country, my own possessions, are as dear to me as to any
honourable gentleman who sits on the benches below
me; but I feel we have arrived at the period when it is
necessary to speak the truth, and I have spoken it
without reservation." From these observations, which
were made amid loud and reiterated cheers, Sir James
Graham passed to an examination of the views
propounded by Mr. Disraeli. He contended that the real
object of the motion was the reimposition of the tax on
corn, and warned the supporters of Free Trade to be on
their guard, for a serious conflict was at hand.—The
motion was supported by Mr. Booker, Mr. Cayley,
Colonel Dunne, Lord Jocelyn, Mr. B. Cochrane, and
Mr. Muntz; and opposed by Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Cardwell,
Mr. Cobden, and Lord John Russell. On the
division, the numbers were, for the motion, 267; against
it, 281; majority, 14.

On Friday, the 14th, the debate on the Papal
Aggression was concluded. Mr. FREDERICK PEEL objected
to the measure. The bill seemed to him unable to claim
the merit of being a permanent and comprehensive
settlement of the questions agitated; and especially he
doubted if it would not wholly fail as a weapon to
prevent or control synodical action: it would only
afford another illustration proving how utterly powerless
the heavy arm of temporal power is in dealing
with the voluntary submission of the mind—with those
questions of imaginary sentiments, as they have been
called, which reside within the precincts of the
conscience.—Mr. MILNER GIBSON said, that this was the
first time since he had been in parliament that he had
been invited to impose civil disabilities on account of
religious convictions. The proposers of this bill could
not be sincere when they declared it to be founded on a
principle, and yet limited its operation to the United
Kingdom. But throughout the country this question
had not been taken up, as was pretended, on the ground
of an alleged invasion of the temporal rights of the
Sovereign, but on theological grounds, and in the spirit
of bigotry. He had no confidence in the Downing-street
divinity of the first minister, whom he accused of
"aggression" upon Protestantism; nor could he see
with what propriety the topic of what was called
Puseyism had been imported into the question.
Characterising this bill as a retrograde step, for which no
reasonable cause had been given, but in favour of which
much clap-trap had been spoken from the ministerial
benches, he regretted the junction of the dissenters in
the agitation, defended the Irish Catholic bishops from
the charge of having generally interfered with the
government scheme of education, and found fault with
the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London
for having given advice as to the preparation of the
present measure. He expressed his certainty that the
proposed law would be nugatory, and concluded by
announcing his determined opposition to the bill.—
Mr. BROTHERTON had abstained from any part in the
agitation, and should abstain from any part in the
debate; except to quote from letters by Roman Catholic
constituents at Salford—where, as at Manchester,
Catholics are among the most influential citizens—to
the effect that, "unless government will protect us,
[the Catholic laity,] all our charity-land and other
property will pass into the control of the Court of Rome."
—The other speakers against the bill were, Mr. Fagan,
Mr Sadleir, Mr. Scully, Mr. Scholefield, with Mr.
Baring Wall; the last-named gentleman declaring it
the maximum of persecution, because no persecution is
so grating as bit-by-bit persecution, to be dealt out
according to the mental reservation with which it is
submitted to. In favour of the bill, Sir James Duke,
who was also a strong defender of the Premier, Mr.
G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Cumming Bruce, Mr. Fox Maule,
Mr. Muntz, and Colonel Sibthorp; the last in duty to
his Sovereign, on whose attachment to the Church he
places implicit reliance. The House divided about
midnight. The numbers were, for the introduction of
the bill, 395; against the introduction, 63; majority for
ministers, 332.

On Monday the 17th, in a Committee of Ways and
Means, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made his
Financial Statement. He began by stating the
probable estimate of receipt and expenditure up to the 5th
of April next, and for the subsequent year. The
probable surplus on the 5th of April next he calculated at
£2,521,000. He estimated the total income for the
ensuing year at £52,140,000, and the entire expenditure
at £50,247,176; which would leave a surplus on the 5th
April, 1852, of £1,892,000. As regarded the income tax,
he said that if its renewal were refused, the deficiency
in the revenue would amount to £3,600,000. He then
defended his own conduct as regarded the income tax,
and after pointing out that the alternatives of the course
he suggested were either a "deficit," a reduction of
expenditure, or the imposition of new taxes, he urged
all those who favoured the system which the present
ministry had been so long endeavouring to carry out to
give him their support. He then proceeded to say, that
if the house should agree to renew the income tax, the
first claim upon him would, he conceived, be the
reduction of our debts. Twenty years of peace had added
twenty-seven millions to those debts. Last year,
however, he had been enabled—and he stated it with
pleasure he could hardly express—to pay off the two
millions which had been borrowed in 1848, and he was
now able to contemplate a nearly similar reduction.
His idea was, that there should be a reserve of about
one million surplus, and this the proposals he was
about to make would enable him to retain. He
then proceeded to the remission of taxation; and
first adverted to the window tax, as a tax which,
affecting the health and morals of the poorer class,
deserved the first consideration. This tax brought
£1,856,000, and its total repeal would of course absorb
the whole surplus. Such repeal was therefore impossible.
But he proposed to abolish the window tax in so
far as it affected the number of windows in a house. As
a substitution for such part of that tax as he could not
resign, he proposed to impose a house tax, to be levied,
not upon the size of the house, but upon its value. He
proposed that his enactment should apply to all new
houses, and that there should be a modification of the
present system as regarded existing houses. All existing
houses not of the annual value of £20 were to be
exempted from tax. All houses of the value of £20 and
upwards were to pay as house tax two-thirds of what
they now pay as window tax. Houses of more than £20
value, which do not now pay window tax, were also to
pay according to the above rate. The rate of duty
would be lower than that of the old house tax, and
would be 1s. in the pound; but dwelling-houses which
were partly used as shops, houses where beer was sold
to be drunk on premises, and farm-houses occupied by
tenants, would pay 9d. in the pound. This would
exempt 120,000 houses which now pay window tax, and
would cause about 30,000 to pay 12s. a year, and the
relief would include the great majority of farm-houses.
By this alteration he expected to lose £700,000. Secondly,
he proposed to equalise the duties on foreign and colonial
coffee, and to reduce them to an uniform duty of
3d. By this he expected to lose £176,000. Thirdly, he
proposed to reduce the duty on foreign timber to half
its present amount, and thereby he would sacrifice
£286,000. Fourthly, he proposed to reduce the only
tax which was unfairly borne by the agriculturists,
namely, that on seeds, of which clover and grass seeds
paid nearly the whole. The duty was now 5s. the cwt.
on foreign seeds, and 2s. 6d. on colonial seeds. He
intended to impose a uniform duty of 1s. per cwt. on all
foreign seed. By this he should lose £30,000. Fourthly,
he would partially relieve the county localities of the
charge of pauper lunatics. He proposed to charge
£150,000 a year on the general revenue, for the purpose
of reducing the expense of maintaining a pauper lunatic
to that of supporting an ordinary pauper. His intended
reductions, together with that which, by the present
law, would be made in the sugar duties (£330,000),
would amount to £1,522,000; but he did not expect
actually to lose so much, as the increase in the customs
would partly make up the loss on sugar; and, after
other calculations, he estimated the total loss to the
revenue from the contemplated changes at £1,280,000.
This would leave a surplus of £962,000 for the ensuing
year (as one half-year's payment of the present window
tax will be due in April next), and of £612,000 for
future years. He then adverted to the complaints of