The Sun. — London, England, 1851-02-21 00:00:00

I eilet lie, re ason , Ur the Government not supporting his mo here.' 4-,le oraidored, theist re that in bringingforward id slie'tleil in the middie of 1 ebruery instead of the . m ttee'cir ,!Jule., he haa overceree the chief , oliii coon then d ad r 3 the Government. The la eble Lord at o tl ) i . e . °' th' G• • rumshod fr q"enCy state:! his II rli':e4l4thitskit'it ic.i.e‘ht be ' ctl i e t eicable -t at -- som, tim n e n or i o le ih ( er n t r o . tao eu e B ofirege. Well, the reee.sure a i b :iti41:11: Tile 7 Plan which ho had to propose f . ,s!e'P , _ "late wiederat in its terms, and practical in its "Nation. '., a • said to have this fath er , and ho thought it might be e d he foerit, that it would pave the way fJr the great the n o trusted comprehensive measure of reform which Ille" 41 ' e was to be favoured with by the Noble Lord tot b 4 , ii th e Proper time arrived.—(Hear, hear.) He did by tr. eve that the present Bill would ' interfere with ( i,a4, 14 e, 'Pie of the Reform Bill. It did not propose to livs llt ' a i i ,, e- one boroueh or to add a single representa -141;04; -1 it p ro posed to do was to remove some of the sea,r , that existed with respect to the repre tbe t, e - e °ll-- to give the inhabitants of one locality_ thetlerene.• rights and advantages as were alreedy . enjoyed • - e - . the inhabitants o iitioth,i,, esce eircurnstaeces by shock the ears - "Alit3 a—(llear.) He wculd not 1 fth 4 .4,4:,,, ' 0 Noble Lord by introducing the word tail, • on the present occasion, or by going into de lierlt,,4)"tiltZ electo-al districts, which had neenoalld ttate:,-,ted. liscussion s about " squares and parallel - Is e the Neither would he discuss the question respect 'th'ea esentuober of electors to each representative, le ° he m r ' t , al , •0 been called " arithmetical calculations;" P 141 1% a 1 1 1 4t ed he might, on his part, be allowed to ex: %Dek a 41) °*ee that the discussion would not lead to re el erea. -41 t ,h© dangers of revolution in connexion with 18 atar • (ii Pas. hear.) The measure which e propo rn •e o d . te r .I 1 't t . I t t h t (1 the Houee was one so simple in its lona . 11441 3' it-e'6 l ost moderate and cautious reformer might °l a . ' I , ~,° _ ,Pt •—( Hear, hear.) It con‘ained nothing the a r ( , ) ,:ro at all interfere with those conditions which h Prot7 e Z' e T eord last year - declared to be essential to . t e laic.laid sae ta reforan The Noble Lord on that ?ccasion . er bad always considered it a condition in eve . ? ectoreea.,'`a tiondition wbich he thought had been happily ido e-,,,,-Tlith hitherto—the; the rresentation of that le wh• h ',ode in which it was constituted,. the mode e:seeib le n ai t • h j; P e °Ple elected their representatives, should , i' L lairel, ', hi e '? and consistent with a monarchy and House 1/.l 'nia - , ' N ew, the present small and comparatively Pati7e_ atit measure was at all events perfectly coin -15 ; le wit h thing s as they were, and would_ tend te ! t r ille tl e are 4 e ll g th4l rather tutu to weaken both h tael h -- Y aud the House of Lords.—(Hear, hear.) tare . :Pad that he who had made the greatest, hh ' tel.? effectedttioo social revolultdion not n o l bject to terNy fe :lb, in modern times . wou 84 ' '4 " great anomalies which now existed shown .the te ," tu the representation, when it could be rs_. iii:Nlict be ip witheut incurring the slif;ht t e_s at i . k e N ese 4 , r ' he ar.) He would likewise maintam b_ often 4E4 4 ' Was It measureof sound policy. It had ott 1 1 4 3 it saidd ni t i bilt theyought to extend the franchise as far , - Ics eer'-'4,Possibl done with safety, and that_ lave d '''lN etp-e 4-iegisletnYre would be more respected, the n. ii e , t p t ,d r a • tiptlY obeyed by the \ peo m pl o e, a w n o d ui p d rop n e s r k ty nt r . e uld tome b e e secure.—Wear. e . . m t er ~ . 511 3' doubt of the respectability of that vast and e' a 9 ,: a , k e iliss who would be affected by this Bill? Was . - 't t able t - "ia Vet class that a great part of the Govern . ta ii their seats in that House?—(Hear, hear.) He illellt!jf:Ctleel,i.:?..3l,Yeand gravely ask if a man was a better itp. 4.4 0th er ,......" Fi . lived in one locality H than when he lived 1 1) Poli te _‘ (dear, hear.) might here_quote a very iit,iehrtt evatraet from a document e which had been sent t 4 a.jd 'l l t s l r e ,,l l 3,h e o d ,u sy san — d s of in certain favoured locali el itboie elective franc, ) (I ; aeith, r u t i i,r d i o B v s e o r the face of the kindom (I believe freemenfranchise be:a because ltuhdeeyd pay , is 471,502 ) , en - a yearly rent lit , itt ,:„,,Red upwards• and tens of thousands of men, :' °ver the remaining portions of the country, Yt kil: Priv ed of the elective franchise because they pay a , 4 0 t Its;d t i :e 6 t t of 10/. and upwards to 50/. The test of the in t° ,ie n es% and due respectability to possess the -i) Sher certai n , pieces is measured by a rent of . 101., but b llet " Pl4eoa by " rentof 501. This distinction _wit - •ge• 'jeer, a th ali ght b 9 , Je is invidious, and e rl -eg forward a vast number of cases to show 144'4"st 44° • existed. He would take, for ilitt,,,rke, the:mattes whichwhich he represented. He found r t e ( to boreoeunhty f Reigate, one of the emsilest bo bl44l—Casl 41.111 e kingdom,tigoa 101. householder was repre ele ' Illereas ire largeb town of Crete doe, which, trStlereietiellY s Pea l kin t g, e might be considered the capital kt i,rt • f Y , a man might rent a house just somewhat t5;tepe°,43501,--he might transact business in the Oa 4 le ~ a nd be well acquainted with all that was 0 f I °4l o ll the country, and yet be entirely uureprkeo - lie:l'h, co there was the case of a mechanic, t i e/ tl, - '' l a a house rented at 151. or 20/. a yaer, who w el,: flreprese 1 1 4 .- "ate a 100 a or 2001. accumulated in a savings bank, a . Jet, 8 ; e1 1 PlitYeabecause he did not live in a town, would this man with an agricul- IP ' e 'l labourr. ' Compare a 40s. freehold, and who ! i Ili ee ,... s who might have 14 ilthaotTpeetly be represented.—(Hear, hear.) He e ke oh , e 'P thinking that these were great anomalies l le N Li le' ° t.e f i rY 'where we -- professed to represent property ili t :'he 1, 1 1 43 ' 10 a and nothing else.—(Hear, bear-) He fe had a Etre , • the support of the House N. Jest t h ir _ --eger claim to It 4. that ba4 ,he had last year, in consequence of the ll''' nd el tlce been passed to extend the franchise to 41' •—(lletr ) tt t ' hat th at et_e Nilll3ll in its could reg p r a e s t sa m ge or f e ro t in han th h a e t Sy! and bttek t was 'marred iar hear.) Still he con t,lls,r.:tterlltitiat .the same principle w'_ hi . ch had been applied 4. Ireland, t . 1 /12 ., the principle of placing the borough and fu 141 ild ra% /lise on the same footing, ought . to be ex ,NN,,Pthr4ngla. nd also. The Noble Lord, in bringing e''' ,) ti, at Bill, said— e, e its , I, 1 4 , rasure proposes to place the people of Ireland et - liter t epresentatton, in a position, in point of ~ ~,i ~_ 0 r Il t: 1 ; I. p u °4 as that of the people of England and Scot- R.` be e:' 14 founded . on the principle that they should `,, , 1i ththl.fl ated as inferior to the people of England and ' 5 I "; but that they have a right, when England and poi kid e lehiti jin n that a certain franchise , to be placed it , a too 1. ?1 11, In that respect equivalent to both those coaunnd ai -itieh , - right they do not at present enjoy, I A , th e more does it become iustice,. does it o b y e ' come f to l'eti°t/Iftio, unite the people of Ireland with the people o I' 1 1 4 Ria u I a."), iu showing,by equal treatment of both, a thee ;e them an equal franchise, you have full coa ti i l litlit e ` u the wanner in which they w m ill ay u s se aye thet i t l k;fif,„;,,,.nd that franchise, and that they Z%itte,,Z.," which exists in any other part of the United t11 0 1 : 1 1 111 17t h o ti f t had been conceded to Ireland he claimed on toil hie eene lthose who resided . in the counties of England, t o *ty t , _ tuered that it would be adding insult to a .be " .t 'aY that the people of Ireland were more 0 th e ralted in the exercise of the franchise ot ctr ing t h,..N'Ople of England nc ("e se a the , 11 d iscussion of the Irish Fra . hi . Bill, one th e ' tisat4T'est arguments ad d du a c o ed in its favour tually decreased. tee*,:he the 4 l constituencies t6' it elea n aght he could show that the county constie tb._eleetoraE, !gland had decrease t d_ found also. By comparing h 1849-50, he I);_res wa s , 44re_‘aister of 1836 ti , ru-,t , 488. decrease in Berks w o . i f 1,039; Devon, 1.123; (: ‘dt ad, 747 1 ; ' l ,reford, 319; Sh shire, 505; West dreipn Worcester, 475.- 1 4i: it ' hear.) ,ltshire, r 4 , 1 2 00 far, He he might be told that he was going tt, ,543 wi t!) ,t,e would, therefore, compare the register ' comparison he found N l ' . th ere w:oat 1850. By . t l II S I.) e i en 3 & decrease in Bi s 4 ed 3 f ; ord of 415; Berks, Hereford, 1, 088 ; Bttrteepieliie, ~,,, _ 1 ,753 ; Dorset, 843; Itr er Y, 348, 8 + Stafford, _ Suffolk, 831; West a et4este,,, iv. s eatinoreland, 210; Wilts, 584; and in f f ~, e t"ef ''' l9 .—(Hear, hear.) . Comparing the total t,l l l at e,ounty electors in 1843 with that of 1850, he i l ie . l th es , t h a t ` IW the number was 484,073, and in 1850 41 43 11 1;h, C I F a decresese hadof 22,666 in seven years, been an increase of t t i ' tirr °.. l , : tl e I°th3 there these facts proved that if I . . ' Tlstar re'Ple which th o ughth thatd been laid down with regard to l e i t elal e as it t, t session a sound one, it ought to be etre — ' 0 the E‘p w a ng a ties—the rather that in the la te erel,, e , l g ise cow) l,`Pt 4 „..• "" the decrease of electors had taken place Li the deers on almost stationary, whereas in Eng %J--'11,4 c'ee e r gi ll 'le had rred among a population ra et apnea . ille ee a uts hear.) He believed that an t‘e,e4itiliteti-1/3181ghtig:17e 'raise r & and very properly raised, isms %e asnre. that it did not go far enough. He flee ' il lles 4d , l erY well hearing the Noble Lord say . it,,lt'opiti-teoll'ainobtobild'ng in my opinion I ever held, or in h would debar me from '4,lll)%l°ollt.tlL,BatisfaetlOonwa'nywplan by . which the admission ",tl-1-154trig classes could be still further extended, 4 ' 4 . 