. of taxes had been repealed since ° R ob', He held with Fox, that " excise duties were in t° a l / 11 1 ", except on grounds of public necessity," and tb aS oeiti'," better to levy taxes on a foreigner than upon tb ° producer or consumer. Believing that the agrie°', 3 " esi r ought to be placed on an equal footing with th Betio fecturers, he had much pleasure in seconding th e yt tettg e , The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUEIi he should best consult the wishes_ of the House ""c l a l y o Jvl, frained from following his Hon. Friend (M r ; estr ° , through all the topics embraced by his able sp ai e .- 1 ki iu h g speech; otherwise it would be quite imposso -e c leS, t e debate should close that night. His Hon. ld 00' drew such a picture of the blessings which w° 11 , 03 01; from the repeal of the duty to every class of the e i i o rs i r nity that he felt really sorry to destroy the a I ': which he had placed before their e•is. TheY t", e ready bad convincing proofs of the c 3 onsequencey cry; reduction of the duty on malt and barley. Vq`ia r t ° : once to the speeJh of the Hon. Member who lieu.' : I t Y e , down, he might observe that in his short statett e n - aft,ft had made two mistakes. He stated that the 0 turers were protected whilst there was no prote ° , l-1 0 16 , agricultural p ro d uce . Hi s H on. Friend mig ht " s n it! ) : membered a p a p er , p r i nte d t hi s year on the motiol l f "asti Hon. Member for Montrose, showing the amount 0 , 1 pr () ; levied on impo r t e d agr i cu l tura l and manufacturer" clel/t duce, from whi c h it appeare d that the amount tbol levied on f ore i gn agr i cu l tural produce exceederarlegl rai ed on f ore i gn manufactures. Again, his flon."110' enlarg,,d on th e h ardsh i p inflicted on the agrietl,est!' by not allo w i ng hi m to grow beetroot for the "'dill: facture of su gar; b ut if the agriculturists did not -feel': vete beetroot f or t h at purpose it was their owneeS; and not that of the law. His Hon. Friend had I , 6 i c tori,, great deal of unnecessary trouble to prove by that protection was mai n t a i ne d i n t hi s coun t r y ' P h - o ty much th for the benefit of t h e agr i cu l tur i sts as f o r man u f acturers, and he thou g ht it necess ary :l o is% dic e m ete the agricultural body fro m th e c h ar ge 0 actuated by i n t erested motives. Now, he had.ve l,l,-1. e tiot i puted to them selfish motives in maintaining protest, to be differed from them, but had always belieVe d hie ° mibhetactuated by a desire to pursue that policy W t . s $ most conduce to the benefit of the coun tre fi o la u r g g a e v ; but the opieion of political economists thet l ho fs it our of protection. He might be allowed Pe r ; a tte 6 for one moment, to refer to the subjec h t of e t r be st "E t e i r , on wool, in which he had taken ' his h connexion with the West much inter e st of e if'o o s shire. In 1842, he had moved for ng a reu o : l elf, of the duty on wool, and in 1844 it was ultitt - t t eto repealed, and no one would deny that no such lee benefit had ever been conferred on the British Prr,„" tb, ° , —(Hear, hear.) He would now confine himselrf t eeP question come.p o f n the repeal of the malt tax. It woul" ng ce! r Members to weigh well the consecntieag regarded This could not b e e sa r l e t g which would . ing at the opposite benches be the course they ad v rraor leaders of that -- case such a party would bebanemp a e f r e u t l g y t s ul t s s t o h s t u i e o r l e a d s t a n t t b o a a t a:e;o: Lord Stanley, within the lastoote or three mornetPhesa,l'had declared most emphatically' , 51d whether in the Government or in opposition, be W- 0 0 b re e s t is o t un th d e , repeal of a tax for which no bstitute c i ,g 9 lo and the benefit of which repeal be tk ° lo l very equivocal. Neither could he persuade himse lf ! et' the tflton. Member . for Bucks would lend it his W i re,. 0 0 urgedvv What would become of the objections which bad P I O leave against a Chancellor of the Exchequer who O b° o o himselfwould ct without a sprplus? Nothing could beee p bet become to announce prospective reductions. " 0 1 1 of those gentlemen who had barley o "t 1 this year if promises of reduction were made for tbeti r e r t l - if Hoe. Members talked of the bugbear of national ° we° and the bugbear of national establishments. That ' a rwehgeatrhderthtehme reflecting a very convenient term to use, but he very much don o ld arton of the community..ffseq as mere bugbears . As far as be no' sc el hwyashciaonucerned he should be very happy to be rell' - ole Friend who, he hoped, when be o °,o comedona.to propose the repeal of the malt-tax, w i ,'"ielt be prepared with a substitute, for the suggestion v i "„ e s' ho tea's made would not produce .. one fifth of the. noon sat,' amount. Able and ingenious as he was, his do 0' Friend would no doubt be able to devise some mo ds for ineoitmaintainingl the publi c f a ith. Th e H on . M e mber L l a de system e Lincolnshire would no d ou bt recommen d a re turn " t le Ryam of import duti es; b u t w h e th er h e cou ld perstklas the e House to adopt his views was another matter. t he Lion. G en tl eman said that there was a falling off in t he returns of malt, owing to the d u ty. If, however' r e' of p er i o d s o f ten years antecedently to the , sent year were examined, it would be found that " t be was rd not the c ase . B y t h e ev i dence taken b e fore 0 0 Lo _s' Committ ee on t h e sa l e o f b eer—a mass of ° i a useful inf ormat i on—these facts appeared: — The °o rb u mption of m a lt was, i n the three periods of ten Y— preceding, as follows:- 18 20 -1830 the average was 26,800,000 bushel ° 1 830-1840 34,000,400 1840_1850 19 31,700,000 19 Of Ths Hon. G ent l eman further said that the fal ling-'''f fo the consumptio n was caused by the importat i o n ?t be reign grain; but th e l ast t h ree or four years wow' . 0 13 found to show a s t ea d y i ncrease. The ovn iUtar was, in