presented a Petition from the Glasgow and Dunkirk Railway Company, against a proposed Tax on Steam Carriages. The petitioners observed, that the persons who went by the steam carriages never went by other conveyances, and that, therefore, the proprietors of other carriages and roads were not injured by the steam carriage. They stated, that the expense of steam carriages was yet so great that this new mode of conveyance must be entirely destroyed if it were taxed.

was opposed to taxes on these carriages; at least, no tax ought to be levied on them for four or five years, otherwise the utility of the invention would be wholly destroyed.

said, that as a very heavy tax was levied on stage coaches, it would be an act of injustice to them not to tax steam carriages. Besides, these steam carriages were very dangerous.

was also opposed to such taxes. The best way to prevent accidents, was to give every possible facility to the improvement of the invention. He believed that there were as many accidents caused by stage coaches as by steam carriages, and he should protest against taxing this infant invention.

said, the question was not whether the tax was a tax that must be approved of or not, but whether the revenue could afford that a duty, which had hitherto been collected on the stage coaches running, for instance, between Manchester and Liverpool, should be at once extinguished, without anything being substituted for it. The revenue collected from the stage coaches could not be spared.

could not but deprecate the introduction of such a tax. Any tax on free communication was an impolitic tax. The proposal to levy 1s. 2d. per mile for every four passengers would ruin this mode of conveyance.

agreed with what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, and wished that the Government would go further, and take off the duty on post horses. He did not think that conveyance by steam and machinery ought to be favoured at the expense of travelling by horses. Both ought to be free.

said, that if there was any difference on steam carriages running on common roads, and on the same kind of carriages running on rail-roads, he should be quite willing to remove the difference, and put both on an equality. If he could be convinced that the tax on steam carriages would put an end to that mode of conveyance, he should be willing to withdraw the tax. From the communication he had had with the proprietors of steam-carriages on common roads, they did not seem to suppose that the tax would operate injuriously. If he was convinced it would, he repeated, he should be willing to withdraw the tax.

said, he would undertake to convince his noble friend of that fact.

presented a Petition from St. Ann's parish in Cork, and one from Blarney, complaining, that when a public meeting had been called for the purpose of promoting Irish manufactures, and when the people were about to assemble, they found the place of meeting occupied by a large force of cavalry, infantry, and artillery, under the command of Sir George Bingham, and were prevented from proceeding as they had intended. The hon. Gentleman said, this was not an anti-tithe meeting, and he wished to learn from the Ministers, whether the people of Ireland were in future to be debarred from the constitutional proceedings of every British subject?

also begged to ask, whether the Government would give an explanation of this circumstance. If the petitions were true, there was an end put to the rights of the people; and when this took place in Ireland, Englishmen would find it was quite time to look about them. He could not believe the statement made to be true, and he, therefore, wished for some information from the right hon. Secretary for Ireland.

said, that a great many meetings had been held in Ireland, not in order to petition, but for illegal purposes. It was pleasing, however, to know, that, although Government felt it a duty to prevent such assemblages, not a drop of blood had been shed in dispersing them. The character of the illegality of a meeting depended almost entirely on the circumstances with which it was attended, and, not having had an opportunity of inquiring, it was out of his power to give an explanation of what had occurred at this particular meeting.

asked, whether the depositions in this case might not be had; as it would be of great consequence to know what would constitute a legal or illegal meeting?

supported the petition, and said, that with respect to another meeting held on the subject of tithes, it had been proved at the Petty Sessions, before the High Sheriff, Sir William Wrixton Becher, and a number of Magistrates of the county of Cork, that a policeman, dressed in coloured clothes, had been seen throwing stones at the military, in order to give the colour of a riot to the proceedings. The Magistrates had strongly reprobated this conduct, and the man was ordered to be dismissed.

said, that there was no connexion between the two meetings mentioned by the hon. member for Kilkenny; and he could not but consider the story of a policeman throwing stones at the military incredible. The meetings and associations, which ware said to be for the encouragement of Irish manufactures, were, in fact, held with a view of binding the people not to consume English manufactures. The meeting would then appear to be illegal, and the assembly was to be held in force, for the purpose of intimidation. The Government neither had, nor would interfere with the constitutional right of petition, but they would take care that it should not be abused.

I must beg. Sir, to take this opportunity of claiming the attention of the House for a short time, while I refer to a subject in which I am deeply interested. I find that, in another place, a noble and learned Lord, in the course of some observations made with reference to my conduct, has thought fit to use expressions towards me, which no gentleman, who has a regard for his own personal honour, nor any one whose acts could be influenced by personal fear, would have ventured to direct towards any other gentleman. These expressions are so far removed from anything that one meets with in society—they are so different from what one should expect from a person of his exalted station, and especially from that place in which he ought to set an example of decorum to all others—that, with reference to the person by whom they were uttered, and the place in which they were uttered, they are either so degrading to the person making the attack, or to the person against whom that attack is levelled, that—

I rise to order. I submit that it is quite irregular for the hon. and learned Gentleman thus to allude to what has passed in another place. At the same time, I am willing to admit, that if any attack had been made on that hon. and learned Gentleman—if any charge had been directed against him—he would have been entitled to use that opportunity of replying to it. But I must submit. Sir, that if this or the other House of Parliament is made the place for bandying strong expressions, and if, in the one House, one hon. Gentleman says, I understand that a Gentleman in another place has used such and such expressions regarding me; and if that Gentleman in the other place retorts in the same manner, there will be an end, not only of all the forms of Parliament, but of all mutual respect, and of all dignity in our proceedings. If any charge had been made against the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should say that this was the time at which he was fairly entitled to reply to it; but if he makes a complaint, as he has done, and makes it in such terms as he has done, a complaint of expressions he understands to have been used; and if that mode of complaint be permitted, it will lead to interminable and undignified recrimination, and we shall be going beyond that latitude which this House has allowed, if he goes on commenting, not upon a charge, but upon expressions which he merely understands to have been used in another place.

rose to order, but his remarks were not heard.

then continued, I should have finished in a moment, so that the right hon. Gentleman's interruption was quite unnecessary. If any charge had been made against the hon. and learned Gentleman, I admit that he would be right in answering that this moment, but none appears to have been made; and as he has announced his intention of entering on the substance of the charge he has himself made, upon a future day, I think it would be more convenient not to enter on the discussion of these expressions apart from the charge itself.

I know not, Sir, the meaning of this interruption. I dare say, that no one of those with whom the noble and learned Lord is connected in this House, felt the slightest degree of regret at the charge made against me in another place. I dare say, that they—

I must call the hon. and learned Member to order. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, that in this House no answer can be given, no retorts made, upon expressions uttered in the other House of Parliament, consistently with the due observance of the privileges of both Houses. If the hon. and learned Gentleman instead of commenting upon expressions which he says he believes to have been uttered in the other House of Parliament, had said, that he understood an attack had been made upon him there, in consequence of expressions which had been wrongly attributed to him in this House, and if he had taken this opportunity of denying those expressions, he would have been perfectly entitled to do so. I did believe that that was the view which the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to take of the subject, and that was the reason why I suffered him to proceed so far, and it was clear that that course would have been according to the orderly way of proceeding in this House. The other course of commenting on what had passed in another House of Parliament, is clearly against order, and I should have called the hon. and learned Gentleman to order had I known he was going to comment on expressions used or supposed to be used elsewhere.

I am always most ready, Sir, to yield obedience to you. I always have been most obedient to the Orders of this House, and I am happy to say, that I have always found it very indulgent. In the short period during which I have been a Member of this House, I have never seen a desire on the part of the party to whom an offending Member belonged, to deny to the party offended the right of answering any attack made upon him. That right, however, is now denied me. I have been deeply offended. It is impossible that one Gentleman could have been more deeply offended than I have been offended on this occasion, and yet the right hon. Gentleman has refused; when the defence is to be heard—he has refused to hear me. I was not out of order, Sir. I should not have been out of order, had I been allowed to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman has put me wrong by the observations he has made; if he had not risen to order, to give his representations of what I was saying, I should not have been out of order: that I am so is, therefore, owing to him. By him I have been prevented from making observations, which I had as good a right to make here as the noble Lord had a right to make them in another place. If dignified conduct and silence are to be observed, why are they not recommended to the noble and learned Lord? and if he knows not how to restrain himself from making charges, surely the person against whom he makes them may be allowed to defend himself against those charges. If restraint is to be practised, why does not he put a bridle on his expressions? I have been personally insulted and abused in the grossest manner, by the use of offensive epithets from a vulgar vocabulary in language, which no private gentleman should utter on the one hand, or submit to on the other; and yet I am not to be allowed to answer this abuse; but I am to be told, that, if I attempt to do so, I am breaking through the privileges of this and the other House of Parliament. As regards the language, I shall carefully abstain from following the example that has been set me. I have always spoken of the noble and learned Lord and of his conduct, publicly, openly, and manfully, never using, with respect to him, any expression that any one man could take exception to; and I will now only say, that these observations, let them be made when they will and how they will, shall never prevent me from investigating charges which I think ought to be made against the public conduct of any man. On the occasion in question, however, I made no charge—I only asked for information. I never used towards the noble and learned Lord, of whose public conduct I was then speaking, one disrespectful expression; and if were now to do otherwise, I should but imitate his conduct. That noble and learned Lord has attacked me in a place in which I cannot answer him; the place where the attack was made rendered it improper—it was doubly so, as in no place can I answer him, for he presides as the Judge in the Court in which I chiefly practise, and there I shall not attempt to answer him; for however I may have lost, as I have lost, all respect for his person, I am yet bound to silence by the respect I entertain for his office. I must, however, when addressing him, feel sensible that I am addressing a man who has forgotten how to act towards me, as one gentleman should act towards another. I must say, that, in my absence, he has used words towards me, which no gentleman would have ventured to use towards me in my presence. I am not open to such observations—I have never done anything to deserve them. They are painful to a man's family—they are disagreeable to his children—they give pain to his friends, and the more so, as the situation of the person uttering them exempts him from all responsibility for his conduct. I must say, for once and for ever, that I have lost all personal respect for the person who used these expressions [hear, hear.!].

I must be allowed to say, Sir, that I had no wish whatever to enter-fere with the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I must say, that when he denies having made a charge on the former occasion against the noble and learned Lord, I do not understand him. I think that it was a charge, and a personal charge, which he then made; it was a charge most disgraceful, if true, and if not well-founded, it was one which ought not to have been made except upon the fullest and the fairest deliberation, and, after the amplest opportunity afforded to the party accused, to appear by himself or his friends to answer the charge. I say, that the noble and learned Lord's conduct was made the subject of a serious charge, and he took the opportunity of vindicating himself in the other House; and, in doing so, he stated, that the charge made against him was one that imputed motives, for which imputation there was no foundation whatever. The noble and learned Lord, in another place, only exercised that right which the hon. and learned Gentleman claims for himself here—of taking an opportunity of explaining and vindicating his conduct; and he does this in a manner which cannot fail to convince any dispassionate man In the kingdom, that the charge brought against him by the hon. and learned Gentleman was utterly destitute of foundation. The noble and learned Lord did this so, as at once to convince ninety-nine men out of a hundred, that the charge brought against him was utterly groundless. The noble and learned Lord rose, not to attack the hon. and learned Gentleman, but to vindicate his own character from a matter of charge and accusation that had been preferred against him; and it appears, that, in this vindication, he has said something offensive to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the noble and learned Lord had brought any charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a professional man or a gentleman, then he would be entitled to exculpate himself in this House. But the hon. and learned Gentleman does not accuse the noble Lord of having done so; he merely complains of certain expressions, which he has not stated to the House, as having been used towards him in another place, and has gone on making comments on those expressions; but the nature of them he has not stated. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made the observations we have just heard; but they are in answer to no charge preferred against him; and he himself has not mentioned any such charge, nor has he specified even a single expression, but has gone on making comments on expressions of which he has complained, but of the nature of which he cannot give us the least idea. Recollecting the important business which is about to come before the House, I called the hon. and learned Member to order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, when complaining of the strong language of an individual in another place, is to get up, and, in his own justification, use stronger expressions, there is an end to the dignity which generally characterizes the proceedings of Parliament. For these reasons, I expressed my regret that he did not confine himself to replying to the charge, whatever it might be; and, in defence against a charge, I would be the last man to offer any interruption. When I saw that the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman was to resort to invective, and to use strong expressions and harsh language, in reply to the expressions and language he complained of, and the only effect of which would be to waste the time of the House, I thought that it was time to interfere, and I feel that I was perfectly justified in the course which I then took. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not a defence against a charge, but was a recriminatory attack against strong language, which he supposed to have been used in another place. I will leave it to the House to determine how far I was justified in interrupting the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I then thought, as I still think, that I was only acting in conformity with the rules of the House in doing so.

I have just read the expressions of which my hon. and learned friend complains, and I have read them with the greatest pain.

(interrupting the right hon. Baronet) said, I have seen the noble and learned Lord this morning, and he complains of the manner in which he is reported.