4 348 widened upon which he representation lie t he it a Or "th 41 14 e re that the objection to the smallness of his V tt the - wall a great objection; but he begged to say ee:Ptd th - ttili astire was gocd as far as it went; and be i'Olitia - ;° Neble Lord would support it on the same e.tettt that had induced him to bring it forward ; viz., itift-I. 4 l° X . _or ( a tin fr a agm h en a t r ) of bread was better than etile‘eie 4tlt7beoruftohre 8 lie thought he had a r' of e the . Right Hon. Gentleman 4, timer or cca n e ii ll p p o P n o , r w t who observed, with great ability, : ti(/ qs ai r n ilst lay, considering the increase of the democra- t 44 0 Sint r 1 to our institutions, that I see the greatest 'll e p o lv (Il ec -u te e r Z e b t leg an immense superstructure on a nar b., lltla eels. If that superstructure cannot stan r d . ..Z* basi.f4tended electoral basis, I am sure that a na 1, (144,,Tinilot long sustain iL" i. °4e t We'„ u t e ett t) Now, he thought the Right Hon. Bi.l - flak ~,-"', Math that the country had not decreased in e" e,"Nartiratie tendencies; and the figures he had brought and t, kult hav shown' him that the electoral basis Illaietlielt'onrae,idheerattblYbentarrukwer.—(Hear hear.) He thought, very great' fairness claim the L e o, tetitc'e• Larg onet 7 s i s t uport. (Hear, hear.) He owned, - e t , tl ift a g ift er all that had recently occurred, not only e * "'ch a - P i *, but out of it, particularly at an election par eili lately occurred in not the least aristocratic 1 t ) , 44 re n e ct (Hear, hear)—he might fairly claim pp 10 PP() ; of the Honourable Gentlemen who had 1 belle the be i fond up orted protection, for he ‘titely repudiated ern that those who had only very they ex Pd the pple of protection would find %e,'"aglY dif ficuft ri t nel re-obtain their seats unless tltiffrae-ePealsd to cons u tituencies with an extended et_tiecri:(llear, hear•) He might say that he knew '4% the, of the fanner. of this country, and could beep 1 7 1 .'' : 'thell they had ' once formed an opinion it they e ,, - y "ilfieult to shake it. He knew that they had "Ley eente;eght and tutored to cling to protection, that Ooti ee f j aid not be induced to give it up at a mome . nt h s t tt t 9 to r anY one; and, though Hon. Gentlemen mig r e Pt to zit, the Persuade therm that it was not a question of t 4 ces e 'y "olild continue to maintain that, if it was no h eee) q Protection , itmust be one of rent.—(Hear, fr ee I lie believed bat, much as they were opposed to h r l tit s r t ad e , they would • tr, foe infinitely prefer an open and c oehee to one that dealt up to the eleventh hour Itadnaiai;°„llBlY.with them. lie rejoiced greatly at the 15 44 in ,' Whteh was made by the Hon. Member for that itteiliaanesihshire on behalf of his party. Lie rejoiced Mile measure cempleted the triumph of the THE SUN, lion. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden). This was a cause ie which he (Mr. iiieg) took the liveliest interest, fair he [eight heee state that his Either fought the !settle of free trade single liendel for many a year before either the Hon. Member for the West Riding, or the lion. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), or even the people of England, had had their ate, mime called to it.—(Hear.) Ho hoped that the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, with the enlarged views which he had recently adopted, would attempt to not coalesce with the electors who had been created under the 50/ Chandos clause to answer a political pur pose.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted the lion. Member would go with them for an extended suffrage, and that they would no longer hear any thing about what he be lieved he might say had now been partially renounced— he meant the re-establishment of the dangerous doctrines of protection, for he held protection to be very much akin to Communism in its worst shape.—(Hear, hear.) Protection he regarded as the few taking from the many; and Communism, in its general acceptance, as all taking from all. An attempt had recently been made to establish Communist principles on a large scale on the continent by that celebrated man Louis Blanc; and what had he done? He attempted on behalf of his party to obt tau a loan of money from tne Government. The agriculturists had got their loan. M. Blanc bad also attempted to obtain relief for his party—the very thing the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was now at tempting for his.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. King) hoped that a measure like the present, which might be shown to be one of sound policy and perfect justice, would not be reused by that House. lie trusted that the day would not come when the people would find that it was only particular classes who could obtain a hearing in that House; when the law would cease to be a refuge to the oppressed, and become, instead, the arm of the op pressor; and when it should be said, with truth, that that House had at its disposal false instead of equal weights and balances.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving. in the terms of his notice. Lord J. RUSSELL spoke as follows:—The Hon. Gentleman who has made this motion has done it, cer tainly, in a most effective manner, and has stated his case as fairly, and laid it before the House with as little exaggeration, either as to its merits or nature, as the Hon. Member possibly could have done. I must like wise say, as he stated at the commencement of his speech, that there can be no objection to the time of his making the proposal, and that the reason, which he says truly was a reason against the entertaining of his propo sal last year, is not a reason which I can urge on the present occasion. —(Hear, hear.) I will make even a further admission with respect to the nature of the mo tion itself. I think it differs from several other motions which have been brought forward for the extension of the suffrage, inasmuch as I • do not think any reasonable objection can be urged against the class of persons Whom the Hots. Member proposes to include within the fran chise. I admit at once teat they are persons who, if intrusted with the elective franchise, would probably use it with intelligence and integrity—(Hear, hear)—and I certainly cannot pretend that there is any such supe riority in the inhabitants of towns over those in coun try parts as to enable me or any one to say that the inhabitants of the towns who ate invested with this franchise are distinguished by any superior qualifi cation over those not having the franchise in other parts of the country.—(Hear, hear.) But the question really is whether this proposal would effect an improvement in our representation; because I have always considered that this was really the important question which the House had to decide in respect to any proposition of this kind. I never could think with the Hon. Member for Montrose and others, that the chief point to be consi dered was, whether certain persons with certain quali fications should be entrusted with the franchise, and whether it was not a hardship, or, to employ a much stronger term, as the Hon. Member was accustomed to do, whether it was not a species of tyranny, to exclude them from the franchise. But I always considered, seeing the immense power this House possesses, seeing that this House represents the country at large, and that succeeding periods have increased its means of control ing all other branches of the Legislature—l have always considered that what was really important to this country was not so much that any particular persons should be enabled to vote at elections, but that the general result should be advantageous to the country, and that this House should fully and fairly represent the intelligence and will of the people.—(Hear, hear.) Now, if we consider the present poposal in refer ence to what has hitherto been the case in this country in regard to the franchise, it is obvious that the proposi tion is in manifest opposition thereto. There has always been, till a very late period, this distinction in principle between the representation of counties and the represen tion of boroughs, though not certainly uniformly carried out in every instance—the representation of counties was a representation by tenure, the persons voting there in consequence of their tenure, while the persons who voted in the boroughs voted by virtue of occupation, the one class being usually denominated freeholders, and the other householders, in whom, in the absence of any particular law to the con trary, it was decided by ancient authory that the right of voting existed. In the course of the discussion on the Reform Bill a proposal was made to make a very great change with respect to the representation of coun ties, so far as to admit voters who did not hold by tenure, being neither freeholders, nor having a tenure for any number of years, but merely holding by occu pation. The Marquis of Chandos, who made that proposal, succeeded in carrying it by the votes of many of those who were Reformers, and who, on that occasion, thought the Government which had pro posed the Reform Bill had been in error in not giving the franchise to that class. Lord Althorp at the time pointed out the objection to the proposal, but those ob jections did not prevail with the Hon. Member for Mon trose and others, who thought it desirable to add this class to the constituency, and a decision of the House taking place in favour of Lord Cbandos's proposition, the Government in the next Reform Bill introduced a clause in conformity with that decision; but I own I my self never considered that was any improvemt nt of our representatior. I have always considered that, so far as it dineiniihed the power of the 40s. freeholders, it did, on the contrary, rather weaken and enfeeble than strengthen the independence of our representation; and, looking at this question not merely with regard to the ancient poliCy of the country and. the ancient division of counties and boroughs, but looking at it practically, I must say my experience with respect to these electors in counties has led me to observe that often a candidate might ask a farmer paying a considerable rent for his vote, and the farmer would say, Whatever my wishes may be, it is impossible for me to give you my vote, considering the opinions and politics of my landlord, and therefore . I cannot enter into the question whether '.I agree or disagree with your views." Such an answer have I myself and others re• ceived, while, on the other baud, upon canvassing some of the smallest and poorest freeholders, I have seen a de termination and independence on their part to give their votes according to their opinions, highly to their honour, and showing thus that their position was more indepen dent than that of the others. Well, the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman is to admit a very large number of voters by occupation, and thereby exceedingly to di minish the power of that other valuable class to which I have just alluded.