The Sun. — London, England, 1860-05-09 00:00:00

(Continued from our first page.) had no doubt, be able to state whether the return on the whole of the paper made did not amount to about £6,000,000 per annum. But be that as it might, it was only fair to argue that in proportion to the extent of the interest with which the house was called upon to deal did it behove them seriously to consider the results which might flow from the mode in which they were asked to legislate. Was it not most unjust that taxation on a certain commodity should be reduced, the - reduction of which materially interfered with the manufacture of the article, and rendered necessary the imposition of an. additional penny in the pound in the shape of income-tax on the poor clerk, who could ill afford to pay it ? (Hear, hear.) But there was also another ob jection to the contemplated repeal of the paper duty. He had been told by persona conversant with the subject that that repeal would tend to do material injury not only to the manufacturers themselves, but to those whom they em ployed. (Hear, bear.) The right hon. gentleman had not, however, informed the house to what extent he thought the operation of the bill would be to diminish the number of those who earned their livelihood in that way. He might add that the material from which paper was made was 40 or 50 per cent. cheaper on the Continent than it was in this country, and that it was only the extra penny on each pound paid by the foreigner in the shape of Customs' duty that enabled the English manufacturer to hold his ground against him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, called on honourable members to yield up the advantage which the latter at present possessed, and that, too, without the slightest equivalent. (Hear.) For his own part he could see no justice in such a proceeding, and he should remind the right hou. gentlemen that if he desired to see that treaty, which it was argued was destined to unite two great countries more closely together in the bonds of friendship, permanent, the best mode of effecting that object would be to render it more equal in regard to the advantages which it conferred. (Hear.) Mr. PULLER said the Excise duty and the Customs' duty on paper were quite distinct. The question as to the Excise duty was already settled ; the house had condemned it two years ago. The real point opened by the hon. member for Stamford was, whether since the settlement any fresh circumstances had occurred sufficient to induce the house to reconsider its decision and preserve the duty. (Hear, hear.) That was really a question of confidence in the'Go vernment--(ohl)—and whether it could be trusted to draw up the estimates. (Hear, hear.) It was an error of the hon. member for Cambridgeshire to bring into the discussion his own peculiar views of the Customs' duty on paper. It would be impossible, by the terms of the treaty, to keep on the Excise duty and the- protection duty of a penny also, which he hoped would be maintained till the Government secured a free exportation of rags. (Hear.) Sir M. FARQUHAR was surprised at the course the Go vernment had taken on the present occasion, when he found what were the opinions expressed by hon. gentlemen oppo site in the discussion on the hon. member for Ashton's (Mr. M. Gibson's) resolution in 1858. In that debate the hon. member for Birmingham said : "He believed the object of his right hon. friend in bring • ing forward this resolution was merely to put on the records of the house the opinions of hon. members on both sides, so that, whenever the condition of the Treasury should be such as to permit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to the abolition of this tax, the right hon: gentleman would select it as the very first for remission, and so get rid of it." What said the right hon. member for Backs on the same wagon ? This— " He objected to the motion as first proposed by the hon. gentleman. He agreed with him that the 'maintenance .of the excise on paper as a permanent source of revenue would be impolitic, but could not agree with him that such finan cial arrangements ought to be made as to enable Parliament to disp nse with the tax." The right hon. baronet the Home Secretary said : "He had certainly given the hon. gentleman no encou ragement, for he had said that, when they knew that they had a surplus revenue and the means of diminishing the taxation of the country, then was the proper time to consi der what under existing circumstances were the taxes which had the first claim to reduction." These declarations formed one of the grounds of the sur prise of the country at the determination of the same. right hon. gentleman to seize the present occasion to repeal this tax. He would only quote one more authority, the noble lord the member for the City of London—he said distinctly : " The house would recollect that last year the then Chan cellor of the Exchequer proposed that the income-tax should be kept up at 7d. in the pound, and instead of is. 3d. the duty on tea would be ls. 5d., and that there should be a pro ' portionate increase in the duty on sugar. This year they had allowed the income-tax to fall from 7d to sd. in the pound, but they had kept up the duty on tea at Is. 5d., and also retained the proportionate increase in the duty on sugar. It was therefore almost a matter of good faith whennext there was a reduction in taxation, that the duties on tea and sugar should be reduced, which were in fact war duties, and there could be no greater claim for reduction of taxa tion than in those articles of consumption which entered so largely into the comforts of the people." As theincorne-tax had been imposed, should any part of the pe per duty be retained, ho could only congratulate the right hon. gentleman on having that amount to meet any difficulties that might arise. The right hon. gentleman ex pressed his surprise that they should object to the bill on the third reading, Surely he had been long enough in the house to know that they had a right to dispute eirneasure at every stage, on the second reading in committee, and on the third reading. Since the period when the Budget and the Commercial Treaty were brought forward the feeling of the country had materially changed. (Cheers.) The people had seen that there was not the desire supposed to exist, on the part of a neighbouring country to meet the free trade proposals of the Government. (Hear.) Under these circumstances it might fairly be argued that the house ought not to press the passing of the bill. The right hon. member for Buckinghamshire had been taunted, he thought unfairly, in relation to the question of fire insurance, having stated lastyear as a Minister of the Crown the course which ho felt it his duty to adopt with regard to it. He himself was in favour of a reduction of that duty, but he had not - voted on the question either last year or daring the present session, as he did not wish his motives to be misinter preted. (Hear, hear.) He was extremely glad the hen. member for Stamford had brought forward the question, and he hoped the house would declare its opinion that it was unwise to sacrifice revenue amounting to £1,300,000 when a great deficiency existed in the present year, and it had been shown that the deficit for next could not be less than £12,000,000. (Loud cheers.) Lord H. VANE thought the discussion had somewhat wandered from the point raised by the hon. baronet, which he understood to rest on purely financial grounds, the hon. member admitting that by the decision of the house the tax itself ought not to form a permanent revenue. The point raised by the hon. baronet, and upon which he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would afford some infor mation, was, that inasmuch as the house would probably be called on to adopt larger estimates than were at first con templated, and as the last of these had not yet been pre sented, it was desirable, before so large an amount of revenue was parted with, that the house should be in a position to arrive at a just conclusion. In this view he entirely concurred—(hear, hear)—and though it might be :maid that the increased eminent of the estimates would not -absorb the entire of the available surplus, there were other questions looming—(hear, hear)—as to which they ought to have some information. It was stated, for instance, that the Government intended to propose certain plans of forti fication; and it would be well that the house should be in possession of the fact before coming to any definite resolu • lion involving such an extensive sacrifice of revenue as they were now asked to make. (Cheers.) He differed from those who thought that an income-tax ought not now to be imposed with a view of removing other kinds of taxation, for the principle had been already adopted. The sole ques tion was whether sufficient provision had been made for the additional expenses to be incurred. He did not find fault with the Government for not having produced these addi tional estimates, for in the position itt which they found themselves at the opening of the session they had no choice as to the manner in which they should introduce the finan cial details, and he believed it was customary for Chan cellors of the Exchequer to bring in towards the close of the session a supplementary estimate, embracing all additional and miscellaneous charges. He differed from the hon. member for Hertfordshire, who thought that the Excise and Customs duties were not intimately con nected ; on the contrary, they were so intimately related that he could not conceive how any member could vote with respect to the one without anticipating that he would be called on to vote in similar sense on the other. (Cheers.) And, therefore, he thought himself justified in assuming that the decision that night would virtually decide the ques tion on Monday, as all who now supported the Government would vote against him ona fature occasion. (Hear, hear.) 