The Sun. — London, England, 1860-05-22 00:00:00

his duty to support the second reading. He knew that in doing so he was acting in opposition to the opinion of a noble lord for whom he entertained sentiments of respect and ad miration, and that in taking an opposite view he resembled Daniel going out to meet the lions, without being certain of a Divine mission. He did not think it consistent with the spirit of the constitution for their lordships to make an ex treme use of their privileges. (Hear.) He thought the precedents qaoted and relied upon that evening did not justify the course which the Opposition proposed to take. None of the cases referred to were analogous to that under the immediate consideration of the House. (Hear, hear.) He would cordially support the second reading. (Hear.) The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said there could not be the slightest doubt but that the House of Lords had the power to reject this bill, but the question was, whether it was just or proper to do so. They should recollect that an additional income tax had been imposed on the distinct un derstanding that there was, by way of compensation, to be a remission of the paper duties. Now, he thought that if their lordships rejected this bill faith would be broken with the public. If this tax had not been imposed as a check upon literature, for what purpose had it been imposed P That object was openly avowed in the restrictions imposed in the reign of Queen Anne. Why, the paper used in the printing of the Bible was exempted from this tax, and for the avowed purpose of giving the Bible larger circulation. He was able to recollect what was the state of things 30 years ago, when the Government was continually employed against cheap impure publications ; but so great was the change which had occurred of late years that cheap publi cations, such as Chambers' Journal and others might be placed in the hands of their lordships' families. The paper duty, it should be remembered, was an export duty upon an article of large manufacture, and it was quite erroneous to say that the repeal of such a duty could possibly affect the public credit. The annoyance caused by the collection of this tax was so great that their lordships could not possibly be aware of its extent without inquiry. (Hear, hear.) The only effect the throwing out of this bill will produce would be to create trepidation throughout the country. It was said that they were in a sate of financial embarrassment, but the elasticity of the revenue was always greater under a reduction of taxation than other wise. They had the power in that house, no doubt, to reject this bill as well as other bills, but they would by so doing be getting up an agitation which would have a very serious effect upon the country. If they rejected this bill they would have that agitation which had not yet taken place in reference to the Reform Bill. Looking to the position of public affairs, he felt bound to vote against the amendment of the noble lord. The Duke of RUTLAND said the noble marquis had ad mitted that the finances of the country were in a state of great embarrassment, and yet he said he would vote for the remission of taxation to the amount of upwards of one mil lion. (Hear, hear.) He (the Duke of Rutland) must say he was much astonished at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the speech he had made in 1853, and after his pledge that in the year 1860 the income tax should be repealed. He at that time went into details to show to the House of Commons that the income tax was unjust and impolitic, and must be repealed. (Hear.) After quoting from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 'i3, he said the country might well feel astonished that in this year, 1860, that same gentleman as Chancellor of the Ex chequer came forward and proposed—not the repeal of the income tax, but that a tax which he had described as being so unjust and obnoxious should be increased, But, why on earth, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer found ho was not in a position to repeal the income tax, should he have proposed the repeal of the paper duty ? (Hear.) The noble earl (Granville) had alluded to the great prosperity of the country; and he (the Duke of Rutland) was glad to see that even under free trade there had been such increased pros perity. But he wished to show from returns that for a series of years recently, while the exports from England had been at the rate of 127 per cent., from France they had amounted to 156 per cent. ; while from Belgium they had amounted to 240 per cent. The promise of Sir Robert Peel with regard to the speedy extinction of the income tax ought to be faithfully observed, which it evidently could not be if the policy of her Ma jesty's Government were sanctioned by the house. The speech of the noble and learned lord near him had disposed of the question of the right of the house to deal with the matter, and he should not follow him into that question. With regard to the expediency of repealing the paper duty, however, he would say that, even if they had a surplus the paper duty had not a first claim. The malt tax had superior claims in many respects, inasmuch as it tended greatly to increase the price of beer, the drink of the poor man. He would only add that he thought, looking at the state of the revenue as shown by the noble lord opposite, that as next year there would be a deficiency of £11,000,000, he hoped their lordships would exercise the undoubted privilege they had of interfering to prevent the consummation of a step so imprudent and unwise. Lord CRANWORTH said that he felt this to be a ques tion which involved the house in a position of very con siderable difficulty. The step which their lordships were now about to take, if not altogether unconstitutional, was at least so thinly separated from it, that it merited to be so described. Their lordships of course had a right to throw out the bill. No tax could be repealed without an act of Parliament, and both houses must concur in passing that act. The noble and learned lord's quotations of 1689, therefore, did not advance the argument one step. The Commons objected to any alteration of a money bill in that house, and for this good reason, that it could not be adopted without the concurrence of the Commons. But he (Lord Cranworth) said that from that time to this, no example of refusing the repeal of a tax under the circumstances in which they were now called upon to repeal one, was to be found. The Crown had already communicated to the country the amount of supply necessary for the service of the ensuing year, and the money had been voted in cons inittee of Ways and Means. All the financial arrange ments for the year had been made, and being told distinctly that there was no occasion for the rejection of the tax, he said again that there was no example of its repeal being re fused under such circumstances. The noble lord had given the case of a coasting trade bill. He had endeavoured to obtain a sight of that bill, but as the bills were not printed in those days, he had not succeeded. Probably, however, the House of Commons had coupled with that bill something which they ought not to have coupled, so that it was not actually refusing the bill. That was the case with respect to the bill of 1811, about molasses, also referred to by the noble lord. That bill was introduced at a time when the price of corn was at its height, and the object of the bill was to reduce the duty on molasSes, in order that distillation might go on from sugar and not from corn. The bill came up on the 6th of May, but it was im portant to observe that the financial statement of the Go vernment was not made before the 20th of May. It was introduced at that early time in order that the Government might ascertain beforehand the opinion of the great land holders in that house, but it was opposed by the Earl of Suffolk of the day, who said he was glad the question was not to be made a party question, but that the bill would be resisted as an attempt to relieve West Indian interests at the expense of English ones. The bill was rejected. The course, taken by the Government, therefore, was open to objection on totally different grounds, yet their lordships were now called upon to say, upon such an authority, that the paper duty, though not required for the service of the year, ought to be retained. (Hear.) The noble and learned lord near him also cited somecases in which that house had thrown out bills sent up from the Commons, but the pre cedents would be found to be equally invalid, if their sub stance were looked into. He could not conclude without saying, that if this was to be the first occasion on which their lordships meant to take a step not sanctioned by one substantial precedent from the time of the Revolution, they were adopting a course fraught with the utmost danger to the high position which they now enjoyed in the estima tion of the country, and which they might continue to hold belong as they abstained from interfering with the privi leges of the other house. Lord CHELMSFORD —I undoubte'ly thought, after the admirable speech of my noble and learned friend at the commencement of the evening, that the constitutional part of this question was entirely settled—(cheers) —and I do not understand, though I have listened with the greatest atten tion to my noble and learned friend (Lord Cranworth), whether he means to deny the principles upon which the constitutional proposition has been established, or whether he merely means to submit to your lordships that because it would be unprecedented to interfere in the way proposed, therefore it would be impolitic and inexpedient for you to do so. My noble and learned friend does not deny the power of the house to refuse its assent to this bill. We have heard no denial of that proposition, and none, indeed, can be offered ; because it stands to reason that if your assent is required before this bill can bec ome law, it necessarily fol lows that you must have the power of withholding your assent—this, in other words, being the power of rejecting. (Hear.) We are all agreed as to the privileges of the two Houses of Parliament with respect to money bills. We are agreed in reference to bills of supply and taxation that your lordships have, at all events, the power to reject them. You have to a certain extent admitted that you have no power to alter money bills, and a