The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-20 00:00:00

LONDON, PRIIIAY EVENING, JULY 20, lB4O.

take the years 1815 and go to 1830, and to consider the
proceedings of the Governments, the old Tory Govern-
, meats of those days—Conservatives were not discovered
at that time. In 1830 the House saw two remarkable
events—a Government a ith an overflowing Exchequer,
and the Whigs with a majority on a inotihn'for economy.
The Duke of Wellington's Administration in 1830 was dis-
placed, and it was a very remarkable event. us it bore
upon an observation made by the Hon. Member for
Montrose that evening—it was displaced on a motion
made by Sir H. Parnell -on the civil list of that day,
and it was a curious circumstance connected with that
vote and the subsequent proceedings of the Whig Ad-
ministration, that although by that motion they voted
that the Government of that day was extravagant in a
civil list of 900,0001., having got a majority and turned
out the Government, they within a few months brought
in the same identical civil list with a diminution of only
5 000/, and the only distinction was that part of it was
made a permanent charge which was before granted only
for the life of the Sovereign. That was the proceeding
of a Whig Administration upon that occasion. Now,
he did accuse the Government of extravagance; for
from that N ear to the present they bad been increasing
the expenditure. At that time there was very nearly
3.000,000/. over the expenditure. That had never
been seen during the Administration of Honourable
Gentlemen opposite [the Honourable Member was speak-
ing from the Opposition side of the House]; but, on the
contrary, from that time every one of our institutions
had been increasing in its extravagance. At that
time the whole expenditure of the country was
49,000,0001. Last year it was 57,000,0001. And yet the
Chancellor of the Exchequer considered this motion as a
charge against the Government. It was a charge against
them. He understood it as a charge against them, and
upon that ground he would vote for it. Could it be said
that an ordinary private man, when he found his daily
expenditure growing from year to year beyond his means
of payment, did not look to his income and ask himself
what he could do to meet the expense absolutely neces-
sary for his concern ? Was this country in a position
to go on as it had of late years? It would not do at
that time to tell them that the Government had been ef-
fecting savings, as some of their simple friends had been
suggesting; on the contrary, the country felt that day
after day, and year after year, the expenditure of the
country had been increasing, and with obviously no ne-
cessity for any such increase. He knew it had often
been said that Europe was in a dangerous state, and that
a large expenditure was necessary for the purpose of
warding off danger, and that therefore we must retain
an immense war establishment. Now, what rational
ground was there for any such assertion? He would
take upon himself to say that never since England was
a kingdom had she been in such a situation of such perfect
security as at the present moment. The main was to
her a tower of strength, and even if any danger were to
be apprehended fromithe hostility of Continental powers,
their present distractions were to this country a
source of additional security. It was, therefore, an
idle pretence, a purely fantastic idea, to talk of the
dangers by which they were surrounded, as a pretence
for augmenting the public expenditure. 'What had this
country to do with the causes of distraction which dis-
tut bed the continent? The business with which Parlia-
ment ought then to occupy itself was not foreign affairs,
but the most effectual and judicious mode of cutting
down the public expenditure. They had a very expen-
sive amusement in the nautical evolutions of the Gallant
Admiral who had formerly made some evolutions in that
House. What was the use of having that Gallant Ad-
miral with a large fleet wandering about the narrow seas
and doing nothing, sometimes going to Lisbon and firing
off a little gunpowder? The people of England were
really behaving like persons who knew not how to take
care of their money; according to the old phrase, as if it
were " burning a hole in their pockets;" as if they had
not a sufficient pauper population to take care of. Then
thsre was Ireland. They were obliged to pay her from
day to day, and this with not the slightest show of
economy, nor any the least opposition on the part of
Members of that House. Private individuals were ac-
customed to cut down their expenses within the limits of
their incomesebut the House of Commons never thought of
anything halt' so prudent. The army of this country
was such as had never before been maintained during
peace. He said nothing of the army of India, because it was
maintained abroad; neither did he say anything of the
army maintained in Canada. If England dealt honestly
with her colonies she need not maintain any for their
use. It representative governments were given to the
wh le of i.ustralia from end to end, and given also to
New Zealand—if they reformed their colonial govern-
ments—they might at once bring home their troops. As
to Canada, if they could not keep it by the agency of a
Parliament, they could not hope to maintain it by the
force of an army. When this country was at war, it
possessed an army and a navy sufficiently effective, and
the expense of it was not great, unless when we thought
proper to throw away money upon the Peninsula, and
otherwise to waste treasure by subsidizing foreign
powers. As he had before said, Indian warfare was not
paid for by England; he should say nothing about the
justice or the expediency of that, but should confine
himself to asserting that it formed no draught upon the
Exchequer of England. If a man were to pass the globe
dl over he would find nothing but profound peace in all
the British dominions; and if; in the midst of this perfect
tranquillity, England were to pay 57,000,0001., what
would be her condition if she really went to war ?