'He was not surprised that the hon. member for Ashton under-Lyne should take credit to himself for having brought 'the question to an issue, for it was he who, by an argument of great ability, induced the house two-years ago to agree to the resolution whioh had placed the paper duty in its present anomalous position. But that position had existed over since, and he did not see that any great injury would result from the postponement of its finer decision till next year—(hear, hear)—the house, in so doing, would be act ing in strict accordance with the principle which had guided them since that resolution was passed. The capital of £10,000,000, alleged to be vested in the manufacture of paper, would remain, in exactly the same position it had oc cupied during that interval. (Hear.) He could see a clear distinction between the reduction of Customs' duties and the present case. In the former, the house proceeded by way of resolution, and pledged itself to take off or reduce certain charges, but with respect to duty imposed in accordance with an Act of Parliament. its repeal was not accomplished until all the successive stages had been gone through, and nobody had a right to complain if in any of these the bill for effecting that object was defeated. (Hear, hear.) He by no means contemplated the permanent retention of the paper duty, against which many reasons could be assigned, especially it. harsh operation in the case of literary men and of certain commercial interests, but he believed the in jury which it entailed was very much exaggerated. (Oppo sition cheers.) There was no tax which was absolutely free from objection, and in every instance it was a question of comparison as to the least objectionable mode by which the Exchequer could be supplied. In support of the paper duty it might be urged that it was of long standing, having ex isted ever since the time of Queen Anne, and that interests had grown up under it and become accustomed to it, while duties more recently imposed had interfered with existing interests and ran more directly counter to the ideas and habits of the people, (Hoar) Unless, therefore, eorae 1411er explanations were afforded than had yet been given, and unless fears which were not unreasonably entertained were more satisfactorily allayed than had hitherto been the case, it would be an act of imprudence in the house 10 part at such a moment with so large a portion of ne revenue. Cheers.) Mr. ELLICE—I wish to explain to the house in a few words why I shall feel obliged to vote aga *nst the third reading of this bill. (Rear.) Ido not co ne to that deter mination on any of the narrow grounds I have heard stated since I came into the house, but upon the general view I take of the resources and revenue of the country, which I think are placed in considerable jeopardy by my right hon. friend's budget. (Opposition cheers.) In the few remarks I made at the beginning of these discussions I described the budget as being in my opinion an ambitious budget, and the experience I have acquired of it since only confirms that opinion. (Hear.) I have sat in this house the most part of half a century, during which time I have paid some atten tion to the financial condition of the country, and this is the first instance within my recollection when a Chancellor of the Exchequer has come down asking us to repeal certain taxes connected with the permanent revenue of the country, at same time admitting that he leaves a deficiency to be supplied by new taxes in the ensuing year, of somewhere about £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. (Cheers.) I do not know that any gentleman in this house can furnish a similar pre cedent. It is a course fall of danger—(hear, hear)—and it is full of inconvenience ; for at the beginning of the next session we shall be launched into exactly the same discus sions which now prevent us from proceeding with the ordi nary business of the nation. (Hoar.) If it should turn out that some of the great measures of this session do not succeed or are not carried we must recommence our discus sions upon them in the beginnic g of another session, and at the same time we have to provide the means, which will be then very much more disputed than now, of supplying the deficiency of £10,000,010 or £12,000,000. (Hear.) Again, we have no security that the sums asked from us on account of the estimates constitute the whole expenditure which we shall be called upon to provide for the service of the year. (Hear.) I have the greatest misgivings with respect to the vote for the China expedition. (Hear, hear.) As to that item, we must be guided not only by the actual estimates before us, but by what our own judgthent suggests as to the probable expenditure we may be called on to face. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the tax which we are now discus sing, I have not a word to say in its defence. It is about as odious a tax as one can well imagine. It is not only a tax which interferes, as all Excise taxes do, with an impor tant branch of manufacture—being almost the only tax of that descriptien now left in our fiscal system—but it also impedes the circulation of information and of knowledge. Upon all grounds no man is more disposed to repeal this taxwhenever we can.do so without robbing the exchequer. (Hear, hear.) But when we are ealled on to repeal it at the risk of leaving a deficit, or when we are called on to impose other taxes equally odious to the people, I think we should wait until some more favourable time presents itself. (Hear, hear.) It is upon these, and upon no mere narrow grounds, that I object to the repeal of this tax. Another reason why we should suspend our judgment is this :—My right hon. friend proposes other taxes which have not yet passed the house. Some of them are objected to by various classes of persons who will be affected by them. For instance, the mercantile classes object to the petty taxes which are to be imposed upon trade. It is true we remit duties on consump tion, but we impose petty, vexatious, shackles on trade, such as 2d. or 3d. on removing packages, which are not im posed on the commerce of Hambitrg, Belgium, Holland, America, or of any other country in the world. (Hear.) It is the first time in the history of the country that such vexatious taxes were imposed. I feel strongly the objections to such imposts, and it is therefore not quite clear to my mind that others may not object, too, and that my right hon. friend may not experience some difficulty in-carrying them. At all events, I think it will be better to i wait until they are carried before we proceed to remit other duties. (Hear.) Though greatly indisposed, therefore, to do any thing in the least opposed to the measures of the Govern ment, I feel obliged in my conscience to vote against the third reading of this bill. (Cheers.) Mr. HOPE said, that had he voted on the second reading of the bill he should have supported it on the grounds urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that it would relieve a great manufacture from great restrictions, increase tho purposes to which the manufacture could be applied, and reduce the price at which the article could be sold. Having, however, watched the discussions carried on since that time, he had came to the conclusion that no such results would follow; that, looking to what had passed abroad and at home, it was a delusion to expect them ; and he should, therefore, feel compelled to vote' against the third reading. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—imust frankly admit that my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) does found his opposition to the third reading of this bill upon . no narrow grounds. I might, indeed, question the correct ness of some portion of those grounds. He complains of the Government because they are proposing the imposition of a number of new taxes upon trade which havenot yet re ceived the sanction of this house, which may, therefore, be uncertain as to their effect, and with respect to which it is desirable that we should know whether they are to be adopted before we surrender revenue. My eight hon. friend says he has attended the debates of this house fur nearly half a century, and it is perhaps no wonder therefore that he has become so weary of hearing them, that the taxes of which he speaks have been debated by the house, and, with an in significant exception, have received its deliberate approval without his knowledge. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, as re gards that part of my right hon. friend's statement, if it has materially affected his judgment, I can only regret that a voice so authoritative should have been guided or misguided, as the case may be, by considerations so entirely erro neous. (A laugh.) As to my right hon. friend's criticisms on the general policy of the Government scheme of finance, I must point out to him that he has spoken somewhat late. His statement, which sums up, in fact, the most prominent objections urged against the financial plans of the Govern ment as a whole, would have been extremely important it it had proceeded from his mouth, with his authority, some two or three months ago, and would then have, at least, been in place and in time. At present, I hardly know what purpose it can answer beyond that of eliciting warm ex pressions cf approval from that portion of the house which finds a large amount of sympathy in a quarter where sym pathy with them was not previously known to exist. (A laugh.) But I must submit to my right hon. friend that it is too late to discuss these matters now. (" No, no.") With great respect I must decline to follow my right hon. friend into the mere enunciation of counter-statemeAts which it would be Perfectly easy for us 'to make, or into that very minute examination, and, as I think, that not very difficult refutation, of his opinions, which would, in point of fact, involve the repetition of our principal debates for the last three months. (Hear, and a laugh.) I beg to state to the house what I conceive not to be the question now at issue. We are not debating the general principles of the financial plans of the Government, and I venture to tell my right hon. friend that if he really has entertained these sinister and dismal apprehensions, it might have been better either to have uttered them in their full force at the time when they might have operated on the decision of Parliament, or possibly to have kept them to himself. (" Oh, oh.") The time has passed by when the decision of Parliament can be governed by these prophecies, because in the main, as I shall endeavour to show to the house, the principal ques tions raised by them are already decided. Ido not ask your assent to that proposition now, but I will attempt pre sently to show that it is a