resolution of the Commons to that effect was passed in 1678. Your lordships, however, have never absolutely admitted that you have no power to alter money bills, though you have acquiesced to a certain extent in that resolution, and have taken care not to exercise that which may still be the privilege of your lordships' house, or if you have exercised it the other ho. se has taken care to assert its own privileges in such a manner as not to violate the constitutional rights of either House of Parliament. There are many instances since 1678 in which your lord ships have made amendments in money bills. Those bills have then gone down to the Commons, and supposing the Commons have not thought those amendments improper, they have preserved their privileges and asserted their dig nity by refusing to assent to the bill, but have introduced another bill embodying the amendments proposed by the Lords. In that way the privileges of both Reims of Par liament have been maintained. I understocd my noble and learned friend who has just spoken not to deny tbe prin ciples asserted by Lord Lyndhurst, but he says that the course which the house is called on to pursue is entirely unprecedented and dangerous, therefore, to be adopted. My noble and learned friend maintained that the prece dents which had been brought before the house are not at all like the present case; but two cases have been pointed out in which this house rejected bills for the reduc tion of taxation. It has been stated that those bills were rejected partly for political and partly for economical reasons. If they were rejected by your lordships for economical reasons, that is a proof that in dealing with money bills t his house exercised a power which would hardly be contended for by those who say that your lordshipshave no right to interfere in these matters. The precedent of 1811, which my noble friend tries to disable, he has, I think, found too strong for him. That was the case both of the remission and imposition of taxation ; and on that occasion this house rejected the bill. The Commons, in. stead of making any complaint that there had been an in fringement of their privileges, silently introduced another bill, and that bill became law. (Hear, hear.) My noble and learned friend appears to have been reading the journals of the day, and to have adopted the argument which I saw in the leading article of one of them, to the effect that it is the duty of the Commons, as undoubtedly it is, to provide the ways and means for the supply of the year, and that this house has no right to interfere at all with those ways and means, but is bound to adopt them. Now, suppose one of the ways and means devised by the Commons should be a tax highly objectionable and known to be one which the people at large regard with no favour or satisfaction, though it is admitted that the assent.of this house is re quired for the bill, and, though it is equally admitted that this house has the power not to assent to it, yet in the same breath we are told that we must not touch the ways and means provided by the Commons. Is it possible that such an argument can prevail with your lordships ? If your lordships have the power and the right you have also the corresponding duty to decide upon this bill ; and I ask you whether you are not bound to reject it, seeing that the tak ing off of this tax will render necessary an increase of the income-tax and the maintenance of the duties on tea and sugar; though, according to an observation he had read, if the nation were polled, not one in a thousand would be found to be in favour of the remission of this tax. (Hear, hear.) If we are ever to exercise the right, what better oc casion could be offered than the present ? If we refuse to adopt the amendment, the consequence will be that a prece dent will be firmly established, and it will be said that when the occasion arose which called for the interference of this house we abstained from that interference, showing, there fore, in the strongest possible manner our own impression that we had not the power or right to interfere. (Hear, hear.) I cannot understand what my noble and learned friend meant by the last solemn warning he addressed to the house. He seemed to think that there was something impending on your lordships, and which we should draw down on ourselves by rejecting the present bill. I must say that we incur a much greater danger by refusing to concur in the amendment, because then we show that we are merely ciphers in the constitution--(hear, hear) —and that we have no power in respect to any measure in which the public may be most deeply interested, if it is only stamped with the magical name of a Money Bill. (Hear, hear.) I say, if you lose this opportunity of showing you have the power of in terference, and of doing the greatest possible good to the public, you depose yourselves from the exercise of those im portant functions which belong to you by the constitution, and will certainly thereby bring down on yourselves in finitely more mischief than that which appeared to be threatened by the noble and learned lord as the result of the adoption of the amendment. (Hear, hear.) The Duke of ARGYLL observed that many objections to the bill had reference to the political aspects of the treaty with France, but he could assure the house that he believed the Emperor of the French was a free-trader, and that the treaty had nothing whatever to do with politics. He trusted that that treaty would lay the foundation of more amicable relations with France. So far as the inten- tions of the Government were concerned he wished to dis claim the imputation that they wasted to break down in direct taxation, and impose heavy burdens on the owners of property. This was not the intention of the Government. He never heard any such principle mooted by any member of the Government, nor did he believe that any such inten tion existed. Not only did he disclaim this as part of the principles of the Government, but he declared his convic- tion that direct taxation had arrived at a point that it could not be maintained. (Opposition cheers.) Such a system could not be maintained in a time of peace. Never theless, by no means could the Government maintain the finances of the country with a lower income-tax. Some thought that a lower income-tax than 9d. in the pound might have sufficed, but those who considered the question minutely th,,ught otherwise. He was opposed to a high rate of income-tax. It was imposed first to remedy a deficiency, and enable the Government to promote commercial reform. Since Sir Robert Peel introduced the income-tax there were three triennial periods, and then periods of two years. When Sir R. Peel carried the income-tax, the immediate object was to remedy a financial deficit. That having been done, he advised Parliament to continue the tax, in order that he might carry some great measures of commercial reform. In 1848 Lord John Russell's Government proposed an increase of the tax. That proposal was a great mistake, but then there had been the famine in Ireland and a revolution in Europe, which circumstances would account in some mea sure for the increased impost. It was to meet and to enable the Government of Lord J. Russell to cope with the emer gencies of the time that a continuance of the income-tax was proposed, a-id the increase of the income-tax, he (the Duke of Argyll) thought, should always be accompanied with an extensive system of commercial reforms. He would not now dwell on the great question of Parliamentary pri vilege. In the course of the debate the members of the Go vernment had been supposed to be in accordance with the opinions which had been propounded by Mr. Bright. Now he (the Duke of Argyll) was bound to say that, in the House of Commons, they had seen the Conservative party not un willing to accept of the support of Mr. J. Bright. Be it re membered that in July, 1853, Mr. Disraeli deprecated the maintenance of the Excise duty on paper, but he did n t think it fair to hamper the Government with a declara tory resolution ; but he added, that it was not the only indirect tax which required their consideration, and in which there was great room for improvement, and he concluded by saying that the tax ox paper was one that required immediate consideration, and that that tax and other branches of revenue required their severe supervi sion. The noble duke (Rutland) had referred to the speech of Mr. Gladstone in 1853, and had blamed him for increas ing and continuing the income tax after that speech, but the noble duke seemed to forget that circumstances had com pelled the continuance of the income tax, and especially the commercial reforms with which that measure was associated. (Hear.) All the taxes repealed by Sir R. Peel came under one of four heads—thatof being protective, trivial, or expen sive in collection, or, as in the case of the paper duty, it in terfered with the process of manufacture. Now, under one of those heads the taxes remitted by the present Govern ment would be found to be classed. He held in his hand the tariff, as amended by Mr. Gladstone, which contained 48 articles, and which made the hairs on the heads of some noble lords stand on end. Some 350 articles had been swept away from the revenue because of their producing insignificant revenue, and only 48 articles had now beenre tained.by Mr. Gladstone. So carefully had Mr. Gladstone been to keep on duties which were really paying that he had imposed upcn chicory a tax of about £l,OOO a year, which had enabled him to dispense with the tax upon a number of small articles. Taking it generally the speech of Mr. Glad stone was confined strictly to facts, and it was one which made few appeals to the feelings or the sympathy of the house. It was to be remarked that in the speeches that night, comparatively little had been said as to the effect of the duty upon paper. The tariff bill, which was con demned so much by noble lords opposite, actually imposed more duties than it took off, and that upon articles of large general consumption. Therefore it was wrong to say that the property of the country had alone been taxed to provide for the defences of the country. (Hear, hear.) If they regarded the commerce of the country in a proper light, they could not condemn this paper tax in the way in which it had been tone, and he held it to be impossible that the duty on paper could be regarded as a source of per manent revenue after