wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board whether it was thought that any practical evil would arise from allowing persons entering a workhouse to wear their own dress? It was felt at present as a great hardship that persons should be required to assume the workhouse dress. Was it intended by the existing regulation to imply that an idea of degradation was attached to the fact that a person was obliged to enter the workhouse?

begged to state, that from the very commencement of the amended poor-law, in 1834, it had been a rule that the workhouse dress should be adopted by persons entering the workhouse; and before that time the practice was the same in all well-regulated workhouses. He should state what was exactly the rule now in force:—

"Before being removed from the receiving ward the pauper shall be thoroughly cleansed, and shall be clothed in a workhouse dress; and the clothes which he were at the time of his admission shall be purified, and deposited in a place appropriated for that purpose, with the pauper's name affixed thereto. Such clothes shall be restored to the pauper when he leaves the workhouse."

That rule had been introduced on considerations suggested by the necessity of securing cleanliness; and, no doubt, by enforcing it the cleanliness and health of the establishments had been very materially promoted. It was from considerations of the nature he had described, and not from any desire to introduce a mark of degradation or insult, that the regulation had been adopted and maintained.

Subject at an end.

begged to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who a few days ago had laid upon the table of the House a copy of the correspondence which had passed between the noble Lord and Her Majesty's representative abroad, on the subject of the affairs of Rome. Amongst those documents he (Mr. C. Anstey) found a letter from Cardinal Antonelli to the noble Lord, stating that the Holy Father had been very much affected by the sympathy which, in a letter addressed to him in the month of January, Her Majesty had shown for his position, and that his Holiness was encouraged to hope that Her Majesty would, under the circumstances, co-operate in any proceedings to prevent the continuance of a state of things which his Holiness believed to be detrimental to the happiness of nations. Now, that letter of Her Majesty was not included in the documents produced; and what he wished to ask was, whether the letter of Her Majesty could be held to warrant the inference contained in the letter of Cardinal Antonelli? and also whether the noble Lord would object to lay the letter of Her Majesty on the table of the House?

The letter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers was a reply to a letter addressed by the Pope to many of the Courts of Europe, and amongst others to Her Majesty, announcing that he had been obliged to retire from his States, and soliciting the general good will and countenance of the Courts to which the letters were addressed. In the answer which it is usual to return to letters of that kind. Her Majesty expressed Her regret at the events which had occurred, the great satisfaction Her Majesty would feel at learning that the differences between the Pope and his subjects had been put an end to, and stating, of course, that Her Majesty would be glad if She could assist at a reconciliation. It is not usual to lay letters of that sort, which are letters of form, upon the table of the House. The correspondence of Her Majesty's Government respecting the bearing of the acts of the British Government, has been laid before the House, and the House is in perfect possession of the views and intentions of the French Government with respect to the matters in question.

wished to know whether the noble Lord was of opinion that the letter of Her Majesty was not one for which the Government were responsible?

These letters are always framed by the responsible advisers of the Crown.

Subject dropped.

I wish to ask a question of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, which is of critical importance in the present state of affairs in the River Plate, I wish to know whether he would have any objection to state generally the terms of the proposals transmitted to him by Mr. Southern, by the packet in May last, for a convention by which to settle the differences between the Oriental and the Argentine Republics? I wish to ask, also, whether those proposals are in any way modified by a despatch since received by Her Majesty's Government; and, also, whether any communication has taken place with the French Government with respect to this question, since the month of May last?

I think it quite natural that the parties concerned in these transactions should feel a great desire to know what are the precise negotiations pending, and what communications have passed on the subject. But I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his official experience, and the House itself, will be of opinion that it would not be consistent with my duty to state verbally, or by the production of papers, the details and present state of negotiations still pending. It is obvious that such explanations could only tend to impede and not to accelerate the conclusion of the matter. But I have no difficulty in saying that Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the Government of France with respect to these affairs. The French Government, however, has only been recently formed, and it has been occupied with very important matters since its formation: so that will account for these communications being still open. I should be sorry to say anything which should induce the merchants to entertain expectations which will not be realised, or that there will be a failure in the stipulations; but thus much I may say, that the present state of the communications between the Argentine Republic and the Governments of England and France, is one which leads me to the hope and expectation that these negotiations may end in a satisfactory manner.

As the noble Lord has said that these negotiations are likely to terminate satisfactorily—as he has said thus much, perhaps he would not object to say, that in the event of their coming to a satisfactory issue, due provision shall be made for guaranteeing the independence of the Oriental Republic, and the security of the lives and properties of the people of Monte Video?

I can state that all parties to the negotiation have accepted as a basis the independence of the Banda Oriental Republic. General Oribe, the candidate for the presidency of that Republic, has pledged himself on several occasions to the representatives of Her Majesty and of the French Government, that in the event of his returning to authority he would take measures for the complete security of property and persons, whether foreign or native.

Subject at an end.

said, that as he did not wish to stand in the way of the financial statement, he would postpone the Motion of which he had given notice. But there was another question, which he deemed to be of such pressing importance that he desired to call the attention of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown to it. It affected an Order in Council which might possibly take effect before he (Mr. Horsman) had an opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the subject. At the commencement of the Session he had presented petitions from Sunderland and other places, signed by 50,000 persons, with respect to the arrangement made by the Bishop of Durham. At the time, the noble Lord had stated that it was the intention of the Bishop of Durham to bring in an Act of Parliament to effect the object in view. Shortly after, the noble Lord had stated that the Bishop of Durham intended to effect the arrangement by an Order in Council. He (Mr. Horsman) had objected to that course, as an Order in Council was a secret proceeding, of which the people knew nothing until it was announced in the Gazette . The noble Lord then stated that the parties should have that voice in the matter which they would have in the case of an Act of Parliament, He had communicated that assurance to the parties; but he had since received a communication from the noble Lord, forwarding a scheme drawn up by the law officers of the Crown, and with an intimation that, if it were approved of, it would be submitted to the approval of Her Majesty, and then be gazetted. Now, that was not the understanding which he had communicated to the parties. To the scheme he entertained this objection, that it was only a slight variation of the plan proposed before. He now asked whether the parties locally interested would be allowed full time to consider this scheme, and whether, should they ascertain that the scheme was only a slight variation from the plan against which they had originally petitioned, they would be allowed to apply to Parliament before the ratification of the scheme?

said, he remembered undertaking to inform the hon. Gentleman of the substance of any proposed scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before that scheme was finally adopted; but he certainly did not remember saying that there would be the same power of correcting and altering that scheme as there would be if it were brought before Parliament. The hon. Gentleman had correctly stated that he (Lord J. Russell) had informed him yesterday that a scheme would be brought before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for making provision for the cure of souls in the parish of Bishop Wear-mouth. He had conveyed that information to the hon. Gentleman as soon as he had received it from the secretary of the commissioners. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's question he would not undertake to say what the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might think fit to do with respect to this scheme. He did not know whether anything had passed on the subject yesterday. If so, it would probably receive their seal sometime next week. All he had engaged to do was, that the scheme should not be brought before the Privy Council until the hon. Gentleman had communicated with the parties interested, and they had made any representation they thought proper. He could not say that if the scheme was found to differ materially from that which the petitioners asked for, that he should feel bound to interpose to prevent its adoption: all he could say was, that, if time would allow, the hon. Gentleman would have the opportunity of bringing the question before Parliament, if he thought fit, before the scheme was ratified by the Queen in Council.

Subject at an end.

Sir, I wish to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which it will not take me many minutes to explain to him and to the House. I frankly acknowledge that my object in putting it is to get from the noble Lord the expression of an opinion from him, which, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, will, I think, be of infinite service, I might say, to the interests of mankind. The situation of this country is such, that, from time to time, and of necessity, our interference is asked by various nations in matters of negotiation. Other nations, feeling and knowing the power of this country, and our position in the world, we are constantly appealed to as mediators and arbitrators between contending Powers. The papers I hold in my hand are an evidence of this. Unfortunately, as I think, for the interests of Europe, and for the country itself—I mean that of Rome—unhappy disputes occurred between the Pope and his subjects. With those disputes we have no concern, except as they led to one result, and enlisted other nations to take part in the concerns of Rome. Some time early in this year, the Pope unfortunately left his dominions, and took refuge in Gaeta. Thereupon he made applications to foreign nations for assistance. Among the foreign nations he applied to England, and the mode in which England was applied to is what I desire to call attention to on the present occasion. Gentlemen will have seen a letter in the papers from the Minister of the King of the Two Sicilies to the noble Lord, asking him to be a party to the negotiations about to be carried on for the restoration of the Pope to Rome. Two modes of effecting this were contemplated—the one by negotiation, and the other by recourse to arms. The noble Lord, after the receipt of the letter of which I have already spoken, replied in the terms of the letter which I now hold in my hand, expressing distinctly his views on this intervention. The noble Lord said, that as the Pope had not applied to Her Majesty's Government, he could give no answer to Prince Castelcicala on this matter. Thereupon the noble Lord is applied to by the Pope, through Cardinal Antonelli, in order to take part in that negotiation. By the bye, no distinct answer was then given to Prince Castelcicala; but I gather what the answer must have been from other parts of the papers which I hold in my hand. It was, as I take it to have been, declining, on the part of the Government of this country, to take part in the negotiations which they proposed. Now, Sir, the object of that negotiation was to restore the Pope to his ecclesiastical as well as to his civil authority; and the complaint made by Cardinal Antonelli, and by the Pope himself, was, that the people of Rome had thought fit to dispute the propriety of the ecclesiastical and temporal dominion of the Pope being united; and that he (the Pope) called on the Catholic Powers of Europe to reinstate him in his papal supremacy as Pope and as a civil prince. And England was applied to in order to aid and assist in that object. While this negotiation was going on, France interfered, and interfered not only by way of negotiation, as the noble Lord himself had recommended, but Prance interfered by arms. Now, Sir, I say the position of England is one of so remarkable and striking a character—she stands so high as to be safe from all imputation—her atmosphere is so perfectly calm and serene, that her judgment in this matter is entirely undisturbed by passions of any sort. Therefore her opinion, going forth to the world through the regular and proper channel by which her opinion can be expressed—I mean, through the Minister of the Crown—must exert amongst the nations of Europe a most important influence. And what I desire to obtain from the noble Lord on the present occasion is his marked, unequivocal, plain, and strong disapprobation of the interference on the part of France with the civil concerns of other people—of a people wholly unoffending as regards that nation, which, as far as we are concerned and know, ought to have left them as much to the determination of themselves as was the nation of France in establishing its own present form of government. And, Sir, I cannot, on such an occasion, refrain from expressing my astonishment, and in that astonishment I include disapprobation—which I believe, sincerely believe, will be participated in by all sides of this House—at the extraordinary proceedings on the part of France on this occasion—on the part of a people who themselves have been left to pull down and put up as many governments as they please—a people who, above all others, have invoked the right of themselves, as a nation, to decide on the affairs that regulate their own happiness—by a people that, on all occasions, have manifested the most violent opposition to any interference in their own concerns, and whose greatest boast and renown has been their resistance of any interference in their own government on the part of any foreign country. Now, Sir, what is the state of that great citadel, that illustrious depository of the monuments of the genius of ancient and modern times? She is girt at the present moment by the armies of France; and they, with all their schoolboy recollections, and quickness of feeling to what is called classical illustration, must feel that they are once more acting the old Gaul on Italian ground, just with the same spirit, although they now are, as they call themselves, a civilised people, as they did as barbarians many centuries ago. This, Sir, is a case in which I do not wish England to participate even by silence, but that the noble Lord should come forward broadly stating his views, not as the papers before us say, that he does not approve of interference at all by arms, but if arms are taken up, why we have nothing on earth to do with the matter. I say that this is not the language which England ought to hold. I have no desire in any way whatsoever to be supposed anxious to assist either of the parties now disputing at Rome. I do not ask for the noble Lord's opinion on Roman transactions; but I do ask him, as, on the one hand, he does not wish the notion to go forth to the world that we are supporting the Government of a minority or a rabble, so, on the other hand, to show that he gives no support to any authority of which the people concerned do not themselves approve. I therefore ask him this plain question, whether he has already, by any papers not now in our hands, explained definitely to the Government of France that the transactions now going on before the walls of Rome not only will not find favour with the people and Government of England, but in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government are deserving of severe reprobation? Recollect what it is that is now going on at Rome. This moment, I believe, it is about being bombarded by the French troops. Why, you cannot throw a shell into that city without destroying some beautiful relic either of ancient or modern art. And I would ask the noble Lord, even on that ground alone, whether he should not come forward and employ that high authority—that moral influence of which he himself speaks in these very papers—not simply for the preservation of peace, as well as of all that is precious in art, but also for the still greater object of maintaining the great interests involved in this most outrageous attack of the French people upon all the great principles upon which their own institutions are founded, and by which their own highest renown has been attained? If, indeed, it had been an Austrian or a Russian, a Prussian or a German, who had directed his hostile march to the walls of Rome, and there poured in shot and shell upon all its works of art—then, however much my disapprobation might have been aroused, astonishment, at least, could not have attended that disapprobation. But on this occasion, that they who pretend on all occasions to be the friends of art and of freedom—who claim to themselves the honour of fighting the battle of freedom singlehanded throughout Europe, and advancing the cause of popular liberty through the principles of their own revolution—that they, of all others, should be the first to interfere with—what?—the only imitation, I believe, of the great model which they have set up for themselves—a little republic, a weak people; and for them to be assailed by the armies of France—for the only republic, I believe, now in Europe, excepting that of France herself, to be assailed by those who set them the example, and excited them to follow in their footsteps, and do as they have done—who, by every means in their power, have brought their imitators into their present position—for such a nation, because they are great and powerful, to send their armies and to send their generals to dictate to a people weaker than themselves, and who, following humbly in the wake of their aggressors, have not given one particle of offence to any other nation—Sir, I ask this House, in the face of the world, to express its firm disapprobation of such a flagrant proceeding. I ask it for the sake of the best interests of humanity. I do not want to give rise to a war; but I do want England to exercise the mighty influence she has at her command, and not to lose the high advantage of her proud position as arbitress among the nations. And I ask the noble Lord to be busy, as he ought to be, to express, as I know he would express, if this House says it disapproves of this proceeding, the strong and unanimous feeling of the united and assembled Ministers and representatives of the people of this country.