sound and correct proposition. We are not discussing the question whether it would have been wiser on the part of the Government to have refrained from proposing a repeal of the paper duty, which was to be made up by an additional penny of income-tax, be cause that additional penny has already become law, and at this moment been levied from many of her Majesty's subjects--(hear, hear)—and a large party in this house opposed to the policy of the Government has, by its deliberate vote, in its own self-chosen language, sent forth to the cam try that the proposition of a tenth of the income-tax and the repeal of the paper duty were correlatives one to another, and inseparably united. (Hear, hear.) That has been declared by the Motion of the hon. member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles), and supported generally by the party opposite. Neither are we discussing the question whether the Govern ment would have done better to have proposed the reduction of the duties on tea and sugar rather than of that on paper, because we have seen that while it has been argued that at any rate it would have been a preferable change, yet there has been no serious intention of recommending a change of that sort, or it would have been submitted to the house in the shape of a formal motion. Neither are we discussing the question whether a protective duty of a penny per lb. is to be maintained upon foreign paper in consideration of the legislation. of foreign countries. I think I may assure my noble friend who lately addressed the house that, as far as argument at least, the two questions of the duty to be ina. posed upon the impertation of paper from abroad and the question of the retention of the Excise duty on paper at home are entirely distinct. He may say if he pleases, and he has a right to do so, that the same inclination which led a majority of the house to vote for the one may lead them to vote for the other; but, in truth, the two things are quite distinct. Neither at this stage do I propose to re-argue the general question of the repeal of the duty on paper. My right hon. friend has not gone further than to say that a more odious tax than that for the retention of which he argued could not be conceived. And this most odious tax he desires to retain after the house has given to the Ex chequer the equivalent which was stipulated for when the repeal of the duty was proposed. (Hear, hear.) Ido not re-argue the general grounds against the tax. I merely re cite them. Among them were, of course, the general ob jections to Excise duties upon what is called a legitimate and unexceptionable manufacture. l'rominently among them are the uncertainty and inequality of the present law, which have led the responsible department to report that "it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that we are levying a duty upon A. while we allow B to send out goods pre cisely similar in nature without any interference from the revenue officers." So that, according to the opinions of those who are most competent to speak upon the subject it is not possible to go on longer as we are, and if the duty is not repealed there remains for Parliament the doubly odious task of new, vexatious,.and restrictive legislation. Another and a less weighty &found is the resolution of this house, and I hope that hon. gentlemen who voted for that resolu tiQn, L ue 4 4ing, apparently ) u9thing 17 it, will dcrin AVM THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 9, 1860, that vote a salutary lessoh for the future when they see what effect such a vote produces in weakening the hands of those whose duty it is to maintain and enforce the law. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend has said that this duty is a talon literature and education, and the effect of it is :o confine within narrow limits the whole manufacture from fibrous substances (hear, hear) which it is reasonable to ex pect, if the shackles of the law are removed, may become the basis of a trade vastly multiplied, and which will contribute t 3 the general prosperity of the country in a degree far beyond the measure of tribute which it now supplies to the revenue. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend the member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) stated the case not unfairly. I under- stood him to take as his ground not that the financial policy of the Government ought ab initio to have been rejected, but that since it had adopted the principles of the repeal of the paper duty such changes had taken place in the prospects of our expenditure as impues upon us the •duty and obligation of withholding the relief we had promised in respect of this particular item of finance. The state of our expenditure and the prObable demands upon the public purse were declared by the Government at the commencement of the session, and requires no declaration from the Government to show that it contained some elements of uncertainty, because we had undertaken to send, in conformity with what was our duty and honour, a costly expedition to one of the remotest coun tries of the globe, with respect to which the cost must ne cessarily depend much upon circumstances attending the despatch of that expedition; and the course of political affairs which might follow its departure and arrival. I never dis- guised this, nor do I now, that there is a degree of uncer tainty affecting the expenditure of the present financii year, and probably that of future years. (Opposition cheers. That is not a matter that is new to the house, which had A in - view when it assented to our financial propositions, and gave them its sanction and approval. (Hear, hear.) And although the precise amount of that expenditure has re ceived some degree of modification, yet there has been no change as would justify us in altering the financial propo sitions which we submitted to the house. It is still a case of uncertainty, but still it is precisely the same case. (Hear.) Now I come to the specific case upon which my hon. friend rests, He said there was a change in the estimates for the collection of the revenue, and he intimated that therewould be a similar change in the estimates for the miscellaneous services, although those changes would not involve any in crease of charge. I think he will see that althOugh there are changes, yet they aro not such as will justify his-mo tion, He says that several military votes have been al tered. It is true, and when we come to discuss those esti mates a good reason for the alteration will, I am sure, be given, and the hon. baronet knows well that, a state of ac -counts involving mesh largo sums between the Govern ments of India and of England is necessarily a disturbing cause, whieh from time to time tends to vary estimates and to modify charges on either side. The estimates as pre sented by my right hon. friend he is prepared to stand by; and the house will, I 'think, admit that he is not in the habit of presenting estimates got up to meet an emergency, and then relying upon supplementary estimates to carry him through the year. My hon. friend adverted to the vote for fortifications, and asked for details. Undoubtedly, nothing can be more reasonable than that the house should be informed as to the details of that vote; but the house and the Government are essentially in the same pre dicament, inasmuch as it is known that a special body has been appointed for the purpose of con sidering the important questions connected with the de fences of the country, and 'the report of that body, embodying the recommendations which it may think fit to make to the Government, is not yet in the hands of the Cabinet for its consideration. What course, then, has been taken by the Government under the circumstances? Why, this; they have submitted to the house necessarily a -sure without details, which remains in a great degree un fixed, but at any rate a sum which is much more than the vote of last year, or, indeed, of any preceding year, for the purpose of fertifications. But that matter stands precisely now as it did at the time when the house arrived at the decision which it is now asked to retract. I come now to the third head—that of the miscellaneous estimates, which my hon. friend anticipated would be increased to £7,772,000, but that is sheer anticipation. I think I may venture to assure him that it is an inacca.rate estimate, and that the charge for the miscellaneous estimateswill approxi mate nearly to the figure at which I originally stated it. I won't say there will not be a variation of some £20,000 or £30,000, but substantially that charge will correspond with my former estimate. Then there remains the charge for the collectOn of the revenue ; and with respect to that, there is something, in what has been stated by my friend, because, owing to the early period at which the estimates were pro posed, they were stated at a lower figure than that at wbich' it was afterwards thought prudent to fix them. But it is im possible for me to state even now in what degree that change in the figure is likely to represent a real increase of expel:Lei hire, because important alterations are contemplated in re ference to the revenue establishments and the collection of the taxes, and at present it would be impossible for me to sly in what degree any changes that may be made in that sense may affect the estimate ; but even if the whole of the difference he anticipates were to be represented by a real ex penditure—that difference being above £2oo,oo3—although it may constitute a change in the circumstances since the budget was proposed, yet constitutes no change of a nature or magnitude that would justify us in stopping the course of a measure which involves a revenue of five or six times that amount. So far, therefore, as regards change -in circum stances since the period when the financial statement was submitted to the house, there is nothing that would justify the Government in making new financial proposals - to Par liament. (Hear, hear.) But even that is not the whole of the question before us ; and I entreat the house, before coming to the vote of to-night, to consider what its mean ing and bearing really are. The third reading of a bill is now contested, and you are, in 'circuitous and vague terms, but still with no doubt as to the practical ob ject, invited to reject that bill on the adjourned debate en this