The Sun. — London, England, 1860-02-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, IE6O. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. NEWRY. The SPEAKER announced that he had received a com munication to the effect, that the petition against the return of the member for Newry would not be proceeded with. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Blyth Harbour Dock Bill was read a second time. PETITIONS. The early part of the evening was occupied With the pre sentation of petitions relating chiefly to the Budget; against the abolition of church rates; marriage wit's a deceased wife's sister, Brc. DIOCESE OF DURHAM. Mr. HOWARD moved for a copy of any memorial or letter addressed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, in respect of local claims from the diocese of Durham on the funds of the commissioners, and of any answer thereto.—Ordered. TREATY WITH FRANCE. Lord J. RUSSELL laid on the table the negotiations re lating to the treaty with France. PAPER. Sir W. MILES moved for a return of the quantities of paper charged with duty, and the amount of duty received from the year 1831 annually up to the end of 1859: similar return of the quantities exported annually during the like period : similar return of the quantities of foreign paper imported annually into the United Kingdom during the like period, and also during the month of Jan., 1860, and of the quantities retained for home consumption : and, return of the quantity of paper of all sorts charged with duties of excise in the United Kingdom. from 1834 to 18.59 inclusive, and quantity thereof exported on drawback and retained for hone consumption.—Ordered. CEMETERY AT CLAPHAM. Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice of his intention to ask a question on this subject. EXPORTS (FRANCE). Mr. SALOMONS moved for a return of the articles of home, colonial, and foreign merchandise , and t heir values, exported from the United Kingdom to France ' during the years 1854-18 59 , respecti vel y ; distinguishing the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom from those of the East Indies an.d'her Majesty's colonial possessions, and of foreign countries.—Ordered. ELECTIONS, &c. Sir C. DOUGLAS med an address or return, in tabu lar form, of the names o f all candidates, f at each of the two last general elections, for each borough and county in Eng land and Wales; total cost to each elected member; total cost to each rejetited candidate; the number of electors on the register; tizumber of electors polled; and total cost of the electioni— rdered. • TISH PRODUCE, &c. Sir S. NO 'HCOTE moved an address for return show ing in parallerFdlurons the rates of duty to be levied in France upon articles of British produce or manufacture under the provisions of the commercial treaty of this year, and the rates of duty proposed to be levied upon the like articles under the commercial treaty of 1787 —Ordered. BENEFICES UNDER SEQUESTRATION. Mr. LOCK E KING moved an address for return of all the benefices in England and Wales which are now under sequestration for the purpose of discharging the debts of any incumbent, stating the names of such beneflcee, the length of time that each has been under sequestration, the gross amount of debts for the payment of which each benefice was sequestered ; the population and annual value of each, and the county and diocese in which it is situated ' • the number of churches to each of the said benefices ; and the annual amount paid to the curate or curates to perform the ecclesiastical duties of each benefice. THE EDITOR OF "THE FRIEND OF CHINA." Mr. E. JAMES gave notice that he would draw the attention of the Government to the imprisonment of the editor of the Friend of China. WINE: Sir S. NORTHCOTE moved an address for copies or extracts of all Treasury minutes on the subject of draw baeks to be granted to the holders of stocks of wine in the event of an alteration of duties : And, of all correspondence which has taken place on the subject between any depart ment of the Government and the committee of the wine trade, or other persons interested therein, in the year 1843 and any subsequent years. Ordered. MARSHAL O'DONNELL. Mr. WYLD asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if her Majesty's Government had received any in formation of the decree of her most Catholic Majesty the Queen of Spain, by which the title of Duke of Tetuan has been conferred upon Marshal O'Donnell, together with the territory of Morocco upon which the victory of Tetuan was gained ? Lbrd J. RUSSELL said that her Majesty's Government had received information to the effect that the title in question had been conferred on General O'Donnell, but there was no communication respecting the latter part of the question. ENCAMPMENT OF VOLUNTEERS. . _ _ Mr. E: JAMES asked the Secretary of State for War whether her Majesty's Government.intended to order any battalions or regim ents of the Volunteer Rifle Cor p e now formed and in course of formation, during the ensuing. summer, to the camp at Aldershott, or any other encamp ment, in the same manner and for the same purposes as re giments of the line and militia regiments have been en camped. Sir R. PEEL drew attention to a statement made by the Secretary of State for War to the effect that on if the the coun - volunteer corps were to become a permanent iof try, they would, with batteries, be a substitute for t he Ro y al Artillery. He wished to know whether this force would be amenable to the articles of w ar and to military discipline Mr. S. HERBERT denied that he had made any such statement as the hon. baronet attributed to him. The force in question would not be placed under military discipline unless it was found necessary to call them out. With re gard to the question of the hon. and learned member for Marylebone, he must answer in the negative, as he had no such power as the hon. member, supposed. MEDICAL OFFICERS IN THE NAVY. Sir E. GROGAN asked the Secretary of the Admiralty if he intended to carry into effect the spirit of the late naval warrant as regards medical officers in the navy by granting to those officers, when serving afloat, naval rank and uni form, with the distinctive badges of rank corresponding to the militpry rank granted to them by the warrant, both afloat and when serving with her Majesty's forces ? Lord C. PAGET said that the question of the pay had bean settled, and that the subject of the uniform would shortly be arranged. TAXATION FOR THE RELIEF OF THE POOR. Mr. WHALLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whetber it was his intention to introduce a bill for renewal of the Act 3 and 4 Vic. c. 89, exempting the pretlts of stock in trade, and other property liable by law to be taxed for relief of the poor, from being so taxed ; and, if h e ether such bill would be introduced at such a p eriod of the t session as to admit of inquiry by a select com mittee as to any h inquiry e the grounds for such exemption, either in connection with C. which may be ordered as to the assess ment of the income tax under schedule I), or otherwise. Sir G. LEWIS said it was not his intention to intro duce a bill to continue the acts in question. DUTY ON BARLEY, ,Lord H. TAI NNE - asked the Chancellor of the Exche quer whether he was prepared to remit the duty on barley malted for agricultural purposes? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said this subject had very often been discussed with - the budget, but up to the present time no arrangement had been made for he remission of the malt duty, and her Majesty's Govern ment could not entertain the subject. DUTY ON PAPER. Baron ROT BSC II ILD asked hh ewelel whether, the time of Chancellor of the "Ex chequer, if he was p repared to state the abolition o f the p a p er duty, he would. grant the back upon all stocks at paper in the hands of the stationers bearing an uncancelled Excise label. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the proposal of Government was that the the Ist July duty a shou drawback would be allowed on paper found in the hands of dealers which had been made since thehe q Ist uest April. its re lated to the other p art of tion,was a matter of considerable difficulty, and one he could not .then answer. He might, however, state that thethout Govcansern ,ment would meet every rea sonable wish, and wi iitgAny sensible inconvenience to the trade of the country. WINE AND SPIRIT DUTIES. In answer to a question by Mr. DUNCOMBE, The CHANCELLOR of the EHCHEQUER said it was his intention to proose the duties on wine in the terms of the resolution he had laid on the table. He would take the duties on spirits immediately after; and these would be, on foreign spirits, exclusivie of rum, Bs. 3d. ; on rum, whe ther foreign or colonial, Bs. 3d. ; and the duty upon British spirits of all descriptions would be at the rate of Bs. ld., and that would be maintaining the same difference which at present existed. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE POPE. Mr. M'EVOY asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government had proposed to the French Government, that in the event of the revolted provinces of the Pope declaring their wish to be annexed to Sardinia, the two Governments in concert should bind themselves to offer no objection to the entrance of Sardinian troops, by which the Holy Father might be despoiled of those portions of his dominions. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. C. BRUCE entered into a personal explanation of the conduct of Lord Elgin when in China, and deplored the misunderstanding which unhappily took place between him and Admiral Sir Michael Seymour. Lord J. RUSSELL said further discussion was not de • tillable until all the papers were before the house. He could only say that the Government had the fullest confidence in the honour of the noble earl, and that at such a distance of time the different impressions on the minds of Lord Elgin and Sir M. Seymour implied no discredit to either. As to the recent proposals with regard to the settlement of Italy, he did not regret having made them, and would be happy if he could contribute to that object. It was his intention to introduce the Reform Bill next Thursday. THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE. In rep], to Sir H. WILLOTJGHEY, Lord PALMERSTON—The course which the Govern ment proposes to follow is that which I had the honour of explaining to thb house on a former occasion. It is our in tention to propose ;21 committee of Customs, resolutions bearing on all the articles enumerated in the treaty which relate to changes in the Customs' laws, and as soon as the house shall have adopted, or Ilispesed of those resolutions, which by referring to the laws of Customs have a direct bearing upon some of the engagements of the treaty, it is our intention, without going further into the financial arrange ments which we intend, to propose to the consideration of the house an address to the Crown, approving of the treaty in its aggregate; and, of course, the address will be com municated to the House of Lords for the purpose of obtain ing a joint address from the two branches of the Legisla ture on the subject of the treaty. THE CHAMPIONSHIP OF ENGLAND. In reply to Mr. ILADFIELD, Sir G. C. LEWIS said his attention had been called acme time ago to the intended belligerent encounter be tween the two mentioned redoubted champions. (Laughter.) Sir Richard Mayne would no doubt take care to obtain in formation on the subject, and he dared say, be able to pre vent the encounter within the limits of the metropolitan police. (Cheers and laughter.) ILLEGAL MARRIAGE. Mr. COLLINS asked if the attention of the Home Sec retary had been called to' a' arriaee which had taken place in the month of December last, at Registrar's Office at Shrewsbury, between a woman and her deceased husband's brother—(laughter)—and whether it was the intention of the Government to advise a prosecution against the man for perjury, which he had committed in making the usual declaration, that no impediment existed to the marriage, on the ground of affinity or other relationship ? Sir G. C. LEWIS said his attention had been called to the marriage, but he had come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground why the Government should make it the subject of a prosecution, or take it out of the hands of the local authorities. EXPORTATION OF COAL TO FRANCE. Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that, on. Monday, he should move that an address be presented to her Majesty, praying that a communication might be made to the Emperor of the French, requesting his assent to the omis sion of the 11th article of the treaty. He should, at the same time, ask whether her Majesty's Mininsters had lately been, as was currently reported, communicating with the Empe ror of the French for the purpose of obtaining a modifica tion of that article of the treaty. It would be satisfactory to learn whether there was any truth in that rumour. The motion for the adjournment of the house at its rising to Monday was then agreed to. THE BUDGET.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate having been read, Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the point to which he meant in the first instance to address himself was one well I , worthy the attention of the house. The house would find in the 11th article of the treaty that it did not coincide with the noble lord's instructions to Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden. Their instructions were to the effect that on the side of Fiance there was to be a transition from prohibition and high duties to duties of a moderate amount, and on that of England the total abolition of all fiscal charges on French productions. Those instructions were clear enough ; the Emperor of the French removed the prohibition on 43 heads leaving a duty of 30 per cent. ; but it should be observed, that he limited his indulgence exclusively to English pro duce, whilst we bound ourselves to admit on similar terms the productions of every country. The Emperor could thus go to continental countries and say, "Don't trouble your selves to enter into any negotiations with England ; I have obtained conditions in this treaty under which all your pro duce will enter the ports of England, whilst you will not be saddled with the engagements into which I have entered." He (Mr. Newdegate) contended that instead of this they 'should have limited their concessions to the produce of France. It was true that France made great concessions and was following in the footsteps of the late Sir Robert Peel; but we made deficiencies, and relieved luxuries, by increasing the burdens of the great body of the people. What France gave up was the concession of the rich man ; while we parted with the widow's mite. It was e. jealous, bigoted, and an insane hatred of protection which had dic tated the terms of the treaty. Some of the remissions would operate with greal injury on the employment of women, for whom it was extremely difficult to find occupation in this country. This blind adherence to a system that would have such results, reminded him of the poet-- "Mar}, to man so oft unjust, Is always so to woman." In answer to the appeal of Mr. Bright, he admitted that his opinions on free trade were modified—(hear, hear) — but he would never consent to a measure which tended to narrow the field of female employment in this country. He would not now re-impose the corn laws if he could—(hear) — because he had seen the evil use that might be made of du ties imposed on articles of necessity. It was proposed to re tain the duties on tea, sugar, malt, and hops. Was not the speech of Mr. Bright a clear indication that unless the de fences of the country were neglected, an agitation would be set on foot against the remaining excise duties ? This was but the commencement of a danger to the revenue, which former experience taught that it would be difficult to avert. It was all very well for Mr. Cardwell to quote Adam Smith; but Adam Smith upheld the navigation laws ; and where were they ? (A laugh.) Some members who were loudest in their advocacy of free trade in that house, out of that house condemned the members as a parcel of tax-eaters, who lived on the sweat of the people. To hear those men speak of the benefits of free trode, one would suppose that they thought it made the sun to shine and the rain to fall. From M. Magne's report to the Emperor it appeared that while our imports from France in five years had amounted to fifty-five millions, our exports to that country had only been twenty-six millions. What was the reason of this ? That France was drawing the bullion from this country; and the result was te render the revenue of France elastic, and ours the reverse. Much had been said about the in crease of our trade with America; but that was greatly due to Californian gold. The years prior to 1850 were highly prosperous ; but the country then began to feel the pinch of free trade, which was, however, mitigated by the disco very of gold in California and Australia. In 1853 the pro duction of gold in California had risen to seven and three quarter millions, and in Australia to nearly ten millions. It was this influx of gold that had prevented the free-trade measures from operating more injuriously than they had prosperitydomitted°n e . A al n l eiso eyetly notic e t i oo l f t f e trhe Chancellor stfraacdte,.a n The ha o et f t hr attributed emEdexmocuhbree member increasesufoerr hadm i l li ons Bir minghamo ff had the plainly a estimates, and w th oni at d h d o w itt o l u i ld h in hasvepotwweerlvteo abolish indirect taxation, levy all taxes e . a l I s proper ty. ur y tle house This , wca o oes u ui ; d ndaj b nun e rroi re-e s tablish it t ot o suhasen tee,oat rtoihnyemrrevenue, eeesvausel t unt h sru e e eos f ,fw e u wan d nih a edi l he siynsvwt deprivingo were rveed depr e ca t edt h es e u c s o n o - f b s e y q u a 11, the sinews of war. (Hear, hear.) When the hon. gentleman sat down about 20 members simultaneously rose, chiefly on the Government side, and their anxiety to catch the attention of the Speaker caused considerable merriment. M r . BRIGHT, who claimed to be heard in explanatio n , was called on , and said—l beg to explain for one moment . I understood the hon. gentleman to say that I wish to place so much taxation as he has described upon real property, that is, upon the land and buildings of the country. That intention. I never made any such proposi proposed to lay any taxes upon that descrip tion. r $l, neveras h th rin conn t' ec on with land tion of property which I did not propose to lay upon all other property or wealth, w e e or trade. m i s represented Mr. NEWDEG A TE — I would not willingly have I ass ure r t e h s e en h t o e n d . h g i e m n . tleman that Mr. B. OSBORNE said that if Mr. Newdegata had not solemnly assured the house that he had modified his opinion they would have had some difiLulty in discovering the fact. (Hear, hear.) He had raised the self• same objec tio ag ns ainst free trade in 1847 as he had done now. He even recollected that the hen. membe r then Came forward particularly as the Protectionist frien 1 of the ladies. He warned the house in those solemn tones which the house had heard again that evening, as to the effect of what they were going to do upon the ladies. He had not forg o tten the women of England that night ;he had not mo dified his opinion with regard to them. (" Hear, hear," front Mr. Newdegate, followed by a laugh.) He also spoke in 1847 of the effect of the import of gold from Australia upon free trade, and in that respect also there had been no modifica tion of his opinions. In fact, he might congratulate the hon. member on being the only consistent Protectionist in that hoes:', and he would add that, however they might differ from him, they had no right to be surprised at his opinions, and must all honour him for his consistency and straightforwardness. (Cheers, from both sides of the house.) They had however a right to express surprise at the send merits enunciated by a right •hon. gentleman who was one of the first converts to, and apostles of, free trade — he refe rred to the s peech of the right hon. member for Portsmouth (SirF. Baring) on the previous night. (Hear, hear.) That right hon. gentleman bad indeed somewhat modified his opinions, asa France.ar appeared his criticisms on the commercial treaty with say that the more it Now, wa s with r scrutinised nce the to t less treaty objecti o h n e m couldust be made on the part of free traders to its provisions. (Cheers.) He could understand objections to the old com- mercial treaties, which were in their nature restrictive ; but was this treat/restrictive ? (Hear.) Although the treaty was entered into with France, would not this country be at liberty to deal on the same terms with every nation in Eu rope ? (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen argued this question as if all the silks were to proceed from Lyons, and all the wides from Bordeaux, whereas in fact the field of competi tion 'teas to be open to all the world. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman (Sir F. Baring), a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, influenced perhaps by that feeling which prompted such a person to criticise the budgets of succeed ing Chancellors of the Exchequer in an envious spirit— (laughter)—said, " Whatever may be the merits of this treaty France at all events has got the best of the bargain." Why he (Mr. Osborne) denied that there had been any bargain in the case. If Mr. Cobden were liable to the sus picion of having made a bargain in this treaty, his conduct ought to be condemned on that account. There was, how ever, in fact no bargain with France. But were they to be so fanatical in their love of free trade as to refuse to assist France in taking off prohibitory duties, from a pedantic ad miration of the doctrines of free trade. (Hear, hear.) Adam Smith had been somewhat sneered at by the hon. member for NorthWarwickshire. [Mr. NEWDEGATE : "I did not sneer at him."] Well, at all events the hon. gentleman had rather patronised Adam Smith. (Laughter.) He would quote a passage of that author which showed that the right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth understood rather imperfectly the doctrines of free trade whenhe talked about " the best bargain." Writing about commercial treatiesand especially about commercial treaties with France, Adam S m ith said—" The disinclination of foreign governments to enter into commercial treaties on a footing of reciprocity has been urged as a reason why we should not admit their commodities into our markets. It is true that the French Government have by an unwise regulation prohibited the introduction of English cottons and hardware into France, thus forcing their own subjects to purchase inferior articles at a higher price. This is aline of conduct that ought to be carefully avoided and not followed. Because the French Government makes its subjects pay an artificially enhanced price for cottons and hardware. there is no reason why the English Government should injure its subjects by making them pay an enhanced price for their wines, brandies, and silks. To act thus is not to retaliate on the French, but on ourselves ; it is erecting the blind and brutal impulses of revenge into maxims of state policy." (Hear, hear.) He admired this treaty because, in conformity with the doctrines of free trade, it was a step towards the removal of the pro hibitory system of France, and because he hoped the result of Mr. Cobden's exertions would be that that system would ultimately be removed altogether. Now he was very sorry to hear the hon. member for Warwickshire the other night endeavouring to get upananti-Gallican feeling on this sub•• ject by talking of the treaty as a submission to France. The hon. member had indeed in that respect been rather imitated by the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), who