the decision which had been arrived at upon the subject by the House of Commons. He now came to the last point upon which he intended to touch, the right of the house to refuse its sanction to a bill sent up to it from the Commons. He would be the last member of that house to deny that right, but the right was one thing and the con stitutional exercise of it was another. Their lordships were now aiming at the condemnation of a policy which had been eminently successful. The 'paper duty, which it was the object of the bill to abolish, had been twice condemned, and that was reason enough why their lordships should refrain from exercising their constitutional powers. They were now aiming at the very basis of the constitutional relations be tween the two houses, as determined by the precedents. Those which the noble lord quoted did not affect the ques tion, inasmuch as they all referred to money bills, and not one to bills of supply. He said it on the authority of others, but he believed there was no example since the Revolution of their lordships having thrown out a bill of supply, and bills of supply were expressly and on the face of them de clared to be such by a particular paragraph in the preamble. Noble lords opposite had rather made light of a circumstance which had a strong moral obligation in it. In the passing of the budget through the other house it was decided that the repeal of the paper duty should take place, and that a penny should be added to the income tax. If the other house had foreseen that their lordships would throw out this bill, it is quite possible that they would have taken a different course. That being so, there was an obligation which this house owed to,the other, for which he hoped some regard would be shown. With regard to the predicted deficit, he would observe that that had been prophesied in 1858, and Sir G. C. Lewis in vain replied to Mr. Disraeli's objections, that he had con fined his calculations to the period to which he was bound to look. The result falsified the prophecy, for the revenue was £2,000,000 greater than was anticipated. A similar result, he confidently believed, would follow now, from the great commercial changes which the Government were pro posing to the country. For some time past there had been a cessation of songs of triumph through the country. Th e people had trusted to the security of the budget, but the seeds of distrust had arisen, and the issue was hourly looked forward to with feelings of doubt and anxiety. How ever he might regret an adverse vote of their lordships on the motion of the noble baron, he was confident that that policy which was commenced by Mr. Huskisson, and matured by the late Sir Robert Peel, and now further ad vanced by her Majesty's Government, would triumph not withstanding ; and he could not but lament that their lord- •-1 ;;r 4 - 17 1 -1' 7 THE SUN, !LONDON, 'TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 22, 1860. hon. gentleman. Whether I refer to the strict binding pledges which were given by the Government that the in come-tax should finally expire in 1860, to the feeling that the falling in of the Long Annuities should be used as a means of affording relief, not in the shape of indirect taxes, but to contribute to the abolition of the income-tax—Whether I look to the necessity of looking beforehand to another year, and not being satisfied to deal with the manses of one year only —whether I look to the necessity of postponing the abolition of the paper duty, or the necessity of abrogating the war duties on tea and sugar—upon all these points I am happy to say I have the high authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, placing himself thereby in direct opposition and hostility to the right hon. gentlemat who was then Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and whois now his colleague at the head of the Home Department. (Cheers.) In the first place, let me deal with the finances of the last and present year, according to the statement cf the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. gertleman was anxious to show what would have been the surplus for the year 1659- 60 if unexpected causes had not arisen to increase expen diture on the one hand and diminish the produce of taxes on the other. Even by taking advantage of a very unex pected sum received from Spain in payment of an old debt —for which, I believe, he was mainly indebted to the exer tions of my noble friend the late foreign Secretary—the right hon. gentleman made the expenditure and income exactly alike. This year tne ektimated revenue is £60,700,000 ; the estimated expenditure, £70,000,000 - you might call it £71,000,000, because there is £1,060,000 of Exchequer bonds which have to be provided fur in some way this year. That leaves a deficiency of £9,400,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer offered us various modes of filling this up; for instance, there were the tea and sugar duties which might be teept on, which would make £2,100,000, or we might have a 9d. income tax. He says an income tax at 9d. will produce £9,772,030, and will give a surplus of £372,000. Well, my lords, in the circum stances in which this country was placed, and looking to the causes which necessitated such great expenditure— which was not an outlay of the ordinary character, but a war expenditure in the time of peace, which became abso lutely necessary for the security and for the safety of the country—l do not believe the slightest objection would have been raised to the imposition of the 9d. income tax, providing t was shown to be necessary for the safety and security of the country. And, although it would not have been as striking and as brilliant a budget as that brought forward by the right hon. gentleman, in my opinion it would have been one more likely to receive the general assent and sanction of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) But the right hon. gentleman thought this was a fit occasion for a display of his matchless rhetorical powers. Having had the pleasure of listening to that most eloquent and most able speech, I came away with the fullest conviction that such a budget as was then proposed, such a financial arrangement, combining so many difficulties and so many dangers, never could have commanded the consent of any legislative assembly if they had not been so dazzled by the brilliancy of the rhetoric of the right bon. gentleman as to be willing to blind their eyes to the dan gerous consequences of that reckless career on which he was urging them to enter. (Cheers.) With a deficiency of £9,400,000, the right hon. gentleman proceeded to make his statement, and, adopting the principle which seems also to have been followed by the noble duke opposite—who contended that because you could not strike off the income tax at all, you might therefore proceed to enlarge the defi ciency—(hear, hear, and a laugh)—he proposed that you should make great experiments in finance. I shall not stop to show how completely different the measures now proposed by her Majesty's Government are from those successive systems and plans originated by the late Sir R. Peel ; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down this paradoxical doctrine :—Most persons hold the opinion that periods of prosperity, in which the revenue is fairly productive, are those in which you ought to make financial amendments and improvements ; on the contrary, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is quite a mistake ; the worse the position of your affairs, the more desperate your deficiency, the more serious your loss and the greater your dangers, the more imperative is the necessity for an audacious and daring Minister to enlarge that deficiency and to increase the difficulties, so that you may take your chance of throw ing " double or quits." (Cheers.) You are already half through, he tells you ; one more dashing move, it is possible you may recover your fortunes, and if you fail you cannot be much worse off than you were before. My lords, I say that is not the policy of a statesman—it is the policy of a desperate and improvident gambler. (Loud cheers.) What is the course the right hon. gentleman proposes to take ? Finding a deficiency of £9,400,000, he introduces a further deficiency by the French treaty, which he esti • mates at a gross loss of £1,737,000, or a net loss of £1,190,000. I take all his figures as I find them, and I suppose him to be perfectly accurate in his calculations. The loss by the abolition of the Customs' duties is set down in the gross at £1,440,000, or £910,000 net ; and he winds up the whole by the abolition of the paper duties at the net sum of £900,000 for the present year. In this manner he increased the deficiency of £9,400,000 by £3,090,000, and he left the House of Commons to deal with the very nice little deficit of £12,490,000. Now, how did he deal with that amount ? In the first place he proposed a number of new charges, and these numerous petty and vexatious im posts on commerce will, I believe, be found productiv© in practice of infinitely more embarrassment and annoyance than the trifling reduction in the duties will compensate for. (Hear.) He estimated that from new charges and savings on the Customs establishment he would realise £982,000 ; he continued the war duties on tea and sugar ; from which he derived £2,100,000 ; he put on an income tax of 10d. in the pound, producing £8,472,000, and carry ing out the principle which pervades the whole of this budget, by a new arrangement of the income tax he ma naged to get in for the present year a larger amount than would be yielded by the ordinary mode of imposition. In stead of half a year's proportion of the tax he is to receive three quarters of the amount in the present year, in addi increase the deficit which will have to be encountered in the year 1861-62. (Hear, hear.) In the 'same year the Fo reign-office and the Colonial-office had been found to be dangerous fr r inhabitation. Plans have been framed, and I expected that this year vie should have seen the erection of a new Foreign-office, if not also of a Colonial-office. But no, it is not so ;. but if the expenditure does not fall upon this year it must fall upon the diminished resources of 1861- 2. Therefore I say that, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own figures, and only allowing for those cor- rections which are absolutely necessary to make, and which have not been