I only know them from the reports in the public journals, and, until I hear them contradicted, I must believe them correct. I must say. Sir, I think this a matter of deep importance, not only as it affects my hon. and learned friend, who, in my opinion, has shown a very proper sense of what is due to himself in the notice he has taken of these expressions, but it is a matter of importance as it affects the privileges of Parliament. Of the noble Lord who has made use of these expressions, no expression ever fell from me calculated to convey a feeling of disrespect towards him. On the occasion to which the present discussion refers, it will be recollected that I recommended the House to abstain from further discussion, for that I was convinced the noble Lord would be able to explain satisfactorily what he had done. I stated, that having heard the noble Lord's evidence given with respect to those offices, I was satisfied that the appointment which he had made was only provisional, and that he meant to abolish the offices in question; but still I heard nothing in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman which was at all inconsistent with the performance of his public duties as a Member of this House, or, which called for those observations of which he now complains. Two offices, notorious sinecures, fell vacant, and, notwithstanding the declaration of the Lord Chancellor, that he intended to abolish them on the first vacancy, they were filled up. When the appointments were made, what was more natural than that an hon. Member of this House should ask for some information respecting those appointments, and comment upon the proceeding? In former times, and when the noble and learned Lord was a Member of this House, not a moment would have been lost in putting such a question. That question was no attack on an individual Peer, but an inquiry into the public conduct of the Government. Answers were given to that question, and, in another place, that noble and learned Lord himself, presiding in the place in which he gave the answer, the Chief Judge of that Bench in whose Court these appointments had taken taken place, described the Member of Parliament who put the question in a manner which would effectually deter many individuals, shrinking from abuse, and from the power of that sarcasm, which, we all know, he can so irresistibly wield, from the performance of that duty, which, as Members of Parliament, they are bound to discharge. When the Member, too, against whom these attacks are directed, is a Gentleman practising in the Court in which the noble Lord presides, it becomes highly probable, that if they do not influence him to abandon his duty, they will operate to his serious prejudice, and might occasion the ruin of any professional man who did not happen to be of the first-rate eminence. My respect for that noble Lord, and my admiration for his abilities, prevent me from quoting those opprobrious epithets which he is said to have used. "Crawling reptile," and "insect" of a certain sort, are the terms which I may mention, and from the use of which I may leave the House to judge what are the rest. I agree, however, fully with the right hon. Secretary, that nothing can be more inconvenient than to refer to the proceedings of the other House of Parliament; but, if the use of such expressions is to be allowed, what situation are we in? How are we to perform our duties in this House, if we are liable to be abused for so doing by the noble and learned Peer who presides over the other branch of the Legislature Either the right hon. Gentleman must not interfere when a Member is defending himself from attacks of this sort, or the Member must submit to suffer from the use of these opprobrious epithets. I say again, that I deeply regret the noble and learned Lord should so far have forgotten himself, as he must have done, when he trenched in this manner on the privileges of this House, and interfered with the performance of the duties of a Member of Parliament, by holding him up to public reproof and reprobation, in terms so offensive, that no man can submit to them without uttering his decided protest against them. The right hon. Gentleman calls in question the accuracy of the report. I hope he will be found to be justified in doing so. It is a report in The Times newspaper, and, in one respect, it has the appearance of accuracy—it is very elaborately given. Still, however, I should rather hope that it is incorrect and spurious, than believe that the noble Lord would have used the privilege of his station to make the attack on my hon. and learned friend in the terms which he is represented to have used.

The noble and learned Lord called on me to say, that the report in that paper, and in another paper, was very incorrect. I do not know in what respect the report was incorrect. I shall take this opportunity of saying, that however justifiable may have been the use of any expressions, or of any explanations, under particular circumstances, it is utterly impossible, consistently with order in our proceedings, that, from day to day, strong expressions should be bandied about from one place to another. I have not read the expressions that are now the subject of discussion, and I can only say, that my noble friend complains of the incorrectness with which his observations were given.

had read the report in question with the same feelings as his right hon. friend. He hoped that inaccuracy in the report would account far those expressions, of which his hon. and learned friend complained. However, he could not but think that it would not have ill become the character of the noble and learned Lord to have taken the earliest opportunity of assuring the victim of those expressions, that they had been misrepresented; and the question of their accuracy would depend a great deal, in his mind, on the fact, that the noble Lord made the first explanation to those who heard them, and satisfied them that the expressions were not those which he used. If the noble Lord omitted that—if he did not take the first opportunity in the place where the calumnious expressions were said to have been used, to satisfy the victim that they never had been used, there could be but one inference drawn from the omission. The question was of the very highest importance, and it involved the point, whether the Members of that House were to be checked in making inquiries into public matters, by the dread of drawing down upon themselves language which no gentleman would suffer to be applied to him. If this were to be the case, there was an end to the discharge of one of the most important duties of a Member of Parliament—the duty of questioning a Minister upon any proceedings supposed to be under contemplation. He begged the hon. Gentlemen who heard him to recollect, that when the present Lord Chancellor was a Member of that House, he took precisely the same course of inquiry, with reference to appointments which were supposed to be making, or to have been made, as that which had been taken by the learned member for St. Mawes. Did that noble Lord, on any such occasion, ever suppose, that, because he asked a question, it was competent for any person in the other House to cast upon him imputations which no man would dare to cast upon him from any other situation? He would not pursue the question any further, and he was willing to trust that the report in the newspapers was incorrect, and misrepresented the words of the noble and learned Lord. He trusted, that the noble and learned Lord would feel himself bound to give his hon. and learned friend (the member for St. Mawes) that full satisfaction which he had a right to demand. The noble Lord ought to explain these expressions in the place in which they were first used.

I was not in the House, Sir, when this matter was for the third time brought before it. I was about to apologise. Sir, for having been absent during a part of this discussion, so that to only a part of it could I reply. I must say, that, in the first place, it appears to me singular that this complaint should be made in this House of Parliament, where we cannot properly know what has passed in another place—where, whatever occurred, must have occurred in the presence of many friends of the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes. Those friends did not complain of the expressions used by the Lord Chancellor; and not only they did not complain, but they expressed their approbation of what the Lord Chancellor then uttered. That fact seems to me sufficient to show, that what was then uttered by no means deserves the attacks that have been made on it this evening. What was the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman in this House on the occasion that gave rise to the remarks of which he now complains? He put a question respecting the appointment to certain offices in the Court of Chancery. That question was put without notice, and a remark was made that the offices were then filled—that he had been prevented, by the course taken by the Lord Chancellor, from putting the question before; but that if he had put it before, the vacancies never could have been allowed to be filled up. This matter was brought on in the absence of may hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, to whom, it seems, some kind of notice of the intended question had been given—it was brought on in my absence, and in the absence of my hon. and learned friend, the member for Ripon, and of any one who could at the moment have given an answer for the Lord Chancellor. If the question had been put in the presence of either of my hon. and learned friends or myself, there would have been given that answer, the want of which made it a subject of one of the most invidious attacks that can well be conceived on the conduct of any one. This was followed by getting a book from the library, and reading extracts from former speeches of the Lord Chancellor, and contrasting them with what was described as totally different, namely, his present conduct. Except in the way of attack, how came it to be said, that the public would hear with regret of these appointments? I repeat, that if that question had been put while any man able to answer it had been been present,—any one possessed of knowledge of the fact—there could have been none of these subsequent differences. I think that we have a right to express our regret, with reference to the courtesy used among gentlemen, that the question was not put in a manner that would have prevented these unpleasant discussions. I repeat, that had any one acquainted with the facts been present, these things might have been avoided. The Lord Chancellor, when a Member of this House, was, I know, in the habit of putting such questions on all occasions on which he felt it his duty to do so; but he always put them openly and manfully, and gave the parties concerned the full means of knowing when they would be put, and of being prepared with their answers. In the present case, the Lord Chancellor meant to abolish the offices before they fell vacant. The bill of my hon. and learned friend, the member for Ripon, had been prepared, and the first line of that bill declared that they were to be abolished. When they fell vacant, the Lord Chancellor had a communication with my hon. and learned friend, and distinctly declared that the change which put the appointments into his hands made no change as to his arrangements. His words were—"Let the offices of Patent Registrar be at once abolished." Under these circumstances, the attack on him was, in my mind, most unjustifiable; and it was the more to be regretted, when it is considered that if the question had been put in a proper manner, the explanation might have been instant and complete.

repeated, that what he had said on the former evening was, that he thought it very possible that there might be duties attached to those offices, which rendered it necessary that the appointments should be made; but he did not believe, that it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor to make the appointments permanent. He could not say, what the hon. member for Worcester might have intended to say; but he knew, that an hon. and gallant friend of his got up, and said that he differed from him, and that he thought that the appointment was intended to be permanent. When the hon. Baronet opposite (the member for Westminster) said, the appointment would only be provisional, he expressed his concurrence in that opinion, and declared, that, from what the Lord Chancellor had frequently said, it was impossible that the appointment could be permanent. He, at all events, could not be accused of having made an attack upon the Lord Chancellor. On the contrary, he had asserted, that if those offices were abolished, the Lord Chancellor ought to be compensated for the loss of patronage.

had judged simply from what he saw in the newspapers. He knew it was not possible to catch the exact words of a speaker; but he considered the report to be substantially correct. He looked upon what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet as an additional proof of the inconvenience of such questions being put in such a manner.

repeated, that he had always insisted that compensation ought to be given to the Lord Chancellor, if offices in his patronage were abolished.

thought that the attack which had been made upon his hon. and learned friend was more injurious to the reputation of the person from whom the attack came, than to the person attacked. But if such attacks upon Member of the House of Commons were permitted to pass unnoticed by the House, then the independence of the Members was at an end. Another noble and learned Lord, from another part of the kingdom, had made a similar attack upon another Member of the House of Commons in language which no gentleman in England would apply to another. On the same principle on which he now complained of the attack made upon his noble and learned friend, he had on a former occasion taken the liberty to reprehend an attack made upon the late Lord Chancellor, by the noble and learned Lord, who was then Mr. Brougham, and a Member of that House. He said then, as he said now, that it was improper and unjust to make an attack upon an absent person who had no means of defending himself or vindicating his character. If the noble and learned Lord denied that he had used the language attributed to him, he ought to contradict the report, in the presence of those who heard him, at the time. But, until he should have done so, his noble and learned friend had a right to stand up in that House and complain of the attempt which had been made to interfere with the independent discharge of his duties as a Member of Parliament. No station, however exalted, could justify such an attack.

said, that every Gentleman in that House must be aware that, however accurate the reports in the newspapers generally might be, it was impossible to expect that they should give the exact words of a speaker. Now, the whole of the present discussion respected words—he might say syllables. If the words complained of had been used by the Lord Chancellor, he was sure that some of the Members of the other House, present at the time, would have remarked upon them; and he thought it was evident that no such language was used, from the fact, that the only remark which the observations of the Lord Chancellor elicited from any of the noble friends of the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes, was the statement of Lord Eldon, that he had read the speech of his hon. and learned friend (Sir Edward Sugden) with the greatest concern. Now, the facts of the case were these: an attack had been made upon the Lord Chancellor in the most ungracious manner—an imputation was thrown out that he had been guilty of a most indecent, and (as it would be in him) a most dishonest proceeding; and this attack was made upon him at the very moment when the noble and learned Lord was making a great sacrifice to the public interest. Was it to be wondered at, then, that he felt hurt, and expressed his indignation warmly, and, perhaps, in the contemptuous language which he might naturally think was called for by such an attack? Hon. Gentlemen on the other side seemed to forget altogether, that the provocation came first from the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes.

might have supposed, from what had been said by his learned and hon. friend on the Treasury Bench, that, instead of his being the Attorney General, he had been some Major General. His learned friend had done nothing but attempt what a military gentleman often attempted. He had endeavoured to get an advantage over his adversaries by making a diversion. He had said, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for St. Mawes, had given a great provocation to the Lord Chancellor; but he (Sir Charles Wetherell) would contend that the question relative to the appointment was not, in a parliamentary sense, or in any sense of one gentleman speaking of another, to be considered in the light of a provocation. Since he had been a Member of that House, when public offices were about to be filled up, he had repeatedly heard questions put, upon the propriety or fact of filling them, and such questions were always put without the ceremony of any previous notice, although the hon. Member who put the question might mean clearly to insinuate that, if the places had been filled, they had been given unnecessarily and improperly. Surely, in a parliamentary sense, he was not to be told by a Lord Chancellor, or by any man, that if a Member of that House put a question, which, if answered affirmatively, would involve, in the opinion of him who put the question, a censure against one of the Ministers, he had done wrong if he had not previously given notice of his intention to put that question. But, however, in the present instance, the question had not been put without notice having been previously given. His Majesty's Solicitor General had been present when the question had been put, and his learned friend (the member for St. Mawes) had previously communicated to the Solicitor General that it was his intention to put that question. In his opinion, therefore, his hon. and learned friend, had done every thing which he ought to have done, in communicating to the Solicitor General that he intended to put the question to the Treasury Benches relative to the filling up of the places. Not only had the Solicitor General told the House that such had been the communication made to him, but he had even avowed that he had forgotten to speak to the Lord Chancellor on the subject. Really a person might be led to suppose, that the case was of such high importance, that, like the question of the Russian-Dutch Loan, it required a secret consultation upon it be-' fore it could be mentioned in the House of Commons. He would say, at once, that his learned friend had never faltered—had never been backward in any thing which became a gentleman and a man of the highest honour. No man had ever known his hon. friend to be peccant or defective in any thing that became a gentleman, and if there had been any faltering in not making this communication to the Lord Chancellor, it was quite palpable that the whole error had rested with the Solicitor General. The next point that had been adverted to was, whether the report in question were, or were not, accurate. His hon. and learned friend had said, that the report was not accurate. He had read over The Times of that morning, and he remarked, that, in addition to a report, it contained a commentary on the report. And as to the accuracy of this paper, he could not bring himself to think, that a journal to which eminent men, who were now eminent lawyers—ay, and eminent Lords—had formerly been in the habit of contributing—he could not, animated as it had been by the flashes of their wit and the flow of their genius, think of looking to The Times newspaper as a peculiar magazine of errors and inaccuracies. If a man said any thing peculiarly sarcastic.—peculiarly stringent—keenly cauterizing, it was not to The Times newspaper he should look for any inaccuracy in relating it. This, at all events, was the first occasion on which The Times had failed to do justice to the manner and scope of the noble and learned Lord. It had been said, that there might be mistakes in the words of the report. True, so there might; and, perhaps, the paper in question never caught the of Lord Brougham, There was, however, in nature a class of animals denominated reptiles. He did not know how many were the subdivisions of the class, but he supposed that three or four kinds of the reptile tribe had been showered on the head of his hon. and learned friend. And how had this taken place? How had it happened that the Lord Chancellor should pour down upon the head of one of the leading members of the Court of Chancery, his vocabulary—he would not say of abuse, he would employ a stronger phrase—his vocabulary of calumny reported in the public papers? His hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General must permit him to say, that if such things were tolerated, there would not only be an end of the independence of any member of the bar, but of the independence of any Member of that House. He would beg hon. Members to consider how the error, if it were an error, could have taken place. The Lord Chancellor, be it remembered, did not speak from the Woolsack. He stepped forward and poured out, at considerable length, upon his learned friend, formerly the Solicitor General for his Majesty, that vocabulary of abuse, or of calumny, which was now supposed to be incorrectly reported in the public Press. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that when the member for St. Mawes was attacked, his friends and the Duke of Wellington were present. Now he (Sir Charles Wetherell) did not suppose, that his Grace the Duke of Wellington was particularly well acquainted with the interior of the Affidavit Office of the Court of Chancery. But, then, there was the Earl of Eldon in the House of Peers, and the Lord Chancellor must have forgotten that when he was a Member of the House of Commons he was always in the habit of attacking Lord Eldon. Such arguments might do very well as the peroration of a speech before a Jury, but that House was not to be told that, because Lord Eldon and the friends of the hon. member for St. Mawes were present in the House of Peers, the Lord Chancellor might, therefore, pour out his torrents of abuse as he pleased. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, had indeed said, that ninety-nine persons out of every hundred were satisfied with Lord Brougham; but he would tell that right hon. Gentleman what every body but himself well knew, that the proportion between the satisfied and dissatisfied was in the inverse ratio. Ninety-nine out of every hundred were not satisfied. The right hon. Baronet, (the member for Tamworth) had been fallen foul of by the Attorney General for taking this report as the correct report of the speech. When the Lord Chancellor was examined before the Committee of that House, these offices of the Court of Chancery were recommended by him to be abolished, and yet when they became vacant, he filled them up; and all the question asked by the hon. member for St. Mawes was, were they filled up provisionally or not? Was the person filling them bound to consider himself a trustee for the public, and liable to be turned out even the next day. Lord Brougham had not answered that question. Lord Brougham ought to have taken an obligation from the person he appointed, that when the place was abolished he should give it up without any claim upon the public for vested interests. The only material question which Lord Brougham ought to have answered he had not answered. All he had condescended to say was merely, that he had put his brother into the office because he was under his control. Let any man now get up and say, whether Lord Brougham had or had not given this office to his brother under a condition, that if Parliament abolished the places, he should yield them up, and have no right or claim whatever to any compensation.

