HOUSE OF COMMON S.-TiiURSDAY, FEB. 22. Lord LEWISHAM and .MR. BECKETT DENISON took the oaths and their seats, for South Staffordshire and the West Riding, re- spectively. Mr. Denison was cheered on the occasion. THE AGRICULTURAL INTEREST. Mr. DISRAELI I give notice, that this day fortnight I shall call the. attention of the House to the present condition of the agricul- tural interest, with a view to the more equitable apportionment of the taxation to which it is subject (loud cheers from the Protec- tionist benches). K THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. Mr. STUART WORTLEY moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend and alter the Act 5 and 6 William IV., c. 54, so far as re- lates to marriage within certain degrees of affinity. The question had somewhat changed in its aspect since he had last brought it under the consideration of the House. By a recent decisou of the Court of Queen's Bench, a marriage in this country between a man and his deceased wife's sister was declared to be, under Lord Lyndhurst's Act, absolutely null and void. But doubt still rested on the validity of such marriages when solemnised abroad. The hon. member said he would not enter into this subject as con- nected with the law of God, as he wished to avoid controversy on the present occasion. The inefficacy of Lord Lyndhurst's Act was demonstrated when they considered that there was every reason to believe that from thirty to fifty thousand marriages had, since its passing, taken place in contravention of its provisions. It was not his intention that the bill, if passed, should be confined to England. Mr. HOPE, Mr. R. PALMFtt, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. NAPIER,and Mr. PLUMPTRE all expressed themselves opposed to the principle of the contemplated measure, though they would not object to the mo- tion for leave to bring in the bill. Sir G. GREY would not enter into the discussion, as the motion was not to be opposed. He would, on the second reading of the bill, state the reasons which would induce him, in his individual capacity, to give a cordial assent to the bill. The motion was then agreed to. TOLERATION ACT, Mr. BOUVJERIE moved that the House resolve itself into a com- mittee of the whole House, to consider what relief could be granted to persons in holy orders in connexion with the Church of England, declaring their dissent therefrom. By a recent decision of the Cuurt of Queen's Bench, it appeared that clergymen of the Church of England becoming Dissenters, and taking the steps necessary to come under the exemptions of the Toleration Act, although they are exempt from statutory penalties, are still liable to be pro- ceeded against in the Ecclesiastical Court for breach of discipline. Clergymen, who had entered into holy orders, were bound hand and foot to the discipline of the Church. It certainly was not the intention of those who framed the Toleration Act, that such a re- striction should exist. He rested the case upon its plain and simple justice. Mr. GLADSTONE ooncurred in the general object which Mr. Bou- vwrie had in view. There was no reason why a clergyman, who hud deliberately changed his mind as to the vows which he took at his ordination, should be bound to those vows by the law. The motion was agreed to without a division, and the House went into committee, and a resolution was adopted authorising the introduction of a bill upon the subject. Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved that the laws relating to landed pro- perty in Ireland, as affecting the rights and powers both of land- loi-di arid tenants, require the immediate consideration of the House. The hon. gentleman recommended a series of measures, the adoption of which, he thought, would go far to put the land question of Ireland on its proper footing. These were a measure for settling intermediate right, a bill for the extension of tenant right, a measure in relation to waste lands, and such an amend- ment of the Encumbered Estates Act as wauld render its provi- sions more easy of application. Sir W. SOMERTILLK oppobed the motion, as merely presenting an abstract resolution. A short discussion ensued, and Mr. Crawford withdrew his mo- tion. DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASHIRE. Mr. TRELAWNY moved for a select committee to inquire to what extent the public are entitled to claim an interest in the manage- ment of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and whether there is not reason to hope that an improvement in the management of those estates, by the suppression of antiquated and superfluous offices, and the diminution of the salaries of officials, would greatly increase the joint net income of the two duchies. Under proper management, the proceeds of the duchies might be greatly aug- mented (hear). Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the motion, on the ground that a compact existed in reference to these duchies between the country and the Crown which would be disturbed and departed from if the objects contemplated by the hon. gentleman were accomplished. Mr. HUME did not think the noble lord had taken a fair view of the matter when he referred to what was done by the Duke of Bedford while speaking of public property, which he (Mr. Hume) contended this was. It was monstrous that while the revenue of the duchy of Lancaster was X33,000, not more than X12,000 should go into her Majesty's privy purse (hear). As regarded the duchy of Cornwall, George IV., when Prince of Wales, ought to have received Z50,000 a-year, but it was eaten up entirely with pensions and allowances. On all hands there was abuse. The country gentlemen of Cornwall had induced the Ministers of the Crown to relieve them of the Royalty dues payable on tin, amount- ing to £ 15,000, and that sum was now paid annually out of the consolidated fund, solely for the relief of those country gentlemen (hearl. There was a long lilit of persons filling appointments of various descriptions, and he was anxious to know what duties they had to perform. Lord Campbell was Chancellor, and he received £ 2,000 a-year; but what did he do beyond holding the seal of the duchy of Lancaster? Why should Ministers refuse inquiry P What had they to fear ? Would it affect the honour of the Crown ? Oil the contrary, it was for the interest of the Crown that these estates should be well managed. He suspected that the true rea- son was that it was apprehended it would affect the patronage con- nected with the duchies (hear, hear). Mr. CAKEW, Mr. HUME, Mr. UICAUDO, and Mr. M. GIBSON severally supported the motion. Sir G. GREY offered a few words in opposition to it. Lord LINCOLN observed that there was a great difference be- tween the property administered by the Woods and Forests and the Crown property now alluded to. The proceeds of the former went into the publ.c Exchequer, which gave the public a direct interest iu it. The two duchies, however, stood in a very different position. In them the public had but a remote interest, if any in- terest at all. He trusted that the House would not consent to the motion. After a few words from Mr. BASS and Mr. liBywonTii, and from Mr. TRELAW.NY in reply, the House divided— For the motion 27 Agitiribt it 74-47 laóillOllUWlng members voted as tollows :—.tor tHe motion—it. Blewitt, How el Gwyn, and David Morris. Against it—David Pugh. The House adjourned at half-past twelve.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY, FEB. 22. SLAVERY. The Bishop of OXFOUD moved the appointment of a select com- mittee to consider what measures should be adopted for the sup- pression of the African slave-trade. He remarked on what he considered the present apathy of the people on this subject, and thought the question should, therefore, be again brought promi- nently before the people. He desired to see the maintenance of the blockading squadron, for according to the witnesses examined, with the exception of those who had been or were engaged in the slave-trade, it appeared that in proportion to the efliciency of the squadron was the success of the efforts to suppress the slave-trade. That squadron in 18 ±2 and 1843 had all but succeeded in suppress- ing the slave-trade, and that it was only in consequence of the ces- sation of those exertions, in consequence of orders from home, that the trade had revived. The Marquis of LANSDOWNK, the Earl of ABERDEEN, and Lord STANLEY, though they assented to the appointment of a committee, did Got take the same view of the case as the Bishop of Oxford. Earl GKEY considered the measure of 1846, as the squadron, wise and timely. After a few words from Lord BEAUMONT, the Bishop of Ox- FOKD replied, and the motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at seven,
HOUSE OF LORDS.—FRIDAY, FEB. 23. Earl GIIEY, in answer to a question from the Duke of Rich- mond, amlluncccl that it was the intention of Government to break up the penitentiary for female convicts on board the Anson in Van Diemen's Land. THE SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS COHPUS ACT (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNK moved the second reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill for Ireland, and repeated those arguments in support of the measure wLh which the public are sufficiently acquainted from tL-e recent debates in the Lower House. Lord BROUGHAM only lamented that the Bill was to be so limited in its duration. The necessity for its existence would never cease until there was an end of agitation in Ireland, and when that would be no one could tell. The conduct of a juror who had disgraced an illustrious name by his unseemly behaviour during a recent trial was of itself a sufficient proof that Ireland was unfit for that safeguard of liberty, trial by jury. Alter some observations from Lord MONTAGUE, who contended that in some parts of Ireland at least trial by jury was not a farce, the Bill was read a second time. Their lordships then adjourned, after disposing of some other business. ————