I am sure. Sir, the House will feel the delicacy of the position of a Minister of the Crown who is called upon to pronounce judgment on the conduct of the Government of a foreign country. It is not the business, I apprehend, of a Minister of the Crown, I standing in this House, to become either the defender or the judge of the proceedings of a foreign Government in matters with regard to which the British Government has declined altogether to he parties. But I can have no hesitation in stating that Her Majesty's Government have witnessed, with deep regret, the circumstance to which my hon. and learned Friend has now referred. And more than that, I think, in the present state of things, the House will excuse me from saying, Sir, there have been many events passing in Europe which the Government of this country have not looked upon with indifference; but we have not considered that it was our duty, and we have not considered, moreover, that it was calculated to accomplish any useful purpose, to constitute ourselves the judges and censors of many things in which other nations are concerned; but I can only say that we are no parties to these transactions. The House will see by the papers that have been produced, that we from the outset have deprecated any armed intervention by foreign Powers in the internal affairs of the Roman States. We declined to be parties to the negotiations to be carried on at that time, and, therefore, we cannot speak from certain knowledge as to what has been the course of these negotiations. Therefore, we are not in a position to state distinctly what the character of the whole circumstances have been which have led the French Government to adopt what I must consider a most unfortunate proceeding.

was glad to learn that the British Government was no party to the atrocious proceedings at Rome; but he rose to ask the noble Lord whether he was prepared to lay before the House the correspondence with the French Government which a short time since he said he must first ask the French Government if it would allow to be made public?

was understood to say that the French Government had no objection to the publicity of the communication in question, which was not a note addressed to the Government of this country, but it was a despatch addressed to the French Minister at Vienna, a copy of which was transmitted to the British Government. The document, however, would be produced.

wished to ask one question more. ["No, no!"] It was very important, and he hoped the House would allow him to put it to the noble Lord. When the people of France changed their Government, the British Government recognised the Government de facto of France. Now, he wished to know whether it was correct that Her Majesty's Government had refused to recognise the Government de facto of Rome?

replied, that the British Government did not recognise officially the Government of France until some months after the revolution, and when the new Government had assumed a settled and definite form. The Government of Rome had not yet attained that condition.

Subject dropped.

spoke as follows: Although the statement which I am about to make to the Committee is not so favourable as I could have wished to make, or as I should have been justified in making if I had submitted the financial condition of the country to the House at an earlier period of the Session, yet I hope and believe that, considering the circumstances of the time at which I am speaking, it will not prove altogether unsatisfactory to the Committee or the country. We should very imperfectly appreciate the value of a statement of the financial resources of the country if we did not take into consideration the circumstances not only of our own country but of those foreign countries with which we maintain commercial intercourse. It must be remembered that a year and a half ago severe commercial distress prevailed in this country, that there has been a famine in Ireland, and that the state of the Continent has been such as to cause the greatest interruption to our commercial intercourse with those countries with which, under ordinary circumstances, we carry on trade to a very large extent. When I stated, some time ago, that the blockade of the northern coasts had considerable effect in depressing our manufactures, some hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed surprised at the statement; but I can appeal to those best acquainted with the seats of our manufacturing industry to confirm my statement that the circumstances referred to clouded the prospect of improvement which opened upon us at an earlier period of the Session. When I state that the trade with Germany alone is supposed to require two days' work in the week from our cotton mills, it must be evident that the interruption to commerce caused by the blockade of the northern ports and by the disturbed state of central Europe, was sufficient to damp the sanguine expectations which prevailed in the manufacturing and commercial world at the beginning of the year, of a more prosperous state of commerce than subsequent experience has justified. I think that in this circumstance we may find the strongest confirmation of the proposition which I advanced last year, namely, that we are deeply interested in the prosperity of our neighbours, because they are far more valuable to us as purchasers than they are formidable as competitors, and that we best consult our own interests in promoting by every legitimate means in our power that peace and tranquillity in neighbouring countries on which not their prosperity alone, but our own also, in some degree, depends. I hope that the circumstances to which I have adverted will be admitted to confirm the prudence of the course which I took at an early period of the Session, in declining to comply with the request of some Gentlemen, who wished me to make my financial statement in February. The information which I had then received certainly led me to expect a larger income from the Customs than the result has justified. Additional sources of expense have also been opened since that time, and, although I might of course have made a financial statement at any period of the Session, yet, as the object of that statement is not merely to explain the views which the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time may entertain, but to furnish to the House and the country an estimate of the probable financial condition of the country for the year, drawn from correct data, and on which they may rely with as much certainty as can be attained in such matters, it must be obvious that it would be illusory to make the statement at a time when I could not take upon myself to say that my calculations could be relied upon. Before I proceed to state the prospects of the ensuing year, I will, according to custom; refer briefly to the circumstances of the year that has passed. It will be remembered that early in the Session of 1848 we felt ourselves compelled to propose to this House a large increase of taxation. We found an amount of past expenditure, principally for the Kafir war, which we had no present means of defraying. We also thought it advisable to complete certain large and important works which had been already undertaken, and we believed it to be the best economy in the end to complete them at once. In fact, we took the same view of those works which I find hon. Gentlemen are now disposed to take of the works of the New Palace at Westminster. We thought, however, that it was our duty, rather than to propose a further loan, to call upon the House to agree to a temporary increase of taxation, in order to cover this expenditure. This proposal, however, the House pretty unanimously refused to sanction, and accordingly, in deference to the opinion then expressed, we felt ourselves bound to adopt another course. The course which we took was, so far as regarded past expenditure, over which we could exercise no control, to ask permission to borrow a sufficient sum to cover it; while as to the expenditure the control of which was in our power, the course which we took was to reduce it, so far as we possibly could consistently with the interests of the country, and to spread the remainder over a longer period, so as to bring our annual expenditure within our annual income. I then stated that if the income tax was renewed for three years, and the other taxation maintained, that I entertained the expectation that in three years the aggregate income of the country would be greater than its aggregate expenditure for these three years. I repeated that assurance at the end of last Session, and I stated early this year how far these expectations had been realised. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that I stated that we had so far reduced the expenditure, that, after having provided for the expenditure for the Kafir war, the previous excess of naval expenditure, and the sum required for Irish distress, and that for emigration to Canada, by borrowing money to the extent of 2,000,000 l , I anticipated that our income would be within 290,000 l of our current expenditure. I am speaking now of the last financial year. I stated at the time that I thought it impossible to form an estimate of what would be the produce of the duty on corn. In the estimate which I laid before the House of our income for the year ending April 5, 1849, I omitted the probable produce from that source. I estimated the ordinary income—always excluding corn—as likely to amount to 51,550,000 l . The actual produce was rather less, principally owing to a most unexpected falling off in the stamps, which source of revenue had been unduly elevated by the extraordinary number of bills in circulation during the time of fictitious prosperity. They produced, in fact, 450,000 l . less than was calculated in the revised estimate furnished at the close of the last Session. The ordinary income fell short by about 50,000 l . off what I anticipated; the extraordinary income I stated at 580,000 l ., whereas it produced only 569,000 l . The total anticipated income was 52,130,000 l .; the total produce, exclusive of corn, was 52,067,731 l ., being about 62,000 l . less than I anticipated. The actual expenditure was 53,287,110 l . This sum exceeds considerably the estimate which I had formed. But there are included in that sum two very considerable items which I did not include in my estimate of the expenditure. The one is the sum to which I have already alluded for the relief of Irish distress, and the expense incurred in Canada by Irish immigrants in the preceding year, amounting together to 389,920 l .; and the other is the naval excess for the preceding year, which, though chargeable upon the supplies of this year, is included in the expenditure side of the balance-sheet up to April last. The sum in question is 323,787 l .; making, with the Irish sum, a total of more than 713,000 l . Now, if you deduct that sum from the whole expenditure, there will remain 52,573,403 l . My estimate of the year's expenditure was 52,422,335 l .; and, therefore, the expenditure of the year exceeded the estimate by 151,068 l . The total expenditure, including the Irish distress vote and the naval excess vote, being 52,287,110 l .: the total receipts—including the corn duties, which amounted to 950,000 l . during the year—amounted to 53,017,732 l .; thus showing a balance of actual expenditure over actual revenue of 269,378 l . But if hon. Gentlemen will compare the receipts of the year with the current expenditure of the year, excluding the Irish distress and the Canadian emigration—

What year are you talking of?