It is so.

continued. It was said so now; but what a posthumous saying.

The learned Member was really arguing hypothetically, and occupying the time of the House in vain. The Lord Chancellor had clearly stated, that it was necessary to fill up the vacant offices, for, otherwise, certain deeds could not be entered, and he had put his brother into the situation because he was a person in whom he could place the most perfect reliance as to his throwing up the places at the instant, if Parliament thought fit to abolish them; and, in that case, not one single word would be heard about vested interests.

resumed. The hon. and learned Member was only attempting to put right a person who was already right. All that the Lord Chancellor had said, was, that he had appointed his brother, because he had over him a control. Nothing whatever was said of vested rights.

Certainly there was.

The most certain person might be uncertain, as well as that the most certain reporter might be incorrect. The noble Lord had said at the same time, that he had a right to fill up the office, which was not consistent with his having said, what he was reported to have said, respecting vested rights. The consequence or the inference from the proposition, was, that he had a right to fill up the office, with all the emoluments and vested interests belonging to it.

No, no, no.

The hon. and learned Member might shake his head, but he would not shake him from his argument. His report of the conversation was by far more incorrect than the report of the speech in The Times. He (Sir Charles Wetherell) would repeat, that Lord Brougham had said nothing of the sort attributed to him by the hon. and learned member for Southwark, and the supposition was altogether inconsistent. Now, his hon. and didactic friend, the Attorney General, complained that he was not present when the question was put; but he must say that every thing which could be done, every thing that was due from one gentleman to another, had been done by his hon. and learned friend the member for St. Mawes. The language and sarcasm which had been thrown out by the noble and learned Lord in another place, were of a nature utterly to extinguish many men who might be less competent to maintain themselves, either as men of honour or of professional standing, than the hon. and learned Gentleman was. He would say, that such language used elsewhere would go to demolish a man, not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a private gentleman. He differed materially from the hon. member for Calne, who had said that provocation had been given sufficient to bring out a strong blow. It had been argued that the question was not to be put without notice, but he well remembered when the right hon. Baronet opposite, (his friend, he believed, he might call him) now First Lord of the Admiralty, sat on his (Sir Charles Wetherell's) side of the House, he was very prone to put questions upon all occasions, in common with his hon. friend. If there was an appointment to which a salary of 100l. or 300l. a-year attached, or if my Lord Bathurst had a son, or any relation put into any public situation, then there was such catechising, aye, such cheerings, and queerings too—aye, he would say, such queerings as never were known, and which were certainly much out of place. Questions were put, and upon a mere verbal promise made in Committee, regular discussions were entered into. But, in the present instance, there was a case of a particular nature, about which it was proper to ask questions: and would the House of Commons allow a man, an hon. and learned Member of the House, to be put down by the anvil in the smithy of the noble and learned Lord? Absurd! Would they permit him to be crushed by this Vulcan-like force played upon him elsewhere? If the House did allow this, he would say, they would demolish the independent spirit of the House.

had said, on a former evening, that he took no part in the discussion, until he heard a noble Member of the Government say that he knew nothing about the appointment, and that he was not able to give any answer. He thought that no one had a right to complain of his putting his veto upon the filling up of an office which all parties allowed to be unnecessary. He would ask, was it ever known in that House, that it was not proper for any Member of that House to ask such questions? Whatever inconvenience might have arisen from the discussion of that evening, it was altogether to be attributed to the line of conduct adopted by the Lord Chancellor in the other House; who, not satisfied with making the explanation, which he was called upon to make in his own defence, had stepped out of his way to cast imputations upon a Member of the House of Commons, in a manner peculiarly offensive. If the House was not prepared to surrender the independence of its Members to the Lord Chancellor, it would not suffer such conduct to pass unnoticed. If such proceedings were allowed to go on, it would be necessary at last to adopt serious Measures to check them.

confirmed what bad been said, respecting the explanation of the Lord Chancellor, and added that the noble and learned Lord further said, that he did not believe that his brother would hold the office a sufficient time to reimburse himself by the fees, for the expenses to which he had been put in accepting it. He trusted that the discussion would be carried on no longer.

said, I should not have entered into the discussion, had not hon. Gentlemen opposite thought proper to do that which is not generally done, by attacking the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, for language attributed to him in a newspaper, and in some measure disclaimed for him; at the same time that they say nothing of the substance of his explanation, respecting the offices which he has given to his brother, but speak as if he had not given any reply to the charges brought against him. I beg to remind them, that the substance of his defence was this—that he still maintained the opinion that those offices ought to be abolished; that he had prepared a bill for the abolition of them, which he had not yet had an opportunity of bringing forward; and that, as there were certain duties which some one must perform so long as the offices existed, he had given them to his brother, as a person in whom he could place the most perfect confidence, and who would not claim compensation on the ground of vested rights, whenever the Legislature should make the necessary regulations for the abolition of the office. If that be not an answer to the charges brought against my noble and learned friend, I know not what answer could satisfy the constitutional and parliamentary jealousy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Some Gentlemen have laid much stress upon the words of the Lord Chancellor, that he had a right to make these appointments. Surely, I say, when his filling up the offices was made the subject of a grave accusation against him, by a Member of the House of Commons, he could not very well do otherwise than assert, in his vindication, that he had a right to make the appointment. It is not fair dealing on the part of the hon. member for Worcester, and other hon. Gentlemen, to say that we find fault with them for asking a question respecting the filling up of any office which may have become vacant. We do no such thing. It is the right of every Member of this House to ask such questions, even if, in doing so, he should exceed a little, in constitutional and parliamentary jealousy. We have not complained, Sir, that questions were put, such as we ourselves were accustomed to put, when we sat upon the other side of the House. Every Gentleman in this House has a right to put such questions; but, perhaps, some Gentlemen opposite, from not having had so much experience in opposition as we had, from not having served so long an apprenticeship as we served, have not yet learned to put their questions in a proper manner. Thus it was, perhaps, that the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes put his question in such a way, that as my noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, remarked in his reply, it was impossible to pick the question out of the invective which surrounded it. When the hon. and learned Gentleman was accused of having made a violent philippic, he denied the charge, intimating, that if he did not deliver a violent philippic last night, he would take an early opportunity of doing so. I can not help thinking that the whole of this debate would have been avoided, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had contented himself with asking a simple question about the continuation of the office in question, or the compensation connected therewith. If he had done this, he would not this evening have had to complain of the language he supposes to have been used by the Lord Chancellor; and, in my opinion, so far from what has taken place, acting in future as an impediment to questions being put, I think it will only prove a useful precedent for inducing Gentlemen to ask real bonâ fide questions, and not to take the advantage of no one being present to answer them, for spreading latent accusations against those who are absent.

It appears to me that the lecture we have just heard from the noble Lord, has been delivered for the purpose of preventing any similar questions being ever again asked in this House. The greater part of the noble Lord's speech referred to the vindication of the noble and learned Lord; but no one has found fault with the noble and learned Lord for entering into that vindication. The complaint of my hon. and learned friend referred to the terms of which the Lord Chancellor thought proper to make use in the course of that vindication; and, for myself I beg to say, that I think that those terms were excessively indecent, and that the language was of a most opprobrious kind. When we look at what certain members of the present Cabinet have done, are we, indeed, bound to suppose that they are so very immaculate on the subject of sinecures? I remember, that, according to the Report on the Civil List, the Lord Privy Seal said, that he found so little to do in his office, that he really could not think of touching any of the fees, or of taking any of the salary; the Postmaster General also stated that he could, on no account, take his salary, when he saw his neighbours round Good wood suffering so much from the distressed state of the country; and yet now both these noble Lords were in the receipt of their salaries, and had, therefore, shown that they were not altogether free from human infirmity. In my opinion, the question of my hon. and learned friend was quite fair; all that he did was, to ask whether this sinecure office was to be given up, or not, and to that question no Cabinet Minister had been able to give an answer. Under these circumstances, I think that my hon. and learned friend has a most decided right to complain of the Lord Chancellor having used terms so indecent and improper. The noble Lord (Althorp) has rightly said, that he thinks it wrong for the Members of the two Houses of Parliament to be bandying phrases, and to irritate each other by accusation on one side, and recrimination on the other. In that opinion I quite agree with him. But is this an isolated case? Quite the contrary. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, following the example of the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, took an opportunity last night of attacking the hon. member for Dundalk, and of stating that that hon. Gentleman had rendered himself odious as a Member of Parliament to his 'constituents. How dare the Lord Chancellor of Ireland make that accusation, in the absence of the hon. Gentleman? And yet, with such violations of decorum as these staring us in the face, we are to be told, forsooth, that it is indecent to ask what I assert to have been a strictly parliamentary question. To what do these examples amount? Here we have the Lord Chancellor of England, high on account of his station, and still higher on account of his abilities, in conjunction with another noble and learned Lord, pursuing a course directly opposite to their duties as Peers of Parliament; a course, too, which, if not resisted, must put an end to the freedom of debate in this House. Reference has been made in the course of the debate to the Duke of Wellington not having taken any notice of the expressions made use of last night, by the Lord Chancellor. Now, I beg to say, that I am satisfied that if my noble friend had been aware of the manner in which my hon. and learned friend put the question in this House, and if he distinctly heard the epithets applied to my hon. and learned friend by the Lord Chancellor, I know the gallant nature of my noble friend, and his steady friendship to my hon. and learned friend, too well to believe that he would, for a moment, have allowed such expressions to pass unnoticed.

thought that too much time had already been occupied by this debate. If the Lord Chancellor had used the expressions imputed to him, no one could help regretting it; but he (Mr. Palmer) must confess that he could not bring himself to believe that those terms had been made use of.

defended the Duke of Richmond and Lord Durham; and said, that in taking their salaries, they had only acted in conformity with the express desire of the Civil List Committee.

confirmed this statement, and observed, that the request of the Committee had been backed by the whole of the colleagues of his two noble friends.

was not satisfied, and on Monday next, he would bring the whole question fully under the consideration of the House.

