The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-11 00:00:00

with it soma degree of censure. He thought the course
he would adopt now that he candidly submitted his
views to the House, and that they had been received
with all due consideration, would be not to take the
sense of the House upon the question.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said tie wished, on the part of
his Right Hof,. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
to repudiate the imputation that he had treated the
question of retrenchment, or that of the colonies with
levity. His Right Hon. Friend did certainly regard with
some degree of levity the manner in which the question
had been introduced, but he did not extend it to the imb-
ject.—(llear.) With regard to the resolution before the
House, he thought it would have more chance of success
if the resolutions which it was intended to lead to had
been laid upon the table. As the case now stood he was
not prepared to follow him as a pilot upen such a voyage
as he proposed to undertake. They ought not to get
into a Committee unless they could see how they were
to be employed when they got into that Committee, and
how they were to get out of it. With regard, however,
to economy and retrenchment, his Right Hon. Friend
was as anxious to promote both as any Hon. Member of
that House, and of that he had given ample proof; but
it was another thing to embark upon a voyage of disco-
very under the auspices of the Hon. Member, which
would only be a waste of time. It the Hon. Gentleman
persevered, he hoped the resolution would be rejected.
It was his intention to vote for the previous question.
Mr. ROBINSON said he thought his Hon. Friend
had adopted the best means of attaining the end he had
in view. It was not correct to say that motions of this
kind should be preceded by a series of resolutions em-
bodying the views the proposer entertained of accom-
plishing the object he aimed at. Ile had himself, in the
year 1836, brought forward a motion for a revision of
taxation. On that occasion, in a House of 372, be was
beaten only by a majority of 66. The present Govern-
ment stated that they would take the question of re-
trenchment into consideration during the Easter recess;
he wished to inquire now whether they had done any-
thing to redeem that pledge?
Mr. COBDEN said he was disposed to qaestion the
sincerity of the Hon. Member who had proposed this re-
solution. He agreed with him in the expression of the
sentiment, that there was a tendency on the part of the
rich to oppress the poor. He agreed with him upon the
wasteful expenditure incurred in the dockyards, and
also, that they should reduce the national debt ; and,
with that view, that
,they should equalise the land-
tax, and impose a property-tax, and apply the pro-
duce of both to its reduction. He also agreed with him
that they could never again resort to the bread-tax.
With regard to the agricultural impostors that were re-
ferred to, all he would say was, that gentlemen could not
assume a worse occupation than first deluding themselves
to attempt the delusion or telling the farmers they wou!d
get back protection. He could not, however, agree
with him in his idea of progressive taxation, nor to
the abolition of the penny post. In the present dis-
cussion, what he had to complain of was, that the Hon.
Member had not told them what he meant to do. He
was not in love with the motion of the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Drumtnond), because he did not think that much
good would arise from their going into Committee; and
he regretted that a reduction of expenditure was not in-
troduced with it, because the revision was not what
the country required, but a reduction. He perfectly
agreed with the lion. Gentleman, that a reduction in
the salaries of the State-paid officers was necessary,
in consequence of the poverty of the country, through
taxation ; not that he wished that talent and
ability should not be fairly remunerated, but that
there should be fewer officers in several departments,
and that the taxation should be transferred from con-
sumable goods to landed property. When the Hon.
Member for Essex (Sir J. Tyrell) spoke of the distress
of the agricultural portion of the country, he (Sir John
Tyrell) should bear in mind that that distress to which
he alluded, was owing to the incessant rains for four-
teen days last year; and, also, that it was an exception
to the general rule; and moreover, that the distress of
which he complained, was confined to the western coun-
ties of this country.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that
such could not be alleged as a reason for saying that
the whole country was in distress. He would consider
himself guilty of telling an untruth if he were to say
that the immense population of the 'West Riding of
Yorkshire, amounting to 1,500,000, were in dis-
tress, because through the late revolutions in foreign
countries some of the manufacturers of that riding were
not as successful as usual ; and such was the case with
the agriculturists of the western counties, while those
in other parts of England were happy and contented.—
(Cries or " No, no," from the Protectionists.) He
would say—Yes, yes; for in 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1842
they (the Protectionists) were silent whilst the north of
England was suffering under very great distress, and
in 1848, they w ere also contented. In fact, whatever
remedies were required for the agriculturist's interest
should be obtained by a reduction in the national ex-
penditure, and in that he would gladly and willingly
support them. He would recommend the county consti-
tuencies to keep their representatives from the House,and
that they themselves, the free-traders, would reduce the ex-
penditure without them, for he considered that they were
the principal barriers to so essential a measure. He
considered that leis Right Hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson)
had put his motion in the most courteous manner, and
hoped that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Drummond)
would withdraw his motion, for he could not go into
Committee on it. He should therefore vote for the pree
vious question.