—(Elear, • hear.) In looking over re• turns relative to tee various counties of England, I find that the 501. ocupiers are at present in a minority, cer tainly, as compared with all the other electors who vote in great part by freehold tenure, but all by a tenure for some considerable period at least. In Berkshire the number of 50/. voters is 971, and all the other voters 4,270. In Cheshire the number of 501. voters is 4,022; and the other voters 11,901. In Derbyshire the 501 voters are 2,663, the others 10,508; and in Devon 4,920, the others 14,018. I do not know that I need quote any more of these particular instances, but in the whole of the English counties there are abotit 100,000 electors who voted by 50/. occupation, and 375,034 of all other kinds, the greater mass being 40s. freeholders. Well, then, if in addition to these you ad mit t 3 the position if voters 350,000 others, who would have a right of voting as 101. householders, it is quite obvious that you would, so deluge the 40s. freeholders as to diminish their importance in county elections,— (Hear, hear.) Now, considering the value of these 40s, freeholders—considering the antiquity of their privilege, and the importance that they should still possess the weight they have, I should be sorry to see a change made diminishing their influence in counties—(Hear, hear) — but beyond this I think that our object should not be to introduce that uniformity which the Hon. Gentleman rather recommends. His argument is nothing more than this—you have a 101. franchise in the boroughs, therefore have a 10/. franchise in the counties. I have rather con sidered, the different times this subject has come before me, that it is an advantage that there should be various rights of voting, and that the same class of voters which carried the elections in one place should not be the same which decided the choice of representatives in the other.—(Hear, hear.) I therefore think it would not be an improvement to introduce this uniformity. The Honourable Gentleman says, and it is an argu ment which has been used by many persons, but it is not one founded on just observation of things:—" You have given the right of voting to occupiers of 12/. value and tare s a u s rel the Yoccupiers in England of the well deserving of the franchise as and, at least, you ought to ex t en d th e fran chisevi na theylu Ireland,e a of re ; l2 in England so far." But the Hon, Gentleman does not remember that in Ireland we have completely disfranchised that large class of voters, the 40s, free holders; and when I said, in supporti ng t h e Bill f or t h e extension of the franchise in Ireland, that I thought it most desirable to place Ireland on a footing of equality with England and Scotland in this res pect, it was b ecau se I took into consideration the extinction of the 40s. free holds, therefore I thought it right to give that franchise to persons in Ireland, no doubt well qualified to hold it, which franchise not renewing the abuses which the 405. tenure led to there, would at the same time enable the Irish to consider that they were treated with as much fairness as the people of England and of Scot land. That result in a great degree has been attained. From the number given as the number of voters in the Irish counties, I should conjecture that they b ore about the same proportion of the population, or some thing resembling it, as the number of voters in the English counties. But if you were to say, because we have done this we must introduce a similar franchise into England, then you propose a new inequality—be cause then you would have the 40s. freeholders and voters of other tenures together with a 10/. occupation franchise—becau se there are in the Irish counties 12/. voters, and no 403. freeholders. I cannot think, there fore, that the proposed measure would tend to improve our representation. I would rather continue the variety now existing, and keep up the ancient distinction be-. tween the voting from freehold and other tenures in counties, and the household occupation in boroughs. The lion. Gentleman has said that I cannot say the pre sent is a revolutionary project, or one tending to any great democratic change. U n d ou bt e dly I make no charge of that kind ligatues am; and, 02001 thick Oat his plan would be no improvement, lam fa from retyieg that the cla'ts of voters which he proposes to create. in a class from which we lease anything to fear. But there is another question to which the Hore Great,:, rain has alluded, and on which I will :try a few words before I conclude. Though I have stated that it is not edviealf.e to adopt the present proposition, yet on other o .ca. dons I have stated that some extension of the franchise was desirable.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") But the House will recollect that I did not think it an evil to have counties, end large cities, and small boroughs respectively returning Members to Parham r.it, but that, on the contrary, if we had merely a representation of numbers, that then it was my opinion that this wealthy and intelligent country would not be so well represented as at present.—(Hear, hear.) With these opinions, I certainly could nut be a party to that which some Mem bers of the House seem to wish—the entire abrogation of our ancient system, and a sweeping away of the Re form Bill, together with all other Acts and customs with which our representation is connected. Bat Ido think it desirable to introduce a measure for some further ex tension et the suffrage, by which, as I have said, there would be au opportunity for the working classes to have votes at elections.—(Cheers.) Still, my answer to the Hon. Gentleman when he asks whether the Government are about to introduce any measure for the extension of the suffrage—my answer to him is, that we Lave not that intention. There are reasons both peculiar to the present time and general reasons of policy why I think such a course unadvisable in the course of this year. The peculiar reasons are, that it is absolutely necessary to commence this year with finan cial measures—thA the attention of the House of Com mons must be immediately taken up with those financial measures, and that if cry question respecting the alter ation of the Reform Bill and the extension of the suf frage were introduced it must necessarily be postponed till a later period; besides there are certain questions re lating to the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery and relative; to the general administration in Ireland, which I propose to bring before the House, and with which it is very desirable to proceed as speedily as possible. There are general reasons of policy like wise, which I partly stated last year, why it is not ad visable to proceed just now with a measure for the ex tension of the suffrage. It has always seemed to me, when great changes were introduced in this country, that it wes desirable that we should, while the minds of the people were unsettled and unfixed as to the effects o f these changes, avoid very frequent elections, and the perpetual agitation of those que'tions in which the feel ings of the country were deeply involved. It is far better, after sufficient time has elapsed, and after discus sions such as those which take place in this House, that the country should have an opportunity of calmly and delibe rately deciding on the value of these changes. I have like wise thought, with respect to late years, that we have not had many changes in the legislation of this country; but we have seen great political changes going on in foreign countries, and I have thought that anything tending to the stability of our institutions, anything that showed that we were proceeding quietly with the maintenance of our institutions, was an advantage to this country, and preserved us from many evils which another course might have entailed.—(Hear, hear.) But I can see no reason why, after this session has passed, there should not be laid before the House at the commencement of the next session a proposal on the subject of the ex tension of the suffrage—(Loud cries of" Hear, hear") — and, if I should then be a member of the Government, I should feel it my duty to present my views on the ques tion to the House. I know perfectly well that those views are not such as will meet with the approbation of the Hon. Member for Montrose, and those who agree with him, but I have so often stated that difference of opinion existing between us, that it will create no sur prise in the mind of that Hon. Gentleman that I come to a conclusion different from that which the principles which he has from time to time laid before the House lead him to adopt. However, I think it desirable, seeing that it is now 20 years since thepassing of the Reform Bill, that we should after the lapse of that time consider whether there are not a great number of our fellow• u of i t qualified w u u l t d o t e n d exercise tu a n the countrymen suffrage, but 'not o su only fully y im provement of the character ofthis House. — ( Hear, hear. ) exercise For myself, I am perfectly satisfied with the experience we have had of the Reform Act; I believe the repre sentation since 1832 has been such as to give confidence to the people at large—(Hear, hear) —which they would not have had in a House of Commons where the Mem bers for Old Sarum and Gatton had seats, and where no Member for Manchester, Leeds, or Birmingham was present.—(Cheers.) I am, therefore, perfectly satisfied that the influence of that Reform Act has been salutary, and I believe that in any changes we make we ought to consult the spirit of that Reform Act, the temper and genius of the people of the United Kingdom, and that we should not attempt to construct on any other basis but the old foundations, endeavouring at the same time to add to the symmetry and convenience of the edifice. Mr. HUME said the Noble Lord seemed to complain that they were going on proposing changes from year to year, but he was sure that no one who looked at the condition of the country could doubt that much of the peace which we enjoyed, while other nations were dis tracted and disturbed, must be imputed to the state of our representation having been improved by the measure of 1832. Now that we were in the enjoyment of peace, it was the duty of Parliament to, see if they could not give more safety to the State by further concessions to the people. He saw no reason why one citizen should enjoy privileges which another did not. It was true he (Mr. Hume) had given his vote in favour of enfranchis ing the 501. freeholders, but he had also been desirous of extending to them the protection of the ballot; and if, as the Noble Lord stated, this class of voters were under the influence of the landlords, the Noble Lord, who had refused them the protection of the ballot, must take the blame, and not himself.—(Hear.) There could be no better time than the present for enlarging the suffrage, seeing that it was a period of profound tranquillity. The suffrage was the right of a free citizen; and, if so, what right had the Noble Lord to deprive these 101. householders in counties of the franchise? The Noble Lord, in opposing this motion, was blind to his own po sition and to that of Hon. Members who supported him. Mr. COBDEN had hoard with great pleasure, and he was sure the country would participate in this feeling, the declaration just made by the Noble Lord, that he would propose next session a measure for the extension of the franehise.