I rise. Sir, to lay before the House that financial statement which it is my duty to bring under the consideration of Parliament. I am quite aware, that the circumstances under which I present myself are such, that I cannot come forward with any sanguine views of the future, or gratulatory recapitulation of the past. I am quite aware, that my statement must be one which a Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unaccustomed to make of late years; and, therefore, I have to throw myself on the indulgence of the House. Under these circumstances, I am conscious that there is only one course which I ought to pursue, or which I can pursue, and that is, to detail fairly and plainly what the state of the case is with respect to the revenues of the country, not endeavouring, by either disguise or concealment, to deceive the House or the country on any one item connected with that revenue. This, I am sure, is the best mode for me to adopt—the only justifiable mode for any Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, Sir, the view which I have to present to the House of our finances must apply, in the first instance, to what is past, before I enter into the question of what I think likely to be the prospect for the present year. In consequence of the change that has taken place in the reckoning of our financial year, it will be necessary, when referring to what is past, to take the year as ending on the 5th of January; but, when I come to the consideration of the prospect for the present year, in order to make a fair comparison, it will be most proper for me to take the year as terminating on the 5th of April. With these preliminary observations, I shall now immediately proceed to the statement which I have to make. Sir, I will begin by stating the circumstances of the revenue during the year of 1830, and then proceed to compare those circumstances with the circumstances of the present year. The national income of the year 1830 (ending 5th of January 1831) was 50,056,616l., and the expenditure was 47,142,943l., leaving a surplus of 2,913,673l. The expenditure of 1831 was, within 19,646l., the same as that of 1830; that is to say, the expenditure of 1831 was 47,123,297l. This similarity of amount does not arise from the equality of the votes of the two years (for the votes of 1831 exceeded those of 1830), but is owing to there being a saving in 1831, from the reduction of the four-and-a-half per cents, to the amount of 777,433l. To account for the increased expenditure, I ought to state, that there is an increase in the Army Estimates of 225,130l.; on the Navy Estimates, of 380,252l.; and on the Miscellaneous Estimates, of 743,490l., from which we have to deduct the Civil List charges, amounting to 322,711l., leaving a balance of 420,779l. These sums together amount to 1,026,161l. In the Ordnance Estimates, however, there is a decrease of 140,964l. From the Unclaimed Dividends a sum of 127,400l. would be derived, and these sums together, deducted from the excess above mentioned, left 757,797l., which makes, as I have already stated, a diminution of expenditure in 1831, as compared to 1830, of 19,646l. It was thus evident, that, had the income of 1831, been equal to that of 1830, there would have been a surplus of 2,933,319l. But great reductions having been made in taxation in 1830 and 1831, the revenue of the latter year necessarily fell off to a considerable amount. Thus the revenue of 1830 was 50,056,616l.; that of 1831 was 46,424,440l., showing a deficiency of 3,632,176l. in the latter year. This decrease has taken place principally in the Customs and Excise, the decrease in the Customs being 1,024,052l.; in the Excise, 2,341,360l.; making together 3,365,412l. There has also been a decrease in the Stamp Duties of 110,292l.; and in the taxes arising from deferred collection, owing to the abolition of Receivers-General, of 149,062l. There is also a deficiency in the miscellaneous revenue, from several large payments having been made into the Exchequer in the previous year, on account of surplus of four-and-a-half per cent duties, and hereditary revenue of Scotland, of 113,030l. These sums together make 372,384l., which, added to the 3,365,412l. make altogether 3,737,796l. From this sum, however, there must be deducted an increase in the Post-office of 64,194l,; and a sum from Unclaimed Dividends 41,426l., making together 105,620l., which, being deducted from the sura I have already stated, will show a decrease of income in 1831, as compared with 1830, of 3,632,176l. These items refer to the year ending the 5th of January. The House is aware, as I have already stated, that the expenditure of 1831 amounted to 47,123,297l., and the income to 46,424,440l.; consequently there was a deficiency of 698,857l. I have already shown, that the diminution of the in-comeof the year was 3,632,176l.; and we now see that the deficiency, as compared with the expenditure was 698,857l. Of course, we must deduct the amount of the surplus, in order to show the deficiency of the year; and it, therefore, appears, that the state of the revenue at the commencement of 1832 was, that instead of having a surplus of 2,913,673l., as in the commencement of 1831, though the expenditure of 1831 was 19,646l. below that of 1830, there was a falling off to the amount I have already shown, of about 700,000l. It is right, however, that I should remark, that this result arose not at all from any falling off in the consumption of taxable articles, but from a diminution in the amount of the taxes. A large reduction was made by the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, in 1830, a considerable portion of which came into the income of 1831; and I myself also made large reductions—reductions which, together, have turned out larger than the income of the country could afford. The reduction in the Customs on coals and slates has been about 900,000l. on barilla, 90,000l., and on sugar and molasses, 300,000l. besides which, there has been a deficiency in the corn duties of about 200,000l.; making altogether a deficiency of 1,485,000l. which, however, has nothing to do with the consumption of the people. In the Excise, the reductions have been still greater; the reduction in the beer tax amounts to 2,350,000l., on leather to 200,000l.; on cider, to 50,000l.; and on printed calicoes, (including the drawback), to 675,000.; besides which, there has been a diminution in the candle duty to the amount of 20,000l., chiefley arising from an expectation having been formed that some reduction in that duty would take place. Altogether, these reductions amount to 3,295,000l. which, added to the reductions of the Customs, make the reduction as compared with the former year, 1,414,588l., that is to say, the loss on Customs in 1830, was 1,024,052l., and on Excise 2,341,360l.; which, being added together, make 3,365,412l., leaving a balance, as I have already stated, of 1,414,588l. when compared with the same items in 1831. But the deficiency of the revenue as I have already stated, is 3,632,176l.; and, therefore, the statement that I have just made proves that there has been a considerable increase in the consumption of other taxable articles during the year. I think this circumstance must prove satisfactory to the House. For myself, I have, perhaps, been too sanguine, for I certainly did expect a greater increase of consumption; but, at all events, it is gratifying to find that so large an increase has actually taken place; and whatever disappointment I myself may have personally felt at not finding my expectations realized, this increase is still a subject of congratulation which I feel bound to press upon the consideration of the Committee. It is now my duty to state, that the deficiency which existed at the end of the year was in proportion considerably augmented at the end of the April quarter; the reason of this is, that a large portion of the Estimates voted in the preceding year came to be expended during the first quarter of the year 1832, and, consequently, the Estimates that had reference to the first quarter were not diminished in their amount. It is owing to this circumstance that the deficiency on the 5th of April amounted to 1,240,000l. This certainly is a large deficiency of income, and ought, I admit, to be regarded with general regret. The mode in which the Government has endeavoured to meet this deficiency has not been by the proposal of any new taxes; but we have tried to the very utmost to make reductions in the Estimates of the year; these reductions, however, could not take effect previous to the month of April, and, therefore, as yet they have not been brought to bear upon the deficiency I have just stated. We have reduced the Estimates, as the House is aware, to an amount that altogether is not less than 2,000,000l. We have also looked to reduction, as far as we could, in the amount of the expenses of the different public offices. With respect to the late Administration, I must do them the justice to say, that they acted with great vigour in this way. On referring to their labours, I find that in 1828, the first year of the Duke of Wellington's Administration, the reductions effected amounted to 188,911l.; in 1829, they were 42,019l.; in 1830, they were 109,129l.; making together 340,089l. This certainly was a large reduction, and of course rendered it the more difficult for us to continue and extend these diminutions. The reductions, however, which we were able to make during the first year we were in office amounted to 234,353l.; and, during the present year, I think that I am below the mark, when I state that they will amount to 100,000l. I therefore think that we have a fair claim to say, that we have exerted ourselves to some effect as far as we have gone, and I trust that we shall find ourselves able to go on in the same course. This, I apprehend, is the only mode in which the deficiency ought to be made up; but I am prepared to say, that if it appears that we cannot make reductions sufficient to meet the income of the country, it will be absolutely necessary to appeal to Parliament to strengthen the resources of the country for the payment of its expenditure; and I am perfectly satisfied, that, after I shall have proved that the reduction of the expenditure has been carried as far as is consistent with the safety, interests, and honour of the country, I shall not fail to receive the support of the Parliament, even if it should be my misfortune to have to propose such a measure. I now think it desirable that I should explain to the Committee the mode in which this deficiency has accrued. In January, 1831, there was a surplus of 2,913,670l.; in April, that surplus was reduced to 2,818,000l., and in July, to 1,895,275l. In October, the surplus was changed into a deficiency of 20,538l. In January, 1832, this deficiency had increased to 600,000l. The deficiency went on increasing to the end of the April quarter of this year, when it amounted to 1,240,000l. In the last quarter—that is, the July quarter, the progress of the deficiency seems to have been stopped, at least it was only increased by 32,774l. I need not state to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that it is necessary to look to the whole year, in order to see what the deficiency really is; because, in the October quarter, the expenditure always exceeds the revenue, whilst in the other quarters the revenue generally exceeds the expenditure, and the House will observe that it was in the October quarter of last year that the revenue was reduced from a surplus of nearly 2,000,000l. to a deficiency of 20,000l. Having stated, as clearly as I am able, the condition of the revenue up to the present time, I will now proceed to explain the view I take of the revenue of the present year. I will first of all state the expenditure of the year ending the 5th of April, 1832, and then compare it with the expenditure of the year ending the 5th of April, 1833, according to the Estimates already voted.

said, the late period of the Session at which the noble Lord had brought forward his financial statement would prevent him from occupying the time of the House at any length. Even had it been brought forward earlier, there was not much in the speech of the noble Lord that required him to go at any length into financial observations. One fact was abundantly clear from the speech of the noble Lord, that at present there was a deficiency of means to meet the expenditure of the country.

I have stated that there will be a surplus of 770,000l. this year, but that on the two years, 1832, and 1833, there is a deficiency.

.—There would, according to the noble Lord's statement, be a deficiency at the end of the current year, on account of 1832, although in this year there was a surplus. The noble Lord would recollect that, on the occasion of his making his first financial statement to the House, he had warned the noble Lord against adopting that system of finance which the noble Lord then developed, because he knew perfectly well that the result must be a deficiency of means to meet the expenditure. That now turned out to be the fact.

.—There is no deficiency with respect to the current expenditure. There is, on the contrary, a surplus which would be absorbed to meet the debts of the last year.

contended that there was, in fact, an actual deficiency. If he had a limited income, and in one year, got so much into debt, that he could not pay off that debt in the ensuing year, would not his means, to that extent, be deficient? It was obvious, notwithstanding this alleged surplus, that, at the end of the second year, a certain portion of debt would still remain. There would evidently be a deficiency in the receipts of the country, up to that time to meet its expenditure. It had been very truly remarked, that no country could be said to go on well, with reference either to its internal or external affairs, if its finances were not so regulated as to meet its expenditure, and to leave a surplus. If this were true with respect to other countries, how much more strongly did it apply to this country, loaded, as it was, with heavy debts, contracted during a long series of wars. The great object of the Government ought to be to get rid of that superincumbent load of debt which pressed so heavily on the country. If, as had been said by a very high authority, it was right that this country should be enabled to hold a high hand amongst the nations of Europe, to excite the confidence of its allies, and to work on the fears of its enemies, if she were likely to be called on to make great exertions, the possibility of which had also been alluded to by the same high authority—then did he, considering these circumstances, view with Still deeper concern the statement of the deficiency of means to meet the expenditure. In such a state of things, could this country take that imposing attitude which they had been told she might find it necessary to assume? Could she, when it appeared on the face of these accounts that her means were limited, take that commanding place in Europe which she ought to hold? The state of the finances of England was to her all important. She could not compete with continental powers so far as military force was concerned; and she had been enabled to cope with them by her unimpaired credit, and by her extraordinary financial resources. He did not mean to assert that those resources were in a dangerous state. No; but it did appear to him as if they were now so situated that they could not, if called upon by any sudden emergency, make a great and efficient exertion. Last year the noble Lord had taken from the Consolidated Fund 14,000,000l. or thereabouts. This was managed by sending forth Exchequer Bills, payable out of that fund in the first quarter of the succeeding year—that was, in the month of April. Such was the ordinary course of that financial operation. But, on the best calculation which he could make, he rather apprehended that the payment of the charge on the Consolidated Fund for 1832, on account of Exchequer-bills issued for the service of 1831, must necessarily be postponed to a much later period than was usual, according to ordinary financial practice. It would seem that the resources of the country had been anticipated to a very considerable extent, but to what extent he, of course, could not undertake to say. Coupling the large amount of unfunded debt with this circumstance, he would ask the noble Lord whether, if any contingency arrived which rendered it necessary to raise a large sum of money, he would not find difficulties in his way, that might prevent this country from taking that lofty attitude which she ought to assume? On these grounds, he expressed his regret at the statement of the noble Lord. He did not mean to cavil at any of the items enumerated by the noble Lord. Indeed, it would be very difficult, after hearing a long statement of figures, to attempt anything like an analysis of the noble Lord's assertion. He would, however, observe, that with reference to some calculations which he had himself made, he differed from the noble Lord. Looking, however, to the receipts of the revenue, from the beginning of the present year, and particularly considering the Excise department during that period, he was led to believe that the calculations of the noble Lord would not, on the whole, be falsified. On former occasions, it had been customary to take the probable expenditure of the year, and to place the probable receipts against it. Now, the noble Lord calculated those estimates, as commencing in the April of one year, and ending in the April of the next; and he stated the gross amount of the Estimates. He thanked the noble Lord for stating what the gross amount of those Estimates was; because, looking at the papers with which these estimates were connected, he found, from the manner in which they were prepared, that it would be exceedingly difficult to arrive at a correct conclusion. Some of those Estimates appeared to be voted for five quarters; others for four quarters. Some were made out with reference to existing balances, and others without any such reference. If, therefore, there were considerable reductions made, as he admitted, yet they ought, to decide on the financial merits of the noble Lord, to be balanced against the surplus in hand, reckoning by the ordinary financial year. He would not, however, dwell on this subject. The noble Lord relied on making further reductions in the revenue departments, besides those he had already made; on looking, however, to the state of those departments in 1824, he could not discover the large reductions for which the noble Lord took credit. He did not believe the reductions of the noble Lord would exceed 60,000l. or 70,000l. which was much below the comparative statement of the noble Lord. The House would recollect that when the noble Lord proposed the alteration of the wine duties on a principle of revenue, he and his friends had stated, that, as a matter of revenue, that alteration would not answer the calculations of the noble Lord. It was not, however, as a matter of revenue that he had objected to that alteration, so much as an infringement on the comfort of the consumer. He had then stated, that a great reduction of the consumption would take place if the duty on that wine which was used by the majority of the middle classes was raised, which would not be compensated by the increased consumption caused by lowering the duty on the higher priced French wines which were used by the rich. The statement of the noble Lord, this evening, had showed that his proposition had not been justified. Much of the increased duty the noble Lord had taken credit for arose from the duty on all the stock in hand; and when that was deducted, it would be proved that the consumption bad not increased. Up to the 14th of the present month, the latest period to which the returns had been made out, the diminution of the consumption of Portuguese and Spanish wines was 274,000 gallons, while the increase of the consumption of French wines was only 15,000 gallons. In the ensuing year, therefore, when there would be no stock in hand to levy the increased duty on, the noble Lord would not find any increase of consumption to warrant that calculation he had made of an increased duty. The noble Lord anticipated that the increase of the revenue from that source would be 180,000l.; but when the wine in bond was taken into consideration, it was not likely to produce more than 35,000l. He, therefore, had no reason whatever to change the opinion he had formerly given. He should like to know what we had gained from France as an equivalent for the indulgence we had shown to her wines, as he remembered that what France was to do in this respect, was held out to the House at the time the change was made, as an argument to induce it to consent to the change. He had not yet seen any similar indulgence granted by France to any of our productions, and not seeing that, he could not say, that the alteration was more recommended by promoting an intercourse between the two countries, than by increasing the revenue, and promoting the consumption of French wine. The noble Lord had adverted to the increase of the malt duty, which he had heard with great satisfaction; because, without arrogating any merit to himself, he might be permitted to remind the House, that when he had proposed the abolition of the duty on beer, he had stated, that he anticipated there would be an increased consumption of beer, and a diminutive consumption of spirits. He had, therefore, heard with satisfaction, as an evidence of the increased consumption of beer, that the consumption of malt had increased nearly one third. He was also happy to understand that there was a considerable decrease of the quantity of spirits consumed. The hopes, therefore, which he had formed of the people abstaining from the consumption of that nefarious compound (gin), and taking to the use of a more wholesome beverage, had not been falsified. As he understood from the noble Lord, that illicit distillation had not increased, he hoped that in the ensuing year the consumption of spirits would decrease still more. He would not further detain the House. He believed that the noble Lord was not too sanguine in the hopes he had formed of the resources of the country; and there was every likelihood that those hopes would be realised under the ordinary circumstances of the country. If there were no necessity for the country to make any new and greater exertions—if there were no new and unforeseen calamity—he should be willing to run the hazard for the four next quarters, though there was a deficient revenue. But when he contemplated the probability of there being a call upon us for greater exertions, and when nothing was done to diminish, but rather to increase, the accumulated pressure upon our finances, he could not look forward with anything like hopes that the deficiency would be supplied. He derived some hopes, indeed, from understanding that the noble Lord had abandoned his ideas of further reducing taxation;—he derived some hope from hearing the noble Lord express regret at the deficiency of the revenue, which made him believe that the noble Lord would return to the old practices, and endeavour to place the finances on a solid footing. At present, certainly, he looked forward with some apprehension to the revenue being insufficient to meet the expenditure. He was satisfied that if some efforts were not made to obtain a surplus, though it might not be a large one, we might be exposed to great difficulties.