denied by the right hon. gentleman's col leagues, even for the present year there will not only not be a surplus of £461,000, but there will be no surplus at all ; and, as it does not need the gift of prophecy to show, theie will be a considerable deficiency, even supposing the Chancellor of the Excheluer's calculations to be correct. Again, we must remember another element of danger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated upon a loss upon French wines of £1,700,000; but, in consequence of increased consump tion, it would be only £1,100,000. To make up that loss the consumption of French wine must increase in•the course of three-quarters of a year no less than 35 per cent., and that without affecting—for if it did it would alter the whole balance—without affecting the consumption of beer or spirits. (Hear.) Then, again, as to the trifling articles amounting to £910,000, a net estimate of loss open . a gross loss of £1,040,000; and yet I do not know where the great increase of consumption is come from, seeing that upon a greater portion of those articles the duties are remitted alto gether. (Hear, hear.) Now, before I proceed further, this is, perhaps, a convenient time to deal with the finan • cial prospects of 1861-2. lam assuming that , the expen diture for 1861-2 will be no greater than that of the present year—that is, £70,100,000 ; and the amount by which it is under-estimated, £230,000, makes it £70 r 330,000. The re venue of 1860-1 is £70,664,000. From that sum we have to deduct the malt and hop credits, which will not be available again, £1,400,000 ; the Spanish payment, £250,000 ; the loss upon the tariff, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, £700,000; and another sum of £150,000, being the difference of the balance of in come tax for the first quarter of a year. These sums taken together make £2,500,000; and therefore, supposing all other things to remain as they are, the surplus in 1861-2 will be less or the deficiency greater bythat amount,redttcing the amount of the income for 1861-2 to £68,064,000, leaving a deficiency of £2,266,000. That is, supposing the Chan cellor of the Exchequer's calculations are all correct, that no reserve for China be necessary, that there be no charge for building offices, no charge for fortifications—admitting none of these matters which are postponed from this year, and must fall into some succeeding year; admitting the continuance for another year of the income tax and the war duties on tea and sugar, giving him every source of revenue upon which he has calculated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme will lead to a deficiency in 1861-2 of £2,268,000. (Hear_) I did state, as the noble earl has remarked, to the deputation which I saw on Saturday that I would not ask your lordships to reject this bill unless I could show that upon the statement of the Chancellor of Exchequer himself there was every probability that in 1861-2 there would be a deficiency approaching t0£2,000,000. I have shown you it must be £2,000,000, and will probably be much more. (Hear.) I said I would not only confine my self to the faets and figures of the right hon. gentleman, but upon the various points of the budget to which 1 ob ject I would produce the sanction of his high authority. And first, my lords, as to the pledges, to use the right hon. gentleman's own terms in 1863, that measures should be taken, or, as he phrased it, every nerve should be strained, to take off the income tax in 1860. lam not finding fault with him for not taking off the income tax in 1860, because I know circumstances have been too strong; but what I am contending for is this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to say that the large falling in of £2,400,000 afforded him means, or could be made a justification., for taking off a corresponding amount of indirect taxation, inasmuch as that very sum was known to be about to fall in during the present yesr, and had been assumed by him as a main reason for removing the income-tax in 1860. (Hear.) Listen to the statement of Mr. Gladstone in 1853 " How are we to obtain a rational prospect of being able to part with the income-tax in 1860. . . estimated tax, £6,140,000 ; new sources of income, £2,549,000 ? Then we come to the anticipated reductions of charge, which of course will be as effectual to the purpose in view as positive additions to the revenue. The first of those reductions of charge is that on the Three-and-a-Quarter per Cents., which we owe to the wise measure of the right hon. member for Cambridge in 1844. That measure will bring to the account £624,000 Then in 1859-60 there will fall in the heavy burden of the Long Annuities, and of another large portion of pur terminable annuities. The first of these is £1,292,000, the second £854,000; to gether they will operate a relief of £2,146,000. Adding this amount to the sum of £3,813,000 there will be an available increase of means of no less an amount than £5,959, against the £6,140,000 of income-tax, which will be the total amount of that tax at that period. In the years 1860-61 half of the income-tax at sd. will be available. The balance will be applicable as respects the following year. The committee may now judge whether I have been justified in the language I have used with re spect to the surrender of the income-tax." The motion then made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, that in April, 1800, except as to the collec , ion of moneys then due, the said rates and duties shall cease and determine. That was in 1853, and, no doubt, the circum stances have since altered. But, in 1857, and this sup ports me in another argument, viz., as to the necessity of looking ahead and providing not only for the service of the present year, but for future years, the following moti m was made by Mr. Disraeli, as -an amendment to the finan cial statement of the right hon. gentleman now Home Sec- retary " That in the opinion of this house it would be expe dient, before sanctioning the financial arrangements for the ensuing ye tr, to adjust the estimated income and expen diture in the manner which shall appear best calculated to secure the country against the risk of a deficiency in the years 1858.9 and 1859-60, and to provide for such a balance of revenue and charge retpectively in the year 1860 as may place it in the power of Parliament at that period, without embarrassment to the finances, altogether to remit the in come tax." That motion was supported by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I must say in the speech he then made he bore somewhat hardly upon his new colleague who then filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must now also do him the justice to say that the budget he has now brought forward is very much in accordance with the views he then expressed, but if ho had endeavoured to frame a budget in such a manner as to negative every proposition laid down by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not have done so more faithfully and successfully than he has done. (Hear, hear.) What were the main points of Sir G. Lewis's budget in 1857 ? That it was not ex pedient to abolish the paper duties ; that it was not expe dient to do away with the wine duties ; and that it was of great importance that you should not so reduce the tariff to a small number of articles as to diminish the number of articles over which the taxation of the country was spread. The budget of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer goes upon the principle that you should abolish the paper duties, that you should abolish the wine duties, and that you should simplify the tariff so as tc, make it comprise the smallest number of articles possible ; and his predecessor in office bad the satisfaction of sitting behind him and hearing these principles enunciated, and of giving to them, of course, his cordial approbation, (Laughter.) As lam going back to the question of pledges, your lordships will observe the language in which Mr. Gladstone commenced his speech on that occasion : tion to the one-fourth which remained for the service of the year, arising from the previous sd. income tax. Even this would hive left him in a deficiency of something like a million after taking his new charges : and so, after he had continued the present war duties on tea and sugar, after he had saddled the country with an income tax of 10d. in the pound, three-fourths of which was to be raised in the first half-year, he found it necessary to take for:the year 1860-61 the malt and hop credits, amounting to £1,400,000, which properly belong to the ser vice of the years 1861-62. (Cheers.) And thus by anticipating revenues, he converted his large deficit into an apparent surplus of £164,000, at the expense of the year 1861-62, and without making the slightest provision to meet the difficulties which must then come upon the Exchequer. (Cheers.) I said an apparent surplus of £464,000, but the noble earl has admitted in the first place one very manifest error, arising from a very shr ple cause. The Budget esti mate for the collection of revenue was £4,700,000, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing forward this bril liant budget forgot that the cost of collecting the income tax was by poundage ; and consequently the increased pro duction of the income-tax was acquired at an increased charge, so that when the estimates are brought forward the amount no longer stands at £4,700,000, but at £4,932,000, being an increase of £232,000, or exactly half the estimated surplus. The noble duke behind me pointed out, and it has not since been denied--that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been compelled to admit drawback to the extent of £250,000 on this very paper duty. That of itself would be sufficient altogether to exhaust the remaining surplus for the present year, and leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer "I have stood at that box, sir, and have addressed the House of Commons, and I have received on the part of the Government to which I belonged the assent of the House of Commons to financial plans which were in every point con tradictory to those which are now proposed. How it is that hon. gentlemen still sitting onthose (the Treasury) benches find such facility for giving assent to contradictory propo sitions it is not for me to say—(much laughter)—but of this I am convinced, that if I may assume to exist in