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY, FEB. 23. PENSIONERS. Mr. HUMR gave notice that on Monday he should move for an alphabetical list of all persons receiving public money above X50 a year. POOR REMOVAL ACT. Captain PECHELL asked the Commissioner of Poor-laws whether, in consequence of the recent division in the Court of Queen's Bench having upset the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown upon the construction of the Poor Removal Act, it was intended to cancel the instructions (founded on that opinion) issued to the boards of guardians on the 20th day of October, 1846; and whether provision would be made for the repayment to unions and parishes of the expense incurred by them respec- tively h the maintenance of poor belonging to other parishes, whos. <:hef was withdrawn in consequence of those instructions. Mr. BAINES had to state in reply, that after the passing of the Poor Removal Act the Poor-law Commissioners received appli- cations from the guardians of a great many unions for advice as to the construction to be put on one of the provisions of that Act At that time no judicial decision had been given on the subject' and the Commissioners laid the case before two leo-yl gentlemen of high eminence in the service of the Crown for "their opinion When they obtained that opinion, they forwarded it to the differ" ent boards of guardians as the view of the clause upon which they were to act; but very recently the Court of Queen's Bench had decided on a construction of the clause different from that put upon it by the law officers of the Crown. On learning this de- cision, the Poor-law Board lost no time in making the different unions and parishes acquainted with what was the true state of the law. An official circular had been addressed to all boards of guardians stating the nature of the decision, and calling their particular attention to the point. With regard to the latter part of the hon. gentleman's question, he could ouly say that he was not aware of any authority by which repayment of the exnenses to which he alluded could be made. expenses POOR-RATE FOR IRELAND. Sir J, WALSH asked whether it was the intention of the Go- vernment to introduce a Bill to empower them to levy a general rate throughout Ireland in aid of the poor-rate, without waiting for the production of any evidence on that subject from the com- mittee on the Irish Poor-law ? Lord J. RUSSELL said the committee had that day come to a resolution which would be immediately reported to the House and it was the intention of the Government to found a measure upon it, of which notice would be duly given. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL. On the motion of Lord J. IIUSSELL, the House went into com- mittee on this Bill. Mr. VERNON SMITH proposed as an amendment, that it be expedient to abolish all oaths except the oaths of fidelity and allegiance to her Majesty." He thought that if the House could diminish the number and simplify the nature of the oaths to be taken by members of the House, they would be doing a good and convenient act. ° ° Lord J oHsRusSELL said that he had stated the other day that it was inexpedient, considering the reason why the oath of 1829 had been imposed, to alter the oath, imposed upon Catholics by the Emancipation Act and he thought under existing circum- stances it was much better to retain that oatti. After a few words from Mr. HUME, the committee divided, when there appeared- l,'ur tiie aiiiendrnent .c)s Against it 140-72 A notice of motion Had been put upon the paper by Mr. BANKES to insert in the form of oath proposed to be taken by members not being Roman Catholics, certain words, abjuring any intention to subvert the Protestant Establishment, or disturb the Protestant religion but he was informed by the chair that in point of form the motion could not be entertained at this stage. Mr. GOULBURN could not conceive that the introduction of the words would have a prejudicial effect upon any class of persons. Mr. AXBTEY suggested that Mr. Banks should at once intro- duce a Bill disqualifying all who are not members of the United ™ -i. -J? ,1 I— S/.n+lun-1 f e questions relating to the temporalities of the Estalffished'churchr Mr. SHEIL believed that the Roman Catholics were bound not to take any steps which were calculated to subvert or overthrow the Established Church, but he certainly thought they were justi- fled in voting for any alteration in modification of the revenues of that Church. Sir ROBERT PEEL gave a short history of the Roman Catholic oath of 1829, its objects and policy. He observed that he thought Roman Catholics were as likely to act conscientiously as mem- bers of any other religious persuasion but he agreed with Mr. Shiel that the construction of the oath they took must be left to their own judgment and conscience. Mr. LAW would reserve to himself the right of giving the strongest possible opposition to every stage of the Bill; and al- though he would not divide the House, was resolved to give the present resolution a negative. The resolutions were then agreed to, and the House resumed RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND). On the motion for the second reading of this bill, Mr. HUME said he would not oppose the bill, but entered his protest against it as being an extravagant waste of the public money, which would not confer any benefit on Ireland. The Bill was then read a second time. THE IRISH COLLEGES. Mr. BANKES wished to ask the noble lord what had become of those colleges in Ireland, which would, he was afraid, turn out to be so useless? Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply, said that due provision had been made in the act fur the erection of the colleges, and for the main- tenance of professors. The colleges would be open by the 1st of October, and, so far from their being entirely useless, he was glad to say that many persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion had stated their intention of entering them (hear, hear). PROPOSED IRISH MEASURES. Mr. HUME said he wanted to know what permanent measures had been adopted by Government to relieve the people (hear) P The Government had had plenty of time to prepare them, if they had any measures in view. Mr B. OSBORNE hoped the noble lord would give some answer to the question of the hon. member for Montrose. Lord J. RUSSELL said he really could not state all the measures the Government proposed to introduce in the course of the session. The right hon. baronet the Secretary for Ireland had already stated the views of the Government with respect to three of those measures, and with respect to the immediate relief of the poor, provision had been made for it by the act passed two years ago. The Vice-Guardians of Unions (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The Consolidated Fund ( £ 8,000,000) Bill, and the Commons Enclosure Bill, were severally read a third time and passed. Three Irish bills were brought in by Sir William Somerville, and the Parliamentary Oaths Bill by Lord John Russell they were severally read a first time, and the noble lord fixed the se- cond reading of the last-named bill for the 10th of April. The other business having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a few minutes after seven o'clock until Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY, FEB. 26. The Speaker took the chair a few minutes before four o'clock. NEW MEMBERS. Mr. CONOLLY took the oaths and his seat for Donegal. Mr. PRYSE PUYSE took the oaths and his seat for the Cardigan boroughs. The hon, gentleman was introduced by Lord Marcus Hill and Mr. Mostyn. MONEY ORDER OFFICE. Mr. John WILLIAMS presented a petition signed by John Stan- ley, a clerk in the Money Order-office, praying the House to grant inquiry into the alleged abuses in that department of the General Post-office, STAMP DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS. Sir T. BIRCH presented a petition from certain letter-press printers in Liverpool, praying the House to remove the stamp duties on newspapers; also a petition from inhabitants of Liver- pool, praying for a removal of the taxes on the social comforts of life. SKCEDING CLERGYMEN. Mr. Sharman CRAWFORD presented a petition from the inhabit- ants of Rochdale, praying the House to extend the provisions of the Act of Toleration to clergymen seceding from the Established Church. NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND, Lord BERNARD presented a petition from a place in Ireland, against the system of najotJal education in Ireland. ENGLISH WORKMEN IN FRANCE. Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to ask the noble lord at the head of 10 the Government the question of which he had given him notice with respect to the intention of the French Government to those English workmen who had deposited part of their earnings in the saving banks of France, but who were obliged to leave that coun- try at the revolution without obtaining the return of their little ail. Lord John RUSSELL said that he understood it was the intention of the French Government, and that they were ready to pay the sums, and the only difficulty in their doing so arose from identi- fying the claimants. MR. COBDEN'S FINANCIAL SCHEME. Mr. COEDEN rose to move the following resolution :—" That the net expenditure of the Government for the year 1835 (Parlia- mentary Paper, No. 260, 1847) amounted to £ 44,422,000; that the net expenditure for the year ended 5th January, 1849 (Parlia- mentary Paper, No. 1, 1849), amounted to f,54,185,000 the increase of nearly ten millions having been caused principally by successive augmentations of our warlike establishments, and out- lays for defensive armaments that no foreign danger, nor neces- sary cost of the civil Government, nor indispensable disbursements for the services in our dependencies abroad, warrant the continu- ance of this increase of expenditure: that the taxes required to meet the present expenditure impede the operations of agriculture and manufactures, and diminish the funds for the employment