Of the last financial year. If you will compare the receipts of the last year with the current expenditure of that year, excluding, as I said, the votes for Irish distress and naval excess, you will find the actual current expenditure, 52,573,403 l ., to be less than the actual receipts by 444,329 l . The actual surplus, therefore, of income over the current expenditure of the year, is upwards of 444,000 l . Even if you add, as, perhaps, it is fair to do, to that sum the expenditure of the preceding year in excess, merely deducting the expenditure for Irish purposes and emigration to Canada, which I never anticipated paying out of the income of the year, the surplus will still amount to 120,000 l . on the receipts of the last year above the expenditure of the last year. Taking, therefore, the first year of the three of those in which I held out expectations that the income would exceed the expenditure, you will find that my prediction has been realised to this extent, that, taking the actual income and expenditure of the year, there is a surplus of 444,000 l .; and even after adding to the expenditure belonging to the year the excess of the preceding year, there still remains a surplus above 120,000 l . I come, now, to the prospects of the present year. If hon. Gentlemen hold in their hands the balance-sheet up to the 5th of April, they will see that the receipt of customs duties—I take the round numbers—was 21,170,000 l . Of that, 950,000 l . was for duty on corn. [An Hon. MEMBER: What kind of corn?] Grain and meal of all sorts. Exclusive of that receipt of corn duty, the customs amounted to 20,220,000 l . Early in the year, as I have already said, I was led to expect there might be no inconsiderable increase in the receipt of customs this year. Circumstances have to some extent changed since then; and although up to the present time they have not looked so favourable as they did early in the year, yet I have a confident expectation that the receipts of customs for this year will not be less than they were last year. I propose, therefore, to take the customs, exclusive of the corn duty, at 20,200,000 l . Last year the receipt for duty on corn was, as I have said, 950,000 l .; and as we have now a fixed duty of 1 s . on every quarter of corn, it will be more easy to calculate the probable receipt from corn. I find that in the course of last year there was received on Indian corn and meal—an article for the introduction of which even the agriculturists were most anxious—no less than 96,000 l .; and I see no very good reason why nearly the same quantity should not be introduced in the current year. As to the duty to be received upon grain of other kinds, it is not very easy to form an estimate, because so much must depend on the produce of the next harvest; but I do propose to take it at between 150,000 l . and 200,000 l . I expect that the income from grain in this year of all sorts will be between 200,000 l . and 300,000 l ., and I propose to take it at 250,000 l ., making the total receipt from the customs this year 20,450,000 l . The income from excise duty last year was 13,932,270 l .; I propose to take it for the present year at 13,710,000 l .—rather more than 200,000 l . less than last year. The stamps last year produced only 6,565,364 l .; they have been, I am happy to say, improving since the beginning of the year, and I propose to take them at 6,750,000 l . The taxes produced last year 4,318,900 l .; I propose to take them, in round numbers, at 4,300,000 l . The income tax last year produced 5,317,000 l .; I propose to take that rather lower for the present year—at 5,275,000 l . The Post Office last year produced 812,000 l .; this year there will probably be some reduction in the postage from France, and I propose to take the Post Office revenue at 800,000 l . The receipts from the Crown lands last year were 100,000 l .; but there will be some other monies paid in on the same account this year; and I propose to take the whole receipts at 180,000 l . The miscellaneous receipts last year were 182,000 l ., and I had intended to have taken credit this year for that amount, when a very odd circumstance happened—I was obliged to move for a vote of 52,000 l . to replace property to that amount which had escheated to the Crown; but the very same day other property escheated to the Crown to the amount of 40,000 l .—so that I propose to take the estimate of miscellaneous receipts for this year at 222,000 l . Old stores last year produced 485,000 l .; I propose to take the same estimate this year. From surplus fees, &c., there was received last year 111,000 l .; I propose this year to take it at 90,000 l .—making the whole receipts of the year 52,262,000 l . I now turn to the expenditure of this year. The interest and management of the public debt will be 27,763,527 l . The interest of Exchequer-bills will be 480,000 l .; making the interest and management of the debt, funded and unfunded, 28,243,527 l . The civil list and other charges on the Consolidated Fund will be 2,781,556 l ., and the grant made early in the Session for Irish distress of 50,000 l ., makes the whole charge on the Consolidated Fund, exclusive of the debt, 2,831,556 l .; so that the total amount charged on the Consolidated Fund will be 31,075,083 l . The amount voted for the Navy is 6,260,740 l .; for the packet service, 748,296 l .; and a subsequent vote was taken for the Arctic expedition, of 12,688 l .; making the total amount for the naval service, the packet service, and the Arctic expedition, 7,021,724 l . The vote for the Army is 6,142,211 l .; and for the commissariat, 531,872 l . There still remains to be voted the estimate for the militia, which amounts to 113,000 l .; making the total amount for the Army, Commissariat, and Militia, 6,787,083 l . For the Ordnance, the amount is 2,654,270 l .; for the miscellaneous estimates, 3,924,731 l .; and then there is a sum of 52,173 l . to refund the escheated property left by Mr. Turner. Those sums constitute the current expenditure of this year. [An Hon. MEMBER: Is that the total expenditure?] I have not stated the total yet. [ A laugh. ] Hon. Gentlemen are aware there have been also voted for the naval excess of the year 1847–8 a sum of 323,787 l ., and for the Ordnance excess up to April, 1846, 97,984 l .; but I am sorry to say that there are excesses in the Army, Ordnance, and Commissariat accounts for the year 1847–8. The excess for the Army is 119,950 l .; for the Ordnance, 33,386 l .; and for the Commissariat, 65,525 l . These excesses altogether amount to a sum of 642,632 l . The total expenditure, therefore, including those excesses, is 52,157,696 l .; and deducting the expenditure, inclusive of those excesses, from the anticipated receipts, there will be a surplus of 104,304 l . This sum is, I am sorry to say, not large; but the prospect is more encouraging for the future than for the present year. If you deduct from the expenditure the amount of the excesses I have stated for previous years, there will be an expenditure for the year of 51,515,064 l ., leaving a surplus of the year's anticipated receipts over the expenditure of the year of 736,936 l . It is right, in looking at this expenditure, that hon. Gentlemen should remember that in these estimates, for the first time, we have voted the whole of the gross expense; and, therefore, comparing the gross expenditure voted for the present year with the votes for the expenditure of preceding years, the estimates of the present year appear between 500,000 l . and 600,000 l . higher than those of preceding years, in consequence of the appropriations not having been deducted. They are not really so, and due allowance must, of course, be made for this circumstance, in comparing them with former years. I am anxious now to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the result of the statements which I have made for the two years, in order to show how far we have succeeded in redeeming the pledge we gave of keeping the current expenditure within the current income. If my anticipations are realised in the course of this year, then in two years there will be an excess of income over current expenditure of between 1,100,000 l . and 1,200,000 l . This, too, affords a cheering prospect for the future, when we have no longer to defray the excesses of former years. I shall advert shortly to this subject of excesses, though it will more properly be brought before the consideration of the House when they come to be voted. The prospect, however, for the future is so far satisfactory, that, supposing there is no future increase of income, and no diminution of the expenditure, there will still be a considerable surplus of income above the expenditure. The heaviest part of these excesses has arisen in the naval department, and I am afraid that even in the expenditure of the last year we may have hereafter to vote an excess. Hon. Gentlemen may not be aware that the most expensive thing for the time which can be done in the Navy is to make a reduction of force. The great payment of seamen's wages takes place, of course, when ships are paid off. The sums voted for wages of seamen one year with another cover the expense; but if any one year a large reduction of men is made, more than the average proportion of payment comes into that year, and, of course, an excess of expenditure may be the result, without any blame attaching to the Admiralty. I have the greatest confidence in the economical administration of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty; and I trust that after this year no such thing will occur again. With regard to the other items, it will be better to go into a full explanation of them when the votes are taken. To a great extent they have arisen from circumstances that could not be foreseen at the time. A considerable part of them arises from the removal of troops, and the necessity of finding forage during the early part of the spring of last year, in consequence of the disturbances in Ireland, some from troops arriving from India earlier than was expected, and from others not being sent off to India from other colonies so soon as was expected; partly also they are to be attributed to our having applied to the departments a more rigid system of winding up their accounts at the end of the year, instead of allowing them to hold, as they did in former years, a surplus in their hands. In ordinary years, surpluses have been surrendered to the ways and means, and 150,000 l . has been surrendered in that way, as appears by the finance accounts, in the last year, which may be set off, to a certain extent, against the excesses which I have mentioned. I hope that by the strict rules we are adopting to enforce the strictest attention to their expenditure in all the departments, these excesses will not happen again. I think it right I should, as far as I can, satisfy the House that the anticipations of income I have formed, are not without just foundation. The expenditure we know pretty accurately to be what we have voted. I wish, in the first place, to refer to a paper moved for the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, which, without some explanation, might appear to indicate a failure of income greater than the circumstances warrant. With regard to the Customs, there appears, since the beginning of this year, a falling-off as compared with the same period last year, but it is not considerable. The main falling-off is, however, apparently in the Excise, in which it would appear from this paper that since the 5th of January this year there has been a falling-off of 496,412 l . That gives a very incorrect representation of the real truth. In the first place, taking this financial year, that is, from the 5th of April, the whole difference, instead of being 496,412 l ., is only 400,000 l .; but the truth is, that this is not altogether a falling-off, but is in the main only a postponement. Hon. Gentlemen are aware that I have had to postpone one-half of the hop duty, and that which I should have received at the beginning of May is postponed until the autumn; and, therefore, 196,000 l . is postponed to a subsequent quarter, instead of being received in the present. The malting season was six weeks later this year than the last; and duty, therefore, amounting to about 200,000 l . upon malt, has not fallen off, but is only postponed. In the last round, as it is called, of the Excise, there is an actual increase of charge of about 50,000 l ., taking England and Ireland together. Last year, also, the Scotch and Irish distillers were allowed to bond spirits in this country, which postponed the duty, and the sum of 400,000 l , which appears to have fallen off this year, is, in truth, not a diminution, but only a postponement of receipt. With regard to the stamps, it would appear from this paper that there was a decrease, since the 5th January, of 35,967 l .; but in that duty, which affords some proof of the financial state of the country, there is an actual increase on the quarter since the 5th of April of 40,000 l . In the taxes, also, the decrease since the 5th of April is only 5,700 l ., instead of 58,000 l ., as it appears to have been since the 5th of January. In like manner the income tax by this paper appears to be 5,633 l , short since January; but since the 5th of April there is an increase of 9,700 l . I am sorry to say that, with regard to Ireland, I cannot give so satisfactory an account as with regard to Great Britain; but the circumstances of that country are really such that I am not so much surprised that the revenue has fallen off, as I am that it has kept up to its present amount. Now, Sir, I wish to go a little further back with respect to the probable income of this country. I think, if we look hack for six or eight years, and see what the income has been under the varying circumstances of those years, we may entertain a most well-founded confidence that I have not overstated the probable income for the ensuing year. In the year ending the 5th of April, 1842, before the recent changes in our taxation, the ordinary income of the country, excluding the income tax, was 48,031,000 l . In that year, it will be remembered, a considerable reduction of duties took place. In the year ending the 5th of April, 1843, the ordinary income was 45,507,000 l .; in the year ending the 5th of April, 1844, it was 46,455,000 l .; and on the 5th of April, 1845, it had again attained the amount of 48,111,000 l . In that year, again, a considerable reduction of duties took place; and in the year ending the 5th of April, 1846, the ordinary income fell to 45,990,000 l . In the year ending the 5th of April, 1847, the income had again risen to upwards of 48,000,000 l . I am not prepared to say, that I think that year can be considered a fair criterion of probable revenue in an ordinary year, for several reasons, as for instance the income under the head of "Stamps" was unduly swelled by fictitious bills and other matters going on at that time in connexion with railways. In that year a considerable amount of duties was repealed; and in the year ending the 5th of April, 1848, the income was 45,992,000 l . The income for last year, excluding the duties on corn, was a little above 46,000,000 l . I do not think we can anticipate that the income of the ensuing year will be worse than that of the two preceding years. I therefore take the income of the present year as very little above 46,000,000 l ., and I think I am perfectly warranted by the experience of past years in assuming that the ordinary income of the country, exclusive of the income tax, will amount to that sum. It is most important, also, to hear in mind that the ordinary income of the country has been kept up, as I have shown, in spite of the reduction of taxes which has taken place. Hon. Gentlemen sometimes complain that no reduction of taxes takes place because Bills are not introduced into Parliament, forgetting the operation of the Acts already passed. Now, the estimated amount of duties which expired or were reduced in the year ending 1847, was no less than 344,886 l . The amount of duties which expired or were reduced in the course of 1848, was 585,968 l .; and this year again there will be a reduction of duties, exclusive of the corn duties, amounting to 385,865 l ., principally upon the article of sugar. But, seeing that the income of the country has not only been maintained, but that we have an increasing income in spite of the heavy reductions in the last two years, I do feel warranted in concluding that the ordinary income, excluding the income tax, will not fall short of what it has been in those two years—namely, 46,000,000 l . I believe that the state of the country is such as fully to warrant that anticipation. I should, under ordinary circumstances, have felt it my duty to go at some length into the question of the state of the country; but the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has given notice of a distinct Motion upon that subject. I am very glad that he has done so, for I feel it is most desirable for all parties that that question should be fully and fairly discussed. I think, therefore, that it is fairer to the hon. Member, and that it will be more satisfactory to this House, that I should not now go into that subject, and thus interfere with the discussion that will take place on a future day. I think it by far the better plan that the subject should be discussed as a whole, rather than that we should deal with it piecemeal. I will only say that there certainly is a decided improvement in the manufacturing districts; money is easy; the amount both of bullion and of reserve in the Bank of England is very high, and increasing; and I feel therefore fully warranted, by what I believe to be the state of the country, in anticipating the income I have mentioned from ordinary sources in the course of the ensuing year. I now come to the expenditure, and I must express my expectation that in future years we shall be able still further to reduce our expenditure. I will not go back to the expenditure of 1835, because so many changes have taken place in the circumstances of the country since that time. Many charges have been thrown upon the public revenue which were not formerly borne by it; and I must again, as I have done on former occasions, express my regret that so strong a disposition exists, even among the most economical Members of the House, perpetually to increase the charge thrown upon the public revenue of the country. I think that course is a great public evil and misfortune. It is not at all uncommon for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is generally charged in this House with being a wasteful administrator of the public money, to be told the moment he gets out of these walls that he is refusing money for the most necessary and advantageous expenditure; and I hope the majority of this House will assist me in resisting the imposition of any further charges upon the public revenue. I will go back, with regard to the expenditure, only so far as 1845, when it amounted to 48,000,000 l . In that year, when the right hon. Baronet opposite renewed the income tax, he stated most fully and fairly to the House—and the House accepted the proposal—that the income tax should be renewed, accompanied by reduced taxation, but accompanied by some increased expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman stated that, with due consideration for the comfort and the necessary relief of the British Army—with due regard to the protection of British trade abroad, and in order that the national defences of the country might be placed in a proper state of efficiency—it was necessary to increase the public expenditure; and the House approved and agreed to that proposition. Now, we have been told that a House of Commons more popularly constituted would not have incurred this additional expense. I cannot say that such is my opinion; for I believe no proposal was ever submitted to this House which, at the time, was more universally popular than that to which I have referred. I remember perfectly well that, not being an alarmist myself—having disregarded the alarms of an hon. Gentleman opposite as to the descent of the Russians, and not being afraid of an invasion of the French—I was not anxious that a large expenditure should be incurred for the purposes I have mentioned; but I always found myself in a very small minority, and even Gentlemen who have taken a most active part in the Financial Reform Association, were at that time strong supporters of an increased expenditure for the national defences. I find that so lately as December, 1847, the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne) had a Motion on the Paper to call the attention of the House to the state of the national defences in Great Britain and Ireland. Now, I apprehend that Gentlemen do not call the attention of the House to matters which they conceive are sufficiently and adequately provided for. The hon. Gentleman postponed his Motion at the request of my noble Friend; but the only inference I can draw from his notice is, that, in his opinion, the national defences were insufficient. I must say that I think, when these works had been commenced, it would have been most absurd and injudicious to put a sudden stop to them; and I find that in the present Session, when the hon. Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) proposed to abandon the works at Keyham, he was supported by only twenty-seven Gentlemen, while a largo majority of the House decided that it was most expedient to proceed with those works, rather than to throw away the 200,000 l . or 300,000 l . which had already been expended upon them. With regard to the amount of force, we never voted so many men in the Navy as we found actually serving, and we made no increase in the Army beyond providing for the regiments sent home from India. I think we were justified by the circumstances of the country last year in refusing to make any reduction. It is true that some hon. Gentlemen are now disposed to underrate the danger which then existed. It is said that the outbreak in Ireland was only a mock insurrection. I do not think that was the general opinion at the time. No doubt, nothing is so difficult to prove as the necessity for having taken measures of prevention if they succeed. There have been in the course of a year two serious insurrections in Paris: the first was only put down at the expense of great bloodshed and slaughter, in consequence of the want of an adequate number of troops when the outbreak occurred. On a recent occasion the presence of an adequate military force immediately suppressed the attempt at an insurrection in that city; but is the energy and the foresight of the French Government to be condemned because by such precautions they put down an insurrection without bloodshed, instead of risking a repetition of the lamentable scenes which took place in 1848? As soon, however, as we found that we could reduce our military force, that reduction was made; and in the course of this year a reduction of 3,000 men in the Navy, and of 10,000 men in the Army, has taken place, and we have gone as far as, in the circumstances of this country and of Europe, we thought we were justified in going. The only arm which has been increased is the artillery, and I must say I think from our recent Indian experience that we should greatly neglect our duty if we did not maintain that branch of our force in a state of perfect efficiency. I informed the House at the end of the last Session that in the estimates for that year we had made reductions to the amount of 828,700 l . I stated early in the present Session, that upon the estimates as they then stood, there was a reduction of 1,447,000 l . Since that time further estimates have been laid on the table, and in the whole of them, or nearly so, there is a reduction. Now, I wish to show the House that the Government, or the Treasury, whose special duty it is, does exercise a constant and all-pervading control over the expenditure of the country, and that this supervision takes place not merely with regard to the larger but also to the smaller items of expenditure. There are in the estimates for civil services of this year 103 votes, of which 45 are less than the corresponding votes of last year, 24 are larger, 32 are the same, 2 are new votes, 10 are given up, and one is transferred to another department. There is a decrease in every class but two—classes 3 and 6; and the increase in these votes is quite beyond our control. The increase in one of those votes arises from an increase of the expenses attending the administration of justice—from an increase in the number of prosecutions, and in the charge for the transportation of convicts. In the other vote, the increase is owing to the superannuations, which have been more numerous in consequence of the reductions made in many of the public departments. Upon the whole, however, there is a diminution of expenditure. The two new votes are votes of absolute necessity—the one for repairing the Caledonian Canal, and the other for repairing Lyhster Harbour in the north of Scotland, which is a great resort of the fishermen on that coast in stress of weather, and which has been nearly choked up by the effects of one of the recent storms. I will now state the whole amount of reduction in the estimates for this year. The reduction in the Navy Estimates is 718,168 l ; in the Army Estimates, 433,914 l .; in the Ordnance Estimates, 337,873 l ; and in the Miscellaneous Estimates, 21,500 l ., being a decrease altogether of 1,511,455 l in the course of this year; and, if that amount be added to the reduction of 828,700 l . effected in the preceding year, it will be seen that the total reduction in the estimates for the last two years is 2,340,155 l . I hope that even my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Hume) will take this as a proof that we have not been unmindful of reducing the expenditure to as great an extent as we thought possible. [Mr. HUME was understood to say that his objection was to the increase.] Well, my hon. Friend will at least give us credit for the reduction. I wish also to show, not in great detail, but by an instance, that even in those items of expenditure which do not come under the cognisance of Parliament, we have not been unmindful of the principle of reduction. Early in this Session I introduced a Bill to carry into effect the largest reduction which has been made for years with respect to the expense of collecting the revenue—I allude to the Bill for consolidating the Board of Excise and the Board of Stamps and Taxes. Since a friend and namesake of mine became chairman of the Board of Stamps and Taxes, very considerable reductions have been effected in that department; and it is but just to him that I should state the reduction in the number of persons employed and in the salaries paid, since he first was employed in the public service, in the department now under his charge. They do not all apply to the present time. The paper I am about to quote is "an account showing the decrease in the number of officers and salaries of the Board of Inland Revenue, in 1849, as compared with the Boards of Excise, Stamps, and Taxes, in 1833." In 1833 the number of persons employed was 9,083, it is now 7,029, being a reduction of 2,054. The amount of salaries in 1833 was 962,266 l ., it is now 715,092 l , being a decrease of 247,174 l ., or nearly a quarter of a million of money. This statement, I may observe, does not include persons employed in the collection of the income tax, who could not be fairly included in the comparison. The Committee on the Miscellaneous Expenditure recommended that persons who had been employed in Government offices should not, if it could be avoided, be placed upon permanent retired allowances, but that their services should, when possible, be made available. Now, last year a Bill was passed abolishing the excise survey upon spirits, and the number of stations consequently discontinued was 660. At the time of the abolition there were 51 of those stations vacant, which had not been filled up, with a view to this reduction; 90 officers were superannuated, for the Government find it quite impossible to re-introduce old men to active employment, and therefore persons above 60 years of ago were allowed to retire upon allowances; five offiers have died; one has been discharged; 188 have since been reappointed to other stations; and 325 are remaining to he absorbed as vacancies may occur. The whole patronage of the Government has been given up in order to carry out this plan; and I, therefore, believe that the whole of these persons will before very long be re-employed in the public service. An inquiry is proceeding with the view of carrying out every possible reduction in the Customs; and I hope that we may be able to carry on this system of reduction, which I believe not only tends to economy, but also to the efficiency of the public service. I have before stated that I have not thought it right to reduce the salaries of these officers, because I do not believe that, as a class, they are overpaid, but we have reduced the numbers; and I think the public service can be better conducted by a smaller number of well-paid officers, than by a larger number of under-paid men who are not so well qualified to discharge the duties which devolve upon them. I will only say that I can give no better assurance to the House as to the course the Government have been pursuing for some time, and in which they are determined to persevere, than the statement I have made. I cannot, of course, at this time foretel what reductions may be made in future years; for in such times as these, when no man can say what the morrow may bring forth, it would be absurd to predict what amount of force it may he necessary to keep up in subsequent years; but with regard to the expenditure which has been undertaken for the completion of works, and for the increase of stores, I can only say that when those works are completed, and when the proper amount of stores is obtained, the necessity for that expenditure will cease. I hope there is every prospect of the revenue of the country increasing, and that in subsequent years we may see such a surplus of income as will place us in a more comfortable position than I must admit we stand in at present. It is impossible not to be uneasy at so small an amount of surplus as that which I have anticipated in the course of this year. I consider that it is neither safe nor creditable that a surplus should not be permanently maintained sufficient to meet the ordinary contingencies that may occur in a country like this; and I should not think that anything but the peculiar circumstances of the time would justify us in going on with so small a surplus as I have anticipated; but so long as there is a surplus, I do not think it is necessary to impose, or to attempt to impose, any new burden upon the country for the purpose of creating a further surplus. Such a surplus, however, ought, in my opinion, to he maintained, as will, one year with another, effect a constant, even though it be a small reduction, of the national debt. I must say, therefore, to those Gentlemen who have given notice of their intention to move for the reduction or repeal of some existing taxes, that, with the present amount of surplus, I think they cannot expect me to accede to any such measures. I also wish to put another consideration before those Gentlemen who are disposed to apply any surplus which may accrue rather to the reduction of taxation than of debt—that if, as soon as we get any moderate amount of surplus, it is to be given up in repealing some small amount of taxation, we never shall be in a condition to make any of those larger changes which would be most beneficial to the country. Last year a proposal was made to reduce the duty on tea—a measure which would cause the risk of some 2,000,000 l . of revenue. The tea duty produces nearly 5,000,000 l . It was proposed to reduce that duty from 2 s . and a fraction to 1 s .; and will any hon. Gentleman contend that such a change would not involve the risk of at least 2,000,000 l .? If the House is prepared to impose other taxes, in order to enable such an experiment to be made, well and good; but if is not so prepared, it must not throw away in the reduction of small items of taxation the nucleus of a future surplus which may he applied to more beneficial reductions. Another measure which was pressed upon the Government was the revision of the stamp duties—a step which would involve, in all probability, a loss of some 300,000 l . or 400,000 l ., with the risk of still further loss. We cannot attempt any such change unless we have a fair surplus to cover the changes; and therefore I tell hon. Gentlemen that if they wish those—I won't call them experiments—but if they wish those changes to take place, which experience has shown to be beneficial, and from which, in the end, I believe that no loss of revenue will ensue; it is impossible that they can take place till such a surplus exists as will justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day in making these alterations of duty. I must add, that I have already' shown by the statement I have made, that it is a mistake to suppose the country does not enjoy this year the advantage of a reduction in taxation, merely because no Bill is introduced for that purpose—because there are certain taxes that are diminishing year by year; and these will go on diminishing for some years more, by which time, I trust, the ordinary income of the country will have increased, and we shall be in more favourable circumstances of finance than we are in at present. The circumstances which have recently occurred, I think, fully account for the depression which has taken place. We have had famine, and we have had distress in trade—we have revolutions and war desolating a great part of Europe—and at such a time the best course evidently is to pause; to make no rash experiments; to do nothing which would disturb the ordinary course of trade, or prevent that gradual improvement which is now taking place. If we pursue that course, we shall be in better circumstances than we would otherwise be in to endure a continuance of adverse fortune; and we shall be in a better position, also, to avail ourselves of any return of prosperity with which it may please Providence to bless us. The right hon. Gentleman then laid on the table the usual vote of 3,000,000 l . from the Consolidated Fund, to be granted for the service of Her Majesty.