explained, that there was no danger that the deficiency bills would not be paid off as they came due in the current year. He conceived that the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman were destitute of foundation. The right hon. Gentleman, too, was mistaken, in saying that the comparative Estimates should be for five quarters. As they were not calculated to include the surplus, but only from April to April, there were only four quarters on which the comparison was founded.

explained, that his allusion was not to the deficiency bills, but to the bills charged on the Consolidated Fund.

did not think it necessary to go into all the details of the statement of the noble Lord; but he must say, that there was not a man in the empire who did not look with great apprehension at the present state of our revenue, as growing out of the paralysed state of our trade and manufactures. The noble Lord admitted, that up to January last year, the deficiency of the revenue was 1,200,000l.; and the noble Lord expected that up to January 1833, the increase would be 800,000l. He should like to know, in the present aversion from speculation and present dulness of trade, when no man entered into any concerns beyond what were indispensable, how the noble Lord had founded his expectation? Numberless inquiries had been made by Parliament, but nothing had been done, and there would be the same uncertainty in trade hereafter as there had lately been. He therefore saw no good grounds for the noble Lord's anticipations, particularly as there was a probability that we might be called on, from the state of the Continent, to make further and expensive exertions. The noble Lord had made a strange admission in saying that he should not propose, in the present state of the finances, to make any reduction in the sugar duties. That was all the noble Lord said of the colonies. Formerly, the noble Lord had held out hopes of an improved fiscal policy being adopted towards the colonies, which was to be made known to the House of Commons. The noble Lord had, however, not said one word on the subject, to which the Government was so strongly committed. The hon. Member quoted the despatch of Lord Goderich, dated December 26, 1831, stating that a measure of financial relief for the colonies would be submitted to Parliament during the present Session. Why did not the noble Lord explain what measure was meant? After this announcement, an explanation was required. He must complain of the noble Lord not having given any explanation why this plan was abandoned, or why it was not brought forward. It was most careless in the Government, after it had propagated an edict, which had created a considerable excitement in the colonies, that it had not, upon this the proper occasion, taken the least notice of its own promises.

had not entered into any explanations as to the colonies, because the measure of relief was conditional on the adoption of the Orders in Council. In the Crown colonies, which had acted on these orders, it was intended, as the fairest means of relief for them, to remove a part of their local taxation. That, he believed, would give them a great relief, while it would not injure the sale of the produce of any other colonies.

said, that it did not require any great extent of figures and calculations to explain how the deficiency of the revenue had arisen. The cause of it was simply this—that the present and last Ministers of Finance had repealed a greater amount of taxes than the proper sources of supply for repealing taxes had warranted. In 1830, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had a fund to enable him with propriety to repeal taxes to the amount of four millions, consisting of the following items:—1st, the surplus of the revenue of 1829, amounting to nearly 2,000,000l; 2nd, the reduction the Duke of Wellington had made in the expenditure, to the amount of 1,000,000l.; and 3rd, the reducing of the interest on the four per cent stock, and on Exchequer Bills, amounting to nearly 1,000,000l. This was the whole of the fund, namely, 4,000,000l., which had existed since 1829, to justify a reduction of taxation. But the late Chancellor of the Exchequer exhausted the whole of this in 1830 by the taxes he repealed, and the further repeal by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, of taxes in 1831, to the amount of 1,500,000l., made it quite evident how a deficiency of 1,200,000l. had taken place. It was but fair, however, to say, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose his reduction of taxes on the ground of any existing surplus of revenue, but on a plan by which he intended to make good the sum he might lose by repealing taxes, by laying on others of a less objectionable kind in their stead. In this he had been defeated by the House refusing to agree to the new taxes he proposed; and although, under such a circumstance, the noble Lord would have acted more prudently by not going on with his intention to take off taxes, yet allowance should be made for the difficulty he was placed in of refusing to afford the public relief after having held it out to them. It was not his intention on this occasion to go any further into details of the reductions which were now proposed, but to make some general observations on the state of our finances. What he particularly wished to impress upon the House and the public was, that our object should not be confined to merely making good the existing deficiency of the revenue, but to make a large reduction of the present expenditure. He was willing to give credit to the noble Lord, and place confidence in his promise that he would do what lay in his power to diminish the expenditure; and he must add, that the noble Lord, if he continued to hold the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, which it was his wish he should do, would be the first Minister of Finance who would really be able to accomplish a great reduction; for he believed that no Chancellor of the Exchequer, up to that moment, however sincerely disposed to make an efficient retrenchment, had the power to make one, controlled as he was by all the adverse influence which governed majorities in that House under the old system of Representation. The noble Lord would be relieved from the pressure of those influences which had existed out of this House as well as in it, and at the same time he would be impelled to be economical by the new influence which would grow out of Reform in Parliament, by a different description of Members being chosen by the new electors of the United Kingdom. In this way he looked forward to seeing that the first great practical benefit the public would derive from the Reform of Parliament would be an efficient financial Reform. With respect to the practicability of making a great reduction in the expenditure, he entertained no kind of doubt. In the collection of the revenue, very little had been done to diminish the charge of it, as already stated by the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Goulburn), This charge amounted to about 4,000,000l. a year. A single circumstance, which he had stated elsewhere, and which had never been contradicted, was sufficient to prove the possibility and necessity of reducing it—namely, that some years ago a much larger amount of annual revenue was collected for a much smaller cost of collection. As to the military expenditure, if the same principle was adopted, namely, consolidation of departments, as that which had been so laudally carried into effect by the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to the naval departments, a great saving would be the result. The management of the military expenditure was now scattered over a great many departments, which led to a very unnecessary expense, and to the business being less efficiently performed than it would be under a different system. Why, he would ask, was any opposing influence allowed to stand in the way of such a Reform, when no opposition had been made by the Government to the Reform made in the naval department by the First Lord of the Admiralty? He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Secretary at War), that it was not at all understood how little power the Secretary at War had to regulate the finances of the array. His authority was little more than nominal; for, in point of fact, he acted so much under the control of those who had either a caprice for, or an interest in maintaining, a large military expenditure, that he could not make those retrenchments which he might consider necessary to he made. The gallant General below him (Sir George Murray) had said that the Commander-in-chief was under the control of the Secretary at War. To this statement he could not give any contradiction; but it was a statement of only one half of the case. The gallant General omitted to say, that the Secretary at War was, at the same time, very much under the control of the Commander-in-chief. It was quite notorious that for a number of years a contest had been carried on between Secretaries at War and Commanders-in-chief, as to the respective rights and the functions belonging to these offices; and those who knew how that contest had once been brought to something like a settlement were well aware that, by the rules laid down, the Secretary at War was placed in a situation that made his power over the finances of the army in a considerable degree subservient to the control of the Commander-in-chief. It remained so at this time, and he had no hesitation in saying, that some new arrangement must be made with respect to the duties and powers of these offices, to render the Secretary at War that efficient and responsible Minister of the Crown which he ought to be. He quite agreed with every thing the gallant General had said in praise of the present Commander-in-chief; and he was ready to allow, the public were greatly indebted to the Duke of York for the great improvements in our army; but his praise went no further than to the measures regarding the discipline and the command of the army, for he could not bring himself to say, that, in what regarded the finances of it, the interference of Commanders-in-chief had been of advantage to the public interests; although, with respect to the noble Lord who now filled the office, he personally had no reason to complain, he complained only of the system. As to the future amount of the military expenditure, he had no doubt that, when the several items of the Army Estimates came to be scrupulously investigated by a Reformed House of Commons, it would be found that a great many of them, which had been at all times upheld by military men in the House, as indispensably necessary for the efficiency of the military service, would not be agreed to. There was one more branch of the public expenditure to which he would allude, not but that there were many that he could with propriety mention, namely, that incurred upon the colonies. He thought there was much reason to complain that no Colonial Budget had been laid before the House in the course of this Session. It was now two years since the late Government promised that such a Budget should be produced. Without one, it was impossible for the House to know what they were doing in the financial affairs of the Colonies. No Member could tell what expense was right, and what was wrong. Without knowing what was the revenue of each colony, and what its expenditure it was impossible to understand upon what grounds the House was voting away the public money to make good the deficiencies of the several colonial establishments. If a statement were laid before the House, showing the revenue and the expenditure of each colony, the means would be afforded of taking measures to increase the one and diminish the other; and to do what was of all things the most to be desired—namely, make such arrangements in matters of colonial finance and trade, as would place the colonies in a situation to be able to defray the whole of the expense of providing for their military defence. This was a question of the greatest importance to the people of this country, for although it was not possible to state exactly what the sum was which they paid annually on account of the colonies, sufficient information had been produced to show that it must amount to between two and three millions a-year. Here there was an opportunity afforded of reducing the public expenditure to a great extent, and the public ought not to be contented till full advantage was taken of it. The policy of reducing the expenditure it was right to adopt, on the general principle of its being the duty of Parliament to take no more from the pockets of the people than was strictly necessary for defraying the public services; but might be further illustrated in detail, by showing that it was only by reducing it, that the great defects of our financial system could be got rid of. It was only by reducing it, that we could now take off those most injurious taxes which fell directly on some of our manufactures, such as glass, paper, soap, &c., which were taxes of the worst description, and no effort should be spared to get rid of them. There was also that great disgrace to our financial system, the trade in smuggling, which was created by our own acts. The business the House was occupied with only a few evenings since, of framing new penalties, and setting aside all rules of the Constitution, for more easily detecting and punishing smugglers, was one that was quite discreditable. It would certainly produce a considerable diminution of the revenue, to reduce the duties so as to put an end to smuggling, but as the articles were few which were smuggled, no pains should be spared to diminish our expenditure, so as to admit of this reduction of duties being effected. The expense incurred in one way or other in attempting to suppress smuggling was not short of 1,000,000l. a year; yet we quietly submitted to this, as if it was a matter of course, and as if this great evil of smuggling could not be abated With regard to the power of the country to bear its burthens, he felt no doubt that its resources were amply sufficient. He saw no reason for any despondency. The main causes of continued improvement and of new accumulation of wealth were unimpaired; and whatever might be said to the contrary, industry was still advancing, and would still continue to advance. All that was requisite was a wise and honest management of public affairs; and this we could now calculate upon seeing take place, as the regular result of the change which had been made in the constitution of the House of Commons.