—(Cheers.) He only hoped that the country would give that attention to the subject which would enable them to secure a real measure of reform in our present most faulty system.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House remember the scenes that they had witnessed and read of during the last three or four weeks in the elec tions for some of the smaller boroughs—Falkirk, St. Albans,• and one or two other boroughs with 300 or 400 electors. He declared that when he compared those elections with what had transpired upon the continent during a general election in which 6,000,000 of people had been polled, ho found more violence, more drunken ness, more bloodshed, and more mortal combats in one of these insignificant boroughs than occurred in the whole of Frasice among those 6,000,000 voters. The Con clusion to which be had come was, that in those consti tuencies of 200, 300, and 400 electors, with open voting - , so much bribery, corruption, and intimidation took place, that these small boroughs ought to be utterly extir pated from our electoral system.—(Hear.) He hoped the Noble Lord would address himself to the task before him in the conviction that the country had been for a long time looking for some measure of reform—(Cheers) —and he believed that, after the declaration just made, the Noble Lord would be mistaking the sense of the country if he, or any one else who might be in his posi tion, did not bring in a measure commensurate with the evils of the present system, and one that should meet the wants of the people.—(Hear, hear.) He should not have risen but for the promise just made by the Noble Lord; but he begged to offer a few remarks on the immediate question before the House. The Noble Lord admitted that the 10/. householders in counties, whom the Hon. Member wished to bring within the pale of the constitu tion, were persons wholly unobjectionable in point of circumstances, character, and integrity. The Noble Lord also conceded that the 101. householder in counties was as good a man as the 101. householder in a large town. If, indeed, property were the test of character, a man who rented a 10/. house in a village or small market-town would generally be found to be in superior circumstances to the 101. householder in a large town.—(Hear.) But the Noble Lord said he objected to the motion because it would be an innovation upon the system of votingby 40s. freeholders in counties; and the Noble Lord adduced the innovation upon that system of voting by the en franchisement of the 501. tenants at will under the Re form Act as a reason why the House should not agree to a further innovation upon it by the addition of a 10/. constituency. But having given the 501. tenants at will a vote for the counties, the Noble Lord had not shown how he would increase the evil by giving a vote to the 10/. householders. He (Mr. Cobden) con tended that it would give the people of counties a fairer representation than if the House' stopped at the 50/. tenants at will, and rejected th e present motion. The Noble Lord said the 50/. tenant at will was not so inde pendent a man its the 40s. freeholder. But it did not follow that the , 101. householder would not be a more independent man than the 501. tenant at will—(Hear.) A farmer who rented a farm depended for his subsis- I tence upon the employment of his capit a l i n l an d. Th e landlord had great power over that , individual, because by . withdrawing the land from hits, and the farmer being frequently unable to gain his living by any other calling, the landowner was withdrawing the means of living from him. But if the same landowner went to a market town and gave notice to quit to any shopkeeper who refused to vote for him, the man would say, "I can find another house ; I am a grocer, or a cheesemonger, and if you deprive me of this house I can get another, or, if not, another will be built for me." Now, if they looked to those counties where the 40s. freeholders had the most influence, as in the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire, they would find the representatives of those counties voting in favour of this motion; while the opposition to it would come from those counties where the influence of the tenants at will was preciominant. He was not sure that the Noble Lord would not after all find it desirable to adopt the principle of the present motion in any mea sure he might propose. The Noble Lord might try the plan of grouping together country towns and small places ; but how would he group together into a borough such places as he would find in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where, in an extensive valley, a continued series of mills, cottages, and houses might be found? But the Noble Lord might very easily give these places a vote for the county upon the plan of his Honourable Friend t Mr. Locke King). Where the Noble Lord was compelled to leave out a town from the borough representation he must give the inhabitants a vote for the county. Take the Me of Barnsley, th e seat of the linen manufacture of Yorkshire. That was an important town, yet it had no representative, while Pontefract, which was not half the size, sent two Mem bers to the House of Commons. If they went to Ro therham, D ews b ur y, an d many o th er pl ace s in the ma nufacturing distri c ts, th e y wou ld find that they must LONDON, FRIDAY EVENI either be grouped into boroughs, or clan that the inha hitants most have a 10/. franchiso for the counties. The Noble Lord had truly said the other night that the mess f the pe,pie of this country were determined to main- Los our present 'commercial policy. And the Right don. Gentli:inan the Meriber for Ripon (Sir J. Gra bear) in that admirable speech--(Bear, .hear)—inade the same assertion, and it would find an echo through the cAristry. But what was the case with regard to the representation? Ho would pass over the fact that there was only a majority of 14 votes among the representa tives of the people upon a question upon which the mass of the people were unauimous.—(Hear, hear.) But let them look at the decision of the county repre sentation, so f tr as the opportunity had been afforded cf testing it. Take the elections for the last . few :Weeks in Herefordshire, . Glamurganshire. Nottinghamshire, Montgomeryshire, and the .elections now' going on in North Staffordshire and Bedfordshire. In those six counties or divisions of counties there could ho no doubt that the mass of thu people were just as de termined as ever to maintain free trade. Butnt all these elections there was not a free-trade caudidatesho had a chance, and why?—because the representation of the counties was not in accordance with the opinions of the mass of the people in those counties. The landlords and the tenants might be tolerably unanimous, but they con stituted only a small fraction of the population; and, so long as this state of things continued, there would be no security for the permanent enjoyment of free-trade, and greet peril to the institutions of the country, from our inability to uphold this vital principle. Now, would the Noblo Lord allow this great discrepancy to exist, — that while the great body of the people were in favour of free trade, so many Members of. that House should. continue to vote for dear breach against a free importa tion of foreign produce, against the unrestricted export of manufactured produce, for low wages and high prices, —and to do all this under the pretext that: they repre sented the counties? If there were no Other grounds this it would he sufficient to induce . fiitn'to support the motion. His Hon. Friend had done a great service by bringing this motion forward; and not the least service that he had rendered was in havingelicited from the Noble Lord the promisathat we were to have a great extension and modification of our representative system.. Af er a fear words from 'air. P. HOWARD, in sup port of the motion, The House divided, when there appeared-- For the motion . 100 Against it 52 Majority . . The announcement of the numbers avas...received with loud cheers. „ .>, On the motion of Lord SEYMOUR, leave was given to bring in a Bill to amend the Act for regulating the construction and the use of buildings in the metropolis and it neighbourhood. _ _ Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved for a copy of all peti tions on the subject of convict discipline and transporta tion which have been presented to her Majesty, or to the Route of Conamoni, from any part of Australia or Van Diemen's Land since the year 1845, with the number of aigeatures aqached to each petition. Mr. THORNELY said the petitions moved for by the Hon. Baronet were seventeen in - number; of which six teen were already printed. The motion was then agreed to. The ATTORNEY-GENER4L for Ireland moved for and obtained leave, to bring in a " to consolidate and at-nend the laws relating to Civil Bills and the Courts of Quarter Sessions in Ireland, and to transfer to the assistant barristers certain jurisdiction as to insolvent debtors." On the motion of Lord MELGUND, kayo was given to bring in a " Bill to reform and extend the School Es tablishment of Scotland." Colonel DUNNE moved for " A return of the names of naval officers, civil engineers, and other persons who have reported in favour of or against the proposed plan for the Asylum Harbour at Holyhead, or that have re parted that Holyhead is not a suitable place for an asy lum harbour, and whose reports have been made or printed by order of Parliament previous to the intro duction of the Holyhead Harbour Bill into Parlistnent last session; distinguishing those who have reported in favour from those who have reported artist such har bour; together with the cost of the stun as estimated by the several engineers referred to. Atid copy of any report or paper forwarded to the Admiralty in the year 1847, on the part of the shipowners of,"Liverpool and others, on the nature of the anchorage ; ground of the proposed asylum harbour at Holyheadbond signed by Captain James H. Christie and Lieutraaat R. Sarsfield,. R.N., together with the plan annexed thereto."— Agreed to. PASSENGERS ACT. The House then went into Committ6i on the Passen gers Act Amendment Bill. L. The several previous clauses having been agreed to without discussion, on the last Mr. ADDERLEY suggested that theprovisions of the Bill should be extended to cabin passengers as well as to steerage passengers, and complained that the former were in some instances subjected to unfair treatment. , Mr. THORNELY said he had had reat experience with respect to emigration to the 'United States of Ame rica, and from all ho had seen he half no hesitation in saying that the cabin passengers were,,Peffectly able to take care of themselves. The clause was then agreed to, the Uouse resumed, and the Chairman reported the Bill. MILLS AND FACTORIES (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill passed through Committee.? The House adjourned at Nine o'clock; Mr. 0 Higgins paired off with Sir R. Peel in favour of Mr. King's motion for the extension'of the franchise PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the V, tes and Proceedings of the Rowe of Commons.) THURSDAY, FEB. 20. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 3) BILL. Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Ques tion proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time :" Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months." Question put, " That the word' now' stand part of the question." The House divided :._ MINORITY—AYtS, 46, Bagge, W. Hamilton, Geo. A. Salwey,Colonel Ban kes, George Hastie, Alexander Smollett, A. Baring, Francis Hatchell, John Spooner, Richard Berkeley, Henry F. Hornby John ,Stanley, Edward Boldero, H. George Jolliffe, Sir W. G. • 'Stanstield, W. R. C. Broadley, H. Lacy, H. C. Strickland, Sir G. Brotherton, J. Lawley, B. R. Brown, W. „ Lockhart, W. Childers, J. W. Cubitt, William M'Gregor, John burner, G. sdir.T:JW.. W. Manners, Lord G. - Welby, G. E. Duncan, Viscount Mitchell, T. A. Wigram, L. T. Duncan, George Napier Joseph ' Wortley, J. S. Etnlyn, Viscount Patten, J. W. E wart, William Pilkington, James , , T ELT,m. Farnham, E. B. Prime, Richard ;Denison, B. Fitzrty, Henry Ricardo, Osman ' Christopher. R. Grosvenor, Lord R. Rice , E. R. • ' MAJORITY-NOES, - 102. Adair, Hugh E. Goold, Wnydhani Osborne, Ralph Adair, R. Shafto Grace, 0. D. ~ Peto, Samuel Adderley, C. B. Greene, John Rendlesham,'Lord Alcock, Thomas Guernsey, Lord Reynolds, John Ansley, Thomas Gwyn, Howel Rushout, Captain Arkwright, George Hall, Sir B. Sadleir, John Bagshaw, John Barrow, W. H' Hanmer, Sir J. L .serope, (I. P. Bell, Jacob Sanders, George ,IliarHlailmld:elLatosont:d,eJ, J.II. . . Berkeley, C. L. G. - Ileadlam, T. E. ' eynaer, H. K. ~ Scully, Francis Blackall, S. W. A. • ' ' Shafto, R. D. Blair, Stephen Hodgson, W. N. . Smith, J. Benjamin Blake, M. J. Hood, Sir A. ~ . 1 Smyth, J:slin George Booker, T. W. ' Hope, Alexander Stafford, Augustus Bremridge, Richard Inglis, Sir R. , . Stanley, E. H. Chatterton, Colonel Jackson, Williarn,,, , , Stuart, John Clay, James Keogh, William ` Cole, H. A. • ' Kershaw, James ' ' Thompson, Colonel Collins, William King, P. J.. ~ ti ,, Trelawny, J. S. Copeland, Alderman Knox, Colonel .., •t ;;Vane, Lord H. Cowan, Charles Locke, Joseph Waddington, H. S. Davies, D. A. Lushington, CharleS Waddington, David Devereux, J.,T. 'Lygon, Gen. , -, 4 : x Wall, C. B. nivel, E. Meagher, Thomas' , Walmsley, Sir T. Douglas, Sir C. E. 'Mahon, Viscount'''. '" Westhead, J. P. - - Duncuft, John Manners, Lord .It tII , Williams, John Edwards, Henry • Milaes, R. M. , j:. , ) Williams, W. Evans, Sir De Lacy Milton, Viscount Williamson, Sir H. Fagan, William Molesworth,Sir W.- - 1 t Wilson, Matthew M mo o rr ns i e s ll , D , N a ir v illl d am .- ' Wodehouse, E. Fergus, John Wyvill,' Marmaduke Fox, Richard M. • Naas, Lord Young, Sir John Fox, W. J. O'Connell, M. J. TELLERS. Farrer, James . ' OConnor, Feargus Frewen, C. H. Galway, Viscount Fuller, A. E. O'Flaherty, Anthon y Mackenzie, W.F. COUNTY FRAistenisE . , , Motion made, and Question p ut, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the Franchise in. Counties in England boroughs, by giving the r a i n g cl Ut W of al v es ot t i h n e g s t a o mea all value of ten pounds." Th e House divided :—. o s ccu th pi a e t rs in of tenements of the annual MAdORITY—AYES, 1 0 0, Adair, R. A. Hall, Sir B. Pilkington, James Adair, Hugh E. Hanmert Sir J. Pinney, William Hastie, Alexander Rice, E. RA.l'derman Harris, Richard Aleock, Thomas Power, Dr. Anderson, Arthur Anstey, T. C. Robartes, T. J. Bass, M. T. lleadlam, T. E. , Blake, M. J. Hodges' T• L. balwey, Colonel Seholetleid, W. Scrope, G. P. Bright, John IlumpherY, Aid. ' Shalto, R. D. Brocklehurst, John Hutt, William 131ewitt, Reginald IRiward, F. H % Ilastie, Archibald Jackson, William Brotherton, J. S 1 ' Brown, W. Keating, Robert aney, Robert A. Smith, Vernon Smith, John B. Calvert, Frederic Langston, d ./ 1 Trelawny, J. S. Banbury, Edward Kershaw, James T y e! Stan.sficld, W. R. Carter, john B. Lawless, Cecil Strickland ; Sir;G. Chaplin, W. J. Lennard, T. B. Stuart, Lord D. Clay, James Locke, Joseph Sullivan, Michael Clifford, H. M. Loveden, 113 7 5 e Tancred,,ll. W. Cobden, R. Lushington, C. Tenison, E. K. Colebrooke, Sir T. Mackie, John T. Thicknesse, R. A. Collins, W. 31 ,c u llagh, W. Thompson, Colonel D'Eyncourt, C. T. HrTaggae- , Crawford, W. S. l'd'Gregor, Joh, n Thornely, Thomas Drummond, Henry Meagher, Thomas Villiers, F. W. Duncan, Lord Mangles, E. H. Wakley, Thomas Ellis, John Moffatt, George Sir J. Walmslev, Sir J. Evans, Sir De Lacy Molesworth, Sir W. Wawn, J. T. Evans, William Moore, G. IL Williams, John Ewart, William Muntz, G. F. Williams W. Fagan, William O'Connor. Feargua Wilson, Matthew Forster, Matthew O'Flaherty, Anthony Wood, W. P. Fox, W. J. Oswald, Ale xander MUM. Gibson, T. M. 'When, Sir G. Hume, Joseph Granger, T. C. Perfect, Robert Ring, P. J. MINORITY.—NOES, 52. Adderley, C. B. Frewen, C. U. Parker, John Arbuthnott, Hon. H, Grace, O. D. Power, Nicholas Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, Sir G. Domilly, Sir John Baring, Sir F. Grey, R. W. Russell, Lord John Barrow, W. IL Ilatchell, John Seymour, H. D. Bellew, R. H. Hawes, Beniarnin Seymour, Lord Berkeley, Admiral m a id, James Somerville, Sir W. Blair, Stephen Henley, J. W. Stanley, E. Bremridge, Richard Hobliouso, sir J. Stanton, W. S. Brockman, E. D. Hood, Sir A. Turner, G. J. Buck, L. W. Hernby, John Verner, Sir W. Campbell, W. F. Knight, F. W. Williamson, Sir 11. Cowper, W. F. Labouchere, Henryn Wilson, James Craig, Sir W. G. Lascelles, W. S. Wood, Sir Charled Duncuit, John Lewis, G. C. Dundas, Admiral Mauls, Fox TELLERS. Dundas, Sir David Napier, Joseph IlaYter, W. G. Elliot, J. E. Eill, Lord M. Freestun, Colonel rraaggeett: Lord dd G. Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial office, from the Governors of New South Wales, New Zealand, the Cape of Good 'lope, Sierra Leone, and St. Helena. N G 3 THE PRECIOUS BUDGET. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. TIMES.—Me. Locke King brought on I,st night his annuli motion for the assimi ration of the county frac chis to that of boroughs, and after a brisk little debate kliniaters were beaten by a majority of two to one. Mr. King mustered a round hundred against the Ministerial 52 —exsctly one for each county in England and Wales. No-v, really this is too bid. It is too bad that people who have been saying for years that something ought to be done, and who on the strength of the present Go vernment saying the same have not withdrawn their confidence from it, should be put into this ignominious position—for every usual supporter of Government comes in for a share of its scandals. Think of the pro poser of the Reform Bill being beaten twenty years after, two to one, on a question of reform! This comes of a man having once done a good thing—a circum stance well known to be ruinous to ordinary minds. Well was his Lordship christened Finality John. He is evidently . one of those who worship the work of their own hands, as if many as great a man had not lived to see all his work scattered to the winds. Behest year fully admitted the intrinsic metits of Mr. King's plan, acknowledging the strong claims of 101. house holders, and confessed that it was only a question of time. This 'language, in which we entirely concurred, had its natural effect on his 159 supporters, who all saw that the opposition was virtually abandoned, and that, for the future, they were to deal with the question as they might think best. The result was, that the ma jority of 159 dwindled Last night to less than one-third, while Mr. King's compact and persevering century of Reformers remained exactly what it was lest year, viz, one hundred men—neither more nor less. It is not, then, Mr. King that has gained ground, but Lord John Russell that has lost it. lie was distinctly warned last session, both in the House and in these columns, that unless he should be prepared with a measure for comprehending some very important classes now wholly unrepresented, he would find many of his supporters !saving him in the lurch. MI that he could then say was, that it was a question of time, end that the middle of July was too late to set about it. Mr. King has brought it on in the middle of February, and his Lordship is equally unpre pared. We think we have the greatest reason to com plain of this management, not merely because we are anxious to see something done in the way of reform. but also because Mr. King has been allowed a more unqua lified triumph for his particular plan then we are ready to accord. The principle of admitting all the 101. house holders at present unrepresented to the county franchise, and of thus mekirg the county the residuary legatee of all other constituencien is a very sweeping one, and would require some correction. In many, if net insist, of our counties the landowners and farmers would be utterly swamped among a multitude f tradesmen, shopkeepers, and even artisans. Again, the proportion of 101. householders is much larger in trading than in purely agricultural districts. In ten rural parishes containing ten thousand inhabit eras there may very easily be not more than a hundred 101. householders, allowing on the average a squire, a clergyman, four farmers, a shopkeeper, a publican, a blacksmith, and a carpenter to each. But in a town of ten thousand inhabitants there will be not far short of a thousand 101. householders. Should, however, the pro portion be 200 such householders to 10,000 agricul turists, and 800 of them to 10,000 inhabitants of a town, then Mr. King's plan would give the trading classes of the county four times as much representative weight as he gives to the agricultural classes, besides leaving the former in almost exclusive possession of the cities and boroughs now sending Members to Parliament. The plan would require at the very least that many large towns, and perhaps whole districts, should be made Par liamentary boroughs, in order that they might not prove overwhelming additions to the county constituencies. But, thanks to Lord John Russell, Mr. King has obtained a signal advantage for his naked proposition to make the qualification the same in county as in lowa. Such is our double complaint—first, that Lord John Russell has procured for his followers the discredit of resisting Par liamentary reform; secondly, that he has given a real advantage to a sweeping and unqualified measure. But last night's affair has in more respects than one a very