of labour in all branches of productive industry, thereby increasing pauperism and crime, and adding grievously to the local and ge- neral burthens of the people that, to diminish these evils, it is ex- pedient that this House take steps to reduce the annual expendi- ture with all practicable speed to an amount not exceeding the sum which within the last fourteen years has been proved to be sufficient for the maintenance of the security, honour, and dignity of the nation." He began by stating that he did not desire that any member should infer from his notice that the reduction he proposed could be made imtanter his object was to afford the House an oppor- tunity of expressing its opinion as to the desirableness and neces- sity of such a reduction. He compared various items in the budgets of England and France, and contended tha:, notwithstanding the disparity of their populations, the items were larger in the former country than in the latter. He referred to the extravagance of our local taxation, which he attributed to the fault of the Imperial Legislature, and then proceeded to justify his selection of 1835 as a model year, which he had done in order to avoid the charge of taking an arbitrary atandard just as, at the close of the war, 1792 had been taken as the starting point. Mr. Cobden then instituted a comparison between various items of expenditure in the respec- tive years of 1835 and 1848, and laid great stress upon the enormous item of £ 18,000,000 for our naval and military esta- blishments, upon which, he said, the great gist of his argument rested, and showed what had been the increase in that great item since 1835, and the causes of that increase. Now, sir, he con- tinued, I hope I may not be unjustified by the precedents, I alyl not one who attaches an undue weight to precedents; but I think this case, to which I have referred, forms a good example for me in drawing the attention of the Mouse to the estimates of 1835-and I say 1835. I may as well state that if I took 1S33, 1834, 1835, and 1836, it would make little difference in the argu- ment. I find that the interest upon the funded and unfunded debt in 1835 was £ 28,514,000, and in 180S £ 28,563,000, so that there is only about C50,000 difference between those two periods. I find that the army and navy in 1835 was £ 11,657,010, and in 1848 Z17,645,000, and the Kafir war, which I cannot separate from the estimates, for I know not when it may commence again, cost 11,000,000, making altogether £18,745,000 for last year. The civil expenditure and consolidated funds was in 1835 £ 4,251,000, and in 18,18 £ 6,548,000. I wish to draw the atten- tion of every hon. member to this point-that the E28,500,000 of the funded and unfunded debt cannot be proposed for any reduc- tion you have for the civil expenditure £ 6,598,000, and more than half of this goes to the consolidated fund. But I hope you will in time be able to make considerable reductions in that. You come then to the sum of three or four millions a year for the mis- cellaneous service, upon which you are to exercise the pruning knife, unless you adopt the plan I represent to you, namely, that of reducing your military establishments to the extent of £ 3,0 0,000. Many gentlemen connected with the military establishments of the country think I do this out of personal feelings against them, I can assure them I do it from no such motives, but from necessity. If you wish to make great reductions you must apply it to the Army, the Navy, and Ordnance (hear hear). I will now show you what the increase of the expenditure has been since 1835, and what caused the increase, and I will then leave it to the House to decide whether those causes remain at the present time (hear, hear). In 1836 there was an additional vote of 5,000 seamen to the navy. 1 am speaking to honourable gentlemen who well re- member what has passed in this country. In 1836 great appre- hensions were felt in this country respecting a Russian invasion. We uau at, uiat uuie some three or four gentlemen in this country at that time who, I thought, had a monomonia on the subject, and I perpetrated two or three pamphlets on the subject. The cry was raised all over the country and it was echoed in the press, and the result was that my right honourable friend (the member for Ilali- fax) recommended the increase in the navy, and it was also recom- mended in the speech from the throne, but is there any though of Russian invasion now ? In 1838 the rebellion in Canada occurre d that gave rise to an increase of 8,000 men in our army that re. bellion was, however, soon put an end to, and Canada has obtained all she can desire from self-government, and I only wish the po- pulation of this country was placed on the same footing. In 1839 there was another increase proposed in the army. There had been an apprehended outbreak in South Wales-I allude to the affair at Monmouth—the riots headed by Frost, Williams, and Jones. There was great turbulence in that part of the country, and the noble lord