said, he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could not take off taxes in the present state of matters; but it wag against the general expenditure of the country that he raised his voice, and not without sufficient grounds. He was surprised at the manner in which the House had received the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He had taken up his own position; he had chosen for comparison those years which suited his own purpose—the last two years—and then he turned round to hon. Members and said, will you not give credit to the Government for the reductions we have effected?—and the House cheered that statement. He gave the Government no credit for these reductions, because they had been forced into them by the pressure from the country. His complaint was that there had been a great increase in the expenditure for the two preceding years, without ground or reason. They were eternally hearing from Her Majesty's Government of the relief afforded the country from taxation, while to every man of common sense it was plain that the expenditure was increasing every year; and he charged, not only the right hon. Gentleman, but also the noble Lord at the head of the Government, with this, who told the country the other day that they ought to be satisfied with the large reduction of taxation that had taken place. He did not deny but some obnoxious taxes had been repealed, but then others were substituted in their room; and he, for one, had often stated in the House, that to no person were they more indebted for that relief from taxation than to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who took off eight millions of taxes which pressed upon the industry of the country, and substituted for that five millions which only pressed upon capital. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had, some time ago, moved for returns of the public expenditure from 1822 to 1847 inclusive, which were laid upon the table of the House; and he begged the attention of the House to the results which he had drawn from these returns. He would afterwards refer to the expenditure for the year 1835, for, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he, for one, did expect to see a return to the expenditure for that year. But he wished this broad fact to be known, that during the last five years the public had been subjected to a greater amount of expenditure than in any previous five years since 1824. The five years from 1824 to 1828 inclusive, were years of very heavy taxation, and strong complaints were made at the time. The necessity of a reform in Parliament was then urged, in order to reduce the expenditure; and yet the House would be surprised when he showed them that the expenditure of the reformed Parliament had exceeded that of the unreformed. The people were now anxious to have another Reform Bill, that there might he a similar diminution of expenditure as was brought about by the first Reform Bill. Dividing the returns into periods of five years, he found the following to be the result:—

He might add, that the expense of collection was in all cases from four to five millions. So that in fact, while they were eternally told that the country had been relieved of taxation, and ought to be thankful for it, he said they ought not to he thankful at all, for they were paying more than they ever did since 1824. He complained that they had heard nothing to-day of large measures to relieve the country. It was quite true that if they persevered in keeping up, as they did now, 28,000 men for military purposes more than they did in 1835, while at the same time they increased the miscellaneous estimates, there would be no relief. But against this excessive expenditure he had always raised his voice. He blamed the House of Commons for it, and that was the reason he wanted reform. He would be candid with them, and tell them the reason why he wanted to see changes in the system of representation. It was that the present system did not produce good and economical government. That was his object; because if Parliament was only to be used as an instrument to screw money out of the people, it would be mischievous, as it only gave the people the appearance of controlling the expenditure without the reality. He thought the time was coming when this pressure upon the House would take place. He was glad to see that rents were falling—that prices were coming down—these were all good symptoms. Though he suffered from them himself, he did not care. He hailed them as aids in giving permanent relief to the country. His hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding bad been blamed for proposing to return to the expenditure of 1835; but he thought the blame lay with those who resisted the proposition. It was time now for the House to make up its mind whether they would put an end to the present useless, extravagant, and uncalled-for colonial expenditure, which they might do by allowing the colonies to govern themselves, and consequently to pay their own expenses. Till that was done, he was sure that nothing would be done to the purpose. He thought, also, it was time they should be done with allusions to the state of the Continent. Was there anything in common between the Continent and this country? It was too bad, after the patient manner in which the people of England had borne their sufferings, that they should always be taunted with allusions to the Continent, or that the Government should keep up a large military force to coerce the people who had conducted themselves so well. The people of this country were quiet, because they enjoyed freedom of speech and liberty of the person, which were not enjoyed by the people on the Continent. But if there was no comparison between the people of England and the people of the Continent, why keep up a large military force to keep down the people of England? The people were as much entitled to their constitutional rights as the higher classes; and if they obtained them, he had no fear but that they might easily and safely reduce their forces to the standard of 1835, which would give a reduction equal to, if not exceeding, ten millions a year. He was as anxious as any man for the maintenance of public credit; but the best way to maintain it was by the practice of economy and relieving the burdens of the people, instead of allowing an extravagant expenditure. In private life, if a man was pressed with difficulties, he generally reduced his establishment charges, and economised in every direction until his expenditure was reduced within his means. The country was at this moment in a condition that required an analogous process, and he called upon the House to undertake it. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken, he said, the future into his consideration: it was but right that he should; but in doing so he appeared to have forgotten one important point to which it was essential that attention should be called, namely, the increasing permanent burdens brought upon the revenue. By the annual paper for 1848—that for 1849 had not yet been delivered—showing all additions to the public debt by interest or loan, he found that in the last ten years there had been added, upon account of the debt, an annual charge of 836,000 l ., exclusive of the enormous amount of taxation paid in that time. These additions ought to be jealously watched; for he was sure that if they were permitted to proceed, the time would come when they would not be endured. The right hon. Baronet had been persuaded by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Kent to postpone the payment of the hop duties this year. That course was perhaps necessary under existing circumstances; but would it not have been much better to put down useless expenditure in public departments, and abolish the hop duties altogether. He contended that it was perfectly possible to do so, and yet maintain the efficiency of the public service. So with books from abroad. There was a desire to spread information, of which no man more approved than himself; but would the House believe that a sum of 7,000 l . was raised by a duty upon books? The cost of the Governor of Sierra Leone and the establishment there was also 7,000 l ., or thereabouts. Now, if they were to strike off the 7,000 l paid at Sierra Leone, which they might do without detriment to the public service, they would be enabled to take off this duty, which, in point of fact, was a tax upon knowledge. Ay, if the House would only support him, he would undertake to place the public credit upon a better foundation than it was at this moment, and at the same time effect reductions which would enable the House to dispense with the duties on malt, hops, windows, soap, bricks, and paper. He approved cordially of the reductions which had been effected by the consolidation of the several departments of inland revenue; but he wished to see the excise struck out altogether. This might be done, he contended, by transferring the regulations as to spirits and licenses to another department—a change that would be attended with no expense. By maintaining the excise, they were not acting fairly by the retail traders, nor towards the consumers. He prayed, too, that wheat might be kept down to 35 s . a quarter, and then he believed he should receive the support of the landed interest in his agitation for financial reform; for he had often remarked that it was only the country Gentlemen that supported extravagance. [Sir J. TYRELL: Oh, oh!] He was sorry to have to say so; but such was the fact. Why, at the last great attempt that was made to reduce the national expenditure, by the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, he took the trouble to analyse the division, to see which constituencies were for economy and which for extravagance. He found, from the analysis, that the major part of all the large and populous towns were in favour of reduction; but that, unfortunately, the country Gentlemen, who did not seem to know what was their real interest, voted the other way. He prayed, most heartily, that some means might be found of awakening them to a just sense of their real situation on this question. He prayed, most heartily, that they might be enabled to see the necessity of reduction —that the country might enjoy the advantages of peace whilst we were at peace, and not be called upon to maintain our establishments upon a war footing. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire brought forward his Motion upon the state of the nation, he (Mr. Hume) would take the opportunity of assisting the House to some details upon this subject; but he certainly would not consent to renew the duty upon corn. He was anxious to see every man in the public service well paid, but not to employ more than were wanted. Why should 150 admirals be kept up, when only 14 were wanted? Why should 350 generals be maintained, when the services of half-a-dozen only were required? He really could not see how Gentlemen could conceive they were acting an honest part in supporting a system so extravagant; but if they went on in a way so utterly reckless, it would behove the people to speak out, and, without disparagement to any individual Member, he hoped they would speak out at the next general election. Nothing that he could do to effect reduction should be wanting. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out no hope of reducing taxation a single farthing. The country might congratulate itself upon not being worse than it actually was, and that was the whole amount of the statement. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was really and sincerely desirous of economy, and that there had never been an Administration more anxious to effect reductions than the present. He could only say to them, "God speed!" Let them go on in the good work; but he hoped that primarily they would direct their attention to the cost of the Army, the Navy, the dockyards, the commissariat, the waste of materials, and the details of the colonial expenditure. He said to the House—"Do justice to your colonies, and you may spare your money." All these were questions which the Government should forthwith take up. Let them abolish the Ordnance Department by transferring its duties to the War Office, and at once 250,000 l . a year would be saved, whilst the public service would be better performed. He appealed, with respect to the expenditure in the dockyards, to the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, who when at the Admiralty reduced the expenditure in this department 1,200,000 l ., whilst the establishments were rendered much more efficient. In suggesting these things, he (Mr. Hume) did not seek to impair, in any branch, the efficiency of the public service. He only required that unnecessary expenditure should be prevented. As to the vote itself, with which the right hon. Gentleman had concluded, he should offer no I objection, it being only a matter of course; but, in closing his remarks, he must request the attention of the Government to the absolute necessity for economy and I retrenchment.

