to vote,—namely, £6,850,000. The gross amount of
taxes asked during the present year was £10,157,000;
and, setting against this sum £1,474,000 of repealed
taxes, the real augmentation of the public burdens
in the present year would be £8,683,000, two-thirds of
which would he raised by a single direct tax upon
the wealthier classes, and the remaining one-third by
indirect taxation, affecting the whole consuming population,
comprehending all classes. The government
proposed that the income-tax and the malt duty should
be granted for the term of the war, the spirit duty
without limitation, as a permanent duty; and, with
regard to the sugar duties, they would require
particular consideration hereafter, but it was proposed
that these should be war duties. There was
another point. Out of the £6,850,000, the produce of
the additional taxes, he could not expect to receive
before the 5th of April, 1855, more than £2,840,000; so
that he should be in arrear at that date £4,010,000, and
this sum the government, in order to have a command
of cash, ought to have the means of raising ad interim,
and the proper mode was by temporary securities, which
might be in the form of exchequer bills or exchequer
bonds; and the right hon. gentleman explained in
much detail the course which the government proposed
to pursue with reference to issue of these temporary
securities. He concluded by moving certain resolutions.—Mr.
DISRAELI observed that the scheme required much
consideration, and he objected to proceeding further
with the resolutions that evening.—The CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER suggested obvious reasons why the
resolutions respecting spirits, malt, and sugar, should
be passed immediately.—After a brief discussion, these
resolutions were agreed to.—Upon the resolution
authorising the issue of exchequer bonds, Mr. DISRAELI
objected that there was no immediate necessity for
adopting this resolution, which must lead to a long
discussion, at that moment, and moved that this and
the resolution regarding the income-tax should be
postponed.—Mr. HUME suggested that there had been
some irregularity in the contract respecting exchequer
bonds, both in the mode of making it and the entering
into it at all without the sanction of the house.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER justified the course
adopted; and, in reply to Mr. T. Baring, explained the
present condition of the contract.—Ultimately the
amendment was withdrawn, the resolution was agreed
to, and, with the other resolutions, ordered to be
reported to the house.

Mr. DRUMMOND moved for a select committee to
inquire into the management and condition of the
Crown Forests in England, with a view of ascertaining
the responsibility of the present commissioners, and
whether it would be for the public interest that some of
the smaller forests should be sold, as being unfit for the
growth of timber for her Majesty's navy. He stated
various reasons which he thought justified him in
making the motion, which was supported by Mr. HUME,
and agreed to.

Sir J. GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a bill for
the Encouragement of Seamen, and the more effectual
manning of her Majesty's navy during the present war;
and a bill for facilitating the payment of her Majesty's
navy, and the payment and distribution of prize bounty,
salvage, and other moneys among the officers and crews
of her Majesty's vessels of war, and for the better
regulation of the accounts relating thereto.—Leave was
given to bring in the bill.

On Tuesday, May 9th, the report of the committee of
ways and means having been brought up, upon the
resolution granting an Additional Duty on Malt, Mr.
E. BALL moved that the word "malt" be expunged
from the resolution. He gave expression to the utter
astonishment felt on his side of the house at the
announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that
he proposed to add 50 per cent. to the malt duty, which
would re-open a party warfare, on the question of free
trade or protective duties, which he hoped had terminated.
The sum to be provided was £6,850,000; the
income tax would produce £3,150,000, and of the
remainder, namely, £3,700,000, no less than £2,900,000
was thrown upon the land, which, he contended, was
unjust and oppressive.—Mr. BENTINCK seconded this
amendment.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
dissenting altogether from the doctrine that the addition
to the malt and spirit duties was a burden cast upon the
landed interest, declined to enter upon the questions
mooted by the two hon. members, because it would be
a virtual breach of faith with the house. This was
merely a pro forma vote, authorising the revenue
officers to prevent the evasion of the duty by the
commodities being withdrawn out of bond.—Mr. DISRAELI
repeated his suggestion, made the preceding night, that
the consideration of the resolution be postponed, citing
precedents which he considered justified this course.—
Lord J. RUSSELL resisted this suggestion, denying the
applicability of the precedents cited. The postponement
of the resolution would hazard a large amount of
revenue.—After a short discussion upon this point, the
house divided upon Mr. Ball's amendment, which was
negatived by 224 to 143; and this resolution, with the
others, was agreed to.

Mr. ADDERLEY moved an address to the crown,
praying for a reconsideration of the late order in council
ordering the Abandonment of the Orange River Territory
at the Cape on the 1st of August next. He
questioned both the legality and the expediency of the
proposed step. The government, he contended, had
entered into engagements with the inhabitants of the
territory on one side, and the people of England on the
other, which they would violate if the country were
now given up. To a great empire like ours, all abandonment
of territory and reduction of limits was fraught
with peril, endangering the loss of a prestige which
shielded it from assault. The territory was also valuable
on its own account, and promised, according to
recent discoveries, to become auriferous.—The motion
was seconded by Mr. LIDDELL.—Sir F. PEEL contended
there was nothing in the British tenure of the Orange
sovereignty which forbade its abandonment. It was a
conquered territory, and had been always administered
as such, the inhabitants being left under the government
of their own laws. He proceeded to vindicate the policy
of the step, which had been taken with the view of
saving troops and expenditure by rendering the frontier
of the Cape Colony better defined and more easily
defensible.—Sir J. PAKINGTON believed that the original
occupation of the Orange River territory was inexpedient;
and when himself holding office as colonial secretary
he had intended to take measures for its abandonment.
—Mr. V. SMITH also opposed the motion.—The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL discussed the legal question, which
had been opened by Mr. Adderley. Colonies were of
two classes; those acquired by occupancy, and those
gained by conquest. In the former the dwellers might
claim the rights and privileges of subjects, and could
demand protection, a constitutional organisation, and
other benefits from the mother country, which the
central government were not entitled to withdraw
except under mutual consent, and by an act of the
legislature. Over conquered colonies, on the other
hand, the crown held an absolute sovereignty, as far as
to be able to retain or resign possession at its discretion,
and by a simple exercise of the royal prerogative. This,
he contended, was the case with the territory now in
question.—Sir F. THESIGER conducted a legal argument
to the same result, but believed that the British crown
had never possessed a sovereignty, properly so called,
over the Orange River territory. There was nothing
but an independent treaty contracted with the native
chiefs.—The motion was opposed by Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE.
—Mr. ADDERLEY, yielding to the array of
authorities who had pronounced against his resolution, declined
to press it, and the motion was then, by leave,
withdrawn.

Mr. D. SEYMOUR moved for leave to bring in a bill to
make Fraudulent Dealings with regard to Bills of
Exchange Felonious in certain cases, referring to cases,
and particularly a very recent one, where frauds had
been practised upon incautious young men, which the
existing law could not punish criminally.—The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it would be very impolitic to
oppose a measure to check a nefarious system of bill-
stealing, but its details required much consideration.—
Leave was given.

On Wednesday, May 10, on the motion for going into