thought the noble Lord had acted perfectly proper in laying before the House, as far as he was able, a fair, unvarnished, and candid estimate of the exact state of our financial prospects; and though these, certainly, were not very prosperous, for the noble Lord admitted a deficiency of 460,000l. on the current year, yet he did not think that deficiency was such as to give any serious cause for alarm. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that there was an elasticity in the resources of the country which ought to teach the House and the nation not to despair. At the same time, he did not think it politic to have a deficiency, for the Government might be driven either to incur fresh debt—and when he spoke of incurring fresh debt, he included the issuing of Exchequer Bills, and all those expedients which were resorted to for the purposes of turning off a temporary inconvenience; or it might be compelled as the only other course which would be open to it, to impose fresh taxes. Now, he thought it much better to keep those taxes which were already laid on, and to which trade had adapted itself, than to repeal them, and then to be driven to impose others in their stead. In the present state of public feeling, however, he must say, that he did not think it possible to keep up a great surplus revenue; and when he recommended Ministers to keep up an excess of revenue over expenditure, he did not contemplate such a surplus as might be appropriated to the purpose of paying off any part of the debt, but sufficient to provide against contingencies and save the country under ordinary circumstances, from the necessity of borrowing. It was much better to maintain a tax to which the people were habituated, than run the risk of being compelled to impose a new one. When a new tax was laid on, many ways were found of evading it, but when it had existed for five or six years, the Excise and Revenue Officers had discovered all the abuses which were practised against the revenue, and were consequently enabled to meet them, and therefore the revenue demands could not now be evaded with that facility to which the introduction of a new system would lead. Capital also had become used to its operation. He spoke of the generality of taxes, and without reference to the extreme case of a tax which might have become particularly odious. This was the gloomy part of the subject, and admitting the deficiency, he for one, must join with the noble Lord in opposing the repeal of any of the existing taxes. Even admitting the deficiency, he could not concur in the gloomy view which some persons took of the state of our finances—persons who even ventured to doubt our ability to maintain the public faith, or support the nation's honour abroad, he had no such opinion. Nor could he agree with those who contended that the state of the revenue indicated any increase of privation among the labouring classes. He had just read a paper lately before the House, containing a detailed account of the revenue of Excise; and when he noticed the progress of that revenue, he could not believe that the people were suffering from a diminution of comfort. Looking at that document too, he could not join with those who demanded a great increase of the paper currency of the country. There was a set of men who pretended to be deeply versed in the subject of money, and who had discovered that the currency was not sufficiently extensive to meet the necessities of the country, and that, whereas the Bank issued 17,000,000l. per quarter, they ought to issue 25,000,000l., which they, in their wisdom, had laid down to be the precise amount requisite for the circulation. He might have more confidence in them, if they were less precise, but they founded their calculations on the fact, that our manufactures were all going to decay, and that this amount of circulation was necessary to save them from ruin. Unfortunately for these calculators, the paper he had referred to showed such an increase of consumption in many of those articles which tend much to the comfort of the labouring classes, as to afford matter of congratulation, and give rise to a well-founded belief that trade was not going to decay, and that the distresses of the people had been diminished, and their privations mitigated. There was a deficiency in the revenue, but no proof that the consumption of the people had fallen off, This theory then of the deficiency of the amount of the currency, was not in the least borne out by the documents which had been laid upon the Table, and to which he had already referred. Other individuals had stated, with some pride, that there had been some increase in the auction duties, quite forgetting that such an increase must more or less be founded upon the distresses of the country. But this was an argument upon false premises; for, from the papers before the House, it appeared that in the year 1832, as compared with the returns of the three preceding years, there had been a decrease of 726,225l, in the auction duties. There had also been an increase in the duties on bricks, though there was a decrease of the duties on tiles, which might be attributed to the preference which was given by builders to slates. He also thought that the duty on tiles was deserving of the consideration of the noble Lord opposite, with a view to its reduction. The revenue from glass had decreased, but that arose from the practice of making glass thinner, and consequently a less quantity would cover a larger surface. In the article of British spirits, there had been some falling off in the duty, but in the consumption of malt there had been an increase of 7,600,000 bushels on the average consumption of the last three years. When he heard the Beer Bill discussed, in connexion with the late hours and the dissipation and idleness which its opponents described it as producing, he must say, that he did not think that a fair way of treating the subject; but this he would say, that when he saw the population consuming so much of that which might be considered as one of the necessaries of life, he would appeal to that fact as a proof and test of the increasing comforts of the great mass of the population of this country. In soap, in 1832, as compared with the average of the three preceding years, there was an increased consumption of 5,000,000 lbs. [Mr. Hume: There is a decrease in Scotland.] Yes; but the decrease in the consumption of soap, was confined exclusively to Scotland. Next he found that the increase in the consumption of tea, in 1832, as compared with the average of the three preceding years, was 1,583,000 lbs.; and how then could he admit that the consuming power of this country was diminished, when he found an increase in the consumption of those articles most necessary for the comfort of the industrious classes? He rejoiced to see this state of things; the additional consumption of these articles afforded him, he repeated, the greatest possible gratification, for this, among other reasons, because he saw in it a strong proof that the natural resources of the country were not in the least deteriorated, and that they were capable, if required, of supporting even an increase of taxation, if such a thing should, under any future circumstances, be called for. There was another point in the noble Lord's statement at which he felt disposed to express his satisfaction, namely, the amount of the diminution in the public expenditure. The noble Lord had stated that the reduction made in the public expenditure for the year amounted to upwards of 2,000,000l., and that undoubtedly was a great reduction; but then the question occurred whether the whole of this reduction would be a permanent, or whether it would be a temporary one. He believed that this reduction in the public expenditure for the year chiefly arose from reductions made in the army extraordinaries, and also in the navy. The reductions that had been effected in the navy, he believed were mainly attributable to the abstaining from the building of new ships, and the consequent purchase of stores during the past year. But the time would come when it would be necessary for us to build new ships, and to purchase additional stores; and though, therefore. Ministers were perfectly justified in making such a reduction in the navy estimates this year, it was one that could not be regarded as permanent. The reductions effected in the army estimates he believed were confined to reductions made in the army extraordinaries, and with regard to the militia. The reduction with regard to the latter, arose from the militia not having been called out for training this year, and that, therefore, could not be looked upon as a permanent reduction. The reduction in the army extraordinaries amounted, he believed, to 200,000l., and that alone would be regarded as a permanent reduction. It was necessary, therefore, before they came to consider the 2,000,000l. and upwards, of reduction, which the noble Lord announced, to inquire into the circumstances under which a great portion of that reduction was effected, in order that they might be enabled to judge whether any, or what portion of that reduction would be looked upon as permanent. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Parnell) in his expectations that a Reformed Parliament would still further reduce the public expenditure. He was sure that that right hon. Baronet would give the noble Lord opposite credit for every desire at present to reduce the public expenditure as far as he possibly could, and he would put it to the right hon. Baronet whether he thought that that noble Lord, if he could have proposed any further reductions in the expenditure, would have experienced any difficulty on the part of the present Parliament in carrying such a proposal into effect?

said, he did not think that he would.

Why then did the right hon. Baronet, giving, as he did, the noble Lord credit for every disposition to reduce the public expenditure, and conceding, as he did, that the present Parliament was most ready to support that noble Lord in measures of such a description, why, he begged to ask, did that right hon. Baronet assert, that a Reformed Parliament would do more in that way? Partial as he might be to the constitution of the present Parliament, still he would assert, without the fear of contradiction, that, if the noble Lord opposite had felt it his duty to propose to that House such reductions as those alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, in the collection of the revenue, and in the construction of public Boards, he would have met with no opposition from any one single Member in it, from partial or interested motives; and he was sure that, if any such opposition should be offered under such circumstances to the noble Lord, it would not have the slightest chance of success. It was not at all improbable that hereafter still further reductions might be effected in the public expenditure, but he did not think that any new constitution of Parliament would force on the Government greater reductions than a sense of duty would induce the Government to propose, and which the good sense and good feeling of such a Parliament as the present would go with them in carrying into effect. He did not think, therefore, that the self-interested views of any Gentleman in that House, constituted as it at present was, would oppose the slightest impediment to the Government carrying into effect any reductions which it should feel it to be its duty to propose, and he certainly did not anticipate any such diminution of expenditure from a Reformed Parliament as the right hon. Baronet seemed to expect. The noble Lord had attributed the falling off which had taken place in the revenue to three causes, the cholera, the state of public excitement, and the state of the currency. Now, with regard to the first cause, he thought that the noble Lord had under-rated the influence of it, and that it had produced much greater effect in that way than he seemed to suppose. The undue apprehensions which had been entertained by foreign countries on account of the cholera, obviously did much to injure the trade and to diminish the exports of this country during the past year. With respect to the political excitement in the country, the noble Lord thought it was about to abate, and, on that score, reckoned on an increase of the revenue. He hoped that it might be so, but he saw no great diminution of political excitement in the instance of Ireland.

was understood to say across the Table, that the revenue of Ireland had increased during the past year.

said, he was surprised at the fact, for he had never known such an effect produced by such a cause before. It might be that the public excitement would subside in England: but he did not think that the changes which had been made in the constitution of that House at all calculated to produce an increase in the revenue. On the contrary, he thought that the result of those changes would be, that apprehensions would prevail for the security of property—apprehensions which were likely to affect considerably the revenue, and the productive powers of the country, and that the political excitement would continue as rife, and the Political Unions as flourishing and as noisy, as ever. The third cause to which the noble Lord attributed the falling off in the revenue was the state of the currency; and the noble Lord had observed, that the changes which had taken place, as well as the uncertainty which prevailed with respect to ultimate proceedings, and the effect produced by the fluctuation in the exchanges, had doubtless contributed much to that state of things in which they at present found themselves. Now, in his (Sir Robert Peel's) opinion, the noble Lord had diminished the consequences of the Cholera, and he had much over-rated the effects of the changes in the currency. Undoubtedly, however, the Bank had contracted its issues, and, as a consequence, the proceedings of the country banks must have been limited, and the capital required for the operations of commerce decreased. But if this were so, how necessary did it become, on the part of the noble Lord and his colleagues, to seize the earliest possible opportunity to place the foundation of the currency on some sure and satisfactory basis. Parliament should not be allowed to separate without some information being given to it by the noble Lord as to the course which the Government intended to pursue with respect to the question now under agitation. He (Sir Robert Peel) remembered well the Bullion Committee, and the difference of opinions which then prevailed, and was therefore convinced that the question could not be too soon settled. Although the Members of the Committee were bound to secrecy, the noble Lord, as a Minister of the Crown, had his own views on the subject, and he was bound, for the sake of the country, to make them public at the present moment. It was possible, perhaps certain, that the Committee would make no Report during the present Session; and unless Parliament assembled for a short sitting in October or November, which he supposed was rather improbable, six months must elapse before the country could receive information on that most interesting subject. He repeated, full six months; for the elections could not, under any circumstances, take place much before December, and as there were snows and storms, particularly in the North at that season, which must be taken into account, it was not at all improbable that the elections might not take place during the present year. With six months of recess, then, before them, he put it to the noble Lord, whether it would not be politic to put an end to that state of uncertainty which the noble Lord admitted to have so strong an effect on the issues and the exchanges, by at once stating what were the views of the Government on the question. No one expected the noble Lord to go into the details which were to form the subject of deliberation hereafter; but the noble Lord and the Government must have already made up their minds on the great leading points of the course they intended to pursue; and if the noble Lord described correctly the prejudicial effects of the existing state of uncertainty, he recommended him to put a termination to it by avowing at once the opinion of the Government. Such a course of proceeding would have an immediately beneficial effect; it would give stability to the operations of commerce, and might have no inconsiderable effect on improving the revenue. Referring again to that, and the principal subject of the night's discussion, he must again say, that he thought it unfortunate, that for two successive years, there should have been a deficiency in the revenue; but he did not thence infer, that there had been any decay in the natural resources of the country. He was quite sure that those resources were fully adequate to meet any emergencies which we might encounter, and to maintain and preserve the national faith. He was certain that this country possessed within itself fully the means of paying its just debt, and that it would repudiate with scorn any scheme for pretending to liquidate that debt by an unjust reduction of that which the public creditor had a right to expect. He was confident that not only the wealth but the spirit of Englishmen would always prevent them from stooping to so dishonest an expedient, and he was perfectly certain, that they would incur any sacrifice to maintain and uphold the national faith. The noble Lord had adverted to the state of the colonies. He (Sir Robert Peel) approached that part of the subject with pain, for he believed no Parliament had ever separated before, leaving the colonies in a state so little satisfactory to the mother country. All they knew with respect to the colonies was, that the Government did not intend to exact obedience from the islands possessing separate Legislatures to those Orders in Council which had been the object of so much contention. He wished, however, to know, whether the Government persisted in its intention to force the obedience of the Crown colonies. Every one knew, that the Orders, although nominally enforced in the Crown colonies, were universally disobeyed; and he put it to the noble Lord whether, under such circumstances, it would not be more consistent with the honour and dignity of the Crown, to withdraw them altogether? While he was on this subject, he wished also to ask, what reward the Government intended to bestow on the colonies that accepted the Orders? The fiscal regulations had been abandoned—the discriminating duties were not to be collected; but, if he understood the noble Lord right, the mother country was to pay a portion of the Civil List of the obedient colonies. Now, he put it to the noble Lord, whether, after all they had heard of the necessity of compelling the colonies to bear the expense of their own government, such an act was not retrograding, and a departure from the avowed determination of those who were placed over that department? He could not sit down without adding a few words on the subject of foreign policy; and, with regard to that, and the state of our foreign relations, they were left in a state of equal ignorance. When there were rumours of naval armaments on the coast of Portugal, and when there were rumours, God knew whether well-founded or not, of naval armaments being about to proceed to the Scheldt, it was but common justice to the House and to the country, that some explanation should be afforded to them, before they separated, on the subject of our foreign relations. He supposed that the expenses of those armaments would come under the ordinary estimates of the year, as otherwise the usual course was, for the Crown to send down a message to Parliament for the extraordinary expenses necessary for such purposes. Now he could not but complain that Parliament was about to separate without any information on this subject. He wished the noble Lord would tell them whether the king of Holland would assent to the final treaty proposed to him by the Conference? Or whether, if such were not the case, that most dreadful alternative, the uniting the forces of England and France, for the purpose of compelling him to do so, was the only course left to this country to pursue? He thought they had every right, also, to complain of the course which had been adopted towards Portugal. A civil war now raged there, and a contest was going on for the throne of that country; and he was persuaded, that neither one nor the other would have ever existed but for the direct encouragement given from this country. A contest for the throne of Portugal, when encouraged by England, was a thing that must always be deprecated as being totally opposed to the true policy and best interests of this country. Indeed civil war could not exist there without damaging the interests of Britain. With respect to Holland, he could only say, that if the king refused to ratify the treaty, then the armaments which must follow would disturb the calculations of the noble Lord, and the surplus he had calculated on would not be realised. Whether, however, the noble Lord's calculations were or were not realised, whatever was done by this country, whatever money was expended to force Holland to sign the twenty-four Articles, would be expended in a manner contrary to the true interests of England—against the independent rights of the smaller powers of Europe—and, if incurred in conjunction with France directed against Holland, would be inconsistent with that course of feeling which the wisest British statesmen had always pursued, and which might be pregnant with consequences to the peace of the world which no man could foresee.