had come out this session as a whig of the year 1787. (Laughter.) If they turned to the debates of that period they would find a speech of a Whig of the same kidney, if he might use that expression, as the right hon. gentleman; he refe rred to the s p eech of the suspected author of " Junius," Sir Philip Francis, who was a re markably good-natured man. That gentleman drew a fearful picture of what was to happen if Mr. Pitt's proposal to adopt the French treaty were carried. He conjured up all sorts of evils i he talked about submission to France being such as the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) had done; and he concluded by saying that if the treaty were adopted the people of this country would be " civilised out of their ) v irtues and polished out of thei r capital." (Laughter. Now he (Mr. B. Osborne) deplored this new attempt to work upon the prejudices of the country. lie might say of this treaty— " It is twice blessed, It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." (Cheers.) He felt satisfied that if the provisions of the treaty weep carried out there would spring up a good understand ing between the peop.le of this country and the people of France, wich would eventually enable Parliament to cut down the preset monstrous expenditure in the army and navy, w hi c h wa s creditable neither to the house nor to the country. (Hear.) Tbe answer to all this rhodomontade— for such it really was—about submission to France was very forcibly pointed out on the previous night by the hon. mem ber for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). That hon. gentleman observed that, while the value of their exports to America was £22,000,000, the value of those sent to France—their next neighbour, nearer than Ireland herself—was only £5,000,000; and yet her Majesty's Government were blamed (Hear. He tend to do away with that a nomal y . for entering into a treaty the carrying out of ) whic wanted h would to know why their trade with France should not be as great as their trade with America. Mr. Pitt and Adam Smith both thought there was no valid reason why it should not be so. Now great exception had been taken, particularly by the right hon. member for Stroud, to the 11th article of the treaty, relating to coal. The right hon. gentleman had in • yoked the sympathy of the country by remarking that the supply of coal was not likely to last more than 300 years. He (Mr. B. Osborne) would not enter into that question at length, but he believed the right hon. gentleman was geolo gically wrong. (Hear.) He had only taken into account the Newcastle coalfield; he had left out South Wales altogether. (Hear, hear.) He knew that many persons had shared in tithe alarm felt on this subject. The late Mr. Warburton, for example, who was a member of this house, had quite a monomania on the subject—his opinion that the supply . of coal would not last long being so strong that he even denied himself a fire. (Laughter.) B e hoped the right hon. gen tleman (Mr. Horsman) would not allow his apprehension to carry him so far as that. (Renewed laughter.) But the right hon. gentleman went further. He tried to make out that the one object of the French government in entering into the treaty was to lay up enormouse stores of coal for its steam fleet. Was he not aware that it would be almost impossible to do so, because—to say nothing of waste — there would be great danger of spontaneous combustion ? (Hear, hear.) After all, this was a mere bugbear. ( Hear, hear.) The letter of M. Chevalier must have carried conviction to the mind of every one who had read it, and shown that this objection was not well founded. Without this treaty the Emperor of the French could obtain as much coal as ho wished for. But now, what would be the effect of striking this article about coal out of the treaty ? The point was very ably put by a coalowner, who remarked that the effect of the change would be to render the French Government dependent to such an extent on English coal that any in , terruption of the supply must be attended with the most disastrous results to the navy and commercial marine of France. The truth was that coal was now made to serve much the same purpose that corn did during the free-trade struggle. He now came to the wine duties. The right hon. member for Portsmouth scoffed at the notion of re ducing those duties, observing that nobody cared about a reduction, and that the only petitions on the subject were petitions against a new class of persons being allowed to sell wine. Why, the right hon. gentleman ought to have reflected that that was a licensed victualler's cry, and that when Parliament was interfering with a large interest like that it was natural that they should not care about the introduction of the general use of wine, but desire the people to stick to the old black strap and adulterated beer. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentlenian said the re duction of the wine duties had never led to any sensible in crease: of the revenue—instancing, especially, Lord Al thorp's reduction in 1831. Did: the instance thus given bear out the argument of the right hon. gentleman f In 1831 Lord Althorp lowered the duty on French wine from 7s. 3d. to ss. 9d. What was the result of that change? Before the reduction the duty produced £77,000 in a cycle of ten years, afterwards it produced £110,500. Reductions of duty had, he believed, in every instance led to a corre sponding inorease in the consumption. He maintained that the wine duties were, to use the words of the present Chancellor of tho Exchequer on a former occasion, "a scandal to our tariff." They kept our products out of nine tenths of the markets of Europe, and they ought to be re duced not merely on financial but also on sanitary and moral grounds. Hon. gentlemen opposite said that wine st T ie l n ia . t wa T s h b e ec d a n u t s y e th en ey s d s e e d i t onew wines b e y s low- m cla a N e T s a c s e s a s ilvu luxury u r y t a x . amounted to 250 per cent., while that on high-classed wines was only 25 per cent. on the value. Thus, having made it impossible for the poorer classes of this country to purchase wine, hon. members turned round upon them, and said they did not want it because it was a luxury. (Hear, hear.) This objection was very well answered in the report of Lord Chelsea—a report which he may say did that noble lord great honour, and fully justified the late Chancellor of the Exchequer for having placed him in the position that he did. (A Member—" He was recalled.") He (Mr. B. Osborne) thought the noble lord was very ill-treated in that respect, and had a motion been brought forward to that effect he would have supported it. Lord Chelsea pointed out in his elaborate report that in the seventh century wheaten bread was a luxury, and gave convincing proofs that it was by a system of excessive taxation that wine had had been made one. (Hear, hear.) In the year 1689 so great was the taste for French wines that an act of Parlia ment was passed to prohibit any commerce with France for three years, it being declared in the act that the demand for French wines was so great that it had injured the revenue of the country. In M'Culloch's " Commercial Dictionary" there was a very curious account of the effect of the Methuen treaty in 1703 in changing the tastes of the people. Ho be lieved that if the wine duties were reduced to the extent proposed there would be an enormouss trade in French wines. No one could rise from the perusal of the report of the committee on import duties which sat in 1852 without feeling satisfied that many great benefits would be derived by this country:from a reduction of the duties onwine. Mr. Cyrus Redding, in speaking of the beneficial effect as re garded shipping, gave it as his opinion that the result of a reduction of the duties would be that whereas there were now employed in the wine trade 120 vessels of 250 tons each, there would be employed 600 vessels of 500 tons each. What would be the effect of the proposed reduction on the tastes of the artisan ? They all deplored the excessive use of spirits and other strong drinks. What was the evidence of Mr. Barker, one of the largest licensed victuallers in London ? He said—" I sell over the counter in glasses a pipe and a half of port per week. I find that there is a growing taste for wine, and I believe that if the duties were reduced the consumption would be doubled." Another witness, Mr. Short, said that he sold two pipes and a half of wine per week on draught—port, sherry, and bucellas. He was asked whether he drew champagne and claret, and he replied, "Yes, from the bottle." He went on to say that he charged 4d. a glass for port, 7d. for champagne, and 6d. for claret. He added, " The duty is so hh on French wines that I cannot sell them as I could wish; if the duty were lower, people would prefer them to port. Artisans of all sorts take their glass of wine; Irish labourers frequently carry home a bottle of port to their families." (Laughter.) " I may remark," ho said, " that the taste for port is de creasing, and its use is most prevalent among Irish labourers." (Great laughter.) He (Mr. B. Osborne) was at first puzzled to discover why the taste for port was de creasing, but he afterwards perceived that it was owing to increased adulteration. It was calculated that not le ss ha £400,000 had been lost to the revenue in ono year owing to the adulteration arising from high duties. (Hoar, hear.) Let the house observe what was the compo sition of the port which Irisi labourers took home. In the evidence of Mr. Basquet he found a receipt for making port, showing what an effect high duties had in poisoning the people. That receipt was as follows :—" Take cider, 45 gallons ; brandy, 6 gallone • port, 8 gallons''—there was a little port in it---;(laughter)—" ripe sines, 2 gallons. Stew the latter in two gallons of water. Press off the liquor. If the colour does not come out strong enough add tincture of red sanders. When bottled put in each bottle tincture of catechu, when you will produce a fine crusty appearance (Laughter.) Soak the end of the corks in decoction of Brazil wood and alum, which will give it a fine appearance o f age ," (Renewed laughter.) This was the thing called port—this was the stuff which poor Irish labourers took home in a bottle, and he supposed no ono but an Irish la bourer would get over such a decocti. n (Great laughter.) All this adulteration was encouraged by the excessive rato of the wine duty. (Hear.) Mr. Pitt complained long ago of the great loss to the revenue which the high duty on wines caused to this country. Ile (Mr. Osborne) believed that loss was nearly double now. Something might be said as to the use of wine among the sick poor, and that was a Very important consideration. So far from this being an unini th right hon it was . ba portant matter, as it was represented by ronet the member for Portsmo uth to be, be e thought of the greatest importance not only to the health, bu w t to the morals of the people of this country. (Het:tr.) He as surprised to hear the hon. member for the King's County say the other night that this wits the Worst budget for Ire- land that was ever brought forward. He could not see that difference. He believed that what was commercially good for England must be commercially good for Ireland. With regard to the paper duty, he thought the right honourable gmeinettlaekmeaniatheepp.meeenbielger t f h or ie ß h u a eki dg n e g t ham . H s e hir e c u m gh ed t e te a great have accepted its principle and then he might have opposed its details in committee. (Hear, hear.) Against some of those details he (Mr. Osborne) was not prepared to say that he might not have joined the right honourable gentleman. He was not prepared to say that taking off the paper tax at this time was quite prudent, nor because he liked the budget so much was he ready to swallow also the paper duty. With regard to the income tax he felt very much in the state of other