distinctly stated that an addition of 5,000 men were required to meet their domestic troubles. Well, but we have had since then some years of uninterrupted peace at home, many years during which Chartists were not heard of, and when there was no turbulence in the land yet the 5,000 men remained. I now come to 1840 and 1841. We had a war with China—a war in Syria-we had a threatened rupture with France, and we were em- broiled with America with respect to the arrest and trial of Mr. M'Leod. These were periods of excitement, times not witho t peril to the peace of the country, and an addition of 5,000 m un was made at that time. The China war is at an end. Syria is en the hands of the Turks. There is no longer a threatened ruptuire with. France, nor with America, and the M'Leod matter has been settled—(hear, hear)—yet the 5,000 men remain. (hear, hear). I then come to 1847. We had a dispute with the United States with respect to the Mayne boundary. In fact, a dispute between the two countries had existed tor some time wit h respect to Carolina-a dispute kept up since 1842, and there was considerable apprehension in America, and some on this side of the Water, that the dispute would lead to war. 4,000 sailors were added to the navy; but Lord Asbhurton brought over a treaty settling the whole dispute with respect to the Mayne boundary yet we have had no reduction in the number of these sailors. Now, sir, then I come to 1845. In 1845, a serious state of things ex- isted. We had a dispute with the United States with respect to the Oregon territory, and President Polk sent a very warlike mes- sage. General Cass made some very foolish speeches, and there was a strong feeling on both sides of the water that imminent dan- ger to both sides was impending. America had threatened to take possession of the whole territory, and we were bound in honour to keep possession of a territory which had been ceded to us by uni- versal consent. He had at that time a proposition for a Heet of evolution. The proposition was acceded to, and I recollect it was stated in the papers of the time that the squadron was more for- midable than that which won thebattle of the Nile. It wasparadep about Spithead in the face of the American navy. £1,ïOO,O();) was voted at that time to the Navy and Ordnance, for the maintenance of the new fleet, and the honourable member for Montrose gave a Willing assent to the increasie in the estimates under the circum- stances mentioned (laughter, and hear, hear," from Mr. Hume). But the Oregon question was settled in the summer of 1846 that settlement was the last act of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) before be left ofhee in 1846. No plea, therefore, exists for keeping up this enormous armament. In 1846, no sooner was the Oregon matter settled, than we entered into a dispute with Fr,ance respecting the Spanish marriages, We call it a court quarrel, be- cause, he must maintain, that the people of this country had no interest in it. But it gave rise to bad blood in France, and a state of irritation in this country, and the press of the two countries fanned it into a flame, and no one can deny there was great aliena- tion, if not hostility between the two countries. It was increased by the previous publication of Prince Joinville's pamphlet, and also by the old grudge with Mr. Pritchard. In 1846 we increased our military and naval expenditure CI,200,000 and in 18-17 this spirit continued between the two countries until we had the ques- tion about fortifying our country against the attacks of France. We were informed by Mr. Pigou, the gunpowder maker, that France was coming to attack us. Well, then, one million nearly Was incurred by the military and navy in 1847. I believe the whole increase was Xi,ooo,ooo for the army, navy, and ordnance m 1817. But what I wish to ask is this—whether there is one of those causes which led to these successive augmentations to our marine and to our ordnance and army, which now remains. The Cost of which I have spoken I think must have been the most seri- ous of all, though I stated it was but a diplomatic quarrel, yet as the second generation, in Prince Joiuville, had entered into this quarrel, it must have grown into something serious to the two countries if the question had not been solved by a very rude hand —by the late revolution in France—which has put an end to a 1 quarrel between this country and France on the subject of the marriages in Spain. Well, I wish to ask honourable members, tiiose wiio are going to oppose me on this motion, those who will not adnrt that we must return as speedily as practicable to the standard of expenditure such as we had in 1835, to put their finger on any one of those causes for those successive augmenta- tions of this expenditure, and tell me if one now remains. We stand at the present moment in an infinitely superior position as regards our foreign relations to which we did in 1835 for in that year, when we had reduced our expenditure to that point, hon. gentlemen will