this House of Commons the same feelings which existed four years ago—l do not mean as to questions which were the subjects of party contentions, but-as to the duty of balancing income and expenditure—the express pledges which were given to the country on the subject of the income-tax will be rigorously maintained." Well, my lords, it was hinted, meekly hinted—that there were circumstances previous to 1857 which might modify these pledges. No. He would not listen to any such pro posal. True, he did own that he had been deceived in his estimate of the Succession Duty, respecting which I may say that there has never been a more gross and signal failure in a financial point of view, while, at the same time, upon those luckless individuals who have become subjected to the tax it has pressed with the utmost seve rity. (Cheers.) In 1857 there had been a failure in Mr. Gladstone's expectations respecting the Suc cession Duty, and there was also the trifle of the Russian war. Mr. Gladstone was not then Chancellor of the Exchequer, but Sir Cornwall Lewis was. Then with 'eyed eloquence the right hon. gentleman exclaimed that those circumstances were not sufficient to absolve the house from those pledges, and that, as the person upon whom they mostpressed, he should not feel absolved, inhonour or in con science, from the duty of straining every nerve still to uphold and carry out those pledges. Was 1857 the last occasion on which this language fell from the Chancellor of the Exche quer ? By no means ; for when my right hon. friend, being then Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward that comprehensive scheme which came to its final termination in 1860, proposing not to interfere with the fall of the income tax, the right hon. gentleman quite concurred with him : " It is perfectly true," he said, " th It the war has made a permanent addition to your burdens of about £1,250,000 per annum; but no one will say that a change in the circum stances of the country to that extent is of itself sutEctent to cause an abandonment of the expectations which the coun try has been taught to entertain witll regard to the extinc tion of the income tax." Up to 188, therefore, we find the Chancellor of the Ex chequer declaring that he was bound by the most solemn pledges that he must positively redeem those pledges, that he depended on the falling-in of the Long Annuities to en able him to reduce the income tax ; and now, when these annuities have fallen in, he feels it to be his first duty to apply the amount in the remission of indirect duties, and not of income tax. (Cheers.) There is something more. The right hon. gentleman says, in reference always to this ,reduction of the income-tax : "An hon. member, I think very naturally, cries out for_ the abolition of the paper duty ; another gentleman calls for the extinction of the hop duty ; another speaks in a nYosti touching manner of the advantages to bo derived from the with a deficiency. My noble friend the President of the Council, in his opening speech, stated that some further concessions, which were estimated at £lOO,OOO, had been made. When we come to look at other questions, I think it will be manifest that even in the present year the Chan cellor of the Exchequer has landed us in a most formidable deficiency, and to that you wish voluntarily, spontaneously, and unnecessarily to contribute to the amount of a million by the abolition of the paper duty. (Cheers.) The miscellaneous estimates are seven in number, and they were taken at £7,500,000. The six already presented amount to £6,644,000. The seventh has not yet been pre sented, but if the estimated amount for the whole be £7,500,00 0 , it follows that for the seventh there is only left the sum of £855,000. The similar article for the miscel laneous estimates last year amounted to £1,128,239, and therefore, to bring it within the seventh estimate with the stipulated amount of £855,000, you must accomplish a saving this year of £272,000. But on the whole of the re maining £6,644,000 you have only effected a retrenchment to the extent . of £107,000, and I therefore leave your lordships to conjecture what chance there is of your saving £272,000 out of a total sum of £855,000. (Hear, hear.) We are told that in the budget credit was taken for a vote of £500,000, which, I suppose, mist be taken in addition to the sums voted for the military and naval forces engaged in the Chinese war. And, therefore, by whatever amount the expenses of the war in China exceed that vote of credit of £soo,ooo—and we may be sure that it will not be a trivial excess—by so much will there be, on the showing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an addition to the deficiency in his budget for the present year. I should like to hear some explanation on this point, and perhaps the noble lord the Under Secre tary of State for the War Department will enlighten me on this subject. lie will remember that the Army Estimates were taken back and altered after they had been laid on the table of the house, in consequence of the arrangements of the Government having been materially interfered with by a number of troops which were sent back from India. They were altered, but they were increased by a very small amount indeed. I want to know the meaning of this. The establishment was added to by 1,900 men, in addition to those charged on the previous estimates, and those men had, I suppose, to be clothed, provisioned, and stores found for them ; end yet, although a slight addition was made on ac count of the men, I find no addit ion for any articles of cloth ing, provision, or storage. I want to know how this addi tional expenditure is provided for, since it does not appear in the budget. I believe the vote of credit of £500,000 will be mainly absorbed by these items ; but at the present mo ment we are unable to obtain the slightest information on the point. In the budget for the present year no reference is made to any contemplated outlay for fortifications with a view to the defence of the country, and yet we . are given to understand that it will be necessary to ex pend a large sum of money in this manner. Any portion of this charge -which may be incurred in the present year must .__ . ;r ------ abolition of the malt-tax. Some of these proposals may be had produced the estimated amount even without the eys unreasonable, and some of them ma) be and are very rea- tern of refreshment houses which formed part of the &an eonable ; but at this time, owing to the state of our expen eial scheme of the Government. It was possible that there diture, we are not only precluded from the process of mightre be a ficiency next year, but that - was a matter dustier of debt, but pro hided from carrying forward bene- . which could not be dealt with at the present moment. He ficial changes in our commercial sy stem:' And thereupon the paper duties, on account of the state maintained that the Government would not have been jus of the expenditure, could not be reduced in that year. Now tified in proposing a 10d. income-tax for a term of years in tho estimated - eveniliture in 1858 was £67,000,000, the the absence of any knowledge whether it would be required. estimated.income £63,000,000, leaving a deficit of £4,000,000. In conclusion, he hoped their lordships or the public would In the present year • the estimated expenditure is not be led away by the calculations of the noble earl with 170,100,000, and the receipts are £60,700,000, leaving a de- respect to next year—calculations in which he had refused ficit not of £4,000,000, but £9,400,000, besides those little to take into account a sum of £1,200,000 which would then items which we won't talk about at present, notwithstand- be available. ing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he is Their lordships then divided. The numbers were— bound to take off the very paper duty which the state For the second reading— -90 of the revenue prevented him from dispensing with in 1858. Present ....... 14 (Cheers.) But really the number of objections which I Proxies . could ad vance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's' sc h eme, Total 104 and which have the sanction of the Chancellor of the Ex- Against,— chequer himself, render his speech on this memorable occa - Present .............................. 161 32 sion as useful to me as my speech the ,other day was to my Proxies —193 noble friend. (Laughter.) He considers it Of the u t most Total. ... . . .................. itnpoitante that an accurate estimate should be taken, not only ' for the expenditure of the current year, but of the year following; and no Chancellor of the Ex chequer ever stood such an attack and such an amount of bantering respecting his inability to produce such an estimate as Sir C. Lewis did from Mr. Gladstone. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) On one point the right hon. gentleman was particularly eloquent and impressive, and that was upon the propriety of having a large margin in the estimates for a war in which they were engaged, and the expenditure of which was not provided in the budget of the year. Now, only subititute the word " China" for " Persia," and you might at the present moment read to the right hon. gentleman from his own speech just that which he then read to Sir C. Lewis : " When we recollect that we have to carry on two wars . in the East, and that the right hon. gentleman has not called upon us to vote any money for the expenses of those wars ' • that among all the votes he has submitted to Parliament he has not asked for one farthing for the Chi nese war, while, with respect to the Persian war, he finds it the most convenient course to keep it as long as possible out of sight—can you believe, with these considerations before you, that the right hon.. gentleman is correct in his esti mate of £900,000 surplus ? He confines himself, as to the Persian war, to covering the expenses of last year, anddoes not call upon us to vote any money for its charge in 1857-8. If there be any life in the House of Commons, any sense of its constitutional duty, it will not allow the Persian war to be conducted on those principles. I give the fullest notice that I do not understand it to be the function of the repre sentatives of the people, while attending in this house, to allow wars to be begun by the Government, to be carried on by the Government, without any explanation or estimate of the charges being submitted