said, he would take the liberty of making a remark upon a subject which much concerned a great body of his constituents. It would be remembered that there was a stamp duty of considerable amount upon bills of exchange, which duty was increased a few years ago, and it was found to bear very hard proportionally upon bills for small sums. Formerly, a great part of the transactions in that large manufacturing district, with which he was concerned, was carried on by the circulation of these small inland bills of exchange, and it was a circulation calculated to be of great additional utility since the withdrawal of the small notes. That measure had, undoubtedly, many strong and powerful reasons to recommend it; but it had, unquestionably, been attended with a great decrease of the circulating medium, and a stinting of the means which gave life and activity to commerce. The circulation of bills of exchange drawn on account of country banks upon London bankers at a date not exceeding two or three months, was well adapted to fill up the vacuum without any of the corresponding disadvantages. From terminating at a specific time, they did not run the risk of creating panic like small notes, by being presented all at once; nor an unlimited and excessive circulation, such as was apt to arise out of re-issuable paper which had no limit as to time. It might be further remarked, that they derived fresh security from the extent of their circulation, as every additional hand through which they passed, and every additional name indorsed on their back, furnished additional vouchers for their authenticity, and an additional security for their value. Now this medium of circulation, which would thus appear to be at once both wholesome and useful, had become very rare in the manufacturing district where it formerly prevailed so much, owing, in a great degree, to the high rate of duty which caused the sum of 100l., if drawn in small bills, to be subject to twice the amount of duty that would be required, if drawn for in one bill. It happened hence that the manufacturers were put to considerable expense by having large bills to be broken into small ones; or else the balance of their accounts remained unsettled in the merchant's books, (which was the very worst state of things) from a disinclination to incur the expense of a stamp for a small balance; for though the difference of expense might seem very trifling, it must be remembered, that in concerns of trade, profits were made of very small savings upon a large number of transactions. It was true that the present state of the revenue did not invite his noble friend to consent to the reduction of duties; but it appeared most strikingly in the present instance, that the increase in the scale of duties had been attended with a very great diminution of their gross amount. He hoped that his noble friend would, during the recess, give his best attention to these considerations, with a view of effecting a diminution of the duties upon exchange bills for small sums at a limited date.

expressed his satisfaction at the statement of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it was much more consolatory than the country, under all circumstances, had reason to expect. For his part, he was bound to say, that he saw no grounds for any thing like despondency with regard to the revenue of the country. According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was every probability of an increase for the year 1833; and, on the same principle, he should anticipate a similar increase for the year 1834 if, as he hoped, the noble Lord persisted in his present course, and made no attempt to raise a sinking fund. It had been said that the labouring classes were proved, by the condition of the revenue, to be in a state of prosperity. The population of the country was yearly increasing, and consequently there might naturally be expected a proportionate increase of excised articles. He did not wish to draw a discouraging sketch of the state of society; but he feared much, that the returns, which showed an increase in the consumption of tea and sugar, were balanced by a falling off in the demand for beef and the necessaries of life. With respect to the noble Lord's statements on the subject of wines, he could only say, that he had always been adverse to the increase of duty on the wines consumed by the middle classes, and the reduction of the duties paid on the more luxurious beverage of the rich, and the revenue was now suffering under the effect of the change. He was afraid, however, that any change which might be made by the Legislature in particular duties would not in the end be satisfactory, and he would therefore recommend to the attention of the noble Lord some plan for a modified property tax. That, he was convinced, was the only sure way of alleviating the burthens of the lower classes. All interests were at present labouring under difficulties—agriculture, commerce, trade and manufacture, were in a state any thing but prosperous; and, if something were not done to afford them relief, the affairs of the country could not go on successfully. The noble Lord ought not to suppose, unless some means could be devised for relieving those interests, and for stimulating all the branches of industry, that it would be possible to continue the present rate of taxation. He must frankly say, however, that in his opinion the financial statement of the noble Lord was very candid and satisfactory, and that the noble Lord had rather underrated than overrated his resources, and had made ample allowance for any defalcations of revenue that could be apprehended.

should not have taken a part in this debate, if the noble Lord had not alluded to a statement which he had made, a few nights ago, and which the noble Lord had put in a manner rather beyond what the observation warranted. He had certainly said, when a reduction of the duty on coffee was proposed, that he thought the apprehension of a loss to the revenue, accruing from the adoption of that proposition, was not much to be attended to, in what he then considered to be the state of the finances—namely, a state exhibiting such a deficiency as would render it imperatively necessary to take some strong measure, in the course of the next year, with respect to the taxation of the country, and the equalization of Income and Expenditure; but the noble Lord would recollect that that sentiment, was uttered under an erroneous impression of the condition of the revenue. He was extremely happy to find that the noble Lord had made some reductions, which he had taken the liberty of advocating. As the subject had not yet been more particularly alluded to, he would take the opportunity of returning his thanks to the noble Lord on the part of the West-India interests (although he was unconnected with them), for the reduction he had made in their favour—a reduction so important, that even if it had tended to increase the deficiency in the revenue, he should have supported it. Without entering into the general question, he might be permitted to say, that there ought to be some surplus. He knew the noble Lord would not agree with him in his opinion of the propriety of maintaining a sinking fund; but there was one mode of extending the revenue, which he thought would be most beneficial—he meant the conversion into redeemable annuities of certain perpetual annuities. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether Government had taken steps to prevent that conversion? The arrangement would proceed exactly upon the principle of a sinking fund; but still, for many reasons, it would have a superiority over any other mode of accomplishing the same object. There was one other point to which he wished to address himself. The noble Lord had referred, in a very handsome manner, to the reduction in official salaries, and other heads of public expenditure, that had been effected by the former Government. He wished the noble Lord would only present to the House a statement of all the reductions which had been effected during the last five years. He would say, that, without imposing a single tax, the Duke of Wellington effected reductions in the public expenditure to a greater extent than had been done by any preceding Minister. He could not accuse his Majesty's present Ministers of having neglected to do justice to the late Government on this subject; but really, the misconception which seemed to exist throughout the country upon this point was quite painful, and positively heart-rending. It was only a very short time back, during the prevalence of great political excitement, that a meeting at which he believed the hon. member for Middlesex presided, was called, to address the King on the supposed retirement of his Ministers; and a handbill was circulated on that occasion, in which a comparison was drawn between the merits of Earl Grey and the Duke of Wellington. Under the head of the latter were the words, "increase of taxation;" under the former, "reduction of expenditure;" it being perfectly notorious, as he had already observed, that the Duke of Wellington had reduced the taxation of the country to an extent—all things considered—greater than any Minister who had immediately preceded him; and every tax which he reduced, was one that pressed more immediately upon the lower orders. That led him to notice a remark which fell from the right hon. Baronet, the member for Queen's County (Sir Henry Parnell), with reference to the opposition supposed to have been hitherto given by the Members of this corrupt House of Commons, to all reductions in the expenditure of the country. Under the present constitution of the House, the most eminent of the reductions that had been made by both the late and the present Governments—for there was no difference between them in that respect—had been in the very offices which were generally supposed to be bestowed upon members of Parliament and their connexions. Observations had been made with respect to the reduction of the duty on wine, and the facilitating of the intercourse between this country and France, and the House would permit him to remind it, that, agreeing with the noble Lord on principle, he had taken the liberty of stating, in an early period of the Session, that, in the then state of our connexion with France, it was not the proper time to make that reduction. It certainly was his opinion that reductions of that description should be kept under our command, with a view to our relations with foreign governments, Mr. George Villiers, he believed, had lately been sent to Paris, for the purpose of entering into a negotiation upon this subject. He should wish to know whether there was any probability that, before the rising of the House for the vacation, any such negotiation would be concluded. With reference to the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, on the statement of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, as to the condition of the Excise, the hon. Member was in error, for it was clear that, on the average of any number of years, the consumption of the people, even of beef and other substantial food, had certainly increased. At the same time, he was by no means disposed to deny that it might be true that the consumption of exciseable articles had increased, because they were substituted for articles which were not exciseable. With reference to the state of our foreign relations, he was not disposed to enter into that question, because he was not without hope that, even at this late period of the Session, some exposé might be made by the noble Lord at the head of the foreign affairs upon this subject. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, observed, that Parliament never was in such a state of ignorance, with respect to the foreign relations of this country, as at this moment. This was true. He believed that it had been caused by the circumstance of our having adopted, since the peace, a policy of which he entirely approved—the policy of keeping our army and navy in such a condition that small expeditions and armaments might be, at any time, despatched to any part of the world without increasing the estimates for the current year. If this had not been the case, the present Administration could not have taken the steps which they had adopted without recurring to the House. At the same time he must say, that the present Government had availed themselves, to a greater extent than any other, of the facilities afforded them by this state of things, to avoid communications with the House. In conclusion, he would observe, that he never did hear a Budget in which there appeared to him to be less exaggeration (as far as he could judge) than that which the noble Lord had produced to-night. He had a perfect confidence in the resources of the country, and he trusted that the time would come when the House might be enabled to congratulate the country upon possessing a surplus.

wished for some explananation with regard to the manner in which the administration of affairs in the colonies was to be left. It seemed with regard to the Crown colonies, that they were to be relieved from either a part, or the whole of their internal expenses. He wished to know whether they were to be relieved from the whole, or only from a part of those expenses; and from what period the boon was to date? He wished also to know whether the same boon was to be held out to all the colonies on the condition of their acquiescence in the Orders in Council? Adverting to what had fallen from the hon. member for Worcester on the subject of agriculture, he must say, that he did not think that agriculture was in the depressed state which the hon. Gentleman supposed. The farmers were perfectly satisfied.

was bound to differ from the noble Lord on the subject of the state of agriculture. He expressed his astonishment at the congratulations which the noble Lord had received on his financial exposé. Recollecting the last Budget, it appeared to him that we had got out of the frying-pan into the fire. As the noble Lord's former promises had not been fulfilled, he believed that the same would be the case with the promises which the noble Lord had that evening made. He saw no grounds for a single hope that there would be any diminution of taxation. He was sure, that the noble Lord opposite applied himself night and day to the duties of his office; but although he had a great respect for the noble Lord, and was always pleased to see him as the president of a cattle show—yet, hating flattery as he hated the devil, he could not compliment the noble Lord on the manner in which he discharged the functions of his high station. He trusted that he should soon see the benches opposite cleared of the present occupants.

must, on that, as on all other occasions, recommend to his Majesty's Government a course of proceeding with respect to the colonies, which would inspire them with confidence, by giving no countenance to those who would excite and inflame the passions of the negro population; and by impressing on the people of this country that they had the greatest interest in the preservation of the prosperity of those colonies. By such conduct they would reconcile the colonies to the load of taxation under which they at present laboured. He hoped that, in the recess, Ministers would apply their minds to this important subject. It was painful to see, among the pledges required from candidates for return to Parliament, one that they would support certain measures respecting the colonies, without any regard to justice, or to the great interests of the empire. He trusted that the candidates would tell the people how fatal an acquiescence in their wishes would be, not only to the interests of the colonies, but to their own.

said: The right hon. Baronet, the member for the Queen's County, complains that I have not brought forward a colonial Budget. But, Sir, there are greater difficulties in the way of proposing such a statement than the right hon. Gentleman seems to be aware of. We have been able to prepare Estimates of the charges of some of the colonies, and the Estimates respecting the others are in a forward state; so that I hope that by the next Session of Parliament, we shall be able to produce a Budget for the whole of the colonies. With respect, Sir, to the question which has been put to me by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, I have to say, that it is impossible that the colonies could be induced to adopt those measures for the improvement of the condition of the slaves, which we all have so much at heart, without this country's adopting some measures for the relief of the colonies from the distresses under which they are at present suffering. But when I was asked before, respecting the intentions of the Government in this matter, I said that I should not propose any measure of direct fiscal relief other than by a reduction of the taxes on colonial produce. But, in consequence of the appointment of a Committee, in each House of Parliament, to inquire into the condition of the slaves, and other matters connected with the Colonies, it has been thought right to withdraw the Orders in Council from those colonies which have Legislative Assemblies; and it was felt, at the same time, that it would be unfair to exact those taxes from such of the Crown colonies as had adopted the Orders in Council. But the right hon. Baronet asks, do we mean to give them this relief, if they resist the adoption? I have only to say, Sir, that it is not the intention of the Government to do so. The measure will not expose this country to any expense, and from what I have heard, I believe that the giving relief, to the colonies in their internal taxation, will be felt to be a great benefit to them, I shall not go further into the subject at present. But when the question comes regularly before the House, I shall, of course, be prepared to give the fullest explanation. The right hon. member for Totness asks whether the Government has taken any measures to prevent the conversion of permanent into redeemable annuities? I think, Sir, that the conversion of perpetual into terminable annuities affords a feasible means of reducing the amount of the debt; and the Government have taken no step to prevent that conversion. But perhaps. Sir, the question of the right hon. Gentleman refers to a determination which has been come to, respecting the purchase of the annuities of persons above eighty years of age. It was found that annuitants above that age took an unfair advantage of the regulation, and that their annuities were made the object of a systematic speculation upon the Stock Exchange; and an alteration was made in consequence, limiting the age of the annuitants who might avail themselves of the conversion to eighty. The right hon. Gentleman has also asked if I have any hope that France will give us commercial advantages, in return for the arrangements which we have made in favour of French trade? Sir, I have sanguine hopes that the government of France will relax some of the restrictions upon our trade. I do not say that anything of the kind has yet been done, but I have strong hopes that it will be done. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, entered, as he fairly might, into a variety of topics connected with the finances of the country, respecting some of which I entirely agree with him, although I cannot go so far as he goes respecting them all. I agree with him as to the policy of not always changing a bad tax for one less oppressive. I agree with him as to the propriety of having a large excess of revenue over expenditure; and I could have wished that it was possible for me to calculate upon a larger excess; but I think that in the circumstances of the country, the arrangement which I have adopted will be found equal to the exigencies of the State. The right hon. Baronet says, that I have not made sufficient allowance for the effect, which, it appears to him, the spread of the cholera will have upon our trade. It may be that I have not. But it seems to me that there is every reason to believe that the effect of any apprehensions respecting that pestilence will not occasion, after this, any great interruption to commerce, as there are few countries in Europe un-visited by it, and there has been but little security found against the visitation by restrictions upon trade. The right hon. Baronet says, that I lay too much stress upon the contraction of the currency. Certainly I do think that it has had a great effect upon the trade of the country. But, he says, that if I thought so, I ought to take care that the Committees upon the Bank Charter should terminate its labours before the end of the Session. He says that I ought to state the opinion of the Government. But, Sir, I think that it would be extremely inexpedient for the Government to give its opinion upon a question which the House of Commons had referred to the consideration of a Committee. He says, that the effect of the uncertainty will be to cause a contraction of the currency. But I cannot think so. I believe that, if the affairs of the Bank be properly conducted, the extent of the currency must depend principally upon the state of the foreign exchanges. He says, that Parliament never separated before in so much uncertainty respecting the state of our foreign relations. But surely, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that the cause of the uncertainty is, that the negotiations are not concluded; and whilst they are pending, the Government would not be justified in making any disclosure. But this much I am ready to say, that I hope and trust that there is nothing in those negotiations to make us despair of an amicable conclusion. As far as I can see, there is no reason to be apprehensive of war. On the contrary, I think there is every hope that the pending negotiation will come to a favourable conclusion. Those are, I believe, the principal topics on which it is necessary for me to make any observation in reply; and I can only express my satisfaction that the House has generally admitted my statement to be fair, and without exaggeration.