its very last stage, the object of that bill being to repeal a duty which involves a largo amount of revenue, and a trade producing many millions of pounds every year, I entreat the house to consider what is really involved in that proposal. My right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) says he has sat in the house for nearly half a century, and I ask him if he has ever known such a vote given as that in which he is going to join to-night. (Cheers mid counter cheers.) If any other gentleman has known it, let us have the pre • cadent. Has my right hon. friend, I repeat, ever known a case in which the repeal of a tax affecting trade, deliberately proposed by an executive Government as part, and a funda mental part, of its financial propositions for the year, long debated in the House of Commons, variously discussed on both sides, and deliberately affirmed by a large majority, I say has he ever known such a case, iu which, at the last moment, on the motion for the third reading of a bill, the House of Commons has interfered and arrested the boon on its way to the people ? (Cheers.) What does thisinvolve ? What is the effect that is uniformly produced on the house and the country when the repeal of a tax upon trade is an nounced by the authority of the Queen's Government, and is accepted by the higher authority of this house ? (Hear, hear.) I state, -without the slightest fear of contradiction, that such an arrangement, when so announced, is almost uniformly taken for granted as a thing accomplished. (Hear, and no, no.) These are surely matters for a free expression of opinion, and I state it as my opinion that even upon the announcement by the Queen's Government of the repeal of a tax on trade, that repeal is usually taken for granted. But what I insist upon is this—and here I chal lenge contradiction in any form—that, without exception, when such a remission of taxation has been proposed by the authority of the Government and accepted by a delibmitte vote of the House of Commons, it is from that time regarded by every person concerned as if it were already the law of the land. (Cheers.) Is there an exception to that ? can my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) furnish me with ten ex ception ? Let us recollect what this matter really is. 'The business of the Queen's Government is to make darer cods on the House of Commons for the sums necessary to ct trry forward the public service, and to suggest the means by which those charges are to be met. But this power of all ter ing the taxes of the country is one of the greatest, most im portant, and most vital parts of the functions of the Ho use of Commons ; and what I now wish to bring to the parti, tu larliotice of the house is that there is no instance of the correction of a deliberate vote of this kind. Directly 1 ;he remission of a tax is announced by the Government and t cepted by the House of Commons every description of trading arrangements begin to be made by those who t ire affected by the tax ; the whole operations of that trade a re, in point of fact, dependent on the vote of the House of Commons ; and when the house had deliberately given tb tat vote I say it is always and without exception regarded as t: he definitive and authoritative expression of its opinior (Hear, hear.) I think my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellie ,e) must be led to consider whether, even for the purpose of retaining the paper duty, it would be worth while to gi ere such a shock to public confidence as the new course of prt ►c-- tioe now recommended could not fail to give. (Hear, hea; n) During the last 40 years you have at intervals repeal• ed from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 of taxes, and in every o ne of these instances the first affirmation of the house has be en accepted by the country, and are we now going to break up the traditions of the house, and destroy that confide] ice which the country has ever felt in its declarations relative to taxation. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for 11( frt . fordshire says we have not lost our right to vote against - the second reading of a financial bill because the principle ( )f it has been affirmed in preliminary committee, nor to objec tto the third reading because it has passed through committee . Certainly not. (Cheers.) No person asserts that eith ei • the individual members of Parliament in this house ha 3 lost their right to do what theyplease in the matter. (Ilea r, ) lam not questioning the right of the House of Common Ls, but addressing arguments to its sense of fairness —(" 0 h, oh," and laughter from the Opposition)—and to that di i s position s which the house almost uniformly shows to payi) regard to its own traditions, and to fulfil those expectatio a s with regard to financial changes which it has raised in t' he country. (Hear, hear.) I must also say that Ide not ihinak that, even in a financial point of view, you can effectually reanimate the paper duty. You have gone too far. (Hear, hear.) Your own deliberate resolution, and the continual announcement of your own servants whose duty it is to collect the revenue, would have this effect, that even if you could be persuaded to reverse your vote you would only be able to bring back the trade to a paralysed existence. (Hear.) You would cheek the manufacture, you would progoribo all eutprprige, and you would ouly half obtaiu the 1,, fiscal objects which you contemplate, while no small loss and suffering would be the consequence of your having dis appointed the just expectations that you had raised. (Hear, hear.) But these considerations are apart from the import ant merits of the question whether the Government judged wisely or not wisely in proposing the repeal of the paper duty. What I submit is that it is above all things neces- ' sary in matters relating to taxation that the people of this country should know when the voice of Parliament has been uttered. (Hear, hear.) The practice of 40 years has exhibited a system of uniform conduct in this respect, and I do not hesitate to express my individual opinion, that if we were about to be, I will not say involved in war, but to be placed in circumstances that would demand of us addi tional charges, it would be better that the Government, having arrived at this point, should propose some other appliances, and ask the house to find the means in some other way, rather thaw do that which would involve the breach of a legislative promise. (Hear, hear.) I feel confi dent that the house retains the opinion which it expressed on the second reading of the bill. I also feel confident that even some of those who doubted the merits of the measure when it was introduced will not doubt now, when the ques tion is whether the house will or will not fulfil a solemn pledge that it has given to the country. (Cheers.) - Mr. T. BARING said, I trust the house will allow me to state that I for one do not concur in the opinion ex- pressed by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that every removal or every reduction of a duty proposed by the Government is to be considered al most by consent imperative. (Hear, hear.) In 1852 the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire proposed, on the part of the first Government of Lord Derby, a reduction of the duty on tea, but the house re jected that budget entirely. (Hear.) Does the right hon gentleman mean to say that because the Government pro• poses a reduction of duty, such is the prestige and import. ante attached to the proposal that all transactions of trade in the particular commodity affected by it are brought to an end, and that a rejection of the proposal by this house cannot be carried into effect without inflicting serious and fatal injury on that trade ? I ask the right hon. gentle man, is he sure that in consequence of his proposal for the removal of the Excise duty on paper there has been such an extension of the manufactures of that commodity as he seems to suppose ? Does he mean to say that the paper ma nufacturers are in favour of his measure if that measure be coupled with a reductionof the duty on foreign paper, with out any compensating reduction of duty on the import of the raw material ? (Hear, hear.) So far as I can gather the opinion of-paper manufacturers, they would rather have the duty on paper remain if its repeal is to be accompanied by a reduction of the duty on foreign paper without any corre sponding reduction on the import of rags. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says it will be a breach of faith not to carry out this proposal. But I think it is but toe pro bable that if it be carried out English capital will be cars ried away to be embtrked in paper manufacture abroad, when proof will be given of the right hon. gentleman's mis take in thinking that the rejection of this bill on the third reading would inflict injury °lithe trade. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman is correct in saying that when a resolution is carried in this house with reference to an import duty on a foreign product commerce relies on that resolution being formally passed, because it affects the duty on the import of the commodity ; but when a resolution of the house affects the manufacturing industry of the country it is a very dif ferent thing. (Hear.) I agree with the right hon. member for Coventry that it is better to remove excise duties if we can, but that of all excise duties that on paper is the least injurious to the production of manufactures, the least hurt ful, the least preventive to inventions and the introduction of newmaterials. But we are not now considering whether excise duties are or are not hurtful, nor whether the remo val of the paper duty might or might not benefit the manu facturers and extend the trade of the country. We are not now even considering whether it is better to repeal this duty or those that press more heavily on the labouring classes; but we are considering whether, looking to the future, and looking to the uncertainties of expense, and to what may happen next year, with perhaps another Parliament — at any rate, with a great deficiency, we should now remove a source of revenue which now exists without great pressure on the productive powers of th's country, and without great injury to the manufacturing classes or detriment to the consuming classes, and which may be wanted, and I believe is now wanted, but which at all events this house would be unwise to part with. (Hear.) For a Government to refuse this proposition on the part of an Opposition was most ex traordinary. We have heard in old times of " her Maj sty's Opposition," but this appears to be " the Government Op position," which grants the Government £1,200,009, and places right hon. gentlemen opposite in the happy situation of perhaps avo'ding a deficiency, or at least secures to this country its power to meet future contingencies, and to main tain public faith. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—I should be quite contented to allow this debate to close with the able speech of the hon. member for Huntingdon, had t not been for references repeatedly made to me, not only to-night but on a former occasion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the conduct I pursued in reference to this tax two years ago ; and I should not think it becoming to myself or the house to re main silent when I am aware that the right hon. gentleman has spoken under an entire misapprehension of what took place on that occasion. With respect to the question gener ally, as moved by way of amendment, it appears to me that a very simple issue is raised; and when we strip it of all the envelopment which had been thrown around it by the rhe torical dexterity of the right hon. gentleman, we have be fore us only one point to consider, and of all points in the world it is the one most entitled to the grave and earnest consideration of the House of Commons. (Hear.) The Go vernment, from peculiar circumstances on which , we need not now dwell, had this year to make their financial state ment at an unusually early period, when we were not in pos session of the results of the financial year; and the proposi tions of the Government were of a very extensive and singu larly complicated character. _ Well, the consequences of these circumstances was the result which the right hon. gentleman has admitted,that there were necessarily in the - statements made what the right hon. gentleman has hap pily and fairly described as elements, of uncertainty; and it is because we are now in the middle of the Parliamen tiry session, and because those elements of uncertainty have to a certain degree been developed, and because there is a prospect of a still further development of them, ending in an issue not in harmony with the calculations of the right hon. gentleman, that my hon. friend the member for Stamford takes this opportunity, when the house is called upon to sanction a further remission of revenue, to advise you to consider your position and see whether you are juse titled in taking the step which the Government counsel, you to pursue. (Hear, hear.) I listened with great atten tion to the right hon. gentleman to see how he would an swer the objections. urged both with moderation and modesty by my hon. friend. In the first place my hon. friend says that we are not yet in possession of all the estimates of the Government, but that, nevertheless, we have already' had one estimate which exceeds the calculations made at the beginning of the year by a sum considerably exceeding £200,000 ; and as the Government calculated .only on a surplus for the whole yefr of £400,000 ; therefore more than half this surplus has already disappeared. I have not heard any denial of the accuracy of that statement. (Hear.) My hon. friend as well as the member for Coventry called our attention to the vote of credit for China. Was the answer of the right hon. gentleman on that point satisfactory ? So far as I could follow the ambiguous though adroit phraseo • logy of the right hon. gentleman, I understand that he es in possession of evidence at this moment to the effect that the estimate this year has been exceeded. Then what has become of that surplus revenue calculated on at the begin ning of the year ? (Cheers.) The member for Coventry, following np with more detail the intimation made by my hon. friend, appears to have excited great indignation on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because that hon. member succeeded in showing that some of the taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer counted on, and which were framed, if not with the intention, at all events with the effect of greatly vexing and embarrassing the trade of the country, would probably fail in producing the antici pated amount of revenue, and might not even receive tho sanction of the house. What was the answer of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer ? The house cannot have forgotten the dignified reproof the Chancellor of the Exchequer ad ministered to the member for Coventry. Undismayed by that hon. member's experience of half a century, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer positively gave him a lecture — (laughter)—for not being aware that all these measures had already received the sanction of the house. Is that so ? (Hear, hear.) I have watched the progress of these mea sures, and I have observed that the charges in the various operations in warehouses, such as " tapping, regauging, bottling," &c., which stood on the motion paper of the house for a considerable time, have disappeared from that paper. (Cheers and laughter.) I have made, not a pub lic: inquiry, but an inquiry, I believe, at an authentic l ci e u d a , rte i r f inthostehis m h e o as u i r te , a s w n t d ll levesrharlleapbpeeagrr. eaTtlhyeyrnairse dropped. (Cheers and laughter.) There was an estimate whenlarmeasures etahseufirenaanwceiaulld produce e t was made th T a a t these that paadrdticthue sum of £230,000 in excess occasioned by the collection of the revenue and the unknown, but certain excess on the China vote, and we shall soon be arriving at the amount of this very tax, the remission of which is under our con sideration. (Cheers.) For I must remind the house that though this tax produces a revenue of more than £1,200,000 a-year, and is increasing in amount—(hear, hear)—yet, as far as the financial year is concerned, the amount which it will give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will only be £1,000,00, and the items to which I have already alluded approach to an amount something exceeding two-thirds of that sum. (Hear, hear.) But a very important element is still to be noticed, and that is the subject of fortification. (Hear, hear.) The member for Stamford very properly called- the attention of the house to that matter; which is no longer a rumour, but an understanding sanctioned by an announcement from Ministers to the effect that the question of the fortification of this country on a very great and costly scale has been under the consideration of a come mittee, and the report of that committee has, I understand, been made to the Government. At any rate, there is a general impression that the report, when made, will be acted upon. No denial has been giVen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that head. The right hon. gentleman evaded the question by merely saying that the report is not yet submitted to the Calguet, but he offered zle clefetzeo against the grave and sensible objection made on the pos. , sible resulting expense. (Hear.) He said there was an item for fortification in, the Army Estimates of £640,000, without the usual specification in detail; and then he con veyed to the house the impression—indeed, he more than conveyed an impression—l might say he made the state ment, that if the great expenditure on account of fortifica tion to the amount of £10,000,000 were on, it would be minus, at all events, the sum already included in the Army Estimates. The house must recollect that only a few weeks ' ago, in answer to a most specific inquiry, the Secretary for War in a most frank and unambiguous manner announced that that item of £640,000 in the Army Estimates on ac- count of fortification was not in any way connected with any future plan for the general fortification of the country, but was, as it were, a mere routine item. The right hon. gen tleman has really totally evaded the objections that were made by my hox. friend. The President of the Board of Trade has appealed to me to support this bill upon the grounds which I expressed some years ago and more than once expressed in favour of the repeal of the paper duty. He says that the financial views of my hon. friend the mem ber for Stamford are not- to be entertained:;, that my views are of a highcharacter, and that I take the moral, literary, andeducational view of this matter. To consider the mat- :er in this view is, in his opinion, to take the high view of ,t ; to consider it in a financial point of view, and with re ference to the national revenue is a low view. Now, Ido not agree with the right hon. gentleman, because moral, literary, and educational progress is entirely dependent on the state of the country, and if the finances of a country are in disorder, if its general prosperity ceases, then, depend upon it, that intellectual piogAss to which he refers must cease also, and the efforts which multitudes make to edu cate themselves must vanish as a dream. (Cheers.) And when the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who ought to understand what important consi derations are involved in the finances of the country, decries that view of policy as low which only aspires to keep the revenue of a country in a healthy and satisfactory condition I say that a sound state of the public revenue and expendi ture is the only foundation upon which you can build up those plans for the amelioration of the people to which I should be most happy if it were in my power to contribute. (Cheers.) The President of the Board of Trade says my hon. friend is unreasonable, because we have got the income tax, and now my lon. friend wants to have the paper duty too. The right hon. gentleman says we are bound by the tenth penny of the incom.e-tax to remit the paper duty. But dces the right hon: gentleman mean to maintain that we ought to remit the paper duty, whether we can afford it or not ? (Cheers.) Because, that is the question. (Hear, hear.) " But then," says the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, " remember the resolution you sanctioned two years ago: Your mouth is closed by this resolution." Now, if that resolution were more concise and explicit than it is, I should still