The Right Honourable Member for Tam worth imposed
upon the country the income-tax, and when he (Mr.
Roebuck) asserted that it would be a permanent
impost, he was sneeringly told that it would
be merely temporary. The Right Honourable
Baronet, with the plausible smile for which he was dis-
tinguished, repeated that it would very soon be re-
moved, and with the same smile, which seemed stereo-
typed on his countenance, he on a subsequent occasion
said the tax would not be for ever. Would the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the House that the tax
was a temporary impost? It was true the present Go-
vernment had tried to increase the tax. With the true
feeling of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, he considered
it the easiest mode of imposing taxes, and he (Mr. Roe-
buck) considered it one of the best modes of doing so.
But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was afraid to per-
sist in that proposition, for he must have known that a
large income-tax would be the surest way to stimulate
the vigilance of the House of Commons, as it would touch
them and their constituents. But he repeated his dispo-
tion to favour direct taxation rather than any other.
Upon these grounds he must vote for the motion of the
Hon. Member for Surrey, for it had become absolutely
necessary to excite the vigilance of that House and to
. rouse the Government, which lived on from day to day
in constant terror of being out. voted. Nothing could be
more untrue than that party was dead in that House. It
was by accident he spoke from the place he now occu-
pied (on the Opposition side). The least trifle would
lAA the party in two. The Protectionists at one end
ao nf
dthe
e agbench,tainvegw electricity.
net r
ir
T ceihmt
ye bench a. N
remainder of the leading Opposi-
tienists who sat at the otheer,coh l were as distinct as positive
opposed
unlikeposedtoeathche
boethnecrh behindtha i
than those who sat
could
e above7h
o le b
w and
House more:
be-
low the
t) g
oppositeaemnd b
to him
was but as a nest of partizans. Re really wished instead
ut all this that there was something
like a strong Go-
vernment established. For his part, he would willingly
give up a popular for a strong Government. He should
gladly support a Government that had vigour enough to
carry out its own right intentions; but he could not givei
his support to those paltry, hesitating fears, that feeling
of shrinking from trouble, that self-deceit, which, like
the wild ostrich in the bush, hid its head and thought it
concealed its body. If he could force out such a Govern-
ment and force in a strong one, he would m ist willingly
do so, and, therefore, he gave his cordial support to toe
motion of the lion. Member for Surrey.
Lord J. RUSSELL said those who at all consider the
speech of my Hon. Friend the Member for Surrey must
admit that he did not mean to bring any charge against
the present Government, for my Hon. Friend had him-
self' said so most distinctly Then if there has been no
charge .conveyed in the motion, and if it has not been
accepted by my Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of
the Exchequer as a charge against the Government—if
those, also, who this evening debated the question
were also agreed in not regarding it in the light of a
censure, then I venture to think myself warranted in
saying that no sort of censure has been intended. But
nothing less would please the Hon. Member for Sheffield
than to take the motion in a sense totally different from
that which the Honourable Shover himself intended and
plainly professed. That Honourable Gentleman would
take it to be a censure, and insisted upon his right to
take advantage of the opportunity which that motion
gave him to speak of what he called the imbecility of
the present Administration, and to express his earnest
wish that a strong Government could be found. Now
it would be difficult to imagine that the Houourable
Member would regard anything as a strong Government
unless it were to be an Administration consisting of
himself and no one else ; for, of course, he could not
support those who differed from him, and there was
scarcely any one who agreed with him. The Honour-
able Gentleman maintains his own opinions honestly
and independently, but I believe that there is not any
set of Gentlemen in this House who agree with the Mem-
ber for Sheffield, so that he clearly could not be satisfied
with any Government excepting one which should begin
and end with himself. As to the motion of my Honour-
able Friend the Member for Surrey, though it is not a
censure on the Government, it, nevertheless, is one to
which I cannot give my assent. His resolution
is in these words:—" That whereas a great amount of
taxation is levied upon the people than is required for
the good and efficient government of the United King-
dom; and whereas large sums are expended in support-
ing needless places, extravagant salaries, aud unneces-
sary works and establishments; and whereas the present
taxation of the country depresses all classes, and espe-
cially the labouring classes, by diminishing the fund
for the employment of productive labour, it is the opinion
of this House that adequate means should be forthwith
adopted to reduce the expenditure of the Government."
