7 JULY 1849, Page 11

POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY.

In the House of Commons, last night, before the resumption of the ad- jburned debate on the State of the. Nation, Mr. HERRIES gave notice, that

on the motion for going into Committee of Supply, he should call attention to the condition of the public revenue, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and to the expediency of deriving additional revenue from a fixed duty on the importation of corn. The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. SLANEY; who took an inde- pendent course. He cited figures to show that the crime, drunkenness, and disease, occasioned by the ignorance, neglected condition, and bad sanatory circumstances of the poor, cause an aggregate yearly expenditure of 51,000,0001.; one half of which might be saved by measures for the social improvement of the working classes. Mr. Disraeli's motion was supported by Mr. G. A. HAMILTON, who con- fined his remarks exclusively to the effect of recent policy on Ireland; and by the Earl of MARCH, in the agricultural interest. Mr. HOME opposed the motion, without reference to his own amendment, when he found the drift of the motion was merely to overthrow the Government. The only way to relieve the country is to lessen the enormous expenditure of 52,000,0001. annually. Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke at great length against the motion. He set aside the questions of Ireland, Colonial policy, and Foreign policy, as too large to be included in one speech, and confined himself to what he re- garded as the main issue before the House that night—should they dis- place the Government for the purpose of reversing the commercial policy on which it had acted.

He had given this Government a general support from its commencement. He had made allowances for the difficulties with which it had to contend,—commer- cial convulsion, Irish famine, European revolution. He had thought it for the public interest that the energy and power of the Executive of this country, during such a crisis, should not be Impaired by factions or captious opposition. He cor- dially approved of the general principles of their commercial policy, and would not make way for some other economic system. In vindication of that policy, he proceeded with a long argumentative analysis of Mr. Disraeli's representations. We have neither time nor space_ to do more than indicate the general direction of the line that he took, but must return to the speech next weeek. He showed that 1846 introduced no new commercial policy, but only carried further the policy introduced in 1842; consequently the prosperity anterior to 1846, described by Mr. Disraeli, must be received as evidence in favour of that policy. He showed that the modifications of the tariff could not have caused the calamities that have ensued. They admitted articles that might be included in three categories,:—food, (32,500,0001. in 1848,) which could not have been di- minished without injury to the consumers—the people, and which had not been paid for in gold, for gold had accumulated; raw materials, (48,400,0001.,) which cannot damage the domestic industry of the country; and manufactured goods, (4,700,0001,) of which the increase under the modified Tariff has not been detrimental to the English producer. From the apparent increase must be de- ducted goods reexported, silks imported from France on account of political dis- order on the Continent, and goods that would have been smuggled without paying duty. But our exports overwhelm our imports: of metal goods, for instance, in the three years ending 1848, we exported 4,420,0001. annually and imported 54,0001. annually; yet Birmingham is distressed, and complains of "foreign competition !" Nunc quidem novo (modem morbo civitas moritur," exclaimed Mr. Disraeli ; but the disease he spoke of is not new: the doctrine in- fested the late Alderman Waitbman, who was eloquent in declaring that the country was consuming its own strength and rapidly approaching utter extinc- tion. Alderman Waithman said that in twelve years the country had lost 120,000,0001. by its export trade, and he proved it by a paper which Sir Robert held in his hand: yet that fatal decline occurred daring the reign of protection! Mr. Disraeli said that the labouring classes were obtaining less for their labour: Sir Robert read letters from persona engaged at Chippenbam, Nottingham, and Dundee, representing great commercial interests, and showing that in the woollen trade, the hosiery trade, and the linen trade, labour is in demand at rising wages. Free trade, in fact, has diminished, not aggravated, the distress caused by meteor-

ological and i political visitations. Sir Robert came to the policy which it was proposed to substitute—protection. He denied Mr. Disraeli's assumption, that you cannot fight hostile tariffs by free imports; maintaining the very opposite: as thus—that not to buy in the cheapest market diminishes the annual saving; annual savings are the material from which capital is formed; capital is the fund for the employment of industry; pro- tection therefore diminishes the labour-fond. Sir Robert illustrated this at great length, by showing how we should have lost advantages in retaliating the exclu- sive tariffs of Russia, France, &c. He quoted the evidence of farmers before the Select Committee of 1836 on Agriculture, showing the complaints of agricultural distress in the time of protection: he contrasted the condition of an artisan or a labourer, at Paisley or in Dorset., in 1842, with his present con-

dition since food has been made cheaper. He warned the House, that a law guaranteeing high prices cannot be maintained in unfavourable circumstances: he pointed to the order and patience of the people during the eco- nomical difficulties and political disorders of 1848, as the result of a public con- viction that human legislation was no longer responsible for the evils under which the people laboured. He believed that the change. of policy was no act of a sa- gacious statesman, but the act of Almighty God; who, hearing their prayers to turn dearth into plenty, had directed their consultations, as they stood on the brink of a precipice, so that they had established " peace and happiness" on the foundations of "truth and justice."

The Marquis of GRANBY spoke in support of the motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL supplied a sort of supplement to the speeches of Sir Charles Wood and "his right honourable friend " Sir Robert Peel: Lord John reminded the House, that Ministers had conducted the affairs of the country, through three years of considerable difficulty and danger, with tranquillity at home and peace abroad.

Mr. DISRAELI replied, with sneers at Sir Charles Wood for his statistics, and at Sir Robert Peel for having neglected to study the doctrine of reci- procity. To reject his motion would be to vote confidence " in an empty and exhausted exchequer, in an endangered colonial empire, in Danish blockades and Sicilian insurrections, in a prostrate and betrayed agricul- ture, and in the desolation of Ireland."

On a division, the numbers were—for the motion, 156; against it, 296; majority, 140.

Earlier in the evening, the Report of the Committee on the Poor-Relief (Ireland) Bill was received and agreed to. The opportunity was taken by several Members to attempt the addition of various clauses; but Govern- ment maintained its ground.

In reply to Mr. Hums, Lord J0111/ RUSSELL expressed his belief that the assistance afforded by the Emperor of Russia, at the request of the Em- peror of Austria, towards suppressing the insurrection in Hungary, coma-

tutes no breach of the treaty of Vienna. He had heard of no agreement between Austria and Russia for conceding to the latter a portion of Europe. To Mr. OSBORNE, Lord Jostle RUSSELL said he could not, in the time al- lowed for answering questions, state his grounds for calling it an " insur- rection " in Hungary.

In the Upper House, Lord BROUGIIA.M drew attention to the views of pri- son discipline maintained by Captain Maconochie and Mr. Charles Pear- son, based on an industrial discipline for prisoners regulated so as to make their condition and ultimate discharge dependent on the voluntary execution of labour. Lord Brougham expounded the propositions and arguments at some length; attacking the costly and luxurious style of experimental sys- tems now in vogue, and especially the system of Reading gaol; and he con- cluded by moving a series of resolutions, which he hoped the House would adopt, if not now, in the following session of Parliament. They recom- mended a complete classificatiou of prisoners, both of accused prisoners and of convicts; a rigid style of food, raiment, and lodging; industrial discipline, the labour to go in support of the prison funds, but not to interfere with the industry of the poor at large; separate labour in suitable cases; time sentences with labour, instead of time sentences only; religious and moral instruo- tion; and careful selection of zealous and able officers. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed a cordial concurrence in much that Lord Brough- am urged; but doubted some parts, required time for experiments and inquiries now in progress, and said that if the resolutions were pressed he must move the previous question. The Earl of CIIICBESTER defended the Separate system at Pentonville; the Bishop of OXFORD and the Earl of HaRROWBY, Reading. Resolutions withdrawn.