, was of opinion, that the Government ought to be prepared to bring forward some measure respecting the Bank before the end of the Session. He looked upon the question of the Renewal of the Bank Charter to be one of the most important that was ever under the consideration of Parliament. With respect to the colonial policy of the present Government, he must say, that it was fraught with the greatest perils. The Orders in Council were most impolitic and unjust, and had been enforced by a most scandalous means. It had been said that relief was to be given to such of the colonies as had adopted those Orders. But the fact was, that no colony had done so—no colony could do so—they were wholly impracticable; and if any man strove to act upon them, his ruin would be inevitable. The effect of the policy of the Government was such that there was one colony, St. Lucia, from which not one hogshead of sugar had been this year imported. The conduct of the Government was past endurance. The character of the colonists had been held up to the execration of their fellow-subjects, and their property and means of subsistence had been destroyed.

said, that as the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had made the adoption of the Orders in Council a condition of the fiscal relief, the noble Lord was bound to controvert the assertion that they were impracticable, by laying before the House some documents, to show that they had been adopted and carried into effect in some one of the colonies.

said, that the present was not the fit time for going into the discussion. When the question came regularly before the House, he should be ready to give the fullest information.

said, that though the hour was certainly late (half past one), yet he trusted that there would be no opposition to the going on with the question. He trusted hon. Members would recollect that it had been before postponed at the request of some Members at the other side of the House, in order to give them an opportunity to state their objections. He hoped, therefore, that, at that late hour of the morning, they would not interpose any further delay.

wished, as many of the Irish Members interested in this discussion had left the House, and particularly as the hon. and learned members for the Univer-versities of Dublin and Oxford had gone away under the impression that the vote would not be gone on with to-night by the right hon. Secretary to the Treasury, that the vote might be postponed, to give those hon. Gentlemen an opportunity to state their objections to it.

denied, that he had entered into any understanding that the vote should not be proceeded with. He had been asked by hon. Members in the early part of the evening, if he thought the vote would be proceeded with, and he had said, that he could not take upon him to state, as the debate on the sugar duties might occupy a long time, but if, after that, he could bring it on, he was determined that it should not be postponed.

said, that he could not conceive how any Protestant or Presbyterian could on principle contribute to the education of persons to propagate a doctrine to which they were opposed as anti-Christian. Moreover the priests of the Catholic religion were now the great leaders of sedition and agitation. He regretted that the hon. members for Kerry and Louth were not in their places, for he was astonished, how, after the solemn oath that they, as Catholic Members, had taken on their entrance into that House, not to interfere with the institutions of the Established Church—he was surprised how they could find it possible to reconcile with the spirit of that oath their oft repeated endeavours to upset that Church. He recollected that the hon. and learned member for Louth had declared that he was not an enemy to the Protestant Church, but he also recollected that, on a former occasion, he had also declared that he could not be its friend. He thought the hon. and learned Member would find some difficulty in selecting the intermediate position he might choose to occupy between those conflicting declarations. He hoped in future, whenever those hon. Members came to speak on tithes, they would treat that subject very slightly.

hoped that any further discussion would be postponed, and assured the House that the hon. and learned members for the Universities of Dublin and Oxford, and the hon. and gallant member for Dundalk, had left the House under an impression that the Secretary of the Treasury had assured them that the vote could not possibly come on that night.

again denied emphatically that he had given any such undertaking. The vote for Maynooth, now before the House, stood upon quite a different footing from the vote to the College of Maynooth in the former Session of Parliament. The sum now intended to be granted was to provide for the expenses of that college which had been incurred since last January, and the House would feel that it would be the highest injustice to refuse that which went to provide for expenses already incurred, and engagements already taken. It was on these grounds that the former grant had been given to the Kildare-street Society; it had been agreed on by Parliament to discontinue the grant to that society in future. The voting this grant of money to Maynooth did not by any means pledge Parliament to the continuance of it in future, and therefore the objects of the hon. Gentlemen opposite would be just as well answered by giving a notice for any particular night to raise a discussion upon the policy of continuing further grants to Maynooth College. If hon. Gentlemen had really laboured under the impression, however, that the vote would not come on to-night, and had consequently gone away, he should be sorry to press the vote, and would consent to postpone it.

said, he could not consent to any further postponement, and he trusted his right hon. friend would not persevere in that intention. It had now come on a third time; it had been postponed the first time at the request of hon. Members at the other side, who said that hon. Members had left the House who had intended to oppose it. The second time it was brought on at nine o'clock in the evening, when, even at that early hour, the further postponement was requested on the part of Gentlemen who were opposed to it, and was agreed to by his right hon. friend, those hon. Members having stated that they were not then prepared to enter into the discussion. That postponement had been acceded to by Government, but upon the understanding that, upon the first opportunity, the discussion should be proceeded with, and the vote disposed of.

said, that, though he was opposed to the grant, he felt bound in honour and fairness to state, that his hon. friend, the member for the University of Oxford, had not gone away upon the faith of any undertaking from the Secretary of the Treasury that the grant would not come on, but, that, on the contrary, he had told him when leaving the House, that the Secretary for the Treasury had mentioned to him that he intended to bring on the vote that night if there was time to do so, but his hon. friend did not think there possibly could be time, and had, therefore, gone away.

stated, that he had been sitting for a considerable time with the hon. member for Dundalk, and the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, and both had mentioned, before they had left the House, that they were aware that the vote was to be brought on that night if there was time, but, from the lateness of the hour, they considered that quite impossible.

said, that under these circumstances, and after those explanations, which fully bore out his own impression, he could not consent to any further postponement. The discussion had already been postponed on two former occasions, at the request of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly on one occasion, when he had brought it on so early as half-past nine in the evening. These hon. Gentlemen still had, as he before stated, a power to raise a discussion on the principle on any evening they pleased, by giving a regular notice to that effect whenever they might think fit, and such a discussion would, in his mind, answer all their objects.

opposed the grant. The Government had refused a grant to the Protestant Society of Kildare-street, and he would never consent to a grant for a Catholic College unless all parties were treated equally.

said, that the argument of its being politic to educate Catholic priests at home, instead of abroad, appeared to him to be quite fallacious. It had been mistakenly supposed that Catholic priests, when educated as formerly, in France and Spain, returned to this country with all the prejudice of foreigners against our institutions, superadded to the well known prejudices of the Catholics towards every fair, free, and liberal institution of constitutional Government. They had, however, found by experience the fallacy that priests educated at home were not more attached to our Constitution, or less prejudiced against the English Government, than priests educated on the continent. The priests of Maynooth, he would assert, were found to be considerably more violent, and more opposed to the institutions of Great Britain, and to British connexion altogether, than those educated abroad. He asserted, that the priests educated at Maynooth were admitted by every one to be the leaders of sedition and agitation. He, at all events, should not be contradicted when he said, that the priests educated at Maynooth were inferior in every respect, both as to education, conduct, and loyalty, to those who had been educated abroad. He knew no one who had ever dissented from that opinion. He also opposed this grant, because a grant had been withdrawn from the Kildare-street Society; and it was too bad that a Catholic institution for education should be upheld by the public money, and that the Protestant institutions of the Kildare-street Society, whose services to the cause of education and truth were admitted everywhere, should be ungratefully abandoned.

could not avoid congratulating the hon. member for Crail (Mr. Andrew Johnston) upon the very argumentative and illuminating speech, with which he had gratified the House. The hon. Member had set out by opposing the Maynooth grant, but, in the course of his discursive and adventurous flights, he had not thought it beneath his notice to pounce upon such ignoble quarry as himself. Indeed, he could not fail to compliment the hon. Member upon the consistency he manifested. He loved consistency, even though it should be a consistency in bigotry, and the assertion of opinions which happily were of too antique and anterior a character for the age in which we lived, and for the intelligence and liberality that was everywhere springing up around us. He could not but admire the Christian charity which the hon. Member had so laudably manifested in his zeal for upholding that religion of whose principles he was so felicitous an exemplification—that religion which inculcated amongst its first moral precepts, "Do unto another as thou wishest another to do unto thee." But let that pass, he would not deem it of sufficient importance to vindicate the attack which had been made by the hon. Member upon himself, and upon that religion of which he was a member. He could not avoid coupling in this testimonial of the charity by which their actions were governed, the hon. member for Crail with the hon. Member who had just sat down. He regretted that he could not give those hon. Gentlemen equal credit for their knowledge of facts. They had ascribed the agitation and resistance to tithes in Ireland to the conduct of the priests educated at Maynooth College. Now it was well known that that opposition to tithes had also been with equal sagacity ascribed to the writings and the exertions of a distinguished prelate of the Catholic Church, the rev. Dr. Doyle. But he presumed they would not have used an argument which destroyed itself, had they not been ignorant of the fact that that very Prelate was educated at Coimbra. He also begged to remind them for the additional force of their argument, that that eminent divine had formerly published opinions of an enlarged, and as was thought by some, of too liberal a tendency, and in reference to which the College of Maynooth had published a manifesto that would have done honour to the University of Oxford, condemnatory of the opinions then published by the rev. Dr. Doyle. As, to the assertion that the priests of Maynooth were educated so as to have prejudices against the Government, he would venture to assert, that there was no greater friend, both to British connexion, and to submission to the ruling authorities, than the present professor of dogmatic theology in Maynooth. He thought it ungenerous that such opposition should be given to the trifling and insufficient grant that was in the spirit of almost narrow justice, given to that most valuable, and excellent establishment.

supported the grant. When he saw the vast drainage on the country in the shape of absentee rents, and the immense payments of indirect taxes, for which the country received no credit, and which went to the benefit of England, and when he saw 1,000,000l. annually wrung out of the Catholic population of Ireland in tithes and rents of Bishops' lands to support an idle Church from which the people received no benefit; and when he saw this miserable and pitiful grant resisted in order to deprive an impoverished country of the means of educating the clergy of 7,000,000 of people; when he saw this, he thought it was shameful, and calculated to fill every just and generous mind with indignation.

would not trouble the House at that very late or rather very early hour, at any length. But as the right rev. and distinguished Prelate, with whom he had the honour of being connected, had been introduced into the debate, he trusted the House would permit him to say a few words in reference to him and the clergy to which he belonged. Though the clergy of the Church to which that distinguished Prelate belonged, were not intrusted with the legal magistracy of the county, yet it was acknowleged by all parties and by the Government with gratitude, that the Roman Catholic Bishops and Clergy of Ireland, were the real and effective police of the country. The country was put to an immense expense in support of an armed police. They had heard of tens of thousands of additional troops being sent over to that country; but even all their police and troops would be unavailing to preserve quiet and tranquillity among an aggrieved and oppressed people, were it not for the indefatigable exertions of that most valuable body of men, the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. Nothing but the exertions of that clergy would prevent the country from insurrection or be sufficient to preserve its peace; and of that clergy there was none more distinguished by his great and eminent talents, and public and private virtues, than Dr. Doyle.

supported the grant, and though he had opposed the withdrawal of the money and the discontinuance of the grant to the Kildare-street Society, yet he did not consider his vote on that occasion and the vote he intended to give in support of this grant were at all inconsistent, as the two subjects stood upon perfectly distinct grounds. Neither did he think it necessary to defend his support upon the grounds of policy, or to discuss whether it was better to educate the Catholic priests at home or abroad. He looked at the question on the broad and proper grounds. The Catholics of Ireland paid an immense sum to the support of the clergy of less than half a million of the people, whilst the only support given in return to the clergy of 8,000,000 of the people, was this trifling, and he would call it miserable grant. He did wish that this grant should be more liberally afforded, and he thought the people of Ireland were in everyway entitled to it, and not alone to a provision for the education of their clergy, but to a provision for the support of their clergy. He thought that grant should be enlarged, and that the Catholic clergy ought to be supported by the State, or in some way at the public expense.

said, that he should oppose the Motion, on the ground that the Government had withdrawn all support from the Kildare-street Society.