My Hon. Friend has spoken in his resolution as hold-
ing the opinion that in the present session the policy and
measures for which he contends ought to have been
carried; and that, I apprehend, is not so much a censure
on the present Government as it is a condemnation of
the House itself. It condemns the manner in which the
votes of this House have been given, and the way in
which its proceedings have been conducted—for it
asserts that after six months of deliberation the House
has in the present session not performed its duty; and,
again, after six months of deliberation, my Hon. Friend
baying put off his motion until the present evening, now
comes forward to say that 500 Members of this House
who have voted upon the questions brought before
them, and the greater part of whom are now out
of town, have, during the whole of the session, been
misapplying the powers with which their constituents
intrusted them. It cannot tail to appear very extraor-
-1 dinary that my Hon. Friend should now bring forward
, this accusation against the whole House, nor only when
a very large proportion of them, pribably 500 Members,
but also at a time when some of the ablest debaters in
11 Parliament, were absent. Are we not, then, driven to
)1 the conclusion that he takes advantage of the thinness

t of the House at the end of the session to:bring forward
a motion which he could not hope to propose with equal
success at any other period of the year ? It is at this
time and under these circumstances that he brings his
motion before the House. Assuming, then, for a mo-
ment that my Hon. Friend could carry his resolution, I
cannot suppose that such a decision could come before
the country with any weight, seeing that at best it would
only express the sense of a very small number of the
Members of this House. But even in the existing con-
dition of the House the motion, in its present state, is
hardly one which we could adopt ; nevertheless, it is one
which the Hon. Member for Sheffield says he will sup-
port, though he seems to justify his vote upon rather ex-
traordinary grounds. He says that Sir H. Parnell moved
a resolution in 1830 which Lord Althorp, in 1831, did
not practically carry out. Now, supposing the state-
ments of the lion. Member for Sheffield to have been well
founded with respect to both, I do not see how that
ought to induce the House to come to a vote of censure
on the present Government. The fact is, however, that
the points to which the Hon. Member for bheffisld re-
ferred were not argued in 1830 and 1831, as he repre-
sented them to have been. The leading Whigs of that
period, Lord Brougham and others, objected to cortasn
expenses being included in the evil list, which in all
previous times had formed part of that branch of the
public expenditure. They objected to apparent addi-
tions being made to the household and personal expenses
of the Sovereign which properly did not belong either
to the one or the other. They argued the question on
two grounds—one was that all charges on the civil list
should, according to the previous arrangement, expire
with the life of the Sovereign—the other was that means
should be taken to do away with the influence of the
unfounded assertion that 900,0031., to which the charges
on the civil list amounted, was a sum which the actual
expenses of the Crown required—whereas the personal
expenses of the Sovereign and the dignity of the Crown
could be and were maintained at less than half that
amount of expenditure. That was the light in which
the subject had been regarded by the Whigs of that
period, and the House of Commons engaging
in an inquiry on that subject, referred the question
to a Select Committee, with power to send for persons,
papers, and records. Upon the appointment of that Com-
mittee the Wellington Administration resigned their
offices. But, even on the Hon. Member for Sheffield's
own showing, there is no reason why the present vote
should be agreed to by the House, and there certainly is
less reason for it when the history of those transactions
comes to be explained. Accordingly, the civil list was,
at the period to which I have been referring, so settled
as that during the reign of William IV. the amount was
considerably less than in the preceding reign. At the
commencement of the present reign it was still further
reduced, and therefore the events connected with the
accession of the Whigs to power and the resignation of
their predecessors, in 1830, ought not to induce the
House to assent to the motion of my Hon. Friend the
Member for Surrey. As to the grounds that have been
laid for that motion, I cannot agree to the doctrine put
forward by my Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose,
who repeats what he has so often before stated as his
settled conviction, that if the gross amount of the taxes
be not lowered the people of this country can have ex-
perienced no relief. [That was, said Mr. HuaxE, not
precisely the statement that he had made. He said that
relief had not been given to the people by lowering the
whole amount of taxes that they paid.] But if there
were any value in that argument it was this, that taking
off taxes did not give the people any relief. It has never
been maintained by us, that taking off taxes eventually
diminished the gross amount of taxation to an equal
amount; but I hope the House will do us the justice to
remember that we did not merely change taxes,—that
is, not all that has been done, for every one must recol-
lect that Parliament took off more taxes than were im-
posed; and further, there were other cases,—there were
cases of total abolition. Surely it will not be said that
by such measures the people were not relieved, even
though the revenue might still remain at the same
amount. Now I cannot help reminding Hon. Members
of some of the changes that have been effected. On salt
there has been a reduction to the amount of 3,000,000/.
