proceedings taken to watch the premises of M.
Kossuth?—Lord J. RUSSELL said, the rule to be
observed with reference to refugees was founded upon the
law of England and the great international law of
Europe, according to which, while they enjoyed the
hospitality of this country and were safe under the
shelter of its law, they ought not to abuse that hospitality
by making war against other states in peace and alliance
with England. M. Kossuth, respecting whose conduct
there were two opinions, was bound scrupulously to
obey the law of this country, and not to involve her in
a quarrel with its neighbours. But it was not to be
wondered at that suspicions should be raised after the
publication of his proclamation, proclaiming the duty of
insurrection—a most imprudent and unjustifiable act;
and after the letter which had been read in that house,
expressing a determination to wage war with the
Sovereign of Hungary, a prince in amity with this
country. Under all the circumstances of the case, it
was not unreasonable for the police, whose duty it was
from time to time to make reports to the government,
to believe that a crime was meditated. The communications
from Austria are not of the nature of demands,
applications, or requirements; at the same time that
government had stated that they felt aggrieved by
proceedings carried on by refugees residing in this country.
—After a few remarks by Sir J. WALMSLEY, the
discussion terminated.

The adjourned debate on the Budget was then
resumed, when Mr. LAWLESS moved an amendment to
the effect that Ireland should continue to be exempted
from the income tax. Mr. DUFFY vehemently opposed
the extension of it to Ireland. He had no doubt that
some few Irish members had voted in favour of that
measure from conscientious grounds. But (he proceeded)
short as my experience in this house has been, I
must say I do not believe that in the worst days of the
Walpoles or the Pelhams more scandalous corruption
existed than I have seen practised under my own eye in
corrupting Irish members. This remark produced
confusion, and loud cries of "Name, name!"—Mr. J.
BALL, moved that these words be taken down.—Lord J.
RUSSELL observed that if Mr. DUFFY meant to refer to
any members he ought to name them. If he was ready,
with the Speaker in the chair, to charge any Irish
members individually, with the corruption with which
he had charged them generally, he should not refuse to
vote that the words be taken down; otherwise it would
be better to treat words, which Mr. Duffy was unable
to prove, with contempt.—A warm discussion ensued,
after which Mr. DUFFY having declined to retract his
words, they were taken down, and the chairman being
ordered to report progress, the house resumed, when
the occurrence was reported to the Speaker, who
inquired of Mr. Duffy whether he had any explanation
to offer or would retract his words. Mr. Duffy declined
either alternative, and was directed to withdraw.—
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that, under the circumstances
the ulterior proceedings ought not to be suggested by
any member of the government—Mr. DISRAELI
proposed that Mr. Duffy should be called in and
desired to state the names of the members whom he
considered the government had practised upon in a
corrupt manner.—Mr. S. WORTLEY moved that the
words reported to the house be taken into consideration
next day.—Lord J. RUSSELL thought this the preferable
course; and after some further debate, amid many
manifestations of impatience, the proposition was agreed
to, and Mr. Duffy was ordered to attend in his place
next day.

On Friday, May 6, the house was crowded in every
part to witness the sequel of Mr. Duffy's Affair. The
SPEAKER having called upon him to retract or explain
his words uttered on the preceding night, he said that
he should have explained on the previous evening had
he not been interrupted. What he meant to say was
that in the time of Sir Robert Walpole and the Duke
of Newcastle men had been induced to abandon
solemn and circumstantial pledges, in order to accept
place; he charged certain Irish Members with doing so,
and that he called corruption. If he had broken the
rules of the house, he regretted it.—Lord John
RUSSELL observed that this was a very different
description of charge from that implied on Thursday.
It was not a charge of corruption by money, and therefore
it was different from the corruption of Sir Robert
Walpole's time. It was a matter of opinion; and he
did not think that the Irish members in question or
the ministers need fear any amount of discussion on the
subject. He did not think the house need proceed any
farther.—In reply to Mr. John BALL, Mr. DUFFY said
that he did not connect his statement of the previous
night with the division on Monday.—Mr. BALL was
satisfied; and, amid considerable laughter, the house
proceeded to the orders of the day.—Shortly afterwards
the house went into committee; and Mr. BOUVERIE,
the chairman, put the question on Mr. Lawless's
amendment; which was negatived by 286 to 61. Other
amendments were moved—by Mr. FITZGERALD to
exempt trades and professions in Ireland, and by Dr.
MICHELL, altering the rates of poundage on incomes
derived from trade; but the former was negatived
without a division, and the latter withdrawn. The
business of the evening was much interrupted by hot
altercations, originating in trifles, and ending in
nothing.

On Monday, May 9th, there was another confused
altercation respecting the alleged Promise made by
the Whig and Peelite Party to the Irish Members,
that if they would assist in turning out the late government,
the present government would not extend the
income–tax to Ireland. The subject was started by
Mr. Ball, who put a question respecting it to Captain
Magan.—Captain MAGAN thought he had been unfairly
treated in having had no notice of the question, but
Mr. Ball was completely mistaken in everything he had
stated.—Lord J. RUSSELL said that, to the best of his
knowledge and belief, there never was any person
authorised by the Whig party to make any such
compact or proposal.—Colonel DUNNE thought the Irish
members had nothing to be ashamed of in the matter,
and complained of the way in which the Irish members
had been spoken of in newspapers under the influence
of the government.—Mr. MOORE, having heard the
name of the accredited agent in question, had no hesitation
in going to the point at once, and asking Mr.
Hayter if he was the man?—Mr. Hayter having
pointed out the impropriety of bringing on the subject
without previous notice, declared that he never was
authorised by any person, or by any body of persons,
to make any such communication to any person or
any party, nor did he ever attend any meeting of Irish
members for such a purpose. He never stated to any
person that he was authorised to stipulate that any
government which might succeed that of Lord Derby
would undertake not to impose the income tax on
Ireland.—Captain MAGAN explained, to the great
amusement of the house, that he had referred to three
private Irish members, whom, however, he declined
to name.

The house then went into committee of Ways and
Means, and resumed the consideration of the resolution
imposing the Income Tax.—Mr. PALMER moved as an
amendment, after the words "for every twenty shillings
of the annual value or amount thereof," to insert "such
annual value of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments,
being the net annual value thereof, after due allowance
made for repairs, insurance, and management." He
dwelt on the necessity of giving greater relief to the
land than was provided by the budget of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and defended his proposal as an act
of justice to the landed interest. In order to arrive at
the real income of the property, it was only fair to
deduct the charges for repairs, insurance, and management;
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his
able statement, had estimated the burden of them at
16 per cent; thus, in fact, making real property at
present pay 9d. in the pound, whilst it was professedly
charged only 7d.—After a number of observations from
various members, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
observed that the adoption of the amendment would
involve in inextricable confusion the apportionment
of a tax which, unless they kept its details within
bounds, was absolutely unmanageable. He did not
know whether the late Chancellor of the Exchequer
intended to adhere to his policy of December last,