consider my liability to support it with refer ence only to the present financial condition of the country. (Hear, hear.) But what was this resolution so frequently ieferrecl to and misrepresented by the right hon. gentle man ? lam not surprised if hon. gentlemen do not remem ber it, especially considering the fallacious manner in which it has been adverted to. The stream of public affairs is too rapid to permit these matters to be remembered, and only those who are responsible for them can remember particular acts and the motives by which they are actuated. That motion which declared that the paper duty ought not to be a permanent branch of revenue really meant nothing, as my hon. friend the member for Norfolk said at the time. What were the circumstances under which that resolution was brought forward ? It was brought forward after the finan. cial statement of the year had been made. In that financial statement I proposed, on behalf of my colleagues, a policy which the house entirely and unanimously approved and sanctioned, and no one more cordially than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—viz., that it was the bounden duty of this house, although at great sacrifices, to fulfil the compact that had been made in 1853 by the right hon. gentle man himself, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the entire abolition in the. year 1860 of the income-tax. (Loud cheers) I expressed on the part of my colleagues, with the entire concurrence of both sides of the house, our desire to remit the war duties on tea and sugar. We gave reasons, however, which wale unanimously approved of by the house why we could not do so, and we showed that the first thing a Finance Minister had to do was so to guide the revenue and expenditure as to get rid of the income tax in 1860, and thus to complete and consummate the financial policy of the right honourable gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers.) If that was the policy of the then Government, approved of by their political opponents, how could it be supposed that when two or three weeks afterwards we came to consider the paper duty, that policy could be supposed to be upset by a resolution of that kind ? Such a resolution only meant that when the war duties on tea and sugar were removed and the other obligations to Parliament were fulfilled, then, if the opportunity were afforded and the state of the revenue permitted, this Excise duty should be remitted. I admit that I should have been most happy to remit it when the state of the revenue permitted. I had always been in favour of repealing Excise duties, on the ground that they interfered with the national industry, and I should have been delighted to repeal this particular Excise duty, the remission of which was recommended to me by considera tions of moral influence that I highly esteemed. (Hear, hear.) That is my answer to the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) Has the income-tax terminated in this year, 1860 (Cheers.) Have the war duties on tea and sugar been abolished ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman is now responsible for the finances of this country. He Jim doubled the income-tax—(loud , cheers)—he has retabed the war duties on tea and sugar; and then he turns round upon me, and says I called for the abolition of the duty on paper ! Why, anything more illogical or inconsequent,any plea more futile or fallacious, was never put forward. (Cheers.) Of late years I have doubted whether we have not been dealing with the forms of this house too lightly, and whether we paid them that eneration and attention which our predecessors thought it wise to give. But I did not expect to hear a Minister of the Crown rise and make a speech which, if it had any meaning, would imply that the forms of the house are entirely abolished on all ques tions of finance, and on all proposals to levy, taxes — the subjects of which most interest the country, and which are the main and principal reason for our sitting here as their representatives. Why, sir, suppose a war should occur during some fantastical financial proposition, in which a tax of this kind is included ? Well, there is a war. (Cheers.) There is a Chinese war, the cost of which is estimated (at £500,000, but which may be nearer £5,000,000. (Cheers.) Here is a war. And then the right hon.. gentleman—with all the mysterious dogma tism he knows so well how to assume when it suits him, contradicting himself as he constantly does—with rapid in coherence, but covering his contradictions with that robe of glittering phraseology which prevents one from detecting the weakness of his argument—(cheers)---first laid down the principle that when once this house has consented to the remission of a. tax it is impossible to offer any further resistance to its repeal. The house seemed astonished, and the right hon. gentleman, becoming more audacious, ad. vanced another principle, that when a Minister once pro posed that a tax should be repealed the house had no right to interfere. (Chceers.) I gave, unfortunately, an indiscreet cheer, as much in. admiration of his coolness as anything— (laughter)—which reminded the right hon. gentleman that he had better reconnoitre his position. Having, therefore, treated the right hon. gentleman the member for Coventry to another admonition, the right hon. gentleman turned round and said that there was no instance in which the House of Commons, having once voted the repeal of a tax, had afterwards reused to carry out its vote. I do not know what the half century of experience and observation and wisdom which has been referred to to-night in so ad monitory a tone can supply to the right hon. member for Coventry. My experience is much more limited ; but I re member some n tmarkable instances in which this house having come to a d'etermination upon most important taxes— taxes of far more importance than the paper duty—recon sidered and chang ed its opinions. The house came once in my time to the deter' ainalion to repeal the malt-tax. (Cheers.) The malt trade is one of some importance, and I suppose that decision of the house put all the maltsters of England in a flutter, but the malt-tax was not repealed, which shows that there is nothin g so essentially unconstitutional as the Chancellor of the El :chequer says in: this house reconsider ing a resolution to which it may have previously come. (Hear, hear.) I remember, too, the house once coming to the determination to repeal the sugar duties. The sugar trade is one in which there is immense speculation, and, I dare say, a gr.( at effect was produced in Mincing-lane when that vote we a arrived at ; but did the house pursue the policy which it had sanctioned with its approval ? On the contrary, circa instances occurred which made the house deem it prudent to reconsider its decision, and the sugar duties were not ale elished. (Cheers.) What more do we pro pose to-night ? .Wte think the house on the subject of the paper duty has arriv ed at a very imprudent, premature, and precipitate decision.- (Cheers.) We are not so much sur prised in this case as we might have been in the case of the malt tax or the sugar duties. These were isolated questions placed fairly before the house, and the house had every opportunity of arriving in either instance at a sound decision without being perplexed by extraneous circumstances. What has been the condition of the house in the present case? It had an imm ease scheme with respect to the come merce and the finances Of the country placed bsfore it the moment it assembled. It had not a decent opportunity to consider that scheme. (Cheers.) If any gentleman asked for those fair opportunities which the forms of the house and Parliamentary precedents secure to us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose like a dietcitor and a despot in this house (cheers), and under a species of terrorism the house arrived at a premature and precipitate decision, which has been ruinous to our trade and has made us ridiculous in the eyes of Europe. (Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not satisfied with that, demanded of the house to rescind all the financial policy which for years he had been profess• rag and upholding, and which so nearly concerned the in terests of the whole people. Ho asked the house in the year when he had pledged himself, so far as a statesman can pledge himself, to abolish the income tax, to double that im post ; and when his propositions were not received with all the enthusiasm which he seemed to count upon—for incon sistency is always sanguine (a laugh) 7 he: vindicated his policy,:ashe has vindicated it to-night,by a statement toldwhich upon reflection he must feel has no foundation. He 11.5 that he had beva disappciAtecl is the polio" Tagcb , he had established in 1855—that the Russian war had oc- cupied and baffled all his plans. He quite for got that in 1867, *hen he was not in office, and when the then Chancellor of the Exchequel, the present Home Secre tary, wanted to induce the house to consent to retain the war income tax, on the ground of the great expense of the Russian war, which had added to the national debt an an nual charge of £1,200,000, he rose and scoffed at the right hon. gentleman, and treated him with intense and unutter able derison. (Cheers.) And upon what ground ? Upon the ground of his ridiculous assertion that the Russian war had made any considerable addition to the annual charge of the country or had diminished its permanent revenue. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an indignant tone whether he would pretend for a moment that the charge occasioned by the Russian war ought to induce the house to abandon those solemn pledges which it made to the nation in 1853—pledges which induced the people of Ireland to consent to the income tax being extended to that country; and then he referred to the succession tax, by which alone the Government had been able to settle some of the most difficult and delicate questions ever submitted to Parliament. Such was his language in 1857. What is the moral P What confidence can we have in following the counsels of the right hon. gentleman ? (Cheers.) I showed you on a previous occasion, when you were in the delirium of the French treaty, which every man on both sides looks back to now with shame—(cheers)--how the right hon. gentleman had failed in every one of the great propositions of his famous budget of 1853. (Cheers.) ' Having traded ur on that false celebrity for seven years, you now meethim again in 1860. Three months of the session have not yet passed, and you already deplore the course which, following his counsels, you have pursued. (Cheers.) Now, while there is still an opportunity of at least mitigating our previous folly by some prudential movement, how can you reconcile it to yourselves to 'sacrifice, in the present financial condition of the country, a large branch, of revenue which the trade interested—and that is an important consideration—does not want you to part with, and which the evidence before you proves is not a declining but an increasing revenue ? Above all, will you do this at a moment when Europe is in a condition which must make the boldest man quake and the wisest man I tremble? (Great cheering.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who, on rising, was received with cries of " Spoke," and " Divide," said,—l request the indulgence of the house for a moment while I make an explanation upon two points on which the right hon. gentleman has entirely misrepresented me. One of them touches my personal honour, and the other is d vital importance in the present discussion. The right hon. gentleman says that in 18571 urged that the financial con seqUences of the Russian war had not made it impossible to fulfil the plans of 1853, and that in 1860 I stated that they had. wish to meet that statement of the right hon. gen tleman with the most direct contradiction which the forms of the house will allow. Hear.) My words are upon record, and they were distinctly and emphatically the reverse of that which the right hon. gentleman has stated to the house. (Hear, hear.) The other point is one upon which I am content to rest the issue of this debate. The right hon. gentleman says I alleged there was no instance in which the house, having voted the remission of a tax, thought proper afterwards to change its mind. To that statement likewise lam obliged to give a direct contradiction. (Hear.) What I said was, not that there was no instance in which the house, having given a vote for the repeal of a tax, had afterwards altered its mind and reversed the vote, but that tliere was no instance in which the house, having voted the repeal of a tax upon the proposition of the Executive Go vernment—(hear)—had afterwards reversed that vote, which I stated to be equivalent to a pledge to the country. Mr. S. HERBERT (amid cries of, " Divide, divide!") said,—l cannot sallow to pass, as if I acquiesced in it, the statement of the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, that in moving the estimates of my de partment I had frankly stated that the lump sum for forti fications included nothing more than would be moved under ordinary circumstances. What I said, in answer to a ques tion of the hon. member for Norfolk whether any new works were contemplated, was that no new work or no work not sanctioned by - Parliament should be commenced under the vote given on account. As I could not tell either what works the commission would recommend, or what the Gove-nment might decide upon, still less what this house would sanction, I took the vote as a sum in a lump, instead of in detail, the details being then unknown. In the esti mates I purposely inserted a large sum without detail, in order that, whatever might be the decision of the Govern ment or of this house upon the question, I might have the means of providing what, in the responsibility of my office, rinight deem necessary for the defences of the country. (Hear, hear.) The house then divided. At the moment when the tellers approached the table to announce the results of the division, Mr. STE WART, remaining seated and covered, informed the Speaker that one hen. member did net pass through the door to be counted by the tellers in the regular manner, but passed through the rails in the lobby. (Laughter, and cries of "Name.") He believed it was the hon. member for Boston. The tellers announced the division to be— For the third reading Against it 209 Majority for the third reading lO The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers. Mr. STEWART said the name of the hon. member ,for Boston, who did not pass the doors, had still to be co roted. The SPEAKER asked whether the hon. member for Boston was in his place. Mr. ii-G/ti.8.31 appeared in front of the table, and The SP.I_ 7 •.A.K.ER said—Was the hon. member in the • lobby with the '"Noes" ?' Mr. INGEAg—Yes, Sir; but I was there by mistake. (Laughter.) I did not ,hear you separate the questions. The SPRAKER--Theo) was a case exactly similar to this acme time ago. An Dm -% member was in the lobby with the "Noes," and declined to vote. Having appeared at the table, his vote was ordered to be given with that party in whose lobby he was. (Cheers.) Mr. W. MARTIN said he was the member who was caught on that occasion. He did hear the question put, but he understood 'the hon. member for Boston to say he did not—(no)-- The SPEAKER—The name of the hon. member for Boston must be entered. with the "Noes," (Cheers and laughter.) The SPEAKER then announced that the " Noes " to the left were 210. The bill was then read a third time and passed. The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad. journed at a quarter to 2 o'clock. TILE IMMAI LS. MAILS DUE. Australia ' Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South ampton) .. .. • • .. .. .. May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) June 4. Bahamas and Havana (via New 'York) .. .. June 7. Canada, &c. (via Cork) .. .. .. .. May P. Cape of Good Hope, &c... .. .. .. June 1. China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) May 13. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. .. .. May 19. India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) May 13. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. .. May 25. Do. (via Marseilles) . • • . May 19. Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, &c. .. .• June 5. Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto .. •• .. May 11. Malta, Egypt, and Aden (via Southampton) .. May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) .. May 13. United States, California, &c. (% ia Cork) .. M a y 16. Western Coast of Atrica, Madeira, Teneriffe .. May 10 West Indies and Pacific, Carthgena, Cuba, &c. May 14. The Mysterious Power of the Magnet is most beautifully developed by Mr. F. M. HERRING, of 32, Basinghall-street, in his Patent Magnetic Brushes and Combs, which are the remedy for grey hair, weak or falling hair, neuralgia, nervous headache rheumatism, stiff joints, &c. His Teazle Brushes for cloth, velvet, &c., are admirable ; they not only cleanse but preserve the fabric in a remarkable manner. The public are cautioned against counterfeits.--EADVT.] [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's pills are renowned as a safe and salutary remedy for indigestion, liver complaints, and all manner of eruptions and skin diseases. Pains in the stomach after eating, evictations of wind, pains in the back, aching of the right shoulder, weakness, languor, and tawny hue of the skin, all disappear under the purifying powers of these admirable pills. They contain no ingredient which could by possibility hurt the feeblest frame. They effect a momentous change throughout the system, by tho roughly expelling all impurities, and imposing on every organ its natural functions. Many testimonials of their efficiency can be produced, the latest of which has been for warded by Edward Smith, of Newport, Monmouth, who was cured after wasting under dyspepsia fifteen years. _ _ [ADVERTISEMENT.] —The salutary effect of Du Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabica Food in removing indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility, without medicine, is admirably displayed by the following Ridlington. Rectory, Norfolk, June 10, 1850. — No. 4,208. —Eight years dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms, and nausea, for which my servant had consulted the advice of many have been effectually removed by Du Barry's health-restoring Food. I shall be happy to answer any inquiries. —Rev. J. W. Flavell." "Bury, Lan cashire, Aug. 17, 1851.—Gentlemen, —For a considerable time I have suffered severely from a violent pain in my left side, extreme flatulency, accompanied by an intolerable sensation of heartburn, and other disagreeable symptoms of dyspepsia,. Various remedies, alleged infallible, were tried in vain, and for a long time I was never 24 hours without violent pain; indeed, I was unfit for the performance of my daily duties. I was induced to try your food. In than an hour I found relief, and my recovery was very rapid. The duties which previously had . been an intolerable burden, b eca me a delightf ul exercise, and I have since accomplished more labour with less fatigue than I ever expected to be able to perform. I have never had a retturn of my complaint.—D. Thomas." In tins, at Is. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., 58. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 b., 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly ; Abbis, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, Oxford street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopqate street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin, Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Cc.; a t Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp ant' Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and;Co.:; &Von% araptou) ittatAl laud 0011 PiIIaIeIMENTARy DIVISIO7. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MAY 8. PAPER DUTY REPEAL BILL. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (24th April), " That the Bill be now read the third time" —Question again proposed :—Debate resumed :—Amend ment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words " the present state of the finances of the country renders it undesirable to proceed further with the repeal of the Excise duty on paper," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question :"—The house divided :—The tellers reported the number as ayes 219, noes 209:—Notice taken that Mr. Ingram, one of the members for Boston, had been in the division lobby with the noes, and having passed the division clerks, had avoided being counted by the tellers :—Whereupon Mr Speaker directed the honourable member for Boston to come to the table ; and Mr. Ingram being come to the table, stated that he had gone into the lobby with the noes by mistake :—Mr. Speaker accordingly directed his vote to be added to the noes, and declared the numbers to be, ayes 219, noes 210. AYES-219. Acton, Sir J. Forster, Charles Ogilvy, Sir J. Adam, W. P. Fortescue, Hon. D. Padmore, R. Agar-Ellis, Hon. L. Fortescue, C. S. Paget, Lord A. Alcock, T. Freeland, H. W. Paget, Lord C. E. Andover, Lord Garnett, W. J. Paget, C. Angerstein, W. Gavin, Major Palmerston, Visct. Antrobus, E. Gibson, T. M. Paxtog, Sir J. Atherton, W. Gifford, Earl of Pease, H. Ay-'nn, A. S. Gilpin, C. Peel, F. Bagwell, J. Gladstone, W. E. Pilkington, James Baines, E. Glyn, G. G. PollardErrqu.hartW Baring, Thos. Geo. Goldsmid, Sir F. Ponsonby, A. Baxter, W. E. Gordon, C. W. Pryse, Capt, E. L. Bazley, Thomas Gower, F. L. Pritchard, John Beale, Samuel Graham, Sir J. R. G. Proby, Lord. G. L. Beamish, F. B. Greenall, G. Puller, C. W. Berkeley, F. Greene, Capt. J. Raynhara, Viscettnt Bethell, Sir R. Greenwood, J. Redmond, J. E. Black, Adam Gregson, S. Ricardo, 0. Blake, J. A. Grey, Rt. lin. Sir G. Richardson, J. Blencowe, J. G. Gurney, John H. Ridley, G. Bouverie, E. P. Hadfield, Geo. Robartes, T. J. A. Bouverie, P. P. Hankey, Thomson Robertson, D. Briscoe, J. I. Harcourt, G. G. V. Rothschild BaronPt Browne, Lord J. T. Hardcastle, Jos. A. Rothschild,rlaronL. Buchanan, W. Hartington,Marquis Roupell, W. Buller, J. W. Hayter, Sir Win. Russell, Lord J. Buller, Sir A. Headlam, Thos. E. Russell, Hastings Buxton, C. Henley, Lord Russell, A. J. X- Bypg Hon. G. H. C. Herbert, S. Russell, F. W. Caird', James Hervey, Lord A _Russell, Sir Win,.. Calcuti, F. Hodgson, K. D. St. Aubyn, J. Calthorpe, F. H. Howard, Hon. C. Salomong,Aldern tan Cardwell, Rt. Mn. E. Ingham, K. Balt, Titus Carnegie, Bon. C. ' Jervoise, Sir J. Bcholefletcl, W. Castlerosse, Vist. Johnstone, Sir J. Scott,•Sir W. Cavendish, Hon. W. Kershaw, J. Seymour, Sir M. r Childers, H. C. E. King, Hon. L. Seymour, H. D. Clay, James Kinglake, Serj. J. Seymour, Digby Clifford, H. _ M. Kingscote, Lt.-Col. Shelley, Sir J. V Clinton, Lord R. Laing, S. Sheridan, R. B. Clive, George V. Langton, H. G. Sheridan, H. B. Cogan. W. H. Lawson, W. Smith, J. 11. Collier, It. P. Leatham, E. Smith, Augustus Coningham, Win. Lennox, Lord H. G. Smollett,' P. Cowper, Hon. W.F. Lewis, Sir G.C., Bt. Staepoole, W. Craufurd, E. H. J Lindsay, W. S. Stafiord, Marquis of Crook, Joseph Locke, Jos. Staniland, M. Cross, R. A. Locke, John Stansfeld. J. Crossley, Frank Lockhart, A. B. Stuart, Col. Dalglish, Robert Lowe, Rt. Hon. B. Sykes, CoL W. H. Davey, R. Lysley, W. Thompson, H. S. Davie, Sir H. R. P. M'Cann, J. 'Tollemache, Hon.F. Deasy, Rickard M'Cormick, W. Turner, J. A. Denman, G. Mackinnon, W.A.jn. Verney, Sir Harry Dent, John Dent McMahon, P. Villiers, Rt. Hon. a. Diliwyn, Lewis L. Maguire, J. F. Waldron, L. Douglas, Sir C. Mamwaring, T. Walter, John Duff, M. E. Marjoribanks, D. C. Warner, Edward Duff, Major. Marshall, W. Watkins, J. L. V. Duke, Sir James Martin, P. W. Wemyss, J. Dunne, M. Martin, J. Westhead, B. Ennis, John Massey, W. N. Whalley, G. H. t Esmonde, John Merry, James Whitbread, S. - Evans, T. W. Miller, William Wickham, H. W. Ewart, William Mitchell, T. A. Williams, W. Ewart, J. C. Moncreiff, J. Wood, Rt Hn.. Sir C. Ewing, H. E. C. Monson, W. J. Woods, Henry Fenwick, Henry Morris, D. Worsley, Lord Ferguson, R. Noble, J. Wrightson, W. B. Fermoy, Lord North, F. Wyvill, M. Fitzwilliam, C. W. O'Brien, P. TELLERS. Foley, J. H. O'Connell, D. Brand, H. B. Foley, Hon. H. W. O'Conoi Don, The Dunbar, Sir Wm. NOES-2:0. Adderley, C. B. Forster,--Sir G. Mowbray, Rt. lin. J. Adeane, H. J. Gallwey, Sir W. P. Mundy, William Annesley, H. 4 Galway, Viscount Naas, Rt. Hn. Lord Archdall, Capt.M.E. Gard, IL S. Napier, Sir C. Astell, J. H. John George, Newport, Visct. Baillie, H. J. Gilpin, Colonel Noel, G. J. Ball, E. Gladstone, Capt. North, Col. Baring, A. H. Goddard, A. L. Northcote, Sir S. Baring, H. B. Greaves, Edward Packe, G. H. • Baring ' Thomas Gregory, W. H. Pakenham, Col. Beach, W. W. B. Grey deWilton,Lord Pakington, Sir J. S. Bective, Earl of Griffith, C. D. Palk, L. Beecroft, G. S. Grogan, Sir •Edward Palmer, R. W Bentinck, G.C. Gurdon, B. Papillon, P. 0. Bentinck, G. W. P. Haliburton, Justice Parker, Major W. Benyon, R. Hamilton, Lord C. Paull, H. Beresford, W. Hanbury, Captain Peacocke, G. H. Bernard, Thos. T. Hardy, Gathorne Peel, Gen. Blackburn, P. Hartopp, E. B. Pennant, Col. Bond, J. W. Hassard, M. D. Philips, J. H. Booth, Sir R. G. Heathcote, G. H. Portman W. H. B. Bovill, Wm., Hennessy, J. P. Powys, L. P. Bramston, T. W. Herbert, H. A. Quinn, Peter Bridges, Sir 8., Bt. Herbert, Col. P. E. ltamsden, Sir J. W Brocklehurst, John Heygate, Sir F. Repton, G. W. J. Brooks, R. Holford, R. S. Rogers, John J. Bruen, Henry Hood, Sir A. Salt, Thomas Bulkeley, Sir R., Bt. Hope, G. W. Selater-Booth, G, Burghley - , Lord Hopwood, J. T. Selwyn, C. J. Cairns, Sir H., Horsfall, T. B. Seymer, H. K Cartwright, Col. H. Horsman E. Sibthorp, Major Cecil, Lord It. Hotham, Gen. Lord Smith, M. T. Cobbett, J. M. Howes, Edward Smith, S. G. Cochrane, A. D. Hubbard, J. G. Smyth, Col. Codrington, Sir W. Hume, W. Somerset, Col. E. Cole, Hon. H. A. Hunt, G. W. Spooner, R. Colebrooke, Sir T.E. Ingestre, Viscount Stanhope, J. B. Collins, T., jun. Ingram, H. Steuart, A. Cottony, Thomas Jermyn, Earl Stuart,'Major W. Corry, H. T. Johnstone, Hon. H. Sturt, H. G. Cubitt, George Johnstone, J. J. H. Sturt, Capt. C. N. Dalkeith, Earl of Kekewich, S. Stracey, Sir H. Darner, L. S. W. D. Kelly, Sir F. Sullivan, M. Deedes, Wm. Kendall, N. Talbot, Hon. W. C. Dickson, Col. Kennard, C. Thynne, Lord E. Disraeli, Benjamin Kerrison, Sir E. Thynne, Lord H. Du Cane, Chas. King, J. K. Tollemache, J. H. Duncombe, A. Knatchbull, W Torrens, R. Duncombe, W. E. Knightley, R. Trefusis, Hon. C. IL Dunne, CoL Knox, Lt.-C01.8.W. Trollope, Sir John. Du Pre, C. G. Lacon,,Sir E. Upton, General East, Sir J. B. Lefroy, A. Valetort, Lord Edwards, Major H. Legh, W. Vance, John Egerton, Sir P. Liddell, Hon. H. G. Vandeleur, Col. Egerton, A. F. Lindsay, Colonel Vane, Lord H. G. Egerton, E. C. Long, R. P. Vansittart, Wm. Egerton, W. Lopes, Sir H., Bt. Walcott, Adm. J. E. Elcho Lord Lovaine, Lord Walker, James It, Ellice, E., jun. Lyall, G. Walpole, S. H. Ellice, Rt. Hon. E. Lygon, Hon. F. Watlington, J. W. Elphinstone, Sir J Malins, R., Way, Arthur E. Emlyn, Viscount Manners, Lord J. Whiteside, Rt lin J. Estcourt, S. March, Earl of Whitmore, H. Farquhar, Sir H. Maxwell, Col. Williams, T. P. Farrer, James Miller, T. Woodd, B. T. Fellowes, Edward Milnes, R. M. Wyndham, Sir H. Fergusson, Sir J. Mitiord, W. T. Wynn, Col. Fitzgerald, W. S. Montagu, Lord R. Yorke, Hon.E. Foljambe, F. J. S. Mordaunt, Sir G. TELLERS. Forde, Lt.-Col. W. Morgan, C. 0. S. Taylor, Colonel Forester, Col. G. C. Morgan, Major Jolliffe, Sir W. PAIRS ON THE SECOND READING OF THE WINE LICENSES BILL. For Against For A zainsi Sir W Scott .Mr King MrHodgleinsonMr W 0 Gore SirWHeathcoteMr Cave Col Greville Sir W Verner Mr Lyons Mr Rogers Mr R Long Col Maxwell Lord R ClintonMr S Smith Mr Hugessen Mr Cooper Mr Heneage Mr J Cole Sir W Russell. Col Rowley Mr Matheson Mr J Wynne 2kir Crawford Mr R Gore Mr Bright Col Lowther 3/1:r W 0 Foster Capt Hanbury Mr Divett Mr Jolliffe Sir J Owen Mr Cobbold Mr Glyn Mr Murray . air I:riscoe MrT T Bernard SirlVlCholmeleyLordHenuiker kir Ha:ndley Lord E Hill Mr Slane) , Sir M Ridley air FW -RussellMr Moody Mr Adair Mr A Mills Bristow Alder Cubitt Mr Aug Smith Capt Jervis air Beale Gn Arbuthnott Sir II Verney MrsFiztgerald Hr M Sullivan Mr Pugh Sir J TrelawnyMr Potts 3lr Western Mr Stirling HonG DenmanMr Haliburton Mr Holland Mr Longfield Mr Rich Mr Bowyer Hr Brady Mr J . Dunn Mr Botfield Mr Shirley Hr D Seymour Davison Mr Wrightson Mr J Hamilton COUNTRY MARKETS. "LIVERPOOL-Mly 8. We had a small attendance at this day's market, and the consumptive demand for wheat is still only on the merest retail scale; prices at Friday's currencies in the few sales made. Flour neglected. Oats were in fair request, at full prices, and oatmeal has been more animated 84 about late rates. Beans and peas la down ; barley as before. Indian corn neglected, at Friday's currencies. LEEDS-MAY 8. With a small show of wheat, prices are unalterad from Tuesday. Barley as before. Beans held for more money. Oats and other articles quite as dear. SHEFFIELD—MAY S. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...l9s 6d to 21s Od White , I lf ...21s Od to 228 Od New red /I ) t ...17s Od to 188 Od New white „ ,/ ...18s Od to 19s 6d Beans ), ~ ...18s Od to 208 6d ..._ _ Peas, per qr Grinding barley, per qr. 338 Od to 358 Oil Malting ditto, ~ 3Bs Od to 43s Od Oats /I 26s Od to 34s Od Millers' prices for flour—ls 11d, 26 Od, and 2s .2d per 141 b. BRISTOL-MAT 8. At our market wehai; fair attendance, but holders re fusing to give way in wheat, little or no business wet; trans acted. Some refreshing showers have fallen yesterday and to-day. ',NORWICH CATTLE—MAY 5. Scots, 4s Od to 4s 6d ; shorthorns, 3s 6d to 4s ; Irish, 38 Od to 3s 6d ; Devons, Os Od to Os (estimated weight when fat). Sheep—There were good supplies of sheep in the pens. Fat sheep, 7s 6d to 8s per stone; prime, 9s 6d to 104 Pigs—A fair supply. Store pigs 26s to 30s ; fat pork, 7s 6d to 8s Od per stone. BIRTHS. GRANT.—On the sth inst., at herfather's residence, Green wich Hospital, the wife of Commander henry D. Grant, R.N., of a daughter. PETRE.—On tho 3d inst., at Bedford, Essex, the Hon. Mrs. H. W. Petro, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. HAYMAN—MALLocK.--On the sth inst., at Uplyma, De von, Ellis Bartlett Hayman, Esq., of Axminster, Devon, to Edith M. Raympnd, eldest daughter of Thos. Mallock, Esq., R.N., of Hill Cottage, Axminster. DEATHS. DAWSON.—On the Bth inst., at Watford, Herts, Jonathan Dawson, Esq., abed 77. DUKE.—On the 6th inst., at Brighton, Chas. Duke, Esq., late of East Lavant, aged 58. EBIIINGTON.—On the 4th inst., at Southsea, Major W. El, Ebrington, late of thellth oot. LILLTE.—On the 6th inst., at Dover, Dame Louisa Lillie. wife of Sir John Scott Lillie, C.B. LONDON : Printed and Published by 2dIJRDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Preoinot of the Savoy, in the county of Middloooz, w o u eri day, May 9,:1060, t, y