had no intention of departing from the usual practice, by discussing the propositions of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer at any length on the present occasion. He could not, however, allow the reflections cast on the country Gentlemen by the hon. Member for Montrose to pass in silence. He had no pretensions to speak on their behalf; but if he were inclined to do so, he might charge the hon. Member with having a very short memory, or he might have remembered that the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, who did represent the country Gentlemen, made a Motion proposing very material reductions. The hon. Gentleman on that occasion acted as a decoy bird to draw away the attention of the country Gentlemen from that Motion. The hon. Member had also indulged in prophecies; but in these he placed very little reliance, for he remembered his vaticinations before the Reform Bill. The same thing was said of the free-trade measures, when the hon. Member for the West Riding was held up as a great statesman by a right hon. Baronet whom he did not see in his place. But he could assure the party of which that right hon. Baronet was the head, and who might be very easily counted, and who on the present occasion had vanished altogether—for he did not see one of its representatives present—whatever might he its present condition, the country party enjoyed far more of the confidence of the country than the party of the right hon. Baronet. He could not help remarking one omission in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had given them no insight whatever into the probable future condition of Ireland. One thing gave him great satisfaction, and that was to find that, notwithstanding the splendid auguries of peace indulged in by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the great draughts which he attempted to make on the credulity of the country, his sun was fast setting. They had been told of the elasticity observable in the trade of the country; but he knew that in many parts of the country great distress and difficulty prevailed in the middle and lower classes. However, the state of the country would be so thoroughly searched into in a few days, that he did not feel justified in occupying the attention of the House on the subject on the present occasion. He had been, in fact, only induced to rise by the severe and sarcastic comments which the hon. Member for Montrose—whom, however, he did not regard as a very profound philosopher or statesman—had lavished on the country Gentlemen.

coincided with the view taken of the bop duties by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose; and he could not avoid adding his assurance that, unless some means of relief were provided for the growers, no man would regret the result more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The duties hitherto paid had not been paid without the greatest sacrifices; and he feared that if the present demands were exacted, there would be an aggregate of distress such as had never occurred within his (Mr. Hodges') recollection, which extended into a considerable portion of the last century. He considered that for thirty years the hop duties had been a disgrace to the country. The last three crops had comparatively failed, and it was out of the power of the growers to pay the duty now owing. He regretted, under these circumstances, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out no prospect of relief; but be ventured to hope that be would even now come forward with some proposition for that purpose.

was exceedingly sorry that no prospect had been held out of an abolition of that most odious and unpopular tax, the annual certificate duty paid by attorneys and solicitors. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members might laugh, but the tax was no joke to the large number of professional men, many of whom, by the continual levy of this tax, were reduced to distress. He should take an early opportunity to bring the whole question before the House, and he hoped to be enabled to make out such a case as would compel his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to surrender the tax in deference to the unanimous feeling of the House and country. The right hon. Gentleman might as well do so at once with a good grace, for he repeated that the attorneys were a highly valuable, meritorious, and powerful class, and that they ought not to be subjected to such an odious tax.

confirmed what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for West Kent, with regard to the difficulty which would be found in providing the hop duties. He had taken the opportunity, when in Sussex, during the Whitsuntide holidays, to make inquiries into the state of the country. He had hoped to find it improving, but he found it the reverse. It was utterly impossible that the hop duties, which, he presumed, would be called for in October and November, could be paid. In the district he had the honour to represent, they amounted to 117,000 l .; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted upon that amount being paid, the alternative would be that more than half the planters would have to be sold up, and the duties be paid by their imprisonment in gaol. Some had already been sent there in a most cruel manner. The Excise-office suspected they would not be able to pay, and therefore took proceedings against them; they had thus been sent to gaol simply from their unfortunate circumstances. He was satisfied, that if the hop duty was to be maintained, the necessary result must be an outbreak in the country, and that the produce would be absorbed by the expense of collection. He hoped the Government would take the subject into their consideration, and remove this, which really was a war tax.

said, that considering the state of trade in the years 1846, 1847, and 1848, and the disturbed condition of the Continent, the House ought to be gratified at the improving state of the revenue. He could not, however, anticipate any material reduction in the expenditure unless the state of Ireland improved, and they were enabled to reduce the constabulary and military establishments of that country. It was to Irish and colonial reductions they must look, in order to economise the national expenditure; but he was not so sanguine as many persons, who thought they could safely be effected at once. With reference to the abolition of duties, he desired to see every effort made to raise such a revenue from other sources as would enable Parliament to abolish the duties on hops, bricks, windows, paper, and advertisements. As to tea, he had gone carefully into a calculation of the probable consumption if the duty were lowered; and he was decidedly of opinion that if it were reduced to 1 s ., the revenue produced by it for the next three years would not be more than 3,000,000 l ., instead of 5,000,000 l ., the amount derived from the present duty. He should prefer increasing the income tax to 5 per cent, and abolish the duties upon the articles he had named, and any other duties which the produce of the additional 2 per cent would include. But he feared that any such proposition, in the present temper of the House, would meet with the same fate as a similar Motion of the right hon. Gentleman in a former Session. He had heard with great satisfaction the statement of the advantages arising from a consolidation of the inland duties. He wished the same principle to be adopted with regard to the customs duties. Of all departments, the customs most required revision; and he felt much confidence that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake it.

said, the statement of the right hon. Baronet convinced him that the resources of the country, if rightly administered, were amply sufficient to meet all the engagements required by the national interest and the national honour. He hoped the career of economy in which the Government had embarked, would be prosecuted to a still further extent. At the same time, after having heard the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the success which had attended a reduction of duty upon several articles of consumption, he was surprised that no others were promised. He would take the tea duties as an example. It was said the subject could not be entertained upon financial grounds. But if there was one tax which pressed upon the poor more unjustly than another, it was that upon tea, for, owing to its being equal upon all qualities, the poor man paid it in a larger proportion than the rich consumer. He trusted, that at an early period there would be a general revision of taxation, keeping in view, at the same time, the necessity of maintaining faith with the public creditor. He would never consent to be a party to any reduction that would in any degree weaken the claims of the public creditor, nor unless the engagements of the country could be honourably and faithfully fulfilled. He implored the Government, however, to take the excise duties generally into their consideration. They pressed heavily upon industry, whilst they confined trade within the narrowest possible limits. On all grounds, he hoped they would emancipate business from these fetters, for, so long as they remained, free trade could not be carried out.

observed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not reasonably be expected to propose any reduction of duties without having first taken into consideration the means at his disposal for supporting the credit of the country. Neither the attorneys and solicitors' certificate duty, nor the advertisement duty, could be repealed unless there was a clear surplus. He agreed most cordially with his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, that the principles of free trade could scarcely be said to be carried until the excise laws had been swept away. He agreed also with the hon. Member for Edinburgh as to the propriety of a reduction of the excise duties. There were only two ways, however, in which that could be brought about, and that was either by a reduction of the expenditure, as advocated by the hon. Member for Montrose, and by the hon. Member for the West Riding, or by an alteration in our whole system of taxation, which he was in hopes would some time or other take place. He firmly believed that reduction of expenditure might be carried much further than it had been; and when that was effected, the country might look forward to a reduction of taxation. He was one of those who had always had a great respect for the country Gentlemen of that House; but he must say, from sad experience, that there were two points which were peculiarly their forte—war and taxation. He regretted this the more, because they were told that the natural guardians of the public purse were the country Gentlemen; and he did not altogether abandon the hope that a time would come when the country Gentlemen would justify what had been said of them by the great economist, Adam Smith, and vote against war. He coincided, however, in the opinion expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, who thought that nothing but the severe lesson of necessity, which would come upon them in the shape of low prices, would teach them to check the expenditure. Till then he feared that they would continue to support by their votes a high rate of expenditure, and not vindicate the character which had been given of them. He hoped the Government would be prepared next year with an increased reduction of expenditure, which alone could satisfy the wishes and exigencies of the country.

wished that the custom of making general charges against whole classes of individuals were less frequently adopted; but as far as his observation had gone, he was prepared to show that on every question that was debated in that House, the country Gentlemen were greater masters of the details of those questions than any Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. If he were only to take one instance, he would point to the statement made by his hon. Friend and relative the Member for Droitwich, on the question of county rates the other day. It was scarcely necessary, after the opinion which he had expressed on the question of taxation lately, to say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not likely to satisfy him (Mr. Drummond); not that there was anything that was not to be praised in that statement, but it did not go to the root of this question. He would unite with the hon. Member for Montrose in any assertion of any general principle which he pleased; but he would not unite with any one in that House to praise any Administration which might have to carry into effect the details. He thought the right hon. Gentleman quite right in declining to make any promise with respect to the reduction of duties which produced small amounts to the revenue, because such reductions would be ineffectual. The taxes which ought in the first instance to be repealed, were those which pressed exclusively on the poor. The hop duty had been suggested as a fit subject for repeal; and he wished to impress upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, that in this country and this climate homebrewed beer was one of the first necessaries of life for the poor man. He was very sorry that the Government would not undertake this question. He entertained the deepest conviction that unless they did, the Ledru Rollins and Proudhons of this country would induce the poor to demand not only that, but a great deal more.

thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was quite justified in appealing to the country Gentlemen, seeing how great was their social position and influence in the country. They could certainly give effective aid in causing reduction in our expenditure, if they cho se to exercise their political power in that direction. He feared that they were not properly alive to their own position. There could be no doubt but that if they did take the economical course, they would strengthen their political influence in the country. At present the country Gentlemen were much divided, so that if gentlemen wished just now to get any of their friends into Parliament, they would not find it quite so easy a matter as formerly. The farmers were less docile than formerly; but a move on the part of the proprietors in the direction of economy would restore confidence, and thus the political influence of Gentlemen opposite would be renewed. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, not expecting much, was not disappointed. The Government would not get much credit for economy, so long as they required the tax-gatherer to call on the taxpayer for the same amount of money as before. Of what use was it to tell the taxpayer of the great economy practised by Government, and that certain docks which ought never to have been begun, are to be finished at a more remote period than was first intended; or what satisfaction would it be to the taxpayer to hear of the admission that unfortunate mistakes had been made in their construction, if, after all, the tax-gatherer came to his door for as heavy an amount as ever? Therefore, until his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could effect such reform as would enable him to do with less income, and to make smaller demands on the taxpayer, he would not get much credit with the public for economy. Now, with regard to free trade, he (Mr. Gibson) considered that a fitting occasion to say, that he thought the Government deserved great credit for the firm and successful manner in which they had carried the repeal of the navigation laws. He thought that a fitting occasion to allude to the point, and although he did not wish to treat the subject with any levity, he could not help observing that the protectionist party had been in some degree instrumental to the success of the measure, from the attitude they had assumed; for it was the fear that a Government might be formed of their party that had induced a reluctant House of Lords to agree to the repeal. But he did not think that this detracted in the least from the merit of the Government in having made the measure a Cabinet question, and announced their intention to stand or fall with it. He would not, however, have the Government repose too long on the laurels they had gained by the repeal of the navigation laws. There were a number of commercial reforms to be accomplished, and anomalies in the tariff to be got rid of. The latter was still burdened with a variety of small articles yielding little or no revenue, but the duties on which tended very much to embarrass trade. He thought that before another Session Government should undertake and carry out the revision of those items. One word as to the excise duties, to which allusion had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. He (Mr. Gibson) thought that, although it might be true that you could not reduce taxation without first reducing expenditure, yet there were more ways than one of reducing expenditure. One was that of the late Sir Henry Parnell, which was, if Parliament were satisfied that the expenditure was greater than necessary to support with efficiency the public establishments, to withhold income in a proportionate degree—to vote the reduction of taxation—in short, to make the Government do with less. Now, there were no taxes of which he was more willing to vote the repeal than some of the excise duties. He took the excise duty on paper, which had been alluded to by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. First, in a commercial point of view. The customs duty on books, alluded to by the hon. Member for Montrose, could not be touched unless you first dealt with the excise duty on paper. He had no doubt but that that duty had a most prejudicial effect on the export of English books. Then, as regarded manufactures: one view of the effects of the excise duty on paper might be taken in its effect on the card paper used in making patterns for the jacquared looms. Before the Committee on Schools of Design, there was one witness examined who stated that he had paid in duty on cards for two patterns no less a sum than 48 l . The witness mentioned these as extreme cases. Baying that the duty on such patterns generally varied from 1 l . to 8 l .; but here were two extreme cases in which the excise duty on the cards came to 48 l . It appeared, then, that the effect of the excise duty on paper was to place the British manufacturer at a great disadvantage as compared with his foreign competitor. The French manufacturer paid no excise duty on his cards, thus placing his British competitor in the markets of the world in very unfavourable circumstances. But there were other questions connected with the taxes on paper which it would be most peculiarly appropriate for them to urge upon the Government of the noble Lord. The noble Lord's Government, the heads of the Whig party, had always been distinguished by their repudiation of taxes on knowledge. Now, the Messrs. Chambers of Edinburgh had presented a petition to that House, showing that the excise duties on paper had caused them to discontinue a work intended for the humbler classes, of which there was then a circulation of 80,000. Here was a most important means for the diffusion of knowledge suddenly checked. Therefore he said, that both in a commercial point of view, and as affecting the diffusion of knowledge, there were no taxes which it would give him more satisfaction to repeal than the duty on paper. The advertisement duty was part of the same subject, and ought to be repealed; but he looked upon one matter as perhaps the most important of all in connexion with the diffusion of knowledge, and that was the penny stamp upon newspapers. This tax was reduced some time since; it ought to have been abolished. Let his right hon. Friend then repeal the excise duty on paper, the newspaper stamp, and the advertisement duty, which were all parts of the same question of taxes on knowledge; and he would have taken a course quite in accordance with the old professions of the Whig party, and one which he was sure would establish the Government in the confidence of the country. The stamp upon newspapers had been brought forward some years before by Mr. Chadwick and other Gentlemen, but it never was settled. The duty was reduced after much discussion; but all the arguments were for its entire repeal. It operated most undoubtedly to prevent the public from having a good cheap press, and was thus instrumental in preventing the diffusion of useful knowledge among the working classes. These taxes were well worthy the consideration of the Government; and he did hope that if the income, which he believed would increase, should show a surplus, it would not be seized and expended in the increase of our fighting establishments, but in the promotion of these useful and humanising purposes. Income was never parted with by Government, except in consequence of pressure and watchfulness on the part of the people. Income flowing spontaneously into the Exchequer was never spontaneously given, up, and, therefore, he wished to impress upon the House that if there should be a surplus, they ought not to permit of its being appropriated to the increase of our fighting establishments. He had the most perfect confidence that the expenses of those estahlishments might he reduced. He had testified to that conviction hy his votes in the House so often that it was not necessary then to dwell longer on the subject. He thought it most satisfactory to contemplate the great success which had attended the commercial policy of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. If ever there was a policy capable of proof by mathematical demonstration to be successful, both as to its effects on revenue and on trade, it was that commercial policy which the right hon. Baronet had commenced so boldly, and carried out so vigorously from 1824 to 1847. It was that policy which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must carry out. He hoped, also, that the Whig party would take up their old ground, removing the taxes on knowledge, as the right hon. Baronet had remitted those on food, for knowledge was next to food. He believed, from accounts he had received from the northern districts, that trade might be considered to be in a more satisfactory condition than it had been some time since. No doubt there were difficulties yet to be contended with. It had been said that the home trade was not as good as might be wished; but its state might be accounted for by the famine in Ireland, and the partial failure of the crops. But it was difficult to estimate statistically the consumption within the British dominions. They might not he in a position to say what the increase or decrease in the home trade had been. There might have been intervals of depression; but he believed, upon the whole, as far as the labouring, classes were concerned—he spoke more especially of those of the north of England—they never were in a better position than at present; that the wages of labour never before commanded so large a proportion of the necessaries and comforts of life. To place within the reach of the labouring classes a larger amount of the necessaries and comforts of life, was one great object which the advocates of the free-trade policy had in view; that object had been in some degree attained. He did not mean to say that they might not still further improve the condition of the labouring classes, and that there was not much to be done; but what he did say was, that the commercial policy which had been pursued, had in this respect been successful to no small extent.

