The Press.
London, England, 1854-03-25 00:00:00

~~~

169

.
pose a vote of want of confidence was defended upon
the very grounds that should have prompted it;
and characterised the conclusion in which that
right honourable member had landed his argument
as illogical and "recreant." Mr. Gladstoue then
proceeded-to vindicate his policy with regard to the
reduction of interest on Exchequer Bills, the conver-
sion of stock, and the partial employment of the
Treasury balances in buying up the public debt. He
denied, in reference to the reworks of Mr. Hanley,
that Government had sought accommodation from
the Bank of England, except upon the ordinary
terms of the discount market, or were in any way
bound under special obligatiune to *at establish-
ment. He denied, also, that they bad issued any in-
jurious or unprecedented excess of deficiency bills.
Deviating from the example set by previous speakers,
he addressed a few remarks to the amendment placed
before the house:—
" He thoughtit was impossible to accede to that motion.
The object of the Government in voting the supplies for a
limited time was, that as Parliament would yet sit four or
five mouths there would be ample time for a reconsideration
of the demand. They might have asked for au extravagant
sum, or dune as Mr. Pitt did in the breaking out of the
first French war. In making up his budget lie took for his
extraordinary expenses 1,240,0001., and I'I4'4S:IIOUL heard
nu more of the matter until next year, wheu Mr. Pitt had
to inform the house, that besides a loan of six millions, or
cash, there had been extraordinary expenses unprovided
for to the amount of five millions. He thought that such
a mode of proceeding would hardly be satisfactory to the
llouse of Commons at the present day. Wear.) These
were the reasons which had induced the tiovennuent to
ask the house for only six months' taxation. Much had
been said to disparage the principle of raising the supplies
within the year, but he trusted both on moral and practical
grounds that the house would adhere to that principle, and
he thought he might promise on the part of the Govern-
ment that, so long as the house did so, the (lovernment
would bear their part in maintaining so just and politic
system. (Cheers. )" sa:
Colonel Suiruoer, after expressing his lack of
confidence in the Ministry, and his anxiety to secure
a memorable punishment for the Emperor Nicholas,
inquired whether, should war not take place, the
surplus income tax would be remitted?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER feared that
expenses were already incurred more than sufficient
to swallow the amount.
The amendment was then negatived without a
division ; the original resolution was agreed to,
and a bill founded upon it was ordered to be intro•
duced.
The bill founded on the resolution which then
passed the committee was brought in at Wetinesday's
morning sitting, and read a first time. On Thursday
it passed the second reading, after a few words from
Sir F. KELLY and Mr. SPOONER, reserving the right
of objecting hereafter to the principles on which the
pleasure was based.
DISFRANCHISEMENT OF CORRUPT
ELECTORS.'
Leave to introduce five bills for the purification of
as many boroughs—namely, Canterbury, Cambridge,
Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Maldon—was
asked on Monday by the Attorney-General. He ob-
served that the rep, its of commissioners had fur-
nished abundant testimony to the existence and
the flagrancy of bribery and corruption in all the
above-mentioned places, many instances of which were
cited by the hon. and learned member. He then
proceeded Ito explain the machinery by which he
hoped to prevent the like practices in future. The
offences, he urged, had * special character in the
boroughs in question, and demanded a special remedy.
Corruption was too deeply engrafted to be eradicated
by a general statute ; but the ipfectionhad spread oely
among a part of the constituencies. Wishing, there-
fore, at once to suppress the guilt and yetpunath only
the guilty, he proposed to disfranchise throughout
the whole five boroughs all the electors whose cor-
ruptibility bad been proved before the commissioners
who bad investigated the circumstances and incidents
attending recent elections in the localities named. Ipl
Mr. CAIRNS urged that the guilt of the electors
whom the bills would disfranchise could be shown io
only by their own evidence, and that this evidence
had been given under a parliamentary guarantee of
impunity to the witnesses.
Sir J. HAsuen also thought it an unjust proceed-
ing to induce men to confess their faults by &promise
of condonation, and then to punish them after all.
The question whether the terms of the Indemnity
Act for witnesses examined before election commis-
sions of inquiries did or not contain a promise
which the bills now before the house would violate
was discussed at some length. Mr. Phinn, Mr. Ken-
nedy, Mr. Massey, and the Solicitor-General con
tended for the negative view of the case. Mr. Napier,
Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Walpole, and other members
sustained the affirmative, arguing that, however
anxious the house might be to put. down corruption,
it was a duty still more paramount to keep faith with
individuals.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, and alluded in
the course of his remarks to the silence of the member
for East Suffolk during the debate.