hon. gentlemen ; he did not like to pay that tax. But it was a little unfair of the member for Portsmouth to twit the Chancellor of the Exchequer with what he said in 1853. The right hon. gentleman made no promises in 1853, he only indulged in anticipations that if things went right they might be able to take off the income tax in 1860. The member for Buckinghamshire said we were paying the extra 2d. income tax to enable him to give his imperial pupil a lesson in free trade. But that was not the case. They must remember that since 1853 an addition , of £8,000,000 had been added to the army and navy expen diture. He agreed it we s necessary to make a large outlay on these services, but he did not anticipate that it would be required of them to keep up that outlay every year, and he felt sure that if they agreed to this treaty they would be securing a capital policy of insurance for the preservation of peace. (Hear.) He was of opinion that if the income tax was to last for ever it would be right and just, for all these things righted themselves at last ; but if it was to be shifted from year to year it would turn out a weapon of de struction. (Hear.) He himself liked the budget sufficiently well to take it even at its high price. Hon. gentlemen op posite said they disliked this budget because it was a Man chester budget ; but when Mr. Pitt brought in his budget it was called a French budget. (Hear.) Gentlemen oppo site, if they had any political creed, ought to be free traders. (Hear.) There was not one member on the Trea. sury bench who started in life as a free trader. (Hear.) He supported the budget because it was a Manchester bud gat derived from the greatest man in finance who ever lived —he meant Mr. Pitt—(hear)—and therefore hon. gentlemen opposite ought to give this bunget their most ardent sup port. Mr. BARING was surprised to hear that this treaty wit no bargain. Trade was reciprocity, and reciprocity begot commerce. When the hon. gentleman said that the treaty was no bargain, he could not understand him. lf it was not a bargain, -why did the Government have re course to the treaty? (Hear.) He was anxious to have a free intercourse between countries; and if they could ob• taro it in no other way they should ebtain it by treaty. He hoped it would have the effect of soothing the asperity that was growing up between the two countries, and it would have that effect if it was mutually beneficial. It was said that if they altered the treaty they would offend France. But they had not yet lost the right of free discussion,which was the privilege of Englishmen. There were persons in Franco who said they did not want coal. Then, if not, why was that article introduced at all P They had a right to discuss commercial treaties upon English grounds and Eng lish considerations. But he said that to make a treaty it ought to be well timed—it ought to be carried into imme diate effect. (Hear, hear.) But France was not to act upon it for 12 or 18 months. Was that perfect reciprocity . I Then, again, he did not think that the correspondence laid before the house showed that the interests of this country had been well guarded. No written paper was laid before them till the 17th January, and on the 23rd of January the treaty was signed. (Hear, hear.) There ought to have been some document to show that the Board of Trade had been consulted. That did not appear to have been the case. Then the differential duties on shipping were never con sidered. He was told it was only a treaty of commerce and amity, and not of shipping. But why was not the shipping considered ? Why, that was one of the great grievances of which they had to complain in their commercial relations with France. (Hear.) They had had a negotiator in the person of Mr. Cobden, without any positive in structions. What was Mr. Cobden's principle with regard to trade ? That it was for the interests of this eountry to abolish all indirect taxation. A meeting was held at Liverpool, at which the hon. member for Roch dale was not present, but he wrote a letter of apology in which he expressed a hope that the day might come when no indirect taxation whatever would exist. If, when he was appointed one of the negotiators for the treaty, they approved of that principle, they should also have told Parliament, if they did not, they ought to have told 'Kr. Cobden. The opinions of that hon. gentleman upon indirect taxation were, that the sooner they did away with Customs duties the sooner they obtained the salvation of their country. But was that the feeling of noble lords and right hon. gentlemen opposite who composed the Cabinet ? Tho treaty appeared to him to be very carelessly and very loosely drawn up. As for the reduction of the duties on French wines, he believed the only effect it would have would be the introduction of low Spanish and Portuguese wines. But the whole treaty was a mere speculation, and he believed ne one could tell exactly how it would turn out. His own opinion was, that as soon as markets were open in France for English goods, they would flock there as they did to Australia and other places. He believed, in the first instance, that their exports would be very large—that the foreign markets would be glutted..that much money would be lost in endeavouring to establish a market, but at last the French merchants will get disgusted, and things will again return to their normal state. The French people were very prudent and very frugal; they did not spend much money in trade, and he therefore believed those mar kets in France for English goods will turn out as he had anticipated. (Hear, hear.) For his own part he should have been quite willing to reduce the duties, es pecially on small articles consumed by the poor, if he could so, or see his way clearly. Let the house look at tho condition of their finances, and they would see they had not the means to reduce their taxation. There was no surplus, and if there were, other claims de manded a previous attention. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham brought forward an embryo budget in his speech at Liverpool some time since, when he stated that all former budgets were all for the benefit of the rich, and not of the poor. He was a great advocate for a tax on property, and promised the poor a complete remission of taxes. Well, then, he ap proved of the present budget, and could say to a poor man "Drown all the cares of your labour in cups of cheap claret. (A laugh.) Your wives can wear an abundance of cheap silk dresses and ribbons , and he could tell the peasant that he might have plenty of cheap gloves wherewith to till his field. (A laugh.) But what could he say of a war tax being kept on tea and sugar, which was one of the poor man's necessaries? The hon, gentleman said he had an attachment for the treaty, because, as he supposed, it was his own off spring. But what did he say to the duty of 30 per cent., or to the case of railway iron, where a duty of 50 per cent. was charged ? He, for one, as he already said, would be glad to see the wine duties repealed, if there was a surplus, and when the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer talks of this being a great financial epoch, and al ludes to the great advantage of the terminable annuities falling in, he ought to remember there was no such thing, for they were already spent. (Hear, hear.) It was the wish of the people that great armaments should be prepared, and more than the terminable annuities disappeared in that pro ject. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for Ireland said last night they could utilise these two mil liens. But how could that be done when they were already expended—and expended long before they were received? But to make up for the deficiency the right hon. gentleman puts his hand into the pockets of the poor income tax payer and makes him pay. It was not his intention to allude to the prediction of the right hon. gentleman, and how it turned out. Circumstances do change, and opinions change also ; but ho would say that, though he abandoned the idea of putting an end to that tax, he had no right to raise it. In his opinion it would have been much better to keep on a small indirect taxation and a moderate income tax, and the burden now complained of would not be so grievous or so oppressive. (Hear, hear.) Besides, if they depend entirely on the income tax they subject the Government and the credit of the country to any changes that may suddenly arise, and which may have disastrous conse quences. He believed the income tax interfered most in juriously with the wages of labour, because, if the revenue of a gentleman were reduced by being compelled to pay a considerable amount of income tax, he must of necessity employ fewer persons. He agreed with the hon. gentleman the member for Leeds, that many other circumstances con spired of late years to make this country prosperous in ad dition to commercial reforms, such as the discovery of gold and other advantages. He also believed that the great railway system had its effects, because it brought labour to wherever it was required, and reduced the cost of trans porting goods from one county to another. He agreed with hon. gentlemen opposite that an extension of their fo reign trade was a great benefit ; but they were wrong in saying that it was all owing to free trade. Was it not true that the 10d. income tax would tell on the labour of the country, for those who had to pay that tax, and were stinted in their means, must of necessity diminish labour. That was the opinion of Lord Brougham in 1842, and it was quite clear they could not tax the rich man without injuring the poor man. It was also a dangerous tax to rely on in time of peace, and if he wanted a proof that it would not be per manent, he need only refer to the time of Lord Liverpool, when the country rose en masse and swept it from the statute book. That time may come again. They may have popular budget after populer budget, because the peo ple will imagine so when taxes are remitted, but the income tax was not necessary. There was no necessity for taking off the paper duty. They did not want a supplemental tariff regulation which diminished their indirect taxation. Had they acted on a principle like that they might have concluded the treaty with France, supposing it to be ne cessary, or have paid off the Exchequer Bonds coming, duo, or else have reduced the income ti.x to Bd. He be lieved that that system of taxation was improvident and dangerous—unsafe even in time of peace, but doubly un safe in time of war. Supposing war to come, what tax would they impose P Weuld they increase the income tax to 25., 35., or 4s. ? They would tell him, perhaps, that that was their only resource. They hon. member for Bir mingham taunted his opponents with supporting Sir H. Peel and a 7d. income tax, and asked why they did not now support the right hon. gentleman and a 10d. income tax. (Hear, hear.) But that was quite another matter—for the advantages were not so obvious or so apparent. At this time the house was called upon to perpetuate the income tax at a high rate, and because they (the Conservatives) opposed it, they were taunted with acting in a spirit of' party. The question of taxation ought never to be made a party question, nor was it now, and he for one should not look upon the coming division as evidence of a party con flict. For himself, he could truly say that he should unite with the greatest reluctance in a vote that would have the effect of displacing the Ministry. He should certainly vote against the budget as it then was, but in so supporting the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Essex, lie desired to mark his sense of the displeasure which existed abroad at relying on the system which was now adopted of voting away the public money when there was a deficiency in the Exchequer, and trusting to chance for its reshra • tion. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. M. GIBSON heard with regret that. a gentleman of such high authority in the commercial world as the last speaker should have entirely condemned the policy of the budget, and should have invited the house altogether to set aside the financial arrangements proposed by her Majesty's Government. He recollected that the hon gentleman had been the uniform, the persevering, and the consistent opponent of the commercial reforms which had taken place within the last few years; and he should have preferred to see the hon, gentleman take his old ground rather than rest his objection to the budget on the penny or twopence of additional income tax which it might involve. (Hear.) For the hon. gentleman did not propose to get rid of the tax altogether. It was a mere question of a penny, or at the most twopence ; and to use the figure of the hon. member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), they would purchase a penny reduction of the income tax at a very dear rate if they paid for it by the sacrifice of the French treaty of commerce aufl the remissions of duties which had l?eea proposed by her Majesty's Government. He reg? .etted to find that the hon. member for Essex was suppor(ieck by the leaders of the Op position ; for he had been in hopes that the motion was put upon the paper merely for the purpose of enabling a certain section of the Conservative party to place on record their hostility to free trade principle s.' The leader of the Oppo sition had stated that free' trade , principles were good ones ; but he believed it could be shown that voting for the reso lution would be understood as announcing that they were bad principles. The hon. member for Norfolk was at direct issue with his leader, the right hqm. member for Bucks. He said openly that free trade was bad, and he was there- fore right in voting for the motiou of the hon. member for Essex; but he (Mr. Gibson) could not understond how the right hon. gentleman who professed to think that the prin ciple of free trade was good could hesitate to carry that prin ciple further. (Hear,'hear, ) The house was asked to take a strong course. It was invited to refuse the Queen the means of carrying into effect the treaty which had been con. eluded with France. Undoubtedly the house approached the consideration of the question perfectly free and unfet tered. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members were at liberty to take that course which their sense of what was demanded of them by the public interest might make them feel it was duty to adopt. But before the house deliberately refused to give the legislative power necessary to enable the Queen to carry into effect the treaty which had been concluded, it ought to be satisfied that there were good and sufficient grounds for taking so strong a step. Now, without talking of Mr. Pitt's treats , of 1786, there had been repeated at tempts made within very recent periods, and by different admini itrations of both parties, to conclude a commercial treaty with France. In the years 1839-40, a joint commis sion, composed of representatives of both countries was en gaged in trying to frame a commercial couvention very simi lar in principle to that which has lately been concluded. The whole of the commissioners agreed to such a project, but from one cause or another the attempt failed. He believed that another attempt was made by the administration of Sir Robert Peel ; but at all events he remembered Sir Robert Peel saying, when he introduced his reform of the tariff in 1842, that he reserved the question of the wino duties because he had hopes of effecting a commercial treaty with France. (Hear, hear.) The administration of Lard Derby, in 1852, also attempted a treaty. (Cheers.) He found the fact stated be fore a committee of that house by a witness who was called to give evidence relating to some difficulties connected with local and differential es on shipping. That gentleman, who was the registrar of the Board of Trade, said that, " Under Lord Derby's administration it was proposed again to have renewed the proposal for a commercial treaty with France." (Hear, hear.) Then the witness went on to add, " I think that what took place in Lord Derby's time had more special reference to a commercial treaty as distinguished from the ' naviesition question. The proposal was for a commercial treaty, but the French insisted on combining it with the navigation question." (Cheers.) According to this gentle man's evidence, which he (Mr. Gibson) believed to be strictly true, Lord Derby was engaged in 1852 in negotiating a treaty resembling very much in its principles that which had now been concluded. (Hear, hear.) Lord Malmesbury, too, had occupied himself very earnestly in endeavouring to further the import of coals into France. (Hear.) Repeated com plaints had been made that the coal trade was injured by the difficulty experienced in getting an extended import into France, and Lord Malmesbury, very properly alive to the best interests of this country, did what in him lay to induce the French Government to remove duties for the purpose of increasing the import of coal into France. Well, the French Government asked the noble lord what he would give them in return ? Theyasked him if he should have any objection to reduce the duties on French brandy ? And what was Lord Malmesbury's answer P He said it would be too limited an operaton for a commercial treaty to confine it to coals and brandy, and he proposed that they should have a treaty for a revision of the customs duties on both sides. (Loud cheers.) If that were so, what was the reason of this extreme objection on the part of the followers of Lord Derby and Lord Mal mesbury to a commercial treaty which had been ratified and which was founded on precisely the same principles P And now, when the most enlightened statesmen, both Conser vative and Liberal, had been trying for years to bring about what they all stated to be so desirable a result, viz., some thing to increase the commercial communications between the two countries • and when a treaty had at last beea actu ally ratified, objections were urged against empowering the Crown to carry out the arrangement. That was the position in which the house was place. The member for Essex had very fairly said that he objected to a commercial treaty, be cause he was a Protectionist, therefore he most consistently opposed the budget ; but he (Mr. Gibson) repeated, that he could not understand how gentlemen opposite, who had adopted, and he believed sincerely adopted. the principles of free trade, could be acting on this occasion with the hon. member. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet the member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) made a statement which, if correct, would be a very serious objection. He said Govern ment had bound themselves in savour of France to reverse the Methuen treaty with Spain. He thought the hon. ba ronet had fallen into an error, for he imagined that because he saw a certain scale of duties depending on a certain amount of proof spirit that they were bound to that amount and blued by the treaty to give a supposed protection to France as against Portuguese wines. The effect of the treaty would be nothing of the kind. If the hon. baronet would look at the 6th article of the treaty he would find that her Majesty recommended to Parliament that the duty upon wino of a certain number of degrees of proof spirit should not exceed Is. per gallon, and so that up to 36 deg. it should not exceed ls. 6d. per gallon ; but that was the maximum. If they pleased, they might reduce the duties to as low an amount as they thought fit, or abolish them alto gether. Government had not in any way bound themselves to establish a differential duty in favour of French as against Portuguese wines. France would no doubt be glad to see that all duties were abolished. This was a matter intro duced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to our own internal and domestic legislation. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring did not object to a treaty with France, but would rather not have entered into it, except they had entered in to one with Spain and other countries. That reminded him of the old doctrine of 1842, when it was said "Do not make a commercial treaty with one country until with all." He (Mr. Gibson) said this commercial treaty with France was to be taken on its own merits, and he believed it would con fer great and important commercial and political advan tages upon this country ; and glad as he should be to con clude a commercial treaty with other countries, he would not be deterred from making one with France because we had not been able at the same time to make one with Spain and Portugal. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet also stated that the right articles for r eduction had not been se lected—that instead of selecting spirits and wine, the Go vernment should have taken tea and sugar, because expe rience had proved that by the reduction of duty on tea and sugar they might hope to have an increased consumption, which would make up the loss in revenue, but they could not hope for such results from a reduction of duties on spirits and wine. It should he observed that when Sir It. Peel reduced the duty on brandy from 22s 6d per gallon to 15s, what was the immediate consequence. Why, an ox • tension of consumption of about 60 per cent., and during the next threo years a complete recovery of the revenue. And the reason why the experiment had not been successful with wine was, in his opinion, that they had never gone low enough. They had never reduced the wine duties to a point at which it could be introduced into a new field for consump tion. It did not go beyond the wealthy classes, who were as ready to give one sum as another. But by an adequate reduction it was to be hoped that they would find con sumers of wine among classes of people who had hitherto net been able to enjoy it. But then, said the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Du Cane), " you will interfere with the consumption of the national beverage." As a Protectionist. the hon. gentleman considered that beer should be pro tected as against wine. But when the plait of the Govern ment was aopted—as he believed it would be—it would be found to give a very sufficient protection against wine. A gentleman of his acquaintance had lately made a small pur chase of that wine of which it had been said it would injure the consumption of the national beverage. He bought a cask of wine in France containing 40 gallons for 64f, which which was about 535, and the present duty was 11 guineas; and under the new scale of duties, at ls per gall, the 40 gal lons, at a cost of 535, would have to pay a duty of 40s. Now upon 53s worth of beer, according to a careful calculation which ho had made of the duty on malt, he would pay a duty of 13s. He had taken the maximum. It therefore ap • peered that the national beverage would have an ample protection. Then, as to the 3d article of the treaty, there had been some misapprehension as to the differential duties en shipping. It was supposed by many that this article had given some sanction, or some fresh vitality, to a system of restrictions in France which would be injurious to British shipping. He would call the attention of the house to an other view of the question, viz., that this article merely re lated to the two precediug articles, and it meant merely this—that those duties were not to be interfered with by the rates of duties therein mentioned. (Hear, hear.) And the whole had simply relation to th e t ra d e w hi c h m i g ht g row up between England and France from the effect of the mutual reduction of duties. It only referred to the dim set trade between the two countries. (Hear.) There were no differential duties on English ships between England and France. English ships went into French ports from England carrying English produce and manufactures pre cisely on the same footing as French ships; but if a Dutch or American ship should go to France from