Mr.-DRUMMOND said that he did not impute a want
of courtesy to any Hon. Member, and that he considered
he was acting according to the standing orders of the
House, and to the usual mode adopted, by refusing to lay
the resolutions before the House previously to going
into Committee. Such had been done by the President
of the Board of Trade on the navigation-laws. He
brought that subject on solely for the good of the country,
and he thought that if the manufacturing interest did
not get some other leaders besides those they had, that
they would never do any good.
The House then divided—
For the previous question
Against
Majority for the previous question —5l
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

Mr. CHARTERIS moved for a Select Committee to
inquire into and report upon the expenditure of certain
sums which appear as unaccounted for, under the head
of Parliamentary expenses, in the report which was re-
cently published by a Committee appointed to inquire
into the management of the affairs of the Eastern Coun-
ties Railway Company. He felt assured that any Hon.
Member of that House would join him to remove from
the public mind the prejudices that that subject had
created, and would not, therefore, trespass on the time
of the House.

Colonel SIBTHORP said that he felt fully satisfied
that it would be essential to the benefit of the country
that there should be a general inquiry into the state of
railways; fcrpuch an inquiry would tend to show the pub-
lic that some parties were not in the position that they
were represented to be. He was for examining every
railway director and every engineer, for he believed they
were a tricky set of fellows._

Mr. ROEI.IUCK implored the House not to be led
away by the whims of any Hon. Member. That was
no question for buffoonery.—(A laugh.) Certain seri-
ous charges and insinuations were made against that
House, and it required the most searching investiga-
tion to arrive at a proper conclusion. It was not the
peculiar company itself; or the manner in which rail-

•
ways were mannaged, into which they were to inquire,
but the character of the House. He had no per-
sonal interest in the matter—he had not one farthing
in any railway company whatever, but he was for a
rigid examination into the conduct of the Members of
that House, respecting certai❑ transactions. He could

not, however, avoid remarking that those who cringed
in that House to an Hon. Member while he was in the
ascendant, and king of a petty dominion, now turned
round basely with the tide, and swelled that tide against
a fallen victim, whom they had cheered on almost to
death.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Roebuck) had the same
feeling towards the fallen favourite opposite in cheering
on committeemen to hunt a man down; but it was dune
for the same base purpose—money put him forward, and
money was now the instrument to put him down.
Sir H. INGLIS thought the motion ought to bo with-
drawn until the lion. Member particularly referred to
was in his place.
An HON. MEMBER—He had opportunities enough to
do so.

Sir R. H. INGLIS—Hon. Members may say he had
opportunities enough to do so, but the fact was, that the
Hon. Gentleman was labouring at that moment under
the pressure of a severe domestic calamity. [Colonel
Sibthorp here crossed the floor amid much laughter, and
entered into an animated conversation with Mr. Roe-
buck.] He (Sir R. Inglis) pronounced no opinion on
the transaction—(A laugh—he had had no communi-
cation whatever with any individuals concerned, but he
received that morning a letter from Yorkshire, in which
the writer urged upon him the common justice of post-
poning a decision upon the question, until the Hon. Gen-
tlemen so deeply interested could be present.
Mr. HUMPHREY BROWNE said that the question
which sought to be inquired into by the Committee was
really settled that day, at a meeting of the Eastern
Counties Railway Company. The accounts into which
that meeting inquired comprise the following:—For ad-
vertisements. 1,5391.; solicitor's account, 1,6191.; loss on
shares, 3,4001. ; advertisements, 342 g. ; printing, 2141.
Now, what result could come from an inquiry by a
Parliamentary Committee into such transactions, or such
items as these, which did not include any Parliamentary
expenses whatever?
idhavminugchhaldaughter)
a thSer BHToluis2,RaPn and hs
aeind (hat
amid
addressed Colonel
Member con-
versation with the Hon. Ale.mdbertfionrteSnhdeffitoeluds,etthhaet
wHoornd.
Sibthorp) that distinct answer, informed him he dt
whichHe hgeavdeidhinmot(hCeosliotnaetel
" buffoonery " in regard to hirm,
to give on all occasions.
Mr.
the Hon
I'llanda
nn e
Gallant r
ns
plainly
man
ißll°pEatßtUhCe ROEBUCK—If'
again,

as I can. Wh
did
Colonel SIBTHORP—My questionisthi this—When
Hon. Gentleman used the expression " buffoonery,"
he mean to apply it to me?—(Laughter.)
Mr. ROEBUCK—I shall repeat the words I used, and
you, Sir (to the Speaker), no doubt recollect them, and
carry them in your mind. I said "He should take no-
thing to himself, though I used the word buffoonery.'
It. that expression is out of order, I retract it.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.)
Colonel SIBTHORP, with considerable energy—l
thank the Hon. Gentleman.—(Great laughter.)
The motion was then agreed to.
SUNDAY TRADING.
Mr. HINDLEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
prevent unnecessary Sunday trading in the metropolis.
Mr. BARING WALL opposed the motion, as being
contrary to the spirit of the British constitution.
Mr. I iTNI)T,FX wn4 i!,tr,,!,:eA et the de-
pers .
_ G. GREY admitted he had advised his Hon,
Friend that the Bill ought to be withdrawn last session,
and was aware that a great desire ex,iated t 9 prom t 4