The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-27 00:00:00

hich it was said had been carried below the wants of
the country.
Mr. URQUHART concurred with the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Herries) in saying that he had no faith
in the sincerity of this movement on the part ot the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite. The Hon. Member for the West
Riding had said, that in consequence of a pamphlet
written by him (Mr. Urquhart) an alarm was spread
that this country was about to be invaded by Russia.
He (Mr. Urquhart) now, as he had elsewhere, distinctly
and emphatically denied that assertion; so far from it he
had always stated that Russia was destitute of all the
physical means of coercion which armies and navies con-
ferred, and that her mural and political.
.influence over
Europe would be innocuous so long as this country had
a Ministry who knew how to exercise a peaceful and
commercial policy against her. As to what numerical
strength of the navy and troops was necessary to main-
tain the honour and safety of the country, that he con-
sidered to be a question for the Executive Government to
determine, and he hoped a just decision upon it would
be arrived at when it came regularly before the House
for discussion.
Mr. MACGREGOR would vote with the Hon. Mem-
ber for the West Riding, because he was also an advo-
cate for economy, taut not because he took 1835 or any
other year as his basis. He could not go so far as Co
say that the expense of this country could. be reduced to
the extent of ten millions.—(Hear, hear.) He had exa-
mined with great care every item of expenditure con-
nected with the army, navy, and ordnance, and he be-
lieved that in the last-named branch there was a great
room for reduction.—(Hear, hear.) He agreed also
with the Hon. Member for the West Riding in every-
thing he had said respecting the colonies, and went so
far as to contend that if we could not preserve the Ca-
nadas without a garrison of 4,000 men we could not keep
them at all.—(Hear.) The fact was, we must retain them
by good government, or lose them altogether.—(Hear.)
When he recollected that these provinces contained a
population of two millions, with a militia of 180,000 men,
he telt that with bad government it would be impossible
to hold them with 4,000 men. One suggestion he would
throw out with respect to the troops sent to our colonies,
and that was, that instead of their being brought back
at the end of their term, those troops should get the op-
tion of remaining and settling in the colony. With re-
ference to the amount of taxation, he asserted that this
country had heavier burdens than any country in the
world. He believed that those burdens might be re-
duced to the extent of from four to six millions, but
to do that suddenly would, in his opinion, be im-
possible.—(Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Hon.
Member for the West Riding in thinking that there
was:very little cause to apprehend war with foreign
countries. He believed that the desire for peace
was as great in France as it was in this kingdom, and
that from the other countries of Europe there was no
reason to apprehend war.—(Hear, hear.) For these
reasons the army and ordnance might be reduced to the
peace establishment, but he would preserve our navy in
a force sufficient for the protection of our commerce and
colonies. With regard to the taxation of the United
Kingdom, he considered that in any revision that might
take place Ireland ought to be made to bear her whole
amount of expenditure, including the constabulary and
army necessary for the preservation of the peace. He
did not think that England and Scotland ought exclu-
sively to pay income and property-tax for that purpose.
If they meant to carry out their revision of the naviga-
tion-laws they must reduce the burdens on British ship-
ping. He threw out these suggestions as the practical
mode of at once reducing the expenditure and render
ing the taxation of the country less burdensome to the
people.
Mr. ANSTEY rose, but was for some time unable to
speak, on account of the loud cries of " Oh, oh!" from
different parts of the House. He observed, that much
of the expenditure of the country which had been com-
plained of by the Hon. Member for Montrose had been
sanctioned by the reformed Parliament; for to what else
did they owe those marauding enterprise., those pirati-
cal incursions, and levyinga of war in the interest of
Spain, but to that Hon. Member and his friends, who from
1833 to 1840 swelled the majorities of the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs? By whom was the
war in China denounced but by the party now and then
occupying the Opposition benclies? So also with re-
spect to the Affghan war, and the war in Syria. The
question was, whether they could afford to reduce their
present establishments? Considering the statistics
which had been produced by the miserable mi-
nority that now represented the Manchester school, he
felt it would not be safe to do so, and that it was the
duty of every well-wisher of his country to oppose the
amendment.

Colonel SIBTHORP said he should feel it his duty to
vote against the motion of the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire; but vote
with her Majesty's Government he could not. He could
not rely upon the integrity of either—they were both
equally had—(Laughter.) He thought the Hon. Mem-
ber for the West Riding a snake in the grass, and he
should take care and nut be bitten by him.—(Renewed
laughter.)—He had the same opinion of the Govern-
ment, and he should therefore vote with neither. (The
Gallant Colonel then left the House amidst continued
laughter and cheers.)