It once bore a price of 15s. a bushel, and I now learn
from a person very largely engaged in that trade, that
he can now purchase it for 6d. a bushel instead of 15s.
This is taking off duty to the amount of 3,000 per cent.
If, then, when 3,000,0001. were taken off, the revenue in •
a short time rose to its original height, it was not owing
to the unaltered state of the taxation, but in consequence
of the riches of the country. The people had been re-
relieved to a great extent, but in a short time the gross
revenue regained its previous position. The tax on
sugar has also been reduced from 3d. a pound to lid.
The poor man can now have it for elide; surely that is
a relief, and if, notwithstanding that he paid 4id.,
the wealth of the country still continues to be
such that the whole revenue remains of the
same amount as before, that fact surely affords
no proof that the people had not at that
time been relieved, or that their burdens still re-
mained equal to what they had previously been. I can-
not understand how the Hon. Member goes on repeat•
ing that the taxes are just the same as before merely
because the total amount of the revenue remained un-
changed. On the contrary, I do believe that the largest
amount of taxation which the country has paid is but a
proof of its riches and prosperity—that it was better off
than before ; and there can be no doubt that the Ame-
rican and the French wars which added so largely to
our public debt, have but afforded proofs of the great
resources of the country ever since peace has been re-
established. The taxes on salt, the taxes on candles, the
taxes on leather, the taxes on coals carried coastwise,
have been removed. There has been a diminution of
the taxes on sugar and beer—all these are matters which
the poor man consumes, and which paid heavy duties
before we undertook those unfortunate and mistaken
wars with America and France. But, Sir, having taken
off those taxes, and having taken them off consistently
with maintaining a considerable military establishment,
some say much too large a military establishment, and
consistently with the credit of the country, the /lon.
Member for Surrey asks us to adopt same scheme by
which we may be relieved from what he rightly considers
the great burden of the country, viz., the sum of upwards
of 28,000,0001. annually which we pay as the interest
of our national debt. Now I own, that while I think
the wars I have mentioned were unnecessary, while I
think we never ought to have entered into a war with
our people in America—(Hear)—and while I think it
was quite unnecessary to go to war with the French when
they established a republic—and that prudent con-
duct would have saved us from those wars,—l say the
nation is now bound by faith and by a regard to policy,
if not to honesty, to pay the interest of the debt it. has
incurred.—(clear, hear.) Well, if that ue the case, I
own I do not believe there is any contrivance—any sort
of hocus pocus—by which, if you are to pay the interest
of the debt, and to be liable to that debt, you can get
rid of the burden of it. Any scheme to raise an amount
of taxation to pay off that debt would either produce
such an immense amount of taxation as the country
would not tolerate, or after two or three shifts you would
find you had exactly the same burden to bear as was the
case before. There is only one way of dealing with this
debt, and that is regularly to pay the interest of it.—
(dear, hear.) If you have a surplus employ that sur-
plus to a moderate amount, if you please, in paying off
some of your debt; but I believe, with the Hon.
Member for Dumfries, that we made a useful change
when we abolished the sinking fund, whiols would
never have materially diminished the capital of xeir
debt, in order to enable us to take off taxes by the
removal of which the country has become much richer,
and is much better able to bear the interest of the debt
than if those taxes had been retained. But, admitting
that the debt must remain, and that there is no ingenious
contrivance by which we can get rid of the burden, it
we maintain the public faith, we are told by the Hon.
Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), that the army is
a great deal too large, and that it ought to be consider-
ably reduced. I must say with respect to the army
maintained in the United Kingdom and its colonies, that
we have this year reduced it by no less than 10,000 men.