England with British goods, it would be subject to differential duties, to which British ships would not be liable. The opponents of the treaty ought to like these duties, because they really were a protection upon British and French in the trade be tween the two countries, He (Mr. Gibson) did net like them, and he wished they were abolished. But what would be the effect of their abolition as regarded the direct trade ? When British manufactures were sent to France, they would be carried by ships of all nations on the same footing as they could now be carried in British and French ships only. (Hear, hear.) He approved of that principle. The two contracting parties did not wish that there should be any future misunderstanding, and therefore they.had inserted the 3.1 article. The navigation laws were loft as they were befOre the conclusion of the treaty. They would, it was hoped,be dealt with by a future arrangement—he trusted he should see a liberal navigation treaty, as well as a liberal commercial treaty. The hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) was mistaken in supposing that the differential duties had reference to anything but that to which he had adverted. But the hon. gentleman would be gratified to hear that the differential duties paid by British ships going front America with cotton to Havre —though not to be abolished, were likely to be reduced. This formed no pa rt _ of the treaty ; but the announcement to which he referred was in the Honiteur of the 20th February, 1860, finder lb s a stated that the duty on cotton would in future be instead of per lb. ; and it was an error t o supposi that the ' third article related to the differential duties relating to the direct trade wi. h France. Mr. lIORSFALL explained that he had made no refer ence to the 3d article, beyond rnnarking th t t ri a considerable difference of opinion existed as to it s o p era Mr. GI BSON said he had merely ea dieave o ured to explain what would be the operation of the article, and he believed his view was the correct one. H e would appeal to the agricultural interest, The an d was a eon - gentlemen connected with the cee budget was celled a commer cia l bud g et, si madeto it w itiw at 4 t ti he co ß u i l • i it t i r s i 4 es f; eo: It was said that it overlooked the interests cf those co nected with land. He believed it to be an h ag icultural bu n d. " . get. (Laughter and cheer:%.:.o)rontea ki;nue,wc. mer had always felt in reference to_fr,e,e truck. It was t t h h i e s ir and 4gTieultural classes buy if the consuming classes their food, lot tho term articles in the a i n t d w !L i s ' c t i h r e obvious case . _ of doing_ justice to ) There was the farmer now that they h ad exposed tum to free Importation of corn and flour in this country. (Hear, hoar. no reason why lie should leive the price of those articles raised by the operation of protective duties. (Hear, hear.) He found that the British farmer had a very st rong case in favour of this Fr ench treat y . Ace ird ing to the return}; of wheat imported into this country,ita e n r eez te,: i or t V to ,420,321 *R,718 0 532 wor th of wheat in 1859, end 28 p wor th came from Vrance, There was imported from France 00 per cont. of wheat and flour into England in 1850. The latter imports amounted to, from all the world, £2,392,295 ; and out of that France sent £1,954,247 , mels big a total of wheat arid flour froiu Vraep e , Ig* • o f £1,347,471. Alig . lit , T4 the liritist+ eilValer say with jstice that, if people 44 - dtueir 4nti floes from France, he ought te he aligwod to flaw his brand y an d s i lk from ihat cou ntry—(hear, hear, and laught er )— on free trade prin- IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YEsTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. CHURCH RATES. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE presented petitions against the abolition of church rates. THE NEW TREATY. L or d EBURY presented a petition from Spitalfields ag ainst any alteration in the duty on silk. SPAIN AND MOROCCO. The Earl of CARNARVON drew the attention of their lordships to statements that had appeared inthe newspapers this day, relative to the terms of peace stated to have been offered by Marshal O'Donnell to the Moors. (The de spatch will be found in another part of The Sun.) The noble earl quoted from a correspondence between the noble lord at the head of the Foreign-cffice and the British ambassador at Madrid, in which a distinct declaration was said to have that been received from the Spanish Governmen t to the effect it had no intention of increasing its territory in Africa. This declaration was precisely in opposition to the proposed arrangement. The importance of preventing any European Power preponde rating on the coast of Africa could not be overrated. He should very much like to know whether any intelligence had been received by the Government ; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to its production ? Lord WODEHOUSE said the Government had received information similar to that which had appeared in the pa pers ; but as the noble lord had given no intimation that he intended to ask the question, ho was unable at that time to go into the details. DIVINE SERVICE IN THEATRES. Viscount DUNGANNON called attention to the per formance of Divine Service at Sadler's Wells and other theatres by clergymen of the Church of England on Sun day evenings; and moved a resolution to the effect that such services, being irregular and inconsistent with order, are calculated to injure rather than advance the progress of sound religious principles throughout the country. The noble lord took the opportunity of entering at length into the question, and said that there was not a peer in the house would point to a case of a clergyman ever preaching the word of God on the boar where ds of comedy, thea , tre. H e thought that a place farce, and pantomime had been a few hours before performed was not a place fitted for the public worship of the Almighty At Sadler's Wells, it was said the curtain rose and the clergyman was discovered in a pulpit sur rounded by a garden scene, and many of the au dience in the front boxes wore their white kid gloves, and, instead of divine worship, any one would have imagined before the curtain rose a pantomime was to be performed, rather tha n the Word of God preached. He could not understand how it was thought desirable to secure the public theatres for such a purpose when there were other places quite as commodious and as easy of ac cess. Under all the circumstances he thought the effect of such religious services would detract from, rather than benefit the Church of England. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was understood to say that had he been consulted in the first instance he would have advised against holding religious services in theatres ; but as the matter now stood, he thought the best course wa to leave the people who foll o wed the movement to them s •• selves. After some conversation, the motion was with d dra the. The Indictable Offence s (Metropolis) Bill an wn En dowed Schools Bill were read a third time and passed. Their lordships then adjourned. The absolute repeal of the paper duty would take place within a month or two after the Ist July. COLONIAL CHAPLAINS. Sir J. PAKINGTON asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether her Majesty's Government had decided to advise the Queen to withhold the royal assent from the bill lately passed by the Legislature of Tasmania, for reducing the salaries of the colonial chap lains. Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that the Crown would take the steps necessary in reference to the matter. PRISONS' ACT (SCOTLAND). Mr. E. CRAUFURD asked the Lord Advocate what course he intends to pursue with regard to the Prisons' Act (Scotland) Continuance Bill ; and whether he would under ' take to introduce a general bill to abolish the Prison Board, and to amend the present system of prison assessments in S c otland, at a period suffic iently early to ensure its being dealt with during the present session ? The LORD ADVOCATE said that he intended to pro ceed with the Prisons Act (Scotland) Continuance Bill, and also._with the Prisons Assessments Bill at an early period. ciples ; and if they would call a meeting in any county and put the question to the farmers, a resolution to that effect would be carried. (Hear, h ear .) He believed the advan tages to the agricultural classes would not be inconsiderable. There were a variety of articles in the treaty which they were in the habit of consuming. He had been in correspon dence with persons engaged in Essex in raising coriander and caraway seeds, and being alive to their own interests they said if these seeds were admitted duty free they would be injured, and therefore they disapproved of the whole scheme of the Government. (Laughter.) No doubt that was the cause which urged the hon. member for Essex .to object to the budget altogether. (Laughter.) Now, what were the agricultural interests more concerned in than in obtaining a diminution of the poor-rate ? Land and houses were, as it was well lin )wn, heavily taxed to pay local rates for the support of the destitute poor of the country. (Hear, hear.) Now, what could be more adapted to lessen the poor-rates than an increase of employment for the poorer classes of the country, and what had been the effect of the commercial policy since 1842 ? Why, if the poor. rates had gone on increasing in proportion to the population from 1842 to 1860, they would now be upwards of a million more than they were at this moment ; so that though the income tax had been complained of, he contended that the agricul tural classes had saved it in indirect taxation by a diminu tion of the poor-rates. (Hear, hear.) Now, let them take the reduction of the wine duties. Would anything give more employment to the people ? It was s t a t e d before a committee of the house that there was no article of com merce the increase of which would give so much employment to labour-as an increased importation of wine. (Hear, hear.) It was a balky article, and, being brought in casks, would require a great number of them. Then it required a great deal of labour to land it, to place it in the cellars of the wine merchants, to fine it and bottle it, and, when bottled, to convey it to the houses of the respective consumers. It would apse a great increase in the manufacture of bottles. (La fen) This was all true. It might appear trivial— eal cheers)—but it was most important for the agri cultu4l interest. (Oh, oh.) He lived in a parish where the resident population had not increased for a great num ber of years. He supposed nevertheless there had been a natural increase. But where had it gone to ? Why, to other districts to find employment ; and if it had not found employment they would have had an exc ess o f l a b our i n that paitichlar locality, and no doubt the result would have been an increase of the poor-rates. He said there was no class in this country that had so direct an interest in everything that would extend the field of employment as the owners of land and houses had, and that it was their best policy to en courage every measure of commercial freedom—every mea sure that would unite the springs of industry—if from no other motive than from their own interest. Well, now, there was a great feeling against the income tax. They called it a war tax. And why was it a war tax ? Because it was imposed when they had a large expenditure for mili tary and naval armaments. Well, they had got a large ex penditure for those purposes now. When they had an ex penditure of 30 millions for military and naval purposes it was obviously necessary that they should have an income tax. The total expenditure was 70 millions, and he asked if a temporary income tax was too large a proportion of di rect taxation towards such an amount ? Hon. gentlemen opposite said 10d. was too much, but that 9d. would be just the thing. The hon. member for