On Monday the 11th, in committee on the Army
Estimates, Mr. F. MAULE moved for a vote of 99,128
men for the land service of the year.—Mr. HUME,
moved, as an amendment, that the vote this year should
be for 89,000 men, to be reduced next year to 80,000,
there being no reason why we should not revert to that
number, which was sufficient up to 1837. After some
debate, this amendment was negatived by 223 against 50.
The committee then proceeded to the Navy Estimates,
and, on the first vote of 39,000 men for the sea-service,
Mr. HUME protested against its extravagance, and
moved that the number should be reduced to 31,469.
The amendment was negatived by 117 against 19.

On Tuesday, the 12th, Mr. H. DRUMMOND proposed a
resolution enforcing the necessity of Reducing the
National Expenditure, on the ground that the present weight
of taxation depresses all classes, and especially the
labourer, by diminishing the fund at liberty for the
employment of reproductive labour. After forcibly
describing the distresses that weighed upon the labouring
classes, he referred to the fiscal burdens by which
those distresses were aggravated. It was fair that
free trade, if introduced into our system, should be
made impartial and complete. The agriculturist should
be allowed to do what he liked with his land. He ought
not to be prohibited from growing tobacco, nor find
himself oppressed with duties whenever he wished to gather
hops from his hedge, cultivate beetroot, turn his barley
into malt, or manufacture clay into bricks for his cottage.
To remit all these taxes it would be necessary to reduce
and re-distribute the burdens of taxation. The way to
accomplish this object was to cut down all salaries, and
shift the great weight of the taxes upon property instead
of labour. Mr. CAYLEY seconded the motion, and a
long debate ensued in which many members joined. Sir
Robert PEEL said that he accepted the resolution, as
designed unequivocally to imply nothing more than it
expressed. He drew from its tenor an inference strongly
in favour of the commercial policy of 1842, inasmuch as it
simply demanded a further and more complete fulfilment
of the principles then introduced. As a social question
he agreed to test the results of the free-trade experiment
by its effects upon the condition of the industrial classes.
So far as the facts were now known, they showed that
this test had satisfactorily stood. Even among the
agriculturists, from whom the complaints were now so loud,
he believed that a better share of employment, and a
greater command of the comforts of life were enjoyed
at present than before the recent changes. Turning to
the financial question, the hon. baronet, as the author
of the reduced estimates of 1835, and the expanded
outlay in 1848, declared that both proceedings were justified
by the condition of the country at the respective periods.
He could not now vote for a general resolution to enforce
retrenchment. Notwithstanding the hot and cold fits
to which the House of Commons was subject, he
preferred trusting the work of economy to the hands of a
judicious government, rather than leave it to the votes
of a vacillating assembly. In the necessity for retrenchment
he concurred. Waiting the happy time when all
nations would consent to put their armies upon a peace
establishment, he believed that some risk of loss in case
of hostilities ought to be incurred for the sake of alleviating
burdens that would otherwise crush the energies
of the country. Lord J. RUSSELL inquired how the
reductions in expenditure suggested by the motion before
the house were to be effected? After determining to
keep faith with the public creditor, to continue the
pensions, allowances, and half-pay, to which the country
stood already pledged, and defray the charges for the
army and navy sanctioned by the votes which had passed
the house a few hours previously, only a small amount
of expenditure remained open for economical measures.
If a reduction of 10 per cent were effected, as had been
proposed, on all the salaries of the cabinet ministers, the
total saving would amount to £4000 per annum.
Commenting upon the duties specially recommended for
remission by Mr. Drummond, Lord J. Russell stated
that if the cultivation of tobacco were allowed, it would
not be prosecuted with advantage, except under a
protective duty of several hundred per cent. The malt
duty was a question of revenue, and rendered necessary
by the inheritance of debt transmitted from administrations
who had prosecuted an European war. On this
point Lord J. Russell drew a distinction between duties
for revenue and taxes imposed for purposes of protection,
and to favour particular classes of producers. The former,
he contended, should not be abolished unless it was
clearly proved the exchequer could afford it. Eventually
Mr. Drummond's resolution was negatived by 190
against 156.

On the second reading, on the 13th, of the County
Rates and Expenditure Bill, Sir J. PAKINGTON moved,
as an amendment, for a select committee, to inquire
into the present mode of levying and expending the
county rate, with a view to ascertain whether any more
satisfactory mode can be adopted of levying the rates,
and of giving the ratepayers more effectual control
over their expenditure. This amendment, being opposed
by several members, was withdrawn; the bill was read
a second time, and ordered to be referred to a select
committee.

The Public Libraries and Museums Bill was read a
second time, after a short discussion, by a majority of
118 to 101. It was supported by Mr. Ewart (by whom
it was brought in), Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Hume, Mr.
Labouchere, Mr. Bright, and others. Its leading
opponents were Mr. Spooner, Mr. R. Palmer, Sir R. Inglis,
and Mr. P. Howard.

On Monday the 14th, Lord ASHLEY moved for leave to
introduce a bill to declare the intention of the legislature
with regard to the Factories Act. He had little
or no doubt that it was the intention of the legislature
that the labour of all young persons employed in
factories should be continuous from the time it commenced,
and should not be taken in parts and in succession,
thereby extending the time over the full fifteen hours in
every day. Mr. Baron Parke, in giving his judgment,
showed clearly enough, that the opinion of the court
was, that it was the intention of the legislature that
relays should be prohibited. The noble lord, in a
speech of much eloquence and length, detailed the evil
results of the relay system, and illustrated the improvement
already caused by the act, reading a variety of
testimonies from clergymen and others to that effect.—
Sir G. GREY said he would certainly offer no opposition
to the introduction of the bill; he would only throw out
this suggestion to his noble friend, that he did not think
that his object would be attained, unless he made such
an alteration in the definition of "night" as would
reduce its range from fifteen hours to twelve; that he
thought was the right principle, and one on which his
noble friend might safely proceed. He did not therefore
wish, in consenting to the introduction of the bill,
to be in any way bound to the specific remedy which
Lord Ashley wished to adopt.—Mr. BANKES, Mr. F.
O'CONNOR, and Sir R. INGLIS supported the bill.—Mr.
Milner GIBSON would not oppose its introduction,
but would reserve any opposition he had to make, for
the second reading of the bill.—Mr. BRIGHT attributed
the improvement that had taken place, not to the Ten
Hours' Bill, but to free trade. After the last two
years he thought a good feeling on the whole apparent:
but exasperation to same extent still existed, and he
believed it would continue while this bill was pressed in
its present shape; he therefore advised the noble lord,
who represented a large number of persons out of doors
on this subject, and who were willing to listen to the
suggestions of the manufacturers, to consider whether
some course might not be adopted to meet the views of
all parties. If the noble lord did this, and if the house
came to a calm view of the subject, he hoped they might
settle for ever a question which had done more to excite
heartburnings and bitter feelings between the employers
and the employed, than all other things which had
occurred.—The debate was continued by Mr. AGLIONBY
and Lord J. MANNERS, who declared that there should
be no compromise, and Mr. W. J. FOX, who thought
the scheme already in existence the best that could be
proposed.—Sir J. GRAHAM said with respect to what
occurred in 1844, his object in framing the bill as he had
introduced it, was absolutely to prohibit the relay
system in any form whatsoever. That certainly had
been his intention. His own opinions remained
unchanged.—Lord Ashley in reply said that his intention
had been to move for leave to bring in a bill to