to us until after the conclu sion of the war. After the money has been spent and the lives of our countrymen sacrificed, the little bills are pre sented, and we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have nothing to do but to consider how they shall , be paid. That is not my understanding of our duties as representatives of the people. If the Government form such an estimateof our duties, I tell them that I for one will never conform to that estimate, and if the House of Com mons shall be of the same determination as myself, we shall invite the Government to give us a distinct explana tion of the character and expenses of those wars. If they decline our invitation we shall urge them to do so ; and, if they still refuse, we must coerce them by our votes to gives us an estimate of the expenses of the Persian war, that we may know precisely what it is before the war goes further, and not allow ourselves to be kept in ignorance of it until the war is over." One point more. The budget is proposed to be taken, not for a period of three years, which has the high approbation of the noble duke opposite, and which, according to him, would give time for the great commercial change which he thinks very desirable, but it holds good for one year only; and it is to be taken for that peripd for the purpose of en abling the future Parliament, hoivever constituted, to deal freely with the finances of the country at a moment when you have created a deficit of £12,000,000, and by repealing the paper duties have dried up that source for supplying the deficit. What did Mr. Gladstone say in March, 1857 ? " The hon. and learned member for Newcastle (Mr.Head lam) says that the only way to keep the income taxunder our control is to vote it from year to year. Now, I beg leave to differ in opinion altogether from the hon. member. I believe that the - transition from voting it for a term of years to that of voting it from year to year is the sign of another transition which we should endeavour by all means to shun, namely, a transition from a solid and steady system of finance to a vacillating and merely provisional system of finance." (Cheers) I leave it to the right hon. gentleman, with all his eloquence and ability—and no one admires theni 3 more than I do—to reconcile these two principles. One more de claration on the subject of finance was made by the right hon. gentleman in 1857. He said the house was called on to take a burden off the shoulders of the wealthy classes in order to impose ta• es on tea and sugar, which wore arti cles consumed by the poor man ; that he entertained a de cided opinion against such a proposition ; and that before the Speaker left the chair, if health and strength re mained to him, he should endeavour to induce the house, whatever taxes were proposed, not to levy more on the tea and sugar of the poor man. I have endeavoured, my lords, to show, and I said I would at the outset, that whatever objections I entertain to this budget— namely, because of its improvident character, because of its rendering it absolutely impossible to take off the in come-tax, because of the necessity which I conceive we are under of looking forward to the rescurces of future , years, and because of the impropriety of reducing the taxes on. the rich man's luxuries, while we retain those on tea and sugar,—in these objections I am supported by the recent, repeated, eloquent, and energetic declara tions of the Chancellor of Exchequer. Once more I do not object to the repeal of the paper duties if you can afford to do so, but I do object, when cur finances are in au undue, or rather in a hopeless deficiency in 1861-2, and when, with the prospect of foreign disturbances, of greatly increased taxation, of a large military and naval expenditure, with the necessity of in curring great expense in fortifications and in the national defences, you voluntarily deprive yourselves of a source of permanent revenue, collected without difficulty, and yield ing £1,285,000 a-year. I should like to hear from the noble duke opposite a declaration on the part of the Government that they have nothing in common with the principles an nounced by those who are described as forming the Man chester school ; but whatever may be the intentions of the Government, they are by their acts playing into the hands and furthering the avowed objects of that party. (Hear.) What is the announcement of that party ? The announce ment made—not concealed, but openly proclaimed—is that Majorit ........................ 89 The announcewent of the numbers by the Lord Chancel lor was received with cheers from the Opposition benches. There was also some cheering in the Strangers' Gallery, which was immediately suppressed by the officers of the house. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BILL. On the order for the third reading of this bill, The Marquis of SALISBURY made some objections to the measure, and, after an animated conversation across the table with the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the noble marquis, there being only 14 peers left in the house, called for a division; on which The numbers were-- Content Non-content Majority against the third readirig -2 Their lordships then adjourned at ten minutes to two 9' cloc k . HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY4 The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. ,The Lords' amendments to the following bills were con sidered and agreed to, and the bills were ordered for third reading .—Chard Railway, - Midland Railway (Burton upon-Trent Branches and Deviations), Midland Railway (Rowsley and Buxton Lines), Midland Railway (Station in St. Pancras, &c.), and Widnes Gas and Water. The following bills were read a third time :—Cilgwrgan, Bettws, and Tregynon Road ; Moy .River Navigation; North and South Lanarkshire Roads. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Bedford and Cambridge Railway ; Blyth Har bour and Dock; Grand Surrey Docks and Canal; High bridge Markets and Gas ; Macclesfield Gas ; Torquay Gas ; and Watford, Rickmansworth, and Uxbridge Railway. The following bills were read a second time :—Letter kenny. Railway; Royal Naval School; and Waterford and Limerick Railway (No. 2). EAST INDIA ARMY. Sir C. WOOD moved an address for copies of report of Mr. Hammach on comparative cost of line and local armies in India; of report of political and military committee of Council of India ; and, of other minutes and papers on the same subject.—Ordered. THE DISPATCH OF M. THOUVENEL, &c. Mr. KINGLAKE gave notice that he would draw the attention of the house to the recent despatch of M. Thou venel relating to the affairs of Italy. REFORM OF PARLIAMENT. Lord J. RUSSELL moved an address for copies of the Reform of Parliament (England) Act, 2 and 3 Will. 4, c. 45, and of the several acts amending the said act.—Ordered. FREIGHT MONEY. Sir G. B. PECHELL asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if any steps had been taken (on the recommendation of the late Naval Commission) to abolish the present systemof sharing freight money for the conveyance of specie, jewels, or treasure, on board her Majesty's ships ; one• fourth share being paid to the admiral on the station, two-fourths to the captain of the ship who signed the bill of lading or receipt for the same, and the remaining one fourth share only being paid to Greenwich Hospital for the use of the institution. Lord C. PAGET said that the subject was still before the commission, and was under the consideration of the Government. THE INSURRECTION IN SICILY. Mr. KINGLAKE asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which he had given private notice, as to whatviewwas entertained by the other Powers of Europe in reference to the Sicilian insurrection, and particularly as regarded France? Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not give the informa tion required by the hon. member, but he could state that Austria and Spain were determined not to take any part one way or the other. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that this bill be recommitted, in order to consider the amend ments. After a few words from Mr. AYRTON, the bill was re committed, and several clauses agreed to. Mr. HUNT moved, in clause 12 (as amended), litie 39, after " respectively," insert "or that the applicant has within three years been convicted of any offence, or that the applicant having within three years held a license to keep a common inn, alehouse, or victualling house, has been refused a renewal of such license." After proviso add : —Provided also, that in the event of any proceedings in par uance of such summons being still Landing, and the said Lord Mayor, metropolitan police magistrate, or jus tices, being unable to dispose of the same within the time limited for the making of objections as afores 2 id, it shall be lawful for the said Lord Mayor, metropolitan police magistrate, or justices, to give notice to the said sapervisoF that such proceedings are so pending; and the said license shall not be granted until the said super visor shall have had notice from the said lord mayor, me tropolitan police magistrate, or justices, that such proceed ings have been disposed of, which notice he or they, as the ease maybe, is or are hereby required to give immediately upon the termination of such proceedings. The amendment was agreed to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved an amendment, the object of which was to give the police a more efficient control over the houses having mine licenses. The right hon. g.mtleman also p-oposed different other amendments, which were of a mere verbal character. On clause 13 some discussion arose, in the course of which • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the object of the clause was to require from parties applying for licenses every test as to character, and to supply the magistrates with facilities for obtaimng information of a reliable description in respect to the same. Mr. LYALL moved an amendment, the object of which was to afford magistrates additional means of acquiring in formation as to the character of persons applying for licenses. Mr. AYRTON contended that the clause was completely illusory, and that practically justices of the peace should have no restrictions imposed on them in decid ing the character of persons applying for licenses. (Hear, hear.) Ho believed that the Government were quite aware of the illusory character of the bill, and that it was intended to enable persons to obtain a licenss for the sale of wine whether they had a good or bad cha racter. Sir J. SHELLEY supported the clause. Mr. BENTINCK said he believed the effect of the bill would be to operate injuriously on the morality of the country. He considered that there should be some check on persons of bad character opening houses for the sale of wine, and he thought that the tendency of the clause was to afford such persons facilities for establishing themselves in the wine business. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he believed the general opinion of the committee was, that the clause would have an effect directly the reverse oethat pre dicted by the last speaker. After some further discussion the amendment was agreed to. The clauses to 20 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 21, Mr. AYRTON said he believed the effect of the clause instead of promoting a taste for foreign wine in this coun try would lead to the consumption of an injurious com pound, and encourage intemperance. The clause was agreed to. The remaining clauses were also agreed to. The CHAIRMAN, after a few words from Mr. AMTON and Mr. NEWDEGATE, reported the bill to the house, and the report is to be brought up this day. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Salaries, &c.), Bill passed through committee. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL. On the order of the day for going into committee on this bill, Mr. CRAW FORD presented a petition, signed by 12,000 merchants and inhabitants of the city of London, praying that no unnecessary delay be given to the passing of so important a bill. Mr. VANCE objected to the extension given by the bill to the jurisdiction of the County Courts, as, in his opinion, it would bring many important claims before judges net accustomed to adjudicate on such matters. The denial of the right of appeal was also open to the gravest objections. M . BRISCOE thought sweet of injustice would be com • mitted on the messengers of the Court of Bankruptcy unless they were adequately compensated. the A hts a few e went w i o n r t d o s c frm omm n Mr. WALPOLE moved the omission of certain words illtltre.eLoEnstLhEeYbailni.d C o l o nel SYBIS in clause 2 relating to the future duties of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy as district c ommissioners. Th e ATTORNEY-GENERAL would agree to rest-let o h u e g rit n th d e n co d n i i s m tr i i s e s t i s no ers ought not to th s ei i r r e F m . pkoy E m L eNo th t fromhd ew M his M amendment. EL it have duties imposed o n them which the y had never con tracted to discharge. Mr. BOWYER, on clause 7, entered a s t rong pro t es t against any new courts of justice with only one judge. A m f r t . e „s r v a A f e L w r wastro. I h i a E v N e L t n s v ,o , o e 0 3: p a 1 year,ain ed and the reasons h is deputy r O em LE ark w s it to 'rho ATTORNEY - GENERAL, on clause 13, in reply w h why r t the r n e e e w m j a V th gp s only £4OO. An animated discussion took place also on the clause, as to the system of compensation and pensions for the retiring officers of the Courts. In a subsequent clause, Mr. WALPOLE proposed that the Judge of Bankruptcy should be chosen from one of the present Commissioners The ATTORN EY-GENERAL could give no pledge on the point, as he was not consulted on such appointments. A division arose on Mr. BOUVERIE'S amendment of clause 22, as to the expediency of reducing the salaries of the successors of the present district Judges from £1,860 to 4500 a year. The motion, however, was negatived, the numbers being—Noes 69, Ayes 68. Clause 22 was agreed to after a division, in which the Ayes were 118, and the Noes 38. Clause 23, on the transfer of the bankruptcy jurisdiction to the County Courts, gave rise to much discussion on an amendment of Mr. BOUVEKIE, that the jurisdiction pro posed should not be extended to County Courts, which was, however, ultimately negatived. The Chairman then reported progress, and the house resumed. The Consolidated Fund (L 9,500,000) Bill was read a third time and passed. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock. they will effect a change of taxation and so cut down the indirect taxes as to make the whole dependence of the country be upon direct taxation ; and the pressure of that direct taxation, they anticipate, will be so grinding and so odious that, whatever the circumstances of the country may be, war will be avoided, because no party will incur the expense necessary for carrying it on. (Hear, hear.) That is the avowed object of those persons. They say, "Wo will secure peace by taking away the power of making war by throwing the whole burden of taxation on direct taxation, and making the pressure odious. (Hear, hear ) The Government have quite different views, I have no doubt ; but if they hai the same objects they could not more effectually promote them than by the system of finance they are encouraging. (Cheers.) Ido not, there fore, solely on account of the amount, though that is consi derable, object to the abolitionof the paperduty, butbecause you ate taking away an important branch of revenue, and are establishing a principle contended for by those parties who, by weakening the financial condition of the coun try, desire to effect the purposes they have in view. For these reasons of political as well as financial ha portance I object to the proposition of the Government, and shall not feel myself justified in giving my assent to it. (Cheers.) I have troubled your lordships at greater length than I desired, and in closing my ob servations I will again avail myself once more of that valuable speech to which I am. already so largely in debted : and I will read the passage in which the right hon. gentleman sums up his objections to the budget of 1857 in language more eloquent and forcible than any I could use. I shall not, therefore, add a single word to the concluding observations of the right hon. gentleman. The noble lord then read the following passage from Mr. Gladstone's speech on the 20th of February, 18b7 " I feel strongly upon this subject, and I dare say I have expressed myself in strong language. I hope it has not been stronger than the occasion demands. I confess I do feel strongly the nature of these propositions. I will conceal nothing. I may be wrong and my judgment may err, like that of other men ; but this is the first time—l will not say that I have heard a defi ciency recommended and sanctioned by the Government, for, and unfortunately, I have heard that, in principle it was quite as bad as this proposition, though in degree it was entirely different ; but, certainly, that I have heard propounded from the Treasury Bench by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a plan which seems to threaten to throw the land into financial confusion. I felt that it was our duty to strip the veil from a statement which was certainly calcu lated to convey false impressions to the country, and from the discharge Of that duty I could not shrink. Every year that a man lives he learns to estimate more humbly his own powers. He must be content to see remain unaccomplished much that he may earnestly desire, but in this free, happy country there is one privilege and one corresponding duty which remains to man — it is to bear bis testimony in open day to the duty and the necessity of maintaining public obligations, and to strip away every veil from every scheme which tends to under mine this principle. That duty, with the indulgence of the house, I have endeavoured to dischar g e. No consideration on earth would induce me by voice or by vote to be a party a financial plan with regard to which I feel that it under mines the policy which has guided the course of every great and patriotic Miiiii-ter in this country, and which is inti mately associated, not only with the credit and the honour, but even with the safety cf this country." The noble lord then resumed his seat ami t load cheers. Earl G RANVILLE, who, in consequence of the noise which prevailed in the house, was very imperfectly heard, briefly replied. lie wo-.. understood to say that he could not follow the noble earl who pal} just spoken into the many questions of detail which he had submitted to their lord. ships, but he wished to protest against the statements which the noble earl had made to the house. He emphatically de nied that the financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer was that of a gambler who played at double or quits_ Such a phrase could not properly be applied to a person who merely repeated an experiment which had been found eminently successful. Nor was it correct to say that there would be a deficiency in the present year, unless, indeed, there came in claims on account of the Chinese war which it was impossible to calculate or foresee. The wine duties in the Short time which had elapsed wince their reduction ships should be taking a course that must alienate from them the support and the sympathy of the country. (Hear.) The Earl of DERBY, to whom Lord Teynham gave way, then rose and said,—However important, my lords, may be the subject under discussion, it is, I am afraid, one to which it is difficult to impart an amount of interest at all proportionate to its intrinsic magnitude. I feel also that I labour under considerable disadvantage in rising to address your lordships at this hour of the night (a quarter to 12), and at the close of a lengthened debate, more especially as my observations must be mainly directed to dry financial details, which are in themselves of a character not very inviting. I may, however, be permitted, before passing to those details, to say a few words with respect to the consti tutional question involved in this discussion which, not withstanding what has just fallen from the noble duke, or from the noble and learned lord opposite, who formerly occupied a seat on the woolsack, or from a member of your lordships' house who came forward as a friendly crit;c, but not in the capacity of a voter hostile to the Government on the present occasion, I should be perfectly satisfied to allow to rest on the footing on which it has been placed by my learned friend behind me, and by my noble, learned, and venerable friend who spoke early in the debate, and who has signalised the close this day of the 88th. year of his honoured life—(cheers) —by a speech combining the ut most