The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-22 00:00:00

SMITHFIELD MARKET, MARCH 22.

The quantity of Cattle at market this morning was greater
than on last Friday, and prime Beef maintains its price ; but
the inferior qualities are nominal in price, and much cheaper
than on last market day.—The price of Hay remains the same.
Beef 2s 2d to 3s 10d Veal
I
Mutton 2s 4d to 3s 8d Pork 2s 4d to 3s lOd

THE LONDON JOURNALS.

37ETTLACTS FROM THE DU I.lr 111OHNING PAPERS,
March 29., 1822.

• [MORNING CHRONICLE.]
The tone of LOrd Palmerston, in the discussion
on• the Army Estimates on Wednesday .night,
was at times -quite amusing. Mr. Hume, in his
usual clear and distinct manner, specified a num-
ber of instances of individuals enjoying pluralities
in his Loidship's department, anti a number of
disproportionate allowances, whereby an un-
necessary waste of the-public money was occa-
sioned. Nothing could be more fair and candid
than this manner of proceeding on the part of
Mr.' Hume. What a plain modest man in his
Lordship's situation would have done'.after such
an analysis, would have been either to answer the
different statements in the same distinct and per-
spicuous way, if it were possible) in order to
chew that all or any them were incorrect ;
that none of the allowances were disproportionate;
that none of the specified pluralities really ex-
isted ; that, in. short, there was no unnecessary
waste of the public money—or he would have
held his tongue. But this would have been too
much condescension, we suppose, on the partof a
man of his Lordship's elevation—too great a defe-
rence to the practices of men, who, being without
that protective shield, must be goverpeci by com-
mon sense. His Lordship took a shorter cut to
-his purpose ; he did not deny the existence, of
pluralities, nor' did he attempt to prove, that in
the abstfact they were proper and necessary, but
he informed -us that he had not created any him-
self. No, not created, but still they exist, and
exist as a burden on the people. Mr. Hume
specified sums, and the corresponding duties of
which they were the reward. In answer to this
his Lordship merely contented himself with the
assertion, that no one was paid more than enough.
But the most amusing part of the whole was the
admission and accusation coupled with it, re-
specting the contrast between the declaration of
last year, and what had been done in this :
" Ills Majesty's Government had certainly very
little encouragement to make any reductions,
considering the manner in which they were received
by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. Ile admitted that
he had said in the last Session, that no reduction
of Clerks could be made without inconvenience
to the public service ; but if he had since yielded
with deference to the wishes of Parliament, it
was a little unfair to charge him in one Session
with making no reductions, and then to turn
round upon him and accuse him of having made
them in another." What name shall we give to
this ? We know what might be given to it. But
his Lordship must not be allowed to carry it with
these high airs. Has not the business been done,
and as well done as before, since the reductions
in question, though you maintained positively
that it could not ? Is this refutation' of your as-
sertion, so positively made, to be received by us
as an additional ground for reposing confidence
in all your subsequent assertions ? Are we to
infer that detected error is a ground for belief in
infallibility ? Or that he who was egregiously
out in one instance; may just as likely be out in
another ?