Stamford desired aseven penny income tax. He thought the hon. member was a great deal too sanguine, but he would not have his seven penny income tax at the price of rejecting the French alliance. (Cheers.) What was the per centage on a tem porary income tax on the expenditure for naval and mili tary purpose ? That expenditure, excluding the cost of the packet service, was £29,200,000, and the tenpenny income tax was no more than three per cent. on that, and yet the great Conservative party opposed the income tax which was necessary to maintain their establishments. He hoped that hon. members would consider they had before them not a mere question of a penny in the pound, but a question of a broad and enlightened policy. It was frequently argued in that house that no consideration actuated a Government but the simple one of how they were to get money. He said there was somtehing more to be considered than the mere question of the amount to be raised. There was the broad question of a fiscal policy, which, with a growing population like that of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to have in view just as much as the raising of a par ticular sum. He should not say a word on the question of the paper duty, because hole members were well aware of his opinion on the subject. The motion of the hon. member for Essex said they must not diminish their ordi nary revenue. Now, the house had solemnly voted that the paper duty was no longer to be a part of the ordinary revenue. By ordinary revenue he meant a permanent source of income, and that house had deliberately said that the paper duty shouid not form a source of permanent in come. Hon. members might talk of a definite resolution meaning nothing. If they meant nothing when the resolu tion passed, he meant something. (Cheers.) He felt that the great body of the members of that house would never consent to the doctrine that a deliberate resolution of Par liament was to be treated as waste paper. If the Govern ment had taken no heed of the resolution, the right hon. member for Bucks, who voted for it and had uniformly sup ported the repeal of the paper duty, might fairly have com plained. Mr. WALPOLE said he would not trespass on the at tention of the house long, though the magnitude of the sub jects which had been. brought before them would justify him in so doing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would pardon him for saying that they were placed in considerable embarrassment in having brought before them at one time and in one debate upon a financial scheme, so many ques tions, that it was hardly possible to have a distinct and de finite issue upon any of them. His right hon. friend had broken through an old custom twice, in 1853 and again in 1860. In 1853, instead of simply meeting the engagements of the year, he based his arrangements upon future expec tations which no human foresight could fully anticipate, and no human wisdom could provide for. In. 1860 he pur sued a similar course, and had mixed up with the financial question the treaty with France, instead of bringing for. ward these questions at distinct times and upon distinct considerations. He thought his hon. friend the member for Essex deserved the thanks of the house for bringing this matter to a definite issue. But that did not seem te be the opinion of many gentlemen who had spoken in this debate. The hon. member for Birmingham said that mo tion meant increased expenditure ; but he should have re membered that it only related to the expenditure of a single year, and even he did not venture to say that this year we could have any reduction. The right hon. Secre tary for Ireland treated the motion as a stationary policy in finance ; but it only meant that, so far as that when you had a great deficit lying before you, it was better to re main stationary than to lay the foundation of a greater deficit hereafter. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. mem.• ber for Liverpool said that if the motion bore simply on the reimposition of the income tax he should have voted for it, but he objected to it simply on the ground that it was intended to defeat the budget. When he (Mr. Walpole) was asked his opinion as to the budget his answer was that he believed the main provisions to be right —(cheers)—that to part of them exception might be taken, as also to the mode in which they were to be carried out. Since then he had listened to the debate, ancrnow he be lieved the main provisions to be right, end he should be sorry to see them defeated ; but still he thought that excep tion might be taken to the time and to the mode in which it was proposed to bring them into speration. The right hon. gentleman who had just sat down treated his hon. friend's motion as an attack on the French treaty. Were that its ob ject he (Mr. Walpole) would not vote for it. (Loud cheers ) It might then be asked why he was going to support the motion. (Hear, hear.) He asked the house to follow him for a few moments, and, if they treated him as candidly as he had been treating them, he thought they could not resist supporting—in their heart, at least, however their votes might go—(a laugh)—the motion of his hon. friend. The motion recognised, as every one must recognise, the fact that the expenditure of the year must be taken at 510,000,000, and it went on to ask whether, with an enormous deficiency staring you in the face, it was wise to increa se that defl ciencyy trenching on the ordinary revenue of the country, and to meet it by reimposing the income tax ix the very year you had proposed to take it off, and also in a time of profound peace. Part of the revenue about to be yielded up would come from the customs duties affected by the treaty, part from duties independent of the treaty, and part from the remission of the excise duty on paper. These were the three sources of revenue which the French treaty would affect. Now, with regard to the duties affected by the treaty, he believed they must remit them ; but to it he thought that an exception might be taken in point of time, because in point of fact a more deliberate negotiation of the treaty would have led to better provisions in some of its articles, whilst he thought it would have been better to have made it it more concurrent in point of time and more liberal with regard to reciprocity as between the two co ntracting aothe par ties. But a stronger reason he had for objecting t g po e l a i e c h y treaty was that he could not underst E an n d o t a h n e d of two great nations like France and did thisn ot particulars e e wh at jealous keepi g n mutually exclusively possessed might be made so __ profitable other at arm's length, when the a dvantages which each 'de of the house from by afrank and liberal exchange.. was to prevent statesmen on any break ing down this barrier; but with iwhich articles he saw much i s t ( h li r e e a g r ) r di lie e o to treaty, there were two object—namely, the thir d and the 11th, both of which, in his opinion, required reconsideration. He thought it most impolitic to tie up the Crown from treating coal as a muni tion of war, and also to deprive ourselves of the reciprocity clauses. We had seen the mistake, when repealing the na vigationof not allowing the first offer laws, to come from without. The Americans said if we gave all they would give all • but we had given all, and they had held back noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had • ; and the _ ) himself said that this was a most unsatisfactory state of things. He ob jected to the second million of customs remitted wh he reme mbered the little obstructi on to trade • en and industry w hi c h its collection caused, and he thought t hi ng they should have d one to b it was the last abolish duties which had caused the slightest possible obstruction to trade and industry. But he now came to an objection which he thought was unanswerable. On what pri nc ipl e cou ld you give up a million of duty when ou knew that the only effect of remitting it must be the increase of a penny in the income tax ? (Hear, hear.) T Exche quer had made him all he Chancellor of the nost smile when he came to talk of the remission of the excise duty on paper. The right hon. gentleman, forgetting a ll h two millions of •he had said i n 1853, sa id, with th e long annuities falling in, lie would with one million effect the commercial treaty with France, and with the other greatly r l tr T • e 'eve Many branches of trade and indus y. he right hon. gentleman foreot that that was the source out of which he hadrid them of the promise toin come tax. Wh a t were the reasons for this remission on paper? He had enumerated four—the pledge y t given b• h o house, ,the obstruction to skill and invention arising out of the present system, the , untenable character of the tax, and the inequality of its • pressure as between the rich and the poor Man's literature. He would venture to say that every one of these reasons might be adduced with tenfold force against the income tax. (Opposition cheers.) First, as to the pledge. The President of the Board of Trade had appealed to his right bon. friend Mr. Disraeli to support this part ef the budget on the ground of that pledge. But the pledge as to the paper duty was simply general and conditional upon the 3 state of the exchequer, but the pledge as to the income tax was specifics Nor was that all. The pledge in refer:m.o to the excise on paper was contained in a resolution of that house, whereas the pl e d ge as t o th e re duotien and ultimate abolition of the income tax was em bodied in an Act of Parliament, to which not only that house but the House of Lords awl the Queen were pariies. (Hear, hear.) Again, the pledge in regard to the paper duty was accompanied by no other obligation of any sort or kind ; but the pledge as to the revision and progressive ithelitiou of the income tax was accompanied by circumstances which enabled the (loyernment to impose other taxes on the people, and lie held that they were not justified—at least he could not as being a party to that pledge —ho could not feel justified in laying one penny more of income tax in la6o, or any year afterwards, especially when the oltiect of doing so was merely to get rid of a pat t of the ordinary revenue, which might very well stand over until we were in a better position to deal with it, The right hon. gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) lied dwelt upon tbe obstacles to paper skill duty and io cs nd ca sicm ust ando ry iu the) tt'a thud de of paper -4e seeking which the d,, Icollection, as . ty of ZeftoWs iCtr las Ventoyadthe A ' - - sax, Now, he had in his Winds extracts from the report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but did they speak of any such obstacles or diffi culties of collection ? Quite the reverse. They said, " So far, indeed, have our regulations been modified to meet the wishes of the paper-makers, that the duty as now charged is collected without any appreciable restrictions on the trade, and their complaints, which at one time were frequent, have entirely ceased." (Cheers.) Mr. Philips, of the laboratory department, confirmed this statement, and in stronger lan guage. In another report the commissioners said, "If the objections that can truly be urged against the paper duty were such as we are accustomed to hear most insisted upon in the case of excise duties generally—their restriction and oppression, incidences in th tax on paper—the advocates for the abolition might find it not very difficult to make out their case; but the fact is there is scarcely any trade in which interference is so little felt, or in which we are continually adapting our regulations to the we its and wishes of the manufacturers." But what *lid the Income Tax Commis- sioners as to the oppressive character of that inaptAt ? They said, in 1858, " It would be almost impossible to convey to any person unacquainted with the practical working of the income tax a notion of the labour that it entails upon this office, of