said, that as the country Gentlemen had been so often alluded to by hon. Members from the other side of the House, he thought it but fair that a Member on their side should be allowed to contribute his quota of information upon the subject that had been drawn into the discussion of this evening. The hon. Member for Montrose charged the country Gentlemen with an entire forgetfulness of their own interest; and the right hon. Member for Manchester, who was once attached to that party, said that if they were all united, their interest in the country would be much greater than it really was. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were a divided body. He (Mr. Stafford) did not exactly know what the right hon. Member meant; but upon general subjects of political economy he would appeal to the votes given in that House as to whether they were a divided body or not. If the right hon. Member meant that their interest would be increased by the advocacy of those political opinions which he entertained, he would refer him to what had taken place in the recent county elections as his answer to such a statement. There never was a greater mistake made than to represent the opinions of the farmers to be such as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suppose. Any person that had watched the proceedings that took place at the late Hampshire election, must know that the feelings expressed by the county Members here, were not only sympathised with by the farmers, but were exaggerated outside of this House. Let them take any county election during the present Session, and they would find sufficient evidence to show that the farmers were still more in favour of protection, or of what the right hon. Member called the retrospective policy of the country. The right hon. Member said, that the labourers in the north of England were very well employed, and that their wages were good. He (Mr. Stafford) had only to say, that in reference to that district in England with which he was connected, no such flattering tale could be told. They did not consider that the experiment at present in course of trial had succeeded. He had listened assiduously to every Gentleman who had risen on the opposite side of the House, but he had not heard one say that the system of free trade had been carried out as yet. The right hon. Gentleman eulogised the Government for repealing the navigation laws, and also praised the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth—who with his party, he regretted to see, were absent—for what he had done; but he said that greater experiments must be tried in free-trade legislation. The farmers in the midland and the southern districts, at all events, hailed with no satisfaction the progress of this experiment; and they said that the experience of the past offered very little guarantee for the success of the future. The right hon. Member for Manchester said, that the excise duties ought to be removed, in order consistently to carry out this free-trade experiment. The country party, however, said that the heavy amount of taxation in this country prevented them carrying out their free-trade system. When hon. Members opposite were obliged to make the admissions which they had heard, they stood self-condemned upon their own statements. The advocates for free trade, in recommending that the duty should be taken off paper, so as to encourage the diffusion of knowledge, which they said was only second in importance to the duties upon food, appeared to forget that there were still protection duties upon certain articles of food, the abolition of which not one of this party had raised his voice in favour of—he alluded to the duties upon butter and cheese. Session after Session passed, leaving these duties still untouched. He would tell them why; because they knew that the revenue derived from these articles could not be spared. And what hon. Members opposite said of those duties to which he alluded, his party said of the duties that they had already repealed. They could not carry out consistently their free-trade principles, and maintain faith with the national creditor. It had been said that the present high rate of wages enabled the labouring population of this country to obtain a greater supply of food. He would, however, remind them of one part of the kingdom to which no allusion had been made when speaking upon this subject, where there existed the lowest rate of wages and the lowest price of food; yet there, where the life of a man could be maintained at the cheapest rate, was the greatest misery, suffering, and starvation. Cheap food was not the only question concerning the prosperity of the poor man. Of what advantage was it to the poor man that food should be cheap, if men despaired of the means of purchasing it at any price? The farmers might yet be induced by their necessities to unite together for purposes it would be difficult to dissuade them from. They felt that their distress had been brought upon them by means repugnant to their honest and straightforward character. It was more than could be expected that they would preserve that strong attachment to the institutions of the country by which they had been hitherto so strongly distinguished. He agreed with hon. Members opposite in thinking that free trade had much farther to go. The country Gentlemen of England had hitherto struggled more to support the national defences of the country than aristocratic institutions and public wealth. The time, however, might come when they would find themselves placed in much difficulty by the policy that had been recently pursued. There was an agitation going on for the repeal of the malt tax. He believed that the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had pledged himself to assist in the removal of that impost. He (Mr. Stafford) knew not whether the amount of thankfulness and gratitude received was sufficient to induce him to persevere; but the farmers of England, finding themselves deprived of all protection, would be slow to support those aristocratic institutions which they had heretofore so ardently desired to maintain. But this state of things would no doubt suit the democratic policy of the hon. Member for the West Riding. Finding themselves thus betrayed and deserted, they may be induced to lend themselves to the phantasies and fallacies of the day, and thereby place the institutions of the country in great jeopardy.

did not intend to be seduced into any discussion on the questions referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire; he would merely observe, that he considered the experience of every day justified the views he entertained as to free trade in corn. He should not waste the time of the House by going out of his way to talk on the subject, but was content to leave it to time, and to abide by that test, as to the result of what the hon. Gentleman still was pleased to call an experiment. But when the hon. Gentleman told them that the farmers were the especially loyal class, and that they were now becoming democratic in their views, and that the institutions of the country were not safe in their hands, he must take leave to deny that they were the exclusively loyal class. He contended that there was as much loyalty and rational respect for established institutions amongst the shopkeepers and the middle classes of London and other large towns as amongst the farmers. With regard to the malt tax, he had made no profession to the farmers on that subject. What he had said was, that he would vote for its repeal along with other taxes which he thought were unsound in principle. Unless they reduced the public expenditure or increased direct taxation, he did not mean to hold it out that it would be possible to reduce the malt tax. But he had spoken of the necessity of reducing the excise duties, not for the purpose merely of decreasing the burdens of taxation, but for removing the impediments which they offered to the industry of the country. He believed they had discussed that night the way in which the revenue was derived, and the injury which the present process of taxation inflicted on the trade and industry of the country. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire referred to the malt tax. Now he (Mr. Cobden) had received communications from the counties of Sussex and Kent, asking him to bring forward a Motion to repeal both the malt and the hop duties. The hopgrowers represented to him that they were subjected to all kinds of natural calamities in the pursuit of their business. They had to contend with the blight, the fly, the flea, the mildew, the honey-dew, and a variety of other diseases to which the hop plant was liable; but they said that all these were nothing as compared with the evil of the excise duty, which was a periodical blight overrunning the whole district. Here was a beggarly 250,000 l . to produce which the evil influence of the excise regulations was spread over four or five counties to such an extent, that they were told by the hon. Member for Sussex, that if it were persisted in they might expect an outbreak in the country. Here was a proof of the prejudicial influence of these excise duties on the industry of the country. Then the paper duty had been referred to; but the hon. Member for Edinburgh being connected with that trade, considered it might not be proper that he should detail all the grievances which the excise duty, and the vexatious regulations which were adopted for levying it, imposed. The manufacturers generally said that they found those regulations a far greater burden than the amount of money they were called upon to pay. See how these regulations interposed in the changes which arose from time to time in the carrying out of a man's business. Lately there had been a change in the postage, which had occasioned a very extensive manufacture of envelopes. Would any one believe, who had not heard it from a practical man, as he (Mr. Cobden) had, that, by the regulations of the excise, a paper manufacturer might cut out the envelopes, but was not permitted to fold them on his premises? Then look at the time regulations and the unnecessary impediments they imposed on the manufacturer. You must leave the paper on the premises twenty-four hours before it can be removed, and this twenty-four hours often amounted to forty-eight. Now in these days, when business was carried on with an expedition unknown to their forefathers, such regulations amounted to far greater impediments than ever were contemplated when they were first framed, perhaps a century or two ago. The increased facilities of movement resulting from the introduction of new powers, did not admit of such impediments. Why, it was like putting a toll-bar across a railway. The increased activity and speed with which manufactures were conducted—the vast number of transactions as compared with the course of trade in former times—rendered these impediments quite insupportable; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must make up his mind that he would have to endure a pressure for the removal of these obnoxious and almost unendurable taxes, which he would not be able long to resist; and he must make up his mind either for a large reduction of expenditure, or to make up the deficiency by direct taxation. At the commencement of the Session he had named several articles on which he thought the duties should be abolished, every one of which had been alluded to since in this House. Tea was one of those articles, and this was a difficulty which the Government must meet. The Liverpool people had adverted to this subject; and when they found they could not succeed because of the state of the revenue, they converted their agitation for a reduction of the tea duties into a Financial Reform Association. But they were as anxious for a reduction of the tea duties as ever. There was another duty which had not been referred to during the present discussion, with regard to which some change must also he made; that was the duty on timber. Having repealed the navigation laws, the Government must he prepared to meet the agitation which would follow for the repeal of that duty. They were not statesmen if they were not prepared to meet that demand. The question was, how were they to do it? It could be done only by reducing the public expenditure, or by increasing direct taxation. There was no other way in which it could be done. He did not think that the country would be satisfied with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget on this occasion. He had, however, made a step in the right direction. The right hon. Gentleman did not propose to spend more than he was to receive; but then he did not propose to spend less. True, there was an estimated surplus of 150,000 l , or something like it; but there Would, in all probability, be an excess in the expenditure for the Army and Navy over the estimates, as there had been last year, and then the surplus might turn out a deficiency. But what he contended was, that they were spending too much money. He compared the estimates for the ensuing year with those of the Duke of Wellington's Government in 1830—the last year of the boroughmongers—and he found it was 5,500,000 l . more. And let them remember that the Duke of Wellington and his Government were upset by the Whigs on a Motion brought forward by Sir Henry Parnell, on account of their extravagance. They had since had the Reform Bill, and it had resulted in their spending 5½ millions more for governing the country, than it had cost under a boroughmongering Parliament. He did not mean to say that the Reform Bill had not done good. It had done good, but it had not produced so much economy and retrenchment as they had a right to expect. The right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that the country was satisfied with the present state of things. He believed there would be more pressure upon the Government for economy before another Session, than ever there was before. He believed many Members for counties were now for economy and retrenchment, and would be found next Session voting with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose for carrying out a more rigid system of economy than had yet been attempted. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prepare himself for that result, and that during the recess he would see the necessity of preparing another and better budget; and, if so, if he would only make sufficient reductions in the expenditure of the next year, at all events he might calculate on the support of the constituency of the West Riding.

said, it had afforded him great pleasure to hear the turn the debate had taken, because he, like many other hon. Members, was strongly in favour of the removal of the customs and excise duties. He was sure the protectionists would admit that an enormous amount of pauperism existed in the country, that this pauperism could only be relieved by cheapness, and that things could not be cheap unless customs and excise duties on articles of consumption were abolished. He was in no way interested himself in the import or export of these articles; but he felt for the sufferings of his fellow-men, and he believed that if equal advantages were afforded to all classes of the people, landed property would be increased some thousands per cent. He wished to see prosperity of trade, and he was sincerely anxious to promote any measures which would produce that desirable result.

rose to make a remark on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "that our revenue had suffered from the unfortunate state of affairs in the north of Europe." He could bear testimony to that fact, as he was well aware of the falling-off in the trade of Lancashire and Yorkshire, in consequence of the blockade of the German ports; also of the distress which it had produced in some parts of Yorkshire, particularly in the port of Hull, where some thousands of hands were thrown out of employ, and the trade of that port almost paralysed. But was not the Government to blame in some measure for this state of things? Had they carried out the treaty of 1720

—"guaranteeing to Denmark the Duchy of Schleswig, and defending it against all and every one who may endeavour to disturb it either directly or indirectly "—

he believed the present unfortunate war would not have taken place. It was also the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that the blockade was an effective one, and that equal privileges were granted to us as to other neutral Powers. He had given notice of a Motion on that question, and if he obtained an opportunity of bringing it forward he would be able to show to the House that the blockade was not an effective one, according to the law of nations, and that we were not in consequence bound to obey it. He had documents to prove this; also that the ships and commerce of foreign nations had in numerous instances a preference over the ships and trade of this country. It was the duty of our Government to protect the trade and shipping of this country, and not allow a repetition of the treatment we had of late been subject to. Indignity, if not insult, had been offered to the flag of this country; indeed, the feeling was strong throughout Europe that England dared not assert her rights; that she was bound over to keep the peace; that if you kicked her she dared not kick again. He was as much a friend of peace as the hon. Member for the West Riding, and had as great an abhorrence of war; yet he would not submit to the sacrifice of our trade and commerce, and to attacks upon our honour and dignity as a nation, even for the sake of securing the blessings of peace. Before he sat down, he would make one other observation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the sum received into the national exchequer for duties on corn the last financial year was 950,000 l . He remembered assuring the right hon. Gentleman that it would amount to near a million. At the time he was incredulous, and said he hoped he might get it. He had got it, and it was to be regretted he would not get it in future. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he expected the 1 s . duty would bring in 250,000 l . per annum; if so, a fixed duty of 5 s . would bring in 1,250,000 l per annum, and this would, except in years of scarcity, come out of the pocket of the foreign grower, and would not enhance the price of corn to the consumers of this country.