ugly appearance. It is useless to con ceal that Government is losing weight both in the [louse and out of it. There are rocks a-head of all sorts. Tosnight comes on the income-tax, which from the first we have protested against, for the Procrustean rule which it applies to the lonpst and shortest tenures —to the rent which has been paid a thousand years, and wilt probably be paid as much longer, and to the pro fessional or literary income which may cease to-morrow. Farmers, tradesmen, and almost every other class, object to the tax as it now stands, and their combined objec tions are likely enough to be expressed in the speeches and votes of this evening. That impediment passed, then comes the window-tax, and Sir Charles Wood's house-tax. The public, we are much concerned to say, does not appreciate the elaborate conscientiousness with which Sir Charles has endeavoured to carve out his sur plus amongst the numerous expectants or non-expectants of his bounty. The repeal of the corn-laws, and some other largo measures, have utterly spoilt them for half-and half bonus. We really think that Sir Charles might have retained - the window-tax with better grace than he has proposed to " repeal " it. We cannot help it—no body can help it—the public has a certain way of view things, and its present feeling is very much that which Dickens describes in a large hungry family, which had been led to expect a Christmas pudding, and received in stead five yards of flannel. As matters 1 , ois at present, there is not a little chance of this long-expected boon being sulkily refused, in the hope that somebody else will do the thing more handsomely,—in fact, as Peel would have done it. To some other measures we need not now allude more particularly, but it is evident that Ministers are not to be allowed so easy a time of it as they have hitherto silo) eci, and that the fourth session, so fatal to the popularity of Governments and the constancy of supporters, is beginning to tell. At such a crisis we must call it an unpardonable slip to leave Mr. Locke King in possession of Reform, with a popular cause and a large majority. As to the promise of a measure next session, who can pretend to say how we shall all stand by that time? The announcement is like that of the Newgate Ordinary who promised to take the second part of his text next Sunday, though the persons he was ad dressing were to be hanged the next morning. The only difference is that in the present instance it is the preacher rather than the congregation that is in danger of losing his position. Whatever be the merits or demerits of the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is quite evident that it cannot pass in its present shape, and the sooner this truth is recognised and acted upon the better. Sir Charles Wood has very properly pressed the House to let him know the fate of his scheme as soon as possible, and we think he is not likely to be kept long in suspense. Sir Charles Wood calls upon the people of this country to make a great sacrifice, to submit for three years more, and thus to increase the probability of having to submit for ever, to a most inquisitorial and unequal tax, which used to be considered as a desperate resort, to be had re course to only in time of war. The fact that the income tax does not increase in proportion to the income shows that the sense of its injustice and the facility of eluding it offer temptations too great to be withstood, and that it is, in fact, debauching the conscience of the country. These inequalities and immoral tendencies Sir Charles is at no pains to remedy, bat flings them before the House, to take or to reject in the lump, only re questing to be favoured with an early intimation of their opinion. The measure is too bad to be altered, there fore it must be passed as it stands. The income-tax was laid on by Sir Robert Peel partly to cover a deficit of ruinous amount, partly to give a trial to a new system of policy. which should remove the burden of taxation from `the country to the of property, or make up for reduced taxation on the consumer by an increase of consumption. Sir Charles Wood claims to tread in the steps of his great predecessor, and how does he set about it? With a surplus of two millions, he devotes to the policy of Sir Robert Peel 492,000 L, the sum which he estimates will be required to meet the defi ciencies occasioned by the reduction of duty on coffee, timber, and clover seed. Those, therefore, who look with an eye of favour on the policy of Sir Ro bert will see little in the present Budget to reconcile them to the re-imposition of an income-tax in a paltry imitation of the policy of their loader, which seems to remind them of its burdens and sacrifices without pro mising any of its magnificent results. But something must be done for popularity. Principle is a noble thing, but the greatest arithmetician, the most stoical calcu lator, must yield somewhat to expediency. Of all those who have clamoured against taxation, the metropolis has been the loudest against the window-tax, and therefore the window-tax is to be sacrificed. A more objectionable impost in a sanitary or architectural point of view can not be conceived, and, although its reduction or aboli tion contains within itself no revivifying principle like that which has compensated by increased con sumption for the removal of so many burdeiss, it was so deservedly unpopular that the sternest dis ciple of Sir Robert Peel might well rejoice at its ex tinction. Here, then, if not strictly logical and con sistent, Sir Charles Wood was at least likely to be popular, and to gain golden opinions from 'that very numerous class of financiers who view the merits of a Chancellor of the Exchequer from the commanding point of view afforded by their own hearthstone, and estimate the goodness or badness of his measures by the amount of his demands upon their pockets. But Sir Charles Wood could not be popular in a popular way. He took those who argue against the window-tax on account of its sanitary and architectural obliquities at their word, and most rashly assumed, that if these ob jections to the tax could be removed, the tax itself might be retained. The window-tax, after all, he seems to have thought, is only a house-tax calculated on an ob jectional principle; if I alter the principle I may retain the tax. No one was ever more mistaken. The ground on which the window-tax is objected to is one thing; the ground on which it is disliked is another. If Sir C. Wood meant to carry out a system of finance founded on scientific and farsighted principles, he would not probably have meddled with the window tax at all; if he meant to court popularity he should have abolished it altogether. As it is, he has incurred much more odium than he would have done by steadily pursuing the reduction of those import and excise duties which narrow our markets, fetter our energies, wad in terfere with our manufactures. The meetings hold in London and elsewhere since the promulgation of this most infelicitous scheme sound much more like the first transports of rage and disappointment than of gratitude and satisfaction. The numerous class of persons who, renting houses free from window-tax at upwards of of twenty pounds a year, find themselves compelled for th first time to contribute in this form to the public reve nue, consider themselves, and with some justico, the vic tims of the system. They indignantly ask why it should be that on the occasion of a large surplus they should be selected to mourn amid the general rejoicing, and the popularity which Sir Charles might hope to have obtained by the remi s sio n se t; one -third of tbe_wiedow • but let us :ell', that Cti votes upon the income-ax tax it far more then enernterbattcce;. l by the -teat threET- - iirecte"ee 'fbreratesmen obteieeel frcrn t . morout remonstrences of the victims o' the douse-treYee Ceue:.-y the )nei,m,-.etat open a distinct Ronnie thiai,. • Thus, - whether we Consider the Budget as desiguel tte 'elar;nicl-net fie Made a perpetual impost. Coefidii ee...• • ei,eisfy popular outcry, or to carry out a SCielnifiC final!- that Prenthse, the country cheerfully ecceded to its temi. vial operation, it equally fail; to conciliate support. Ir. porary icepoeition. la a spirit of deep solemnity weoeak,_,, e: • gives a little to everybody, just enough to. stimulete - "ill arose who have so feelingly proclaimed theinstreere:' their appetite fir mote, and then to disappoint it. It is the Gdiciaris of his ( T it : io ns , now vo te for the redetup e - • little necessary for us to add .our voice to the g.:noral tion .of the pl e d ge w h ich, even. from t h e tomb,Felpe;'e.e.l ehoru.s of unmeasured vituperation, but we cannot help i honour of Cue e:eparted statesman cabs on them to keeps, e-e , thinking that a great Opportunity has been lost, or rail ter inviolate.• 'se \ frittered away. Small reductions like these contained ADVERTISER..The premier and the Chancellor in the Budget-could have bsen made in any_year, ;out of the Exchequer are brothers in adversity. It is dim the existence of a large surplus, and the required re- Milt to say which is most to be commiserated. They newel of the einebeee-tex, seemed t:) suggest the doubtless sympathise with each other. They may do .necessity eith e r o f r em i t ting the income tax, or much by reciprocating their compass i on, to keep eac h Of purchasing . assent to its re-imposition. . o th e r in co,ue,tere such nanc a e. Poor Lord of legislator s , " were LordL ord John ! P o or Sir some comprehensive financial measure. That cp. Charles ! ,sl portunity has been let slip, and may not soon never sf on." It may seem unkind, hat the truth must return. It is not, f u r little amendment-1 of he teld. The sorrows of the Noble L or d an d o f t h e little duties, for peddling a lt era tio ns , which are jusr suf• Right Hon. Gentleman t.re bat beginning. Si r Ch ar l es ficient to show hOW:much f urt h er t h e y ou ght to hove W ee d will, evening. have a foretast e of w h at i s i n been carried, that the people of thisceuntryare disposed ' reserve for bin). The discussion, as the Pa r li amentery to submit to a re-imposition of - ihe iecome-t;:x.. The Phraseology has it, ‘• is to he taken" on the Bud get to _ - principle of that tax is loudly condemned by public nerhe The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, cense talon, and will not' be acquiesced in Unless uphSkl by a quer. tly, be this night's victim. The immol,tion of th e Minister who offers to One nebula a fair and reasonable Preearer, or, rather, the coutreeecement of the process, equivalent. To carry ou:- a great idea, to reduce our will take elect next we e k, when the Papal Aggression financial system to seiensiGe and reasonable principles., it l till ?gain comes, ben° site Front all we can has been and would be submitted to; but those who i.sk see 4 , r /war, Sir Charles Wood will be c'empelled, before for its reneteal,:- with allits iniquities unabated, mast the deck et-tikes twelve roopight, to come, in his ()ern show themselves able •to employ the funds which' it inil4l, to one of two conclusion s . He will feel that he places at • their disposal to a really profitable purpose. D::15:: cithtn• a.banflon tai. Budget, his tints- We would therefore counsel the Chancellor of the Ex- riots as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had better chtquer to take back his measure, and so to recast rt si make op hie mini et ()nee re no the former. If he that it maynieet the heP , ity approbation of, at any rate, Inetitatte the inevitehle result will he, that be will have some class her Majt4ty'e subject's. The prettent to be be:h. it' he riesist in his edherence to his titan- Budget, while it has encountered so many bitter enemies, Mat abortion of isfendav night, tile pellslty he .rill have has utterly failed to conciliate for itself even lukewitem te.ty e big ffelieti pertinacity will he e lf , tees of friends. „ office. With himself will, of Outae, go hi, 8u,,- It 7NM ITER ALD.