remember we were not in a very friendly position with Russia. For several years we had no ambassador at Russia. We were marauding too at that time on the coast of Spain, for we had our quadruple treaty by which we furnished mercenaries under our foreign marine. But I ask any one who opposes me im <- ing this reduction of our armament, to point out where the reduc- tion is threatened. Is it with America, with its boundary ques- tion is it with Russia, with its millions of serfs; or is it with France, with its people involved in intestine dissensions ? Is it with Germany that we dread a collision ? Where is it to come from ? I tell you that if England confines herself to her own af- fairs—if she did not run needlessly and rashly into the internal disputes of other countries, there never was a time when we stool as free from war as at this moment. The hon. gentleman con- tinued It was not merely to naval and military reductions that his proposed reduction applied. It applied also to the civil ex- penditure. The sum was a small one. It was not only on the miscellaneous estimates and the consolidated fund that they were to carry out their economy but there was a large amount of dis- bursements for the cost of collection, which if they could reduce they would in proportion increase the amount in the treasury. There was one item to which he looked for a considerable savins. The noble lord the member for Bath (Lord Duncan) had said he would go into the committee on the Woods and Forests with the hope of saving £600,000. It would not be difficult to reduce the public expenditure to what it was in 1S35. If it were left to him to do it lie would spend not more than £ i 0,000,000 on their arma- ments and while he would have £ 1,500,000 more for the civil branch of the public service, he would have XI,Goo,ooo less for the military and naval establishments than he had in 1835. If the course he proposed were followed, he was confident they might re- turn to the expenditure of 1835. The House itself bore witness to the growth of opinion on the subject; and seeing the opinion, or progress of opinion, such as it was, lie had no doubt a great reform would be effected and the expenditure brought back to that of 1835. By the reduction of that expenditure, by the removal of those impediments which obstructed the free action of trade and indus- try, and caused distress, disease, and pauperism to prevail, they would foster those influences which tended to make men happy and contented citizens, instead of miserable, dejected, and disaf- fected giving them something to fight for, to preserve, and to love, instead of making them enemies of the public institutions, mitigating the pressure of taxation on the people, and showing them that a Government of this kind might be carried on as cheaply as the Government of another country, Parliament bv so acting would do more to maintain the institutions of the country and to preserve it from foreign attack than by any expenditure they could bestow on warlike establishments (loud cheers). Mr. Hun: seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER complimented Mr. Cob- den upon the temperate manner in which he had brought this sub ject forward, and glancing slightly at the subject of local taxation, which had little connexion with the question, observed, that Mr. Cobden's argument ;for assuming 1835 as a standard to which we should go back depended upon.two conditions first, that in that year adequate provision was made for the public service; and se- condly that no subsequent changes had taken place callin" for increase. The excess of £ 9,763,000 of expenditure in 1848 °over that of 1835, was not, he remarked, attributable to the augmenta- tion of the naval and military establishments alone and lie under- took to show that it was not consistent with the true interests of the country—the protection of life and property at home and of trade and commerce abroad—to effect a reduction in these esta- blishments to the extent proposed by Mr. Cobden. He entered into details to establish his first proposition, that the estimates of 1835 were inadequate to the exigencies of the country, in doing which he combated the theory of Mr. Cobden respecting the cnlo- nies, and contended that it was the true policy of the mother country to extend its protecting arm over its colonial possessions. He then enumerated various changes which had been made in the navy since 1835, by the creation of a steam force, and by other causes, and, passing thence to the army, he demonstrated the positive necessity of the augmentations. Our prospects abroad, he agreed with the Mr. Cobden, were in a very different condition from those of last year the chance of peace were materially im- ma proved, and he believed that domestic incendiaries, like foreign revolutionists, began to pert-pivp the folly of their projects and these considerations had permitted the Government to reduce the army from 113,847 men, to 103,254. He then stated a variety of reductions effected in the present