said, he should not have made a single remark if the speech they had just heard had emanated from a county Member; but he could not forbear observing that his hon. Friend the Member who had just spoken, was not sent to that House by the people of Wakefield to propose a tax upon bread. He (Mr. Cobden) was rather astonished to hear a proposition of that kind come from such a quarter. The hon. Member had proposed a tax of 5 s . on foreign wheat, and he had admitted that, if imposed, the foreigner would pay it. Now, the hon. Gentleman dealt in corn, and he (Mr. Cobden) would take the liberty of putting a case to him. Suppose he had a thousand quarters of corn arrived at Hull, from Dantzic, and that there was a duty of 5 s . upon it; would he sell that corn to the English consumer for the same price if it were on shore as if it were afloat? Would he not sell it at so much less afloat?—and, if on shore, would he not say to the consumer, "You must pay the 5 s . duty additional?" How then could he, himself a corn-merchant, get up in that House and allege that a duty paid on the importation of a foreign article was not paid by the consumer but by the foreigner?

said: Sir, I should not have risen again but to repel the unfair attack made upon me by the hon. Member for Yorkshire; and I tell the hon. Member that I was not pledged to support free trade; and that I am as independent as to my conduct in this House as the hon. Gentleman, and as free to support such measures as I believe in my conscience to be right, irrespective of party. The hon. Gentleman says that I promised to support free trade. Sir, what I said was, that as free trade had received the sanction of Parliament, I should give it a full and fair trial. I have said nothing inconsistent with this. I do regret that for the purposes of revenue, not protection, we have not a duty to bring us in upwards of one million per annum. The hon. Member for the West Riding has put an hypothetical case to prove that I am wrong in the assertion I have made, "that a duty of 4 s . to 5 s . comes out of the pocket of the foreigner." Sir, I deal not with hypothesis, but with facts; and I tell him that when the duty is reduced the price rises abroad, and when it is increased the price declines abroad. Thus in March last year, when the duty was restored, it suddenly rose to 7 s . per quarter; the price on the Continent declined equally, so as to meet the prices in our market, which were little affected by the advance of duty; and this. Sir, is the usual case, except in years of scarcity; then the price of corn abroad governs ours, and not ours theirs.

was happy to inform the House that the manufacturers of the town of Leicester were at present well employed. There was not one man willing to work there who could not find employment. The operatives were cheerful and happy, and the inhabitants generally were enjoying comfort. Being one of the magistrates of the borough, he could recollect the time when there were not less than thirty prisoners to be tried at the sessions; twenty or thirty was the average, but at the last sessions there were only four for trial. He might also state that whatever might be said about free trade, no ill effects from that measure had been felt at Leicester; and that when provisions were low in that town, wages, instead of being low also, had a tendency to advance. In fact, since the year 1836 trade was never better in the town he had the honour to represent than it was at present; and he had no doubt it would continue brisk so long as Yorkshire and Lancashire were prosperous and provisions were cheap.

said, he could speak from personal observation of the improved condition of the population of the town which he had the honour to represent (Leicester). He was happy to be able to state that since the year 1833 trade had not been in a better condition than it was during the present season; and he was further rejoiced to add, that the borough which he had the honour to represent contained a contented and thriving population.

was very glad to learn that the constituents of the hon. Member who last addressed the House were happy, contented, and prosperous. It was well for him then to be able to make such a statement; but it was very much to be apprehended that some time hence he could offer to the House no such pleasing picture of the condition of the people whom he represented. As regarded agriculture, he feared that matters were very bad, and that they were likely to become much worse. Not very long since a large number of ablebodied men came to him at his residence in the country, stating that they were without employment and without bread for their families; and there could be no doubt that they and the country generally attributed such an intense degree of distress to the operation of free-trade principles, to which the hon. Member for the West Riding imputed such marvellous good effects. If, as the hon. Member boasted, he gave cheap bread to many persons, it should be remembered that he put many persons out of bread, and amongst that number were those who came to his (Mr. Plumptre's) house lately, stating their unhappy case. They were from sixty to seventy in number, and being fathers of families might be said to represent a large population, all of whom were in the utmost distress; and in the midst of that state of things the hon. Member for the West Riding talked as if he alone knew what was right and fitting for the Government and the Legislature to do—always using towards them the language of dictation. "You must do this, and you shall do the other;" and he went on as if he intended to "lead them all by the nose." Now, he should take the liberty of telling the hon. Gentleman that he would not be led by the nose, nor did he believe that the country would submit to any such language; such a style of address was wholly unbecoming a free and independent assembly. The opinions of the hon. Member were not the opinions of the House; and though that Gentleman might think that "wisdom would die with him," yet that was not the opinion either of the House or of the country.

rose to observe, that his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding had never shown any disposition to dictate to the House or to any individual Member. The Member for the West Riding did not object to the Member for Wakefield expressing any opinion which he might happen to entertain, but merely expressed a difference of opinion from him, at the same time expressing some surprise that a Gentleman who represented a populous borough should utter a word in favour of a 5 s . duty on corn.

The resolution was then agreed to, the House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday.

rose and said, had he felt satisfied that the question before the House, as he understood it, had been fairly, fully, and distinctly stated by any one hon. Member who addressed it during the previous stages of the Bill, he should not have troubled them with the remarks that he was about to make. It struck him that in the midst of the prejudices and passions which unfortunately surrounded this subject, the real merits of the question had been but imperfectly attended to. The real question appeared to him to be this—whether that House of Commons, which had just recorded its liberal assent to the compensation of rebels on the other side of the Atlantic, for losses which they had sustained in consequence of their own rebellious proceedings, should now with the same breath proceed to pass a law in order to inflict on rebels on this side of the Atlantic a punishment which the law of the land, as it stood at present, did not permit them to inflict? He was aware that hon. and learned Gentlemen had stated it as their opinion that the law in its present shape did enable the Crown to commute sentence of death for high treason in Ireland to transportation; but he took the liberty of saying, that the arguments in support of that opinion were utterly illogical and irrelevant to the subject before the House. In considering the question, the House was bound to assume that the existing law did not confer upon the Crown the power of commuting the sentence upon Mr. Smith O'Brien and his unhappy associates. Mr. Smith O'Brien had been convicted and sentenced to pains and penalties; and it did so happen that—speaking not in a legal or quibbling, but in a matter-of-fact English sense—under all the circumstances of the case it was utterly impossible that the extreme penalty of the law could be inflicted on him. The sense of the people of England, of the civilised world, and of progressive civilisation, was against that infliction—and what alternative remained? Imprisonment for life. The preamble of this Bill stated what was false in fact as well as in law. It stated that doubts had arisen as to the power of the Crown to mitigate the punishment of parties convicted of high treason in Ireland. He did not believe that there was a doubt of any such kind in the mind of any lawyer. All lawyers, he believed, admitted that where punishment of death was remitted, the Crown had the power of inflicting imprisonment for life. It was an utter perversion of the fact to assert that the object of this Bill was to substitute a lighter for a heavier punishment: its object was in fact directly the reverse. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had quoted the case of Cuffey and others who had been found guilty, as he stated, of offences not more flagrant than those brought home to Mr. Smith O'Brien; and yet the humble English malefactor was transported for life, whilst the Irish gentleman was only to be imprisoned. He (Mr. Moore) cordially concurred in the sentiment of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and he believed he might add that such an injustice would be an anomaly in the operation of our present laws. But did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to assert that an ex post facto law like the present had been brought forward to inflict additional punishment upon the English offenders? It had not been the custom of that House to treat English offenders in that way, and he hoped that in the present instance the Legislature would not, for the sake of punishing Irish offenders, establish a new precedent. When the hon. and learned Gentleman talked of equal punishment for equal treason, could he see no further west than the land lying at the other side of the Irish Channel? Was his vision so limited that he could see nothing beyond the Atlantic? Had he forgotten the speech which he made the other night on the Canadian question? He (Mr. Moore) hoped that the House would, by their vote on this question, disprove the assertion that England crouched before those who were in a position to demand their rights, but pressed most heavily on the weak and fallen.

The House then resolved itself into Committee upon the Bill; Mr. Bernal in the chair.

The preamble was postponed.

On Clause 1,

rose to move some Amendments, of which he had given notice. After the division which had taken place on the principle of the Bill, when so few Irish Members were found in the minority, he was unwilling, he said, to forfeit his position in that House by a further opposition to it. But he must remark that on this, as on every other occasion, the Irish Members had shown a deplorable want, not only of unity of purpose and sincerity of principle, but of that quality which Englishmen so well understood and prized, and which he would designate by the homely appellation of "pluck." To the decision of the House, however, he would bow; and all that remained for him to do was to endeavour to mitigate the severity of the measure, and to remove some, not all, for that was impossible, of the objections which he entertained to it, and to vote against the third reading of the Bill, whether his Amendments were agreed to or not. The preamble having been postponed, he proposed to leave out the words "declared and," which would take away from the Bill its declaratory character, and make it simply an enactment. Suppose it had been the case of an Englishman, or a Chartist, the House would never have heard the last of it, even from the great Reform party, who were always either absent from divisions of this kind, or present to swell the Ministerial majority. This Bill went to inflict a punishment which those to whom it applied declared to be worse than death, and which was so represented by the inhabitants of penal settlements, corroborated by the official statements of Government officers. With singular inconsistency. Ministers now called on the House to sanction this disgraceful punishment, by inflicting it on these unhappy Irishmen. By making this a declaratory Act, they sought to get rid of the enormity of the proceeding; but a declaratory Act could only be constitutional where it was demanded by a great and overwhelming necessity, or where doubts really existed in the minds of the Judges as to the construction of the law. This was no such case; but here Parliament was called on to interfere to prevent the courts of justice from declaring the law. It was said, this was to save a man from being hanged; he declared that they could not hang him; the legal difficulties would prevent that. If he were hanged, it would but carry out the sentence of the legal tribunal; and sooner than have it commuted in the way proposed, the prisoner asked to have the hard and bloody sentence executed. Government knew that if Mr. Smith O'Brien were placed on board a convict ship, the next day he would be brought to the bar of the courts in Dublin; and he doubted not the Judges were prepared to do their duty. He was proud that Mr. Smith O'Brien had acted in the independent manner he had done; he had always been proud of his friendship. The declaratory words in the Bill were introduced to cover a false purpose; and he should persist in his Amendment, because he wished to show the Bill to be what it really was, a novel enactment. It belonged to the same category of measures as the Bill of pains and penalties which the Whigs passed against Lord Stafford in 1642—as that which they had passed in the following reign—and a long catalogue of similar measures. It might be said that the doctrine of expediency warranted the transportation of Mr. Smith O'Brien, as a warning to those more sincere than discreet in their agitation. Had he imitated other agitators, he would not have fallen into this lamentable folly and guilt, nor would he have incurred the displeasure of the Minister. So desperate was the position to which this Bill would reduce the convicts, that he could not refrain from wishing his friend a speedy death, if the measure were carried. He appealed to all who had been acquainted with these unfortunate men in better days, if the Bill would not be tantamount to a sentence upon them either of lunacy or death. He would not undertake that Mr. Smith O'Brien would be alive, or in his right mind, at the end of a week after he was consigned to another custody by this Bill. He had not petitioned that the sentence of death might be inflicted on him, but he had protested against a new law being passed applying to him and his companions the worst in the whole category of our punishments. At no former period had the doctrine been avowed that any person engaged in an armed rebellion, no matter how brief or contemptible, must necessarily suffer the punishment of death, or be deported to a penal settlement. Lord Wintoun, sentenced to death, in 1715, for high treason, who had gained several battles over the royal partisans, was not only respited, but had his liberty restored, and his property resettled on his wife and family. That was under the tyrannical government of George I., when the necessity of a signal example might have been truly pleaded. The further back they went, the more merciful would they find the doctrine to be with regard to the law of high treason. Take what period they would, they would find in it their disgrace, and the condemnation of this Bill. The provisions of this Bill never had been the law. The punishment of transportation was not a punishment known to the common law. The Government contemplated what was illegal in altering the sentence of transportation without this Act. Let the Government state openly what they meant. Let them not say at one and the same time that this was a Bill to alter the law, and not to alter the law. They should know what it was they were really about, because their time was too valuable to be taken up with irrelevant discussions. And yet these discussions were forced upon them by the Government. Why should they be called on at that late period of the Session to pass such a Bill? He was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield had introduced so much bitterness into the debate, and should have compared these unfortunate gentlemen to a gang of persons in this country whose object was to assassinate the police, to rob the Bank, and fire the city of London. The case of Mr. Cuffey was not like that of Mr. Smith O'Brien, for the former had been tried for felony. He rejoiced that the latter had not been tried for felony, because, but for that merciful blunder, nothing could have saved him from transportation. They could do so now, by not passing this Bill. He hoped they would not call on the Queen to do violence to her own natural feelings of mercy. If this measure passed, the English constitution would be lost—he begged pardon, not the English constitution, for this measure extended only to Ireland. With a great doubt of obtaining even a little mitigation of this Bill, he now begged leave to propose his first Amendment.

First Clause, page 1, line 3:—Amendment proposed to leave out the words, "declared and."

did not complain of the course taken by his hon. and learned Friend, but would not follow his example by entering at such length into the general subject as his hon. and learned Friend had. He would confine himself strictly to the Amendment. The principle of the Bill had been already affirmed by a large majority, which included in it a majority of the Irish Members. There was no ground whatever for saying the measure had been hurried through the House with an indecent haste. So far from that, there was not even a suggestion on the part of the Government that the ordinary course of proceeding should be suspended. Some hon. Gentlemen spoke of suspending the Standing Orders, but no Standing Order applied to a Bill of this description. It was said that the petitioners prayed that the sentence of death might be carried into effect. They prayed for nothing of the kind, but they did pray that some such Bill as the present might be passed. ["No, no!"] He would read the paragraph of their petition to which he referred. Mr. Smith O'Brien said—

"If it were desirable that the sentence of death should be commuted into one of transportation for life, it was incumbent on the Government to produce a statutory enactment rather than to violate the law."