—Theßritish Ur use of Commons is to-ni,ght to remino the discussion of the weake. , .:, the most unjust, and the most impolitic floar.cial scheme ever preso:ueti by any Chancellor of the Exchequ,r to the rr.preseAte.- tives of the.pcop'e. ,The first question upon which the House will have to dett:rmine is the continuance or tv.fu- - continnznce of the - ineome•tax. The Chancellor of the 'Exchequer tells us, ts.nd tells.us truly, that this question must he disposed of before the items of his Budget can bo considered, bccauFe his Whole scheme is balled upon the re-imposition of this odious tax. Le:, us add to t however, that the question of the income-tax cannot he satisfactorily decided. without - considering the whole of the Budget, becau6e it is to sustain that Beget that the proposal is made to re-impose the income-tax. This tax is suggested to supply tile deficiencies in the revenue which other parts of his financial propositions fail to meet. It is because the ways and means of the Right Hon. Gentleman do nut furnish sufficient to meet the expen diture of the country without re course to thiS extraor dinary assessment that it is proposed. Thu income tax is, in fact, • the price which we pay for the rest of his financial measures. It is to sustain those measures that we are called on to submit to the tax. Were we asked whether those measures be worth the price, a stout of derision from the whole country would be the reply. Never was' a proposal for raising the year's revenue so unanimously condemned by the press. All classes g' cannot exist an hour after 1119 official carter h'is cloAed. If it were otberwis, cGuld umierstand. tkit_i e fedinga hich would I , ld I:itn to cling to it with. ad the ei.2,ttou of a Lt:h?r. We eau comp , eliond, that hne. zzoi y :_nik,h u thkg lo the Min:etvritil world, ss a man Paving davoted is regard ter his offspring, as to iaspitve tuna with B. I roi :'.4n wculd prorupt him !,f) :41u1rdice ijr6golf for the :2111;:e of a f9.v.nrite treatiure. This can not be so with Sir Charter Wood and.l3'.!:, hudge!. Any 4ttempt ro s,vo it from the dpsquetir , n with .11xh it is menaced will most certainty be inefll.ettmi ; while, the very attempt to avert the inivendint annihilation, will ncernsarily tovolva his own official extinction. If 17e at onee abandon his Budget—if he cut out cod cast off his own offspring, he im,y possibly thereby sa ve hi mse ir. . But it cannot, under arty . eircum;taneeP, be saved. Its doom u: seale,l. The sentence of death is written on its forehead. A few weeks lil; , nee, end it will be in its tomb. It will have had but a brier existence. It has bleu horn but to di?. It lies been uFh.,2red ;oto the world merely for the purpow of being extimmisbed. The Right :Honourable Gentlemen to whom it owes its parentage will before many weeks, possibly hefere many days. have eleFed. have to act as chief mourner at its funeral. Scm.,) r-rsena nre prepared to see Sir Charles Wooer make an attempt to save his (-offspring from a vio lent death by indulgifg, should the House persist in its hostility to the meli , iure—in the threat of a resignation among the' people are arrayed against it. By some singular fatuity of blundering Sir Charles Wood has contrived that his proposed remission of to ration shall be as unpopular as the imposition of new taxes. His boon of substituting a house-tax for the impast on win dows has excited a ferment fiercer than was excited last year by his proposal to retain the window-tax in its integrity. His reduction of the duty upon -coffee and timber is declaimed against as another blow at our colo nial interests. In a fit of exuberant generosity, he pro poses to give to agriculturists their seeds duty free. Mr. Frewen, the Member for an agricultural county, points out that this is but a contrivance still further to de preciate the value of the tillage of the soil. Nay, when the Chancellor's munificence rises to the height of re lieving the agricultural interest from the expense of the support of lunatics, the representatives of that interest with one consent reject his prof fered gift as " a delusion, a mockery, and a snare. We suspect, then, that the country will hardly be willing to purchase such a Budget at the price of hub miffing to the income-tax. Unfortunate in windows— not singularly successful in coffee—a positive failure in timber—ridiculously breaking down in the matter of agricultural seeds—and absolutely pelted with ignominy from lunatic asylums —the ill-fated Chancellor will hardly shelter himself from popular indignation behind that rather unpopular individual the collector of the income-tax. Still, however, the representatives of the people have a duty to discharge that is of wider and more permanent interest than the mere condemnation of the Budget. It.must now, onco for all, be determined whether the machinery of the income-tax is to be a settled and permanent instrument of British finance. It is impossible to disguise the truth, that if the vote be now taken for the continutince of this impost, it is a vote that the revenue of the country shall be now and for ever hereafter raised by its means—each year's accu mulated precedent increases the difficulty of getting rid of it. Another renewal, and it becomes one of the insti tutions of the country. When is this tax to be refined, if not now? So long as Parliaments agree to vote it Ministers will be ready to propose it. It, in a time of profound peace—of a financial surplus—of no unusual demand upon' our resources—if, under such circum stances, Parliament at once accede to its rti-imposition, when, or under what circumstances, will it be refustd? Is it, then, argued that the income-tax is to be perpetual? To what class that is subject to its operation may sr e net turn for some almost peculiar illustration of its injustice? Indiscriminate, indeed, in its oppression, it has so many forms of injustice that each person can, with reason, be lieve that he is the victim of a separate wrong. The farmer complains that its mode of assessment up 'U him makes it nothing but robbery in form of law, the manu facturer and merchant that they are taxei for profits when they suffer loss—the professional 'man bitterly feels the injustice of taxing his hard-earned gains equally with the interest of the millionnsire. Take any one of these classes singly, and contemplating that alone. we can almost fancy that each has a grievance peculiar to itself. The truth is, that the tax itself to each and , all is one gigantic and universal grievance—a grievance resting upon two of its characteristics—its inequality and its inquisitorial character. It is under the show of equality most cruelly unequal. A tax of 3 per cent. upon the owner of an income of 1,0001. a year is a very different thing from the same proportioned impost upon the man of 300/. While the first may hardly feel it, it may det prive the second—scercely able to make both ends meet —perhaps pf the means of educating a child—it presses upon the struggling tradesman with a severity to which the demand upon his epulent rival bears no assignable proporttore—it clutches with remorseless and unrelen ing grasp the iek'y 'class that can worst afford taxation — those whose ordinary expenditure just reaches their income. TitXts upon luxuries self-denial may escape. The taa. upon income perjury only can evade.- The maa upon the verge of embarrassment it plunges into difficulty—the struggling man it crushes— the sinking mae it pushes down. In the fact that no reduction 'in e xpenditure can evade it—some persona fancy a merit—ete see in it a great cruelty. The bed of Procrustes was the most terrible invention of human torture. Still Mere cruel is the inequality of its opera tion upon professional income and on real property. How much of the income of any professional man may fairly be said to be profit applicable to his own pur poses—how much of it income which he can be said to have to spend. Must we not first inquire how much of his income is of necessity expended inmaintaining a po sition in society essential to his professional gains ? Is the • money expended on the carriage and horses of the physician any portion of his income in any sense in which income is a fair subject of taxa tion? Nay; must we not deduct from gains depending on the precariousness of human life that portion of thorn which musk be devoted to the sacred object of making provision for those who are dependent for their bread upon his earnings? Deduct these items from the gains of any professional man, and the residue alone is income at his own disposal. It is out of the gross amount that he must pay the income-tax, which yet is assessed upon a nominal sum of three, five times, perhaps ten times the amount of his available funds. We can but glance at considerations which ten times our space would not enable us fully to discuss. Even beyond its inequality —gross and palpable as is that injustice—we deprecate the inquisitorial character of this impost. We have been stole, in some degree to estimate the sensation produced by the plain and practical letter of " A Manchester Merchant," which appeared in the Morning Herald of Tuesday. Is it, we ask, to be endured that British merchants should bo obliged to disclose to any men—to their rivals in trade—every secret of their part nership—every item of their ventures? Yet this the letter of our correspondent feelingly established the commis sioners had a right to demand. It is not the language of cant to say that this system is un-English. This pro• nounoes, in our mind, its severest and its most truthful condemnation.. There is a sturdy independence about the Saxon character that ill brooks this prying by Go vernment officials into the private details of each man's