The House was then about to divide, when
Mr. BRIGHT rose and said, he was sorry to detain
the House from a divison, but as some things had been
said on the other side to which, perhaps, a fitting reply
had not yet been given, he was desirous to say a few
words. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Stamford had read a lecture to the Members on that
side of the House. It was quite evident that the
out-of-doors agitation was unpalatable to the Right
Hon. Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Gentleman had, possibly, no stimulus from the consti-
tuency which he represented with respect to the question
of national expenditure and taxation; but he begged to
tell the Right Hon. Gentleman that his Hon. Friend
(Mr. Cobden), his Right Hon. Colleague (Mr. Gibson),
and himself, represented a large body of electors, and
that those electors most correctly represented the feel-
ings of a vast majority of the population amongst whom
they lived.—(Hear, hear.) The Right lion. Gentleman
must therefore excuse them if they thought this question
important, not only from their own convictions respect-
ing it, but also on account of its vast interest, though it
might be feebly but honestly represented in that House.
—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman
had in an impromptu speech prepared some time ago—
(A laugh)—quoted a great many papers to show that
ids Honourable Friend was wrong in what he had said
about France. The fact was that his Honourable Friend
did not say at all what the Right Honourable Gentleman
had imputed to him. He did not attempt to prove that
we wets taxed either more lightly or more heavily than
France; but to disprove and dissipate the notion that
the Republican Government of France had imposed a
greater amount of taxation upon the people of that
country than had been imposed by our Government
upon us. But let the Right Hon. Gentleman look to
the American Government. It had been said in some
of the public papers that the increase cf population in
this country since 1835 formed no small reason for the
increase in our expenditure; but what did he find stated
in a work which had been recently published by Mr.
Mackay, an English barrister, entitled The Western
World, a work which every Member of that House, as
well as every individual in the country, would profit
by reading. He found it stated in that work that
from 1832 to 1836 the annual average expenditure
of the United States was 21,000,000 dollars, and that
in the four years ending 1846 it had increased to
22,000,000 only; that in 1135 the population was
15 000,000, and that in 1845 it had increased to
20,000,000; that, in fact, the population had increased 33
per cent. while the expenditure of the federal govern-
ment had only increased to four per cent. It appeared
also that the whole taxation of the state of New York
did not amount to more than I Is. per head, our expen-
diture—exclusive of jibe national debt and the civil ser-
vice, and including only the army, navy, and ordnance,
amounted to more than I Is. per head of the population
of the United Kingdom.—(hear.) It was also worthy of
remark, that although the sea-board of America had im-
mensely increased within the last few years, neither their
army nor navy had exhibited those signs of extensive
and increased expenditure which we had found in this
country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said
that the expenditure by which we maintained our
colonies enabledht honourable
urabie Gn
ushutoo obtain supplies
lies of raw material.
Did the Rig
meanb to assert
that we obtain more wool from Australia,a
had soldiers and sailors there? or that because
upspelywe of
cotton from the United States would be less ifs e -13 ad
not a fleet upon the coast? or that corn would we
flow
to us from every part of the globe, although we had not
ships watching the vessels passing to and fro with those
supplies ?__(Hear, hear.) The Right Lion. Gentleman
bad also said that we could not do
without forces if we
were to maintain our colonies, or to
keep up the volition
of troops in India. He admitted that it was a monstrous
thing that we should send out bodies of men to India,
to be kept there (such of them as lived) for 20 or 25
Years. But, why were they sent out? Why, he would
ask, had we 8,000, or 9,000, or 10,000 soldiers in
Canada? He believed we had more soldiers in Canada
than the whole standing army of the United States.—
(near, hear.) If the Canadas were well governed, as he
Believed they were, we could keep them united to us by
the bonds of mutual interest.—(Hear, hear.) He knew
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be
supported by a considerable number of Members on that
(the Ministerial) side of the House. He begged to re-
mind them, however, that last year they voted with the
Government at the beginning of the session on some of
their measures, which before the end of the session the
Government came down and told them they could not
proceed with. The same thing might happen on this
teuestion. The fact was, the Government did just
what the country said they should do.—(Hear, hear.)
The question with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government was not
what precise sum would do, but how much would take
the edge off tke agitation out of doors, and how much
would Hon. Gentlemen allow them to do. By next
year,perhaps, when the agitation out of doors would
have become universal, they would have the Chancellor
of the Exchequer
proposing to reduce one, two, four, five,
or perhaps the ten millions which his Hon. Friend
asked for. It
was
o strike l
entirely a question of pressure.
off ten millions at once, but
to reduce expenditure to tlieocweest limits. Let the House
for a moment consider whence
came, whom they
professed to represent, and what was the feeling of their
constituents. The Right Hon. ember for Stamford,
one of the leaders of the agricualtnTilvei:earStiytt—i they were
a triumvirate now, he believed,
„ii,cion_teould, no doubt, support the moZninoef°rah
Hon> Member for Buckinghamshire for the relief of tthe
agricultural distress. But did he know what the farmers
were talking of ? It appeared that there had been a
meeting at 17, Old Bond-street, but no report of its
proceedings appeared in the Protectionist papers. There
was even a report that it ended in a wrangle; but, at all
events, they stood adjourned to the 7th of March.
When they meet, let them not attempt to tell the
farmers the free-traders were playing them false.—