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why this Bill was introduced? He would answer, in the words of the preamble, that doubts had arisen which it was proper and desirable to remove. There was no doubt entertained amongst the Irish Judges or in Westminster Hall about the efficiency of the present law; but doubts had arisen in other quarters, which, as he had already said, it was right to remove. His hon. and learned Friend said, that doubts were entertained by some members of the Irish bench respecting the efficiency of the present law. Such was not the case, and it ought to be remembered that the Bill came down from the other House sanctioned by authorities of the highest legal eminence, not one of whom entertained a doubt as to the present law, although they were of opinion that it was proper to remove doubts which had arisen elsewhere by a declaratory enactment. It must be obvious to every Member of that House that it would be inconvenient, if not unbecoming, to allow a discussion to take place in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland by men who had been convicted and were under sentence for high treason. He submitted to the House that there were no grounds whatever for asking the House to concur in the Amendment.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had given them a new ground for opposing the Bill. Necessity was called the plea of tyrants, to which a companion adage might be added, that inconvenience is the plea of the law officers of the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, it would be inconvenient for a court of law to decide on this case. What inconvenience could there be in deciding what the law was by the existing tribunals of the land, whose specific duty it was to do so? He thought the Bill contained some unconstitutional points, and the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman confirmed him in that conviction. The object of all the amendments was to make the Bill prospective and not retrospective, and the first step towards that was to get rid of the declaratory part. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the law was clear. Why not then leave the courts of law in Ireland to decide? If they were going to enact a new law, the country should be made aware of the fact; there should be no ambiguity in the matter. He protested against this appeal to Parliament to cut a knot, which ought to have been left to the Judges of the land.

regretted that he was not present when the second reading of this Bill was proposed, as he should certainly have voted against it. It was not that he had any sympathy with the parties affected by the Bill, but he considered the principle of altering the law, with a view to the application of a particular punishment, a most dangerous one. They need not go back to distant times for an example of the law being allowed to take its course. Thirty years ago, Abraham Thornton, having first violated Mary Ashford, and afterwards murdered her, claimed the right of wager by battle. His claim was allowed; and having been acquitted, he left the country. He (Mr. Muntz) should certainly vote for the Amendment.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had stated as the reason why the Bill had been introduced, that grave doubts had arisen with regard to the existing law.

I did not say "grave doubts," but "doubts."

wished to know in what quarter those doubts had arisen?

I have no difficulty in answering the question. My reply is, in Ireland.

thought the House ought to be informed specifically by whom doubts had been entertained.

I am not in the habit of stating any doubts which have been communicated to me in confidential communications.

could not admit that the individuals concerned might properly be regarded as under sentence of death. It might be true that pardon had not been granted under the great seal; but an intimation had been made to them that it was not the intention of Government to carry the sentence into effect. Would any one contend that on a mere legal pretext the word of the Crown might be substantially violated? A blunder had been committed by the Government in communicating an intimation of pardon to the prisoners before the proper time.

said, that as his hon. Friend considered the Royal word to have been pledged, he begged to state that the communication made to the prisoners was, that the sentence passed upon them would not be carried out, on the condition that they should be transported. On that point he appealed to the common sense of the House. He would tell the hon. Member for Mayo that whatever might be the ultimate fate of the prisoners, the feelings of the country would not sanction the appeal to mercy made in that House, or tolerate such an abuse of the Royal prerogative as the letting the convicted parties loose upon society. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon said the Government had committed a blunder, because out of respect for the anxious feelings of the families of the prisoners they had made an early communication of their intention. The Government might have committed a blunder; they might not have known from experience how the parties would act when the humanity of the Government was exhibited. As regarded transportation, that was the ordinary and sole condition on which mercy was extended to persons in the position of the prisoners. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghall had spoken of this Bill as one of a series of penal measures. The object was simply to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England; and he presumed that the only reason why the case had not been expressly provided for by a statute was, that the Irish Legislature had not contemplated that the crime of treason would ever be punished with any other penalty than death.

explained that his right hon. Friend had misunderstood him. What he intended to convey was, that the prisoners, having a case of exceptions, had a right to have those exceptions decided by a legal tribunal; whereas he had this objection to the Bill that it was to be made an ex post facto law. He had no objection to the Bill if it were made solely to refer to future cases. He had been misunderstood in some of his objects, and it was now his intention to state, in order to counteract this impression, that he had introduced several amendments for the purpose of substituting imprisonment during the pleasure of the Queen—even for life—instead of transportation. He contended that this was a case in which the Judges should have been called upon to give their opinion, without that indecent haste which had characterised the proceedings in another place.

objected to the Bill on the ground that it was an ex post facto measure, intended to inflict a punishment which could not be inflicted as the law now stood.

opposed the Bill, from no sympathy with the parties implicated, but because he was anxious not to sanction any ex post facto violation of the law of the land. These prisoners might have escaped by some paltry quibble upon the wording of the indictment; and surely they ought to have the advantage of this greater doubt, which was so distinctly admitted to exist.

Question put, "That the words 'declared and' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 27: Majority 124.

rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. This was the fourth Bill of pains and penalties that had been passed against Mr. Smith O'Brien in one year. He would ask them if that was not a melancholy subject to reflect upon? He might be told that that was not the fault of the loyal inhabitants of Ireland, or of that House. He, however, could not consider that House or the Executive Government perfectly blameless for what had taken place, though he was not there to palliate the offences of these Gentlemen; but he considered that the Government ought not to have looked calmly on, while Mr. Smith O'Brien and his associates were publishing threats against the Government, and holding nightly meetings, but ought to have had them arrested and held to bail. That House and the authorities had done enough to vindicate the law; and, therefore, this measure ought not to be proceeded with. Messrs Smith O'Brien and Meagher were convicted by a jury which it had been asserted was packed, but they unanimously recommended those unfortunate men to mercy. They appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench, who ruled against them; a further appeal was then made to the House of Lords, when they were again ruled against. After the various petitions were presented to the Executive in favour of mercy being extended to these unfortunate men, and it had been generally understood that they could not be executed, then came the document of the 5th of June, for commuting their sentences; and he called upon the Government to allow counsel to be heard at the bar of the House, or an inquiry to be instituted on the subject, and he believed it would be found that other documents had been executed—though the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of the Home Department was not aware of them—which must prevent the sentence of death being carried into effect. He could not believe that Lord Denman and the other law Lords who approved that Bill could entertain the same opinion. With respect to there being no necessity for the Bill, as had been enunciated by the Attorney General, the fact of their passing it proved, that they thought there was a necessity for it. He thanked God he was not a lawyer, as it appeared to him to be a science for mystifying that which was otherwise plain. He denied that transportation was mercy to these unfortunate men, who had been recommended to mercy by the jury that convicted them. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had said, that the people of England would not countenance these men being let loose upon society. He was sorry such a phrase had been used, for they should recollect that these men were gentlemen. [An Hon. MEMBER: So much the worse.] He was told so much the worse. Why, Washington was a gentleman, and had he not been successful he would have been a felon; and some of the brightest ornaments in English history would have been deemed rebels, had they not proved successful in their efforts to secure the liberties of the people. They were magnifying a mountain into a molehill. [ Laughter. ] He was glad that he had put the cart before the horse, as it had produced that burst of merriment. They were magnifying a molehill into a mountain. They were calling a row with the police in a cabbage garden in the county of Tipperary a rebellion. They were calling that a rebellion where nobody assembled but the unfortunate men themselves. They were calling that a rebellion in which six or seven men spent a month in the mountains of Tipperary, running away from every scarecrow which happened to he made of a policeman's hat; and the leader of the so-called rebellion walked into a public railway station with a "label" on his back offering 800 l . for his apprehension. He wished the Government would follow the example set by Lord Cornwallis in 1798, who pardoned seventy prisoners convicted of treason. There was a rebel, too, dignified by his followers by the name of General Cluny, who had encountered the King's troops at Enniseorthy, and beaten them. He held that town for a week, and had the county of Wexford under his control for three months. General Cluny was tried for high treason, convicted, and condemned to be hanged; but his life was spared; and, after two years' imprisonment in Fort St. George, he was set at liberty, was now alive and well, and Queen Victoria had not a more loyal subject. That was the course he was anxious should be followed with regard to these cabbage-garden heroes, and it would do more than anything to excite the gratitude and respect of Ireland for the Queen and the Government.

said, that every Irish Member had spoken against the Bill; he had taken a different course, and intended to support the Bill throughout its various stages. If he could think that this was an ex post facto law—that it was levelled exclusively against these persons, to carry out a punishment to which they were not liable according to the present law, he should have joined those who opposed this Bill, and given it every opposition, as was done by the hon. and learned Member for Youghall; but it appeared to him that this was a declaratory Bill, and that it was only to remove certain doubts that had arisen in Ireland. Then it was said, if the law was perfectly clear, why should any Bill be introduced? He could see a good reason for introducing the Bill, although the law was perfectly clear; he could understand that at this moment, after political excitement had reached such a height, it would not be expedient to open the question again in a court of law. This was an unpleasant Motion for Irish Members to express an opinion upon, as they were interested in the fate of these persons, with whom they had associated. He would yield to no man in feelings of sympathy for those who had incurred the penalty of the law; but he could not, in the exercise of his duty, shut his eyes to the mischiefs which had arisen from the acts of these men, and the necessity of punishment being inflicted. It was all very well to say that it was a meeting of a few persons, and that it ended in a fight in a cabbage garden; but he knew that the country had suffered, and that capital was driven from Ireland by the political excitement caused by the acts of these men. Shopkeepers were taught to be generals and captains, and were a green and gold uniform. He thought they ought to leave it to the mercy of the Crown to deal with these men who had brought these calamities on the country; and for these reasons he should support the Bill on the present occasion.

begged to inform the hon. and gallant Member for Longford that Government had confessed that it was an ex post facto law; if it were not, why was not the punishment carried out? Being an ex post facto law, there could be no doubt that it was unconstitutional.

asked the hon. Member for Salford whether it was his intention to make his customary Motion of adjournment? If not, he should move that the Chairman now report progress.

asked the hon. and learned Member whether his intention was to obstruct the course of the public business? The hon. Member for Salford would on this, as on all other occasions, no doubt adopt no course calculated to obstruct the progress of public business. The Irish poor-law stood in the Paper for next week, and adjourning the further progress of this Bill to a future day must have the effect of postponing that measure.

repelled the imputation that he was actuated by a desire to obstruct public business. Such was not his object, but he saw several Amendments on the Paper, and it would be impossible to get through them all, the principal of which had not been so much as noticed. The next Amendment referred to the discrepancy between the preamble and the enacting part of the Bill; and there were a variety of others to which it was necessary to draw the attention of the House.

Same Clause:—Another Amendment proposed, after the word "offender," to insert the words "who may be hereafter convicted and."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 24, Noes 140: Majority 116.

Same Clause:—Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "for any offence whatsoever by Law punishable with Death," in order to insert the words "for High Treason."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 19: Majority 110.

moved another Amendment, his object being to make the enacting part of the Bill agree with the preamble.

intimated to the hon. and learned Member for Youghall that his next Amendment could not be put, as not being within the scope of the Bill. [The Amendment was, at line 15 to omit the word "transportation," and insert "imprisonment during the Queen's pleasure, or banishment."]

moved that the Chairman report progress.

suggested to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, as being contrary to the repeated decisions of the House.

agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and should have thought, after the unequivocal expressions of its opinion on this Bill which the House had already given, the hon. Member for Clonmel would have allowed the debate to have proceeded without further opposition of this character. But there was one point to which he wished to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen, and particularly as his own attention had also been frequently called to it. He had been told, and always without justice, that he did not bring forward measures in regard to Ireland, and that when he did so they were postponed from week to week. Now, he had stated that it was his intention to have brought forward on Monday the consideration of the Irish Poor Law Amendment Bill; and on Thursday next it was the intention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have made a proposal to the House respecting a railway in the west of Ireland, which would load to the immediate employment of a great number of persons in that part of the country. These were practical questions; but if Irish Gentlemen threw obstacles in the way of the Bill now before the House, he should be unable to accomplish what he proposed. He could only say, therefore, that he must delay any other measure until the House should have decided upon the Bill now before them—and he only hoped that the House would admit that any delay that might take place with respect to legislation for Ireland was not his fault.

would repeat that it was through the fault of the noble Lord that there had been any waste of public time. Why had not the Government imprisoned those unhappy gentlemen, instead of bringing forward an ex post facto Bill to transport them? However, as to further opposition, he did not see what beneficial result would come of it. He had done his duty by opposing the measure in all its stages, until now, and he would now withdraw all further resistance.

put it to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghall, whether after the very unequivocal manner in which on three occasions that evening the House had expressed its opinion with respect to this (he admitted) most objectionable measure, it would be wise to press the opposition to it any further? For his own part he must say that he very much doubted the wisdom of such a proceeding, and questioned whether it would be productive of the least advantage to the unfortunate gentlemen whose interests his hon. and learned Friend had at heart.

observed, that the Amendments which still stood on the Paper under his name were totally dissimilar from those on which the House had already divided. The hon. and learned Gentleman, after alluding at some length to the character of the Amendments in question, which he attempted to vindicate, concluded by stating that in deference to the general feeling of the House, he would not press all those Amendments on the present occasion. He would bring the majority of them forward on the third reading, and would for the present content himself with moving the following proviso:—

"Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to impair or hinder the exercise of any prerogative of the Crown, in virtue whereof Her Majesty may grant her free or conditional pardon to any such offender."

said, that the only reason why he objected to the proviso was, that he knew it to be wholly unnecessary. The Bill did not trench in the least on the prerogative of the Crown.

declared his intention to divide notwithstanding.

implored of his hon. and learned Friend not to put the House to the trouble of dividing. The hon. and learned Gentleman must surely be himself aware that the proviso was wholly unnecessary.

at length reluctantly consented not to divide on the Amendment. If the Irish Members chose to desert him, he would not expose himself to the ridicule of going into the lobby by himself, but would merely content himself with saying "Aye" to the Amendment.

Bill reported without Amendment; to be read 3 ^o on Monday next.

The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.