affairs. To the respect that legislation pays to that very spirit of independence we verily believe we owe much of the qualities that give dignity to the English character. It is a spirit that legislation may foster, but which the tax gatherer may break down. There is something abhorrent to it iu that inquisition which demands of you to subject all your concerns to any commissioner of revenue. If an Englishman's house be hie castle—tbe ledger of an English merchant should be subject to no intrusiv eyes—no man should have a right to come e ven for the unjust e purposes of taxation, and extort from hi s eeighb em ho details of his income—the nature of his dealing _ t particulars of his livelihood—the c c of his gains. on f e ssion of the struggles of his honest poverty, the _secret in principle, Away, then, we say with a tax o now tell the cruel in its operation, inquisitorial and un-English in Its machinery. Let the Houseide f u f r m Minister that he must, prov o om the ns revenue of the country by some and more agreeable to e quiy. to which . us say that there is means me t re co L n e s t onant to our feelings, the country- has a d il e is t o e u r s m e ined resistance to the renewal to the friends of Peel. , Nine years ago that statesman, high in the late Sir o r ° i f n g e h t I t t o e s e p n o o k s o f t . for th l a e t confidence of his country, succeeded in imposing this the Robert unpopular tax, when nh one else could have done so. Bat,even be could not have carried it if he had not pledged himself that it was impossed to meet a tenipe rary exigency, and should not be converted into a per manent instrument of finance. Upon previous occasions men might believe its renewal temporary : the question now beyond doubt is, whether it is to b 3 made perpe tual. Is the imputation to lie upon his memory that the country was cheated into the concession of this tax .under false pretences? Is the pledge under which ho obtained that concession to be redeemed? We have heard solemn and feeling perorations in which free-trade votes were justified as the preservation of sacred trusts confided to the _e_peakers by the example of their de parted leader. We doubt not that they were sincere, cf Ministers. We do not share in these apprehentions. We anticipate nothing of the kind. That is a „same which cannot always be played with safety, much less with success. The trick is becoming stale. It will not do to be too frequently repeated. When rescrted to on every occasion in which Ministers are thwarted, it loses all its effect. It may have been all very well to try the effect of the thing when Lord John Russell first found his Cabinet in jeopardy; but because it was successful then, that is no reason why it should be successful now. Eech successive repetition of a menace of this kind diminishes its effect, until it ceases to have any effect at all. Two years ago Lord John Russell's threat of resignation inspired an un easy and a regretful feeling in the country, because it was hoped that the Noble Lord's Government would im prove as it went on. Wo have all lived to see, that un dignified expedient resorted to too often already. Be cause the circumstance of parties or the country were peculiar at the particular moment, Lord John Russell has, on more than one occasion, forced obnoxious mea sures down the throats of an unwilling Parliament and a reluctant people. But the time for carrying his pur poses by such unworthy and such unconstitutional means has gone by; the threat would make no impres siou now; it would not inspire an atom of alarm in the public mind. The Noble Lord would have the mor tification of finding that the nation no longer said, " Oh, pray don't resign." He would hear quite different language. On his ears would fall the ungrateful words, "Do re sign, by all means. It is high time that you did. You ought to have done it long ago." We are aware that some of the friends of the Whig Cabinet—the in terested friends, fur they have no other—say that no ntteecessors can be found to the present Ministry. That is all nonsense. The forsaken lover in the song con soled herself with the reflection that " there is as good fish in the sea as ever yet were taken." The same may be said in reference to Ministers. Terrible, indeed, would be the dearth of statesmen in this great country, if it could not produce twelve cc fourteen men, equal in ecquirciments, capacity, and the other necessary crush tits for an Executive, as the present occupants of Down ing-street. It would not, indeed, be easy to mees with an equal number of persons, of average ecluctstion, more imbecile or mote incompetent than the Whig advisers of her Majesty. 'l' lie Russell Ministry me et e feeble, tote( ring, end unpopular before. They were on the high road to ejeeslution. The Papal aggression measure of the Noble Lord, and the Budget of the Right Hon. Gf rifleman, were all that was wanting to clap an extinguisher en them. Thane niessures will only accelerate en event winch wes inuvi table under any circumstances. Should Sir Charles Wood be so foolish and a.' disrespectful to the House, at, to On eaten that Ministers will go out in the erznt of his Budget being smashed, then we trust there will be found in that assembly some one with :efficient spirit to reply to the menace, by telling them to " go,'' and not to stand upon the order of their going. but to go at once. The country, from one end to the other, will echo the words. The nation, as with one voice, will say, " Amen." The Whigs will quit office unpitied and unlamented. They have, for a long time past, been barely tolerated. The Russell Cabinet has been a Cabinet of sufferance. The time has arrived when the country must have a trong Government—a Government which will reflect the opinions and promote the real interests of the people. POST.—When, iu 1845, the then Prime Minister came to the conclusion that the interest and credit of the country rendered it necessary to demand from Par liament a renewal cf the - tat directly levied upon the income of the nation wader the Act of 1842, for a further limited period of three years, the proposal was thought a matter of sufficient moment to make it a subject not merely of mention, but almost of direct recomnieedation, in the Speech from the Throne. Sir Robert Feel had, when first he made his "earnest appeal to Cho-posses sors of property to remedy the mighty and grov big evil" by which the country was alarmed, end its enterprise re stricted, expressed his doubts whether, in three .1 ears, the operation of the new system of financial and commercial legislation would produce such an effect on the revenue, as to enable him, at the expiration of that period, to dispense with the direct and burdensome taxation to which, under the peculiar circumstances—cir cumstances which he hoped and believed to be ex ceptional—he bad asked the country to submit. Sir Robert Peel's doubts were the only portion of his coda of faith which were justified by events. In 1845, after three years of experimental finance, he, found that it would be, we will not say impossible, but; hazardous, to dispense with this adventitious and ex ceptional, at least so it was represented to be, aid to the. revenue. Parliament and the country, advised by the. Crown, and urged by the Minister, acquiesced in the proposed renewal. The income-tax was extended for a further period of three years, the extension being ac companied with protestations from the people against the impost being converted into a permanent tax, and promises from the Government that this should be the last time of asking. Previous, however, to the expira tion of the limited extension, Sir Robert Peel resigned the administration of public affairs, and another Minister sat on the Treasury Bench, during whose tenure or office occurred the commercial distress of 1847; famine in Ireland, almost universal bankruptcy, and actual uni versal distrust in Great Britain, shook the credit and resources of the kingdom till they tottered to their foun dation. It was manitest to the merest tyro in finance that the ordinary sources of revenue would not be sufficient to the occasion, and that it was not possible that the finance Ministei should do otherwise than ask the country to time,the demand lia ( t . grant him a further lease of the incom e-tax. elt was granted freely, frankly. At the nameen it p at rotested th th at e they only nly e a f c id e a of this exceptional motto of raising revenue being incorporated as a permatneat element in the finan cial system of the country, Tlaa Governments who ha ve availed themselves of t he impost h ave ac knowledged u nreservedl y the justice of this v Not a single Member, of whatever g th u e lu c c iVc repudiated emphatically theaeastances, and Oa st ,. Party, or of w hatever ever ventured to d e f en d t h e tax qUi tax' Sir Robert Peel, i n 1842 and 1845, and political opinions, Si r Charles Wood in 184 8, held out to th e country not mere ly the hope, but the confident expectation and assurance that the operation of the new commercial sys temenergy, would render the per manence of the income-tax una thricet a k ing, answered, on swe the re d faith with o of n w a h n i a c ne cessary. These were th e prom i ses, these were theunder- ' possessors of property to Mae of the respective Governments. They responded trustingly, nobly. Has faith been kept with the country? Has either or any Minister made any attempt to fulfil their promises to the nation? We regret that to those ques tions truth compels as to answer—No. Sir Robert Peel chalked out for his own guidance and that of Parliament a line tortuous and leading to most dangerous: estate. but with a sort of plausibility in its approaches which seduced a large party. He assumed that there are many taxes unduly restricting the access to COMMela ins on the part of the consumer. It was evident that the sudden removal of these taxes, whatever they might be, would diminish the revenue below the amount necessary for the current expenditure of the country; but he eon.. tended that the increased consumption, consequent on increased ability from reduction of price, esee id i i precess of time, again fill up the measure of incomete the brim. To prevent, however, any possibility ofirougist while awaiting the r i s i ng of tee to - be-fertilising stream. he asked for, and obtained, a par-centage upon the. n come of the people. To a considerable extent his an ticipations were realized: he found himself actually pos sessed, in 1845 and in 1846, the last year of his tenure of office, o f a surplus almost, if not quite sufficient Co enable him to dispense with the exceptional assistance of the income-tax. He' had not, however, the moral courage to do justice and to keep faith with the nation. Buoyed up by a full-blown and frothy prosperity he indulged in specious remissals of taxation—the .._._l FEBRUARY V, 1811. It P. i'