I certainly consider that such a reduction made in one
year is a very considerable reduction.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member for Sheffield has said—following
others who frequently made the same assertion, though
I never heard anything advanced in proof of it—that if
we did but govern our colonies well, and give them re-
presentative institutions, we should have no need of our
army. Why, these Hon. Gentlemen suppose that our
army is maintained for the purpose of keeping down the
people of the colonies. Then, why not reduce the number
of troops at Portsmouth and Plymouth? But we do not
keep troops at Portsmouth and Plymouth because the
people of those towns are disaffected, and we wish to re-
strain them by military force. We keep troops at Ports-
mouth and Plymouth to defend those places, because
we consider their defence to be essential to the safety of
the country; and on the same ground we have troops in
Bermuda and other possessions, to defend those colo-
nies. In some instances, no doubt, when there are dis-
sensions in our colonies, those dissensions might break
out into disturbance, and the troops are of use for main-
taining the peace in case of any such disturbances. The
Hon. Member for Sheffield has said that if we gave re-
presentative institutions to the colonies we might dimi-
nish our army; but it is remarkable that the Governor
of New Zealand entertains the opinion that with repre-
sentative institutions there would be much more danger
of disturbances among the natives of that colony than
there is at the present time. I have always maintained
that we ought, as far as possible, to establish represen-
tative institutions in our colonies, and the only question
is with regard to particular colonies, whether they can
or cannot bear representative institutions. Now, with
regard to the question of salaries and offices, if a resolu-
tion were submitted to the House lik that which my
Noble Friend the Member for Middlesex has proposed,
which only implies that salaries ought to be reduced,
and that offices ought to be abolished whenever
there is reason for taking such a course, I think—
the Government being disposed to act upon
that principle—that I could have no objection to the
House affirming such a principle. But I conceive that
we are not at all liable to the charge of wishing to keep
up offices when they are unnecessary. I do not think
any proposal was ever made in this House to reduce the
number of the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes and
of the Excise; and yet the appointment of those Com-
missioners was, in the way of patronage, about the most
desirable patronage any Minister could possess.—(Hear,
hear.) Now what have we done? We had no pressure
upon that subject; but we reduced the number of Cora-
-1 missioners of Stamps and Taxes and Excise from twelve
' to seven, abolishing five Commissioners, and of course
parting with a great deal of patronage which belonged
especially to the First Lord of the Treasury.—(Hear,
hear.) That, I say, is some proof that we are not in-
I disposed to measures of economy and reduction. Then
I with regard to Masters in Chancery, last year one of
• those offices became vacant. I asked the Lord Chan-
I cellor whether it was necessary that it should be filled up.
t He said it was not necessary. No motion was made in
, this House on the subject, but we abolished that
L Mastership in Chancery, and I thereby parted with
the patronage of the appointment. So with respect
to several offices in the Treasury for the transaction

of business connected with payments, in cases with which
my Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
is acquainted, we introduced regulations by which those
offices have been abolished as they fell vacant, or have
been united with other offices in the Treasury. I say,
then, that I can have no objection to any general reso-
lution with respect to these offices. The Hon. Member
for Montrose has said that our expenses have been in-
creasing. It is certainly true, with regard to the year
1847 and the beginning of 1848, that there was an in-
crease of expenditure; but the great increase of expense
was in the estimates of 1845. which were very fully
explained to this House, and which the House affirmed.
It was explained to the House that an increase was
proposed in the navy for the purpose of defence, and the
House—l think without any opposition—affirmed the
necessity of that increase.—(Hear, hear.) I believe
there was nothing beyond a very insignificant opposition
to that proposal. At present there is a contrary dispo-
sition, and the House of Commons now calls upon the
Government to make reductions in the estimates. Well,
at the end of last session, and in the course of the present
session, we have made very considerable reductions.
The reductions stated in the budget of 1848-49 were
828,0001. In the estimates of 1849-50 the reductions were
to the amount of 1,511,4551., and there hes been a further
reduction in the Ordnance estimates, making a total of
2,361,8241—(Hear.) But, while we have been making
these reductions, we are constantly told that we are
always increasing our expenditure. It is said, almost
every night, " You may require as many troops as
you have had, but why should you be constantly in-
creasing them?" My answer is that we are not
increasing, but in the progress of reducing the number;
and I therefore consider that it would not be wise, on
the part of this House, to come to a general resolution,
which is proposed, not as a vote of censure upon the Go-
vernment, but which would be a vote of censure passed
by the Members present upon the Members absent.—
(" Hear, hear," and laughter.) I own that in that view
I do not thinkit would be eitheravery wise or a very fair
course of proceeding. I think we should rather adopt
some resolution which would convey the general sense
of the House when the House is full, and that, with re-
gard to the carrying out of such a resolution, we should
reserve our decision until further estimates are laid be-
fore us. The Right Honourable Member for Manchester
has told us that the people say, " You tell us you are
making great reductions, but how is taxation lessened?"