estimates, and appealed to the aggregate aiiiouri t-n earl), a million and a half-as a proof that the Government were not inattentive to the calls of the cousitp- Sir Charles gave some striking facts in disproof of the al- leged pressure of taxation in this country, which showed that its revenue was more cheaply collected than that of neighbouring countries; and asserted that, comparing the incomes ot individuals no country was so lightly taxed. At the conclusion of his speech Sir C. Wood read some financial statements, which he had pre- pared in anticipation of Mr. Hume's motion, showing that, ex- cluding extraordinary items, the total income, up to the 5th of /wSnnn^' wa3 £ 52,933,000, and the total expenditure, '000, leaving a surplus of £ 370,000. Sir DE LACY Ev AXS felt it necessary to say a few words, as some professional observations had been made by the hon. gentle- man (Mr. Cobden). He thought, however, that he bad only done his cause some harm by indulging in personal attacks, be- cause he did not see why a reduction of the naval and military de- partments might not be discussed and reduced to the lowest possible point without the introduction of any personal expressions. He had read in the papers observations made by the hon. gentle- man and his friends in various places by no means flattering to to the members of the profession. He would remind the hon. member, however, that it was the fault of individual members of these professions that the expenditure had been increased. He thought that the hon. gentleman would find it very difficult to prove that the general officers of the army had anything to do with the rewards and decorations which they received. They had done their duty, and he thought none in that House would deny them their rewards (hear). The hon. gentleman had referred to the clothing of the army, and had called them a set of tailors (loud laugher). He did not complain of that on the part of the general officers, but on account of the tailors (renewed laughter). The hon. gentleman had spoken about hired mercenaries, and of ma- rauding vessels on the coast of Spain. These charges had been frequently made, and he had always treated them with the con- tempt they merited. Mr. HUME was surprised at the malignant feeling which had just been manifested, and he must be permitted to say that the inter- ference of England on the occasion referred to did amount, in one sense, to marauding. He thought, further, that the manner in which the hon. and gallant member for Westminster had replied to his hon. friend was such as was not likely to be adopted except under the influence of a malignant feeling. The observations of his lion, friend were merely applied to such interventions in the affairs of a foreigu State. He would further say that nothing could be more temperate than the speech of his hon, friend, and he did think that such observations as the House had just heard might well have been spared. He repeated that the fault of these aggra- vated establishments rested with that house, and that theyliud been kept up by aristocratical influence. He was sorry to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the greatest efforts of the Government could only bring the expenditure within the revenue, The people of this country would not be satisfied with this-they would require a reduction of their burdens. Mr. Cobden, he con- tended, had made out a clear case, and had had no answer to h question, why the successive additions made to the different branches of the expenditure should be still maintained. Mr. HURRIES said the question really was whether the House was prepared now to reduce the expenditure by ;Clo,oOO,OOO. Tha Chancellor of the Exchequer had commended the temperate speech of Mr. Cobden, who had said the same things there as he had done elsewhere, but not in the same language. He (Mr. llerries) would, however, rather that the hon. member should be violent there and decorous elsewhere. After charging the minis- ters with having promoted the spirit of financial agitation, Mr. Hemes addressed himself to the arguments of Mr. Cobden.' I]e showed how really advantageous to this country was a comparison fairly made between its expenditure and that of France and the effect which agitation in the latter country had exerted'upon its finances. He then adverted to an element in the question which had ben only kuperftciany noticed, namely the enormous sum of tax- ation repealed or reduced, whilst the amount, of revenue remained nearly the same as before. He was as earnest an advocate as any for reduction of expenditure where practicable, but he deprecated an attack upon a particular item, and any concession to imitation from without. Foreign aflaira required the greatest c-autioti re- bellion was not extinct in Ireland, and the House should hesitate before it recorded a vote that might hainuer the defence of the country. *• Mr, M. G:bsox thought it was not very consolatory to the latiueu mteiest to mid the financial leader of the agricultural party