the great variety and complexity of the questions brought before us, and the painful appeals constantly made to our compassion and forbearance. For persons are sot aware of the numerous and troublesome inquiries necessary in each case of application for remission or repayment. And inark this—the fact that upwards of 250,000 such claims are annually disposed of, these will convey a formidable impres sion of the difficulty experienced by the commissioners." (Hear, hear.) Talk of oppressive taxes—of taxes that in terfere with the skill, and enterprise, and hard industry of the people—where had they anything so alarming as this I' Again, was the pressure in this case greatest upon the rich ? If hon. gentlemen would refer to the returns they would find specified the number of persons of the diffe rent classes who contributed to the tax. He would take schedule D. By the last return it appeared that the num ber assessed under that schedule was 258,000, and of that number upwards of 200,000 were assessed upon incomes of under £3OO a-year. These were the people upon whom the tax was weighing heavily. It was not your great landed proprietor, your rich manufacturer, or your potential and powerful merchants, but your hard-worn tradesman and needy professional man. (Hear.) And yet he was to be told that this was a tax to be retained in preference to the paper duty. (Cheers.) The third point taken by the right hon. gentleman was, that the paper duty was becoming more and more untenable. Well, what was the best of its untenability ? That it was falling off. (Cheers.) He would make another comparison upon this point. The amount of paper manufactured had increased from 66,000,0001 b. in 1842, to 187,0000,0001 b. in 1858 ; and the amount of duty paid had risen from £634,000 to £1,281,000. Now, take the income-tax. In 1343 the total amount levied was £5,356,000 —in 1853 the total amount levied was £5,598,000, the in crease during 10 years of prcsperity being only about £200,000. The amount upon which the tax was assessed in 1843 was under schedule D, £52,279,000, and ix 1853 it had fallen off. but ho had not the precise figures. In 1857 it was £69,110,000, and in 1858 it had risen to £73,106,000, but this included the augmentation consequent upon bringing in all incomes down to COO a-year, the total of which charged in that year being £11,880,000. In 1858 the amount chargeable for incomes under £l5O was £12,843,000. If the Chancellor would take the amount now charged, de ducting these incomes, he wouldfind that there was actually a falling off in 1858 as compared with 1843, of nearly £2,000,000, But what, during the same time, were our ex• ports and imports ? Our exports had increased threefold ; manufacturing prosperity had gone on progressing; but the incomes chargeable to the tax had not risen. It would well become the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he had not better take off a portion of that tax instead of the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman re• ferred to the inequality and pressure of the paper duty—be tween the rich and the poor—but the inequality of the income-tax was 10 times, aye 20 times, greater as regardei incomes of £lOO and £l5O. (Hear, hear.) That alone would strongly induce him to vote for the motion of his hon. friend ; but if he wanted another reason, he would put it in the fact stated by the hon. baronet the mem ber for Stamford, that by forfeiting the ordinary source of revenue arising from the paper duty the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would have as great if not a grea ter deficiency in the next year and that he was only postponing his obligations for another 12 months, leaving either to himself or successor the difficult task of determining whe ther any, and if any, how much, of the property and income tax should continue a permanent part of our system of taxa tion. If in another year they were to deal with the defi ciency which yawned before them, they must do so either by reducing expenditure or by imposing the income tax at • still higher rate. A. reduction of expenditure it would be difficult to accomplish. Though he hoped much would be done in that direction he did not wish our armaments to be less efficient than they were now ; but he was convinced that we did not get our money's worth for what we ex pended. (Hear, hear.) Only gamblers would meet the defi ciency by reduction of expenditure, because to do so would only increase their embarrassment in the future. If, then, they were not able to reduce the expenditure to any great amount, as sure as he then spoke the identically same ques tion would come before them next year unsettled. (Hear.) They were taunted by members on the other side of the house with making this a party question; but he denied that they had done so, and he assured her Majesty's Go vernment that he had no intention, in voting for the mo• tion, to disturb them in their seats. (Hear, hear.) They were now placed in circumstances of far too grave a chaise. , ter to have Administrations changed year by year by mean, of party votes, and if the Government were just and mod*• rate, and by listening attentively to the unreasonable ob• jections urged on either side of the house, endeavoured to establish our financial arrangements on a better footing than they were at present, they need not fear any party opposi.. tion. (Hear, hear.) Party had nothing to do with the qu!)s• tion—at least so far as the great bulk of those around them were concerned. (Hear, hear.) They were living in times when the hands of the Executive required to be strengthened rather than weakened, and he for one was thoroughly con vinced that it was for the good of the country that any Aci• ministration sitting opposite should, as long as it did not provoke hostility, be fairly and firmly supported in conduct• ing the Government of this great kingdom. (Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—Having listened with attention, like the rest of the house, to the speech of my right hon. friend, I am free to confess that I find it perfectly easy to understand his premises apart from his conclusion, not less easy to understand his conclusion. - ee that is, the vote he means to give—apart from his premissee• But what the process is by which ray right hon. friend has combined such premisses with such a conclusion, I must say would have been received by me as a riddle more hope' less than that of the Sphinx, if it had been proposed to tee before the debate to-night. (Laughter.) My right hon. friend is favourable to the main features of the budget in their substance. He is favourable to the treaty with France, and wishes to see it well carried through. He le favourable to the Government—a most insignificant consi• deration in comparison with that I named before, but still • statement which, coming from him, I and every man tie* ceive with the most implicit credit. He is favourable to the maintenance of the Government ; and, being favourable tO the treaty, to the main features of the financial scheme and to the Government, he is about to vote for the motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Du Cane). (Cheers, and counter• cheers.) That is a process which may be perfectly interns , gible to some hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) But the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) will, I take it, have a share in this debate ; he, I have no doubt, means to slip• port the motion ; yet I will venture to lay what are termed very long odds that he does not found his support of the motion upon the propositions of my right hon. friend, but upon propositions which are in direct contradiction to them. (Cheers and laughter.) I won't attempt to follow my right hon. friend through the details of his speech. H e B are that we are subject—and I admit the charge —to great ddf• ficulty, in consequence of the number of questions we have to discuss. The best way of coping with that difficulty, I think, is to separate them one from the other, and discuss them in their order ; and, as we s h all have separate en d distinct opportunit i es of examining the treaty with Prancer of discussing the paper duty, and of considering , the in come-tax, I cannot enter into the smallest detail on any one of those thr ee questions. (Some laughter.) I am obliged to say one word, however, on what has fallen from my right hon. friend with regard to the relation of the 'Japer duties sad the income-tax, Ho positively in one part of his speech used language which would lead us to under• stand that the alternative before the Government when they came to their conclusion was whether they should retain the paper duty and dispense with the income-tax. (Nov no.) I beg pardon. I distinctly assert, in opposition to the gentleman who says " No"—and, at any rate, I may be al. , lowed to state my recollection—that in one part of hie speech my right hon. friend seemed to imply that the al• ternative with us was, whether we should keep the paper duties and get rid of the income-tax or whether we should keep the income- tax and part with the paper duties. (Net no.) My right hon. friend was very eloquent upon the diet• culties which attend the collection of the paper duty, and made light of those difficulties. On another occasion I will endeavour to show what those difficulties are, that my right hon. friend has not at all taken them into his view, and that the report of inland revenue quoted by him, which refers to a prior date, and does not express the present state of the question or the present views of the Board of Inland Revenue, is perfectly compatible with the proposition that those difficulties are of the most serious kind. (Hear.) He sets forth also the great difficulties which attend the levy.' ing of the income-tax ; but when we see before us this con clusion, that the difficulties of the paper duties are great, and that the difficulties of the income-tax are great, I say that it is wiser, if we can, to get one of the two as we pre pose, than _to keep both, as my right hon. friend proposes. (No, no.) It is, then, no question between the paper duty and the income-tax that we shall have to discuss. It is at the outside only a question between the paper duty and one tenth portion of the income-tax. (Hear.) But I pesos from that subject, because I think we have an issue before U, in a far broader form, and I shall endeavour to come as soon as I can to that issue. I will not, therefore, follow the right hon. and learned gentleman who spoke on a former night into the discussion on the alcoholic test on wines, or the hon. member for Buckingham into the question of contract notes and dock warrants. The contract note stamp is ld., and that moves his indignation, because it is so small, and he says, " Will you obstruct trade by this paltry tax But the dock warrant is 3d., and that moves his indignation because it is so great, and he says, " Will you overwhelm trade by this great duty ?" (Hear, and laughter.) The hon. member has the direst views for the future in conse quence of these painful measures, and when I see a man of the ability of my hon. friend the member for Huntingdon in a state of feverish apprehension, and fore-telling the direst results from the measures proposed, I naturally seek for consolation under circumstances so discouraging, and if I find that those gentlemen viewed on former occasions with the same and even more painful anxiety public measures which afterwards were adopted, approved, and vindicated to the satisfaction of the whole country, then I confess that I live in hopes that that which has happened before may happen again, and that, their gloomy views of the future turning out incorrect, I may count on their admitting hereafter the merits:of the measures they now denounces (Cheers.) The hon. member for Buckingham has certainly not had the same opportunities as the hon. member for Hun tingdon has had, but on great occasions we have found the en, member for Huntingdon among tlw most resolute and .1