That Right Hon. Gentleman might reply, "If you go
to the market you will find that prices are reduced in
1849 very much below what they were in 1841, and this
reduction is owing in many instances to the abolition or
reduction of duties either under the Government of the
Right Honourable Member for Tamworth, or under that
of the present Ministry." I trust that if the House
comes to any resolution they will rather adopt the mo-
tion of the Noble Member for Middlesex, for I think it
would be unwise to pass a resolution in such sweeping
terms as that of the Hon. Member for Surrey, which can-
not lead to any practical result.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPOONER thought the Noble Lord ought to
meet the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Surrey with a direct negative, but the Noble Lord, in-
stead of taking that course, had advised the House to
veryHon.Friendindustrysaidofthattaxationpressed Middlesex.
heavily His u
country, and in that statement he (Mr. Spooner) fully
concurred. He did net agree, however, in the reasons
which had been assigned by some Hon. Gentlemen for
that pressure, for he believed it was occasioned by the
system of free trade. They had taken off the Customs'
duties which pressed upon the foreigner, and had im-
posed duties upon their own native industry.—(Hear,
hear.) He considered that they ought to place a tax
upon every foreign article imported equivalent to the
taxation borne by the producers of this country, The
only persons who had benefited from the recent com-
mercial policy of the Government were those who had
fixed salaries and incomes, while they had inflicted upon
the productive and industrious classes a serious and
cruel injustice. He would support the proposition of
his Hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, and he called
upon the House to reject the amendment, which was a
complete evasion of the question.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER wished to explain the grounds
on which he intended to vote for the motion of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Drummond). The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had stated, in reply to the arguments of that
Hon. Gentlemen on the subject of salaries, that official
salaries were in the aggregate less now than they were
at the end of the American war; but he (Mr. Christo-
pher) wished to know whether, with reference to the
prices of articles of consumption, these salaries were not
much higher now than they were ten years ago.—
(Hear, hear.) Considering that the policy of the last
end the present Governments had been to make all
articles of consumption cheap and money dear, it did not
require any long argument to prove that persons re-
ceiving official salaries were benefited by those changes.
—(Hear, hear.) That was a sufficient reason for the
House to interfere and to reduce their salaries in accor-
dance with the existing state of things in the country.
The amendment proposed evaded the question altogether.
It asked the Government to exercise a supervision over
the expenditure ; but as the Government professed to do
so already any resolution of that kind was not wanted.
What was required was for the House to come to a re-
solution
that under the altered circumstances of the
country, brought on by recent legislation, it would not
sanction the same salaries as were given during a dif-
ferent state of things, and public opinion was so strong
on this point that, if Government did not come forward
with a proposition of the kind, either in the present or
next session, still it would be utterly impossible
for Parliament to oppose a very material reduction.
Mr. HAWES wished to correct a statement made by
the Hon. Member for Surrey. He understood the Hon.
Member to state that certain reductions were proposed
by the Governor of Trinidad which the Noble Lord at
the head of the colonial department refused to sanction.
The Hon. Member was in error, for no reductions had
been proposed by the Governor of Trinidad which did
not meet in principle, thought n regard to the extent (as
we understood) there might be some question, with the
sanction of the Noble Earl; and he could assure the
Hon. Member that, as far as the Noble Earl was con-
cerned, whenever well-considered reductions were pro-
posed, they would not meet with opposition.
Mr. BANKES expressed his surprise that the Noble
Lord the Member for Middlesex should have brought
forward his amendment without giving notice of it. Hay-
ing heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
he undoubtedly understood that the Government meant
to offer no opposition to the motion; and having been
absent from the House for some short space of time, he
was astonished on his return to find all amendment
moved by the Noble Lord the Member for Middlesex.