clearness and power of statement, with a knowledge the most complete of the details of constitutional law and practice. (Hear.) Now, the noble duke opposite did not, I must say, in dealing with this point of constitutional usage, successfully establish the position which he laid down upon the subject. He said that there was no instance in which your lordships' house had rejected a supply bill, and ho quoted the ordinary language of a bill of that nature. I, however, hold in my hand the bill to which my noble and learned friend near me has already alluded, viz , an act granting her Majesty certain duties to be levied on wash and other liquors used in the distillation of spirits, and which was absolutely rejected, notwithstanding the state ment of the noble duke to the effect that there was no in stance in which such a course had been taken in reference to a measure of supply. But this is not all. The argument drawn by the noble duke from this source completely fails in the present instance, inasmuch as the bill under our no tice is, as it happens, not a supply bill at all, but a bill for the repeal of a tax. (Hear.) The noble duke, however, seemed to carry his argument on the constitutional part of the question still better, observing that almost all money bills have a political as well as a financial side, so that on his assumption that we cannot amend or reject a money bill, but simply content ourselves with expressing our opi nion with regard to it, we should be debarred from dealing not only with matters of finance, but also with matters of political importance, and prevented from rejecting a raea- . sure vt ith which such considerations happened to be mixed up, notwithstanding its political consequences might be likely to be of a most dangerous character. (Hear.) Surely, the noble duke can hardly seriously contend for what, with all respect to him, I must characterise so absurd a limita tion of the power of your lordships' house as this argument involves. But the noble duke says that we who sup port the amendment in the present case are the advocates not simply of a technical, but of a practical violation of the privileges of the other House of Parliament, inasmuch as that house sent up for our assent a bill increasing the in come tax by a penny in the pound, which they would not have done had they not relied on our passing the measure under our notice. But it is quite clear, my lords, that if when the bill raising the income tax to 10d. in the pound came up to us from the other house we had no power of making any amendment in its provisions, we must either have rejected it altogether, or given our assent to it as it stood. The course which we took under the circumstances was to say that, however much we objected to the proposed tax, or to certain other portions of the financial scheme of the Government, or to the treaty, we should not interfere with the progress of the Income-tax Bill, because by . doing so we might greatly embarrass the finances of the country and the general arrangements of the Government. I my self took occasion to draw a broad distinction between a measure of that nature and another bill, observing that when that other bill came before us I should feel myself at liberty to take a course with respect to it which, while it would net tend to embarrass the finances of the country, would place a considerable sum at the disposal of the Go vernment. Leaving the constitutional part of the question where it was left by my noble and learned friend, and by the noble duke who spoke last, whose advocacy does not seem to have very much improved his case—(a laugh)—l proceed now to the main point, the abolition of the paper duty, and the grounds on which we object to that abolition. The noble earl who opened this discussion occupied a con siderable part of his speech by doing me the honour to refer in great detail to an address which I delivered to a de putation a day or two ago. He called it an unfortunate speech, but, however much it may deserve the term in most respects, it certainly is a fortunate one in this, that it fur nished my noble friend with matter for almost the whole of his speech. (Laughter.) He commented on the statement I made,,that I thought it was a fortunate thing that this amendment was brought forward without any concert with me by the noble baron opposite, who is generally a supporter of the Government; and he says it is a question of such importance that I ought not to have waited for its being taken up by an independent member, but that it ought to have been taken up on the ground of policy and principle by a great party like that which sits opposite to him. Earl GRANVILLE—What I said was that the question was of such importance that the nolale earl ought to have ' made up his mind about it, without waiting until the notice of this amendment had been given by my noble friend. The Earl of DERBY.—I don't know that I have said anything to lead the noble earl to suppose that I had not made up my mind. On the contrary, I had made up my mind completely and absolutely (hear, hear), and what I said then, and what I repeat now is that I was very glad it had been taken up by the noble baron, who is generally a supporter of the Government, because I thought if it had been brought forward by me there would have been fair room—there would have been ground laid for objecting on the other side that it was brought forward merely as a political question, and not as a financial question and a question of the greatest possible interest to the country. (Hear, hear.) I was glad that the initiation of this amend ment should lie with the noble baron, who could not be suspected of being actuated by any feelings of hostility to the Government. But I will go further, and I will say that in supporting this amendment with the full convic tion that I am performing a sacred and solemn duty I can assure noble lords opposite, sincerely and distinctly, I do so with no desire whatever to embarrass, still less to over throw, Her Majesty's Government. I can assure them I have no desire to relieve them from the responsibility which they have incurred. Still less do I desire that any friend of mine should be so unfortunate as to have to re- place them. (Laughter.) I don't hesitate to go further, and to say that in the present state of affairs--in the threatening state of affairs abroad, in the alarming condition of our financial prospects at home, I think it would be a national misfortune if to these causes of anxiety were added the complications and difficulties which might arise from the noble lord at the head of the Government being compelled to retire from his present position. I can assure you with all sincerity that it is with no spirit of hostility to the noble lord at the head of the Government that I am taking this course. I come forward because I believe that your lordships' inter ference is necessary to save the country from great present and much greater future financial difficulties. (Cheers.) The noble earl was right in conjecturing that it was not my intention to rest my argument upon the intrinsic merits or demerits of the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) I shall follow the example set me by the noble lord, and abstain altogether from discussing the objections to the duty on the ono hand, or the advantages which it may offer on the other. I may be permitfred, however, to correct one misapprehension of the noble earl in reference to what he imagines me to have said the other day—still in that unfortunate speech—as to the course pursued by the Government in 1858. Your lord ships are aware that that Government was one not very strong in Parliamentary support. We had brought forward a budget which had given general satisfaction. We did not find ourselves in possession of a large available sur plus. The noble duke stated that whereas the revenue was estimated at £61,000,000, it actually was £63,000,000, but he omitted to mention that the estimated expenditure was £67,001,000, consequently there was a deficiency to make up of £4,000,000. What I said the other day in reference to this paper duty was this—" Resolutions were brought forward in the other House of Parliament, that the paper duty was not a fit source for a permanent revenue ; and, next, that it was desirable so to frame the financial arrange ments as to enable Parliament to dispense with it. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that in the abstract he agreed with the resolution—as Ido —that if the country could afford the loss the paper duty was not a desirable source of permanent revenue ; but he objected to the further resolution. That he said was not the fitting time to take it off. We had proposed a budget which remitted a certain amount of income -tax in conformity with the provisigns of the existing law—next year we shall have to deal with the tea and sugar duties, upon which there will be another fall, we shall have to pro vide for the gradual extinction of the war duties and for the entire lapse of the income, and we cannot give the in come-tax the preference over these two great objects." (Cheers.) That was the argument used then, and that is the argument I use now. Ido not defend the paper duty if the exchequer were full, if the finances were flourishing, if the prospects abroad were more certain, and if your income-tax were at a less exorbitant rate than that at which your neces sities have compelled you now to place it—if you had re lieved the taxation which presses on the labouring classes by the remission of the tea and sugar duties, if circum stances, in fact, were altogether different, it might Le de sirable to repeal the paper duty. But while they remain as they are, you are only adding to the financial embarrass ments of the country by this improvident and reckless pro posal. (Cheers.) Proceeding now to the financial part of the question, I am obliged to say the noble lord need not have reminded me of my own inadequacy to deal with this financial question, and of the reluctance with which the house will listen to figures, even at the period of the even ing at which he spoke, much more now. Though Ido not pretend to the character of a prophet—in financial matters more especially—l assume all the figures and all the facts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for all the objec tions which I shall offer to the present system of finance I shalLbe able to appeal to the authority of that eame right