That amendment gave an opportunity to Hon. Members
of slipping through the question; but as he was not
prepared for any evasion of the question, he should give
his vote for the original motion. The time had come, he
thought, when Parliament was called on to give an aye
or no decision on the question whether, under the exist-
ing circumstances of the country, a searching inquiry
snd economy with respect to these matters was not re•
quired. He should be heartily sorry if the Government
had no serious objection to the motion, that they should
at the present moment endeavour to get rid of it by a
side wind, for such was the character of the present
amendment.—(Hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND, in reply, observed that there
was no intention on his part to misrepresent the conduct
of Lord Grey, but he thought that what had fallen from
the Under-Secretary for the Colonies made more
strongly for his argument.—(Hear, hear.) It was unjust
of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government to say
that he had taken advantage of the absence of Members
to bring forward the question, for the fact was that he
had urged the matter on the attention of the House last
session, and twice during the present. With regard to
the national debt it had been said that that was an advan-
tage to the public, though, if the same rule were to apply
to the nation as to individuals, it would not be so consi-
dered, for it was always thought to be an advantage te.
gentlemen having mortgages on their estates to pay them
off. In conclusion, he declared that he did not bring the
motion forward as a censure on the Government, and he
believed that no :gentleman on either side of the House,
with one exception, thought it had that tendency, either
directly or indirectly.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 71
For the amendment... ... 65
Majority for the motion ... 3
The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND).
Sir W. SOMERVILLE, in moving for leave to bring
in a Bill to make better provision for the administration
of fiscal affairs in counties, counties of cities, and coun-
ties of towns in Ireland, said that lie did not propose at
that late period of the session to proceed with the Bill,
but merely to introduce it, so that it might be printed
and its various provisions considered during the recess.
The object of the Bill was to do away with the grand
juries in Ireland, as the Board which he wished to have
established by this Bill would be more capable of at-
tending administration of counties, counties of cities, and
counties of towns in Ireland, than the grand juries had
hitherto done, and this he felt fully assured would con-
tribute very much to the interest of the Irish labourer.
He, therefore, proposed to introduce this Bill.
Mr. MONSELL said that he felt glad that the system
of anomolous taxation that hitherto prevailed in Ireland
would be put an end to by this Bill, and hoped that the
grand jury-rates and the poor-rate would be collected by
the same officers, as such a system would greatly reduce
the expenditure on the poor of that country.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that he hoped that the
opinion of the Committee would be attended to next
session on that point, and was happy to find that this
Bill was agreeable to all the Irish Members. He then
proposed a Bill for the prevention of Accidents and
Dangers to Passengers upon Public Roads and Highways
in Ireland, and for the Punishment of Offences relating
thereto. The Bill was then read a first time. He then
brought on the following Bill for promoting the Public
Health in Ireland, which was read a first time. He was
happy to say that there was springing up in Ireland a
desire for the promotion of such measures as seemed
calculated to augment and ensure sanitary regulations.
He was anxious to draw the attention of the House to
what had been done in Dublin on this subject. The
, complaints against public nuisances in the past year were
7,105, and owing to the labours of Sir Edward Burrows
and ,the Sanitary Commission, the improvements which
had been effected were of the most valuable kind. The
SUbject was one of the most vital importance, and
r t
trusted
Ireland; and espe-
cially to the poorer classes in
, that the Bill which he now asked the leave of the House
of favourable
• to introduce would meet with that degree
t attention to which it was entitled..
great satisfaction the
Me. MONSELL had heard with
sentiment now expressed Hon. Baronet;
but by the Right
•
but ho must say, that
so long as the public gaols in Ire-
.
t land were left in the unwholesome state in
t are at
present, by reason of over-crowding of transports,
and against which he had often, in the course of the
present session, complained, he thought that the measure
proposed would fall short of its proposed effect, Another

point which he was desirous to direct attention to was
intramural burials, which ought, as affecting the public
health, to be done away with. A third point was, the
recesssity of a measure for the registration of births,
deaths, and marriages in Ireland,
Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE said ho had pre-
pared a Bill on the subject of the state of the gaols in '
Ireland, which he hoped to be able to introduce early in
the next session. With regard to the question of in-
tramural burials, ho considered it of very great import-
ance, and intended to pay due attention to it; and the
question of births, deaths, and marriages should receive
consideration.

The Bill, after a few words from Sir D. NORREYS and
Mr. MoNsELL, was read a first time.
In the al)sence of Mr. Hume,
Mr. BRIGHT moved for " Accounts of the number of
individual depositors and of charitable institutions, and
friendly societies depositing their funds in Savings
Banks, and of the sums deposited, divided into the usual
classes, on the 20th day of November, 1847, and on the
20th thy of Novemb r, 1848,&c. &c."