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

distinguished opponents of those great measures which have fundamentally reformed your commercial system. (Cheers.) Nevertheless, while I listened to the vaticinations of the lion. member for Buckingham, my memory ran back to the time when I heard him, not in this house, for we then had not the pleasure of enjoying his company here—uttering the same dismal prophecies on an occasion when it was proposed to do justice to British trade as compared with foreign trade, by imposing a stamp on foreign bills of ex change. Upon that occasion the hon. gentleman was a distinguished member of a deputation from the port of London, and he assured me that if we ventured to impose a stamp duty on foreign bills we should drive the trade from the market of London, and London would RO longer be the centre of money operations. That gave me uncomfortable sensations—(laughter)—but we persevered with the plan, the house adopted it, the stamp was imposed, it has contributed for six years to the revenue of the coun try, and London is still the centre of money operations. (Hear, and laughter.) But I have now done, as I promised, with questions of this kind, which, however important, will be more conveniently discussed on another opportunity, and I come to the general issue before us. On Monday night I heard the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucking hamshire explain to the House the dignified course which his party had adopted. The right hon. gentleman said— and I, for one, and I believe the generality of the house, went along with him in what he said—" We have scorned to raise a partial issue; we have rejected the hands that might be held out to us from this and that alarmed and timorous interest; we have rested our cause on the broad ground of general merits, and on that ground alona we seek to take issue." Upon that declaration of the right hon member for Buckinghamshire, I bethought me of the lang guage of Burke, who lamented that the age of chivalry had gone ; and for a moment—aye, for a whole evening—l was in hopes that the age of chivalry had come back again— (laughter)—for I heard it declared that it was intolerable to meet a great measure of this kind—a national and interne • tional measure—by petty and paltry combinations of A and B and C, who object to this and to that, and by putting to gether their separate units endeavour to obtain a mass of force sufficient to overturn the whole scheme. (Cheers and laughter.) Those were the sentiments expressed on Monday night ; but it is a bad world we live in—(laughter)—and if any man suffers himself to be deluded for a moment with the notion that high ideas govern the conduct of persons and parties, there is a great chance that in a very short time he sill be painfully undeceived. (Laughter.) For my part, I was undeceived when I opened the newspapers next morn.. ing, for I found there that a right hon. gentleman had com mitted himself in the manner I am now going to describe. That right hon. gentleman attended a meeting of an alarmed and timorous interest, which, fearful of the withdrawal of the protection they enjoyed, might be acted upon, it was hoped, to oppose a great national measure on account of their own narrow interests. (Cheers.) There is one valuable principle of free trade which appears to be well understood by the hon. gentleman opposite, and that is the division of labour. While the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire was announc ing in sounding periods the high ground on which he took his stand, another right hon. gentleman was holding differ ent language in a different place—l mean the right hon. ba ronet the member for Droitwich. (Hear, and laughter.) The right hon. baronet attended a meeting of a set of gentlemen who are well known to almost every successive Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, those who are called growers of hops. (Hear, and laughter.) The county to which the right hon. baronet is an ornament is net a great hop-growing coonty ; it produces I 1 per cent. of the total consumption, and consequently—l believe lam correct inthe statement — until the eventful week in which we now are the right hon. baronet had never thought it worth his while to attend a meeting of hop-growers. (Laughter.) But on this par ticular occasion, when the financial scheme and a chance of opening the trade "'with France, were in question, my right hon. friend the member forDroitwich, his bowels with mercy and sympathy moved towards the hop-growers, ap peared for the first time at a meeting among the champions of that sovereign interest. (Cheers and laughter.) And what was the advice givenbymy right hon. friend within 24hours of the time when the right hon. member for Buckingham shire had so surreptitiously excited our admiration and al most enthusiasm by the enunciation of lofty principles ? (Laughter.) I have made inquiry about the accuracy of the report, and therefore I have less hesitation inquoting a few words. it. My right hon. friend spoke among hop growers and said thathe was not connected with a great hop & :owing county. I suppose his audience knew that as well as he; but he went on to observe that his county had a good deal of land planted with hops, and he thought it right to attend the meeting. My right hon. friend then entered on hops, but very lightly, and did not show that acquaintance with the manipulation of details which no one knew better how to employ when master of details; but it was a resistless impulse which brought him among those unfortunate people in order to point out the way of salvation to them—(cheers and laughter)—and he said, " I would suggest, as a matter of business"—(great laughter and cheers)—the house will see that, unlike the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire, who spoke in a tone of feel ing and romence, the right hon. baronet, observing the division of labour agreed on, applied himself rigidly and without any chivalrous feeling to the part allotted to him. (Renewed laughter.) He said—" I would suggest, as a matter of business, that instead of their going to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer they should instruct their members to go at once to the House of Commons, and say, ' This budget does not suit us, and we will oppose it As for the budget itself, the right hon. baronet said he looked on it as "a rash, meddlesome, and unsatisfactory scheme." (Cheers from the Opposition.) That is all very well. Regarding the budget in that light, it is doubtless the right honourable baronet's duty to oppose it, but he never thought it at all necessary to understand whether the hop-growers he was addressing partook or his opinion. He did not go to theta and ask, " Do you think the budget bad ?" but he said, " Your particular interests are attacked, and therefore turn against the whole budget." (Loud cheers from the Minis terial benches.) The right hon. gentleman went on : "And if all the interests injuriously affected by it could combine together, giving up their immediate views with re gard to their own individual interests, the result would very soon be to get rid of , it altogether. He therefore counselled a them to unite with other interests and bring such a pressure to bear upon Parliament as would put an end to the budget at a blow." That is the disappointment which I for one have undergone in comparing a declaration in full of the highest mediaeval apiritmade by the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire with the more practical proceedings of the right hon. mem ber for Droitwich as a matter of business. (Laughter.) But, however that may be, and. whatever may be the pro ceedings that may be taken by those who sat on the same bench with the right hon. baronet at the meeting of hop growers or others, whether reported for not reported, hav ing availed himself of the little light that was thrown on them through the medium of the daily journals, let me now endeavour to deal with the motion as it stands on our books, and apart altogether from the question of what interests can be got to support it. But this lam bound t o sa y , after the challenge given by the right hon. gentleman—the invita tion given by him to those parties—that lam deeply con vinced that all such invitations in a country like England will miserably fail. (Cheers.) Those who think that this budget does them injustice will use their best exertions to defend themselves upon their own ground and with their own legitimate weapons, but they will not, from fear of losing their own legal privilege, be deluded and seduced into an error so grave as that of absorbing the greatest na- Sone interests in their own individual and particular con venience as a class, and they will give, I am convinced, an impartial judgment upon the main issue which is brought before them. (Cheers.) The right hon. and learned gen tleman (Mr. Whiteside) who spoke last night described the budget, and referred to the descriptions that had been given of it. He said my right hon. friend the member for Coventry had characterised it as an ambitious budget. I know the 'milieu of my right hon. friend, and I cannot in the slightest degree quarrel with him for the use of that epithet, but I am sure he will admit to me that if it shall be found that the people of England receive these financial plans with approval it is not because they are fond of am bitious budgets, but because they wish for measures which they think will contribute to the extension of trade and the prosperity of the nation. (Cheers.) Some one else went far beyond my right hen. friend and said is was an audacious budget. The right hon. and learned gentleman himself would not go so far as that, but . said it was a bold experiment upon the country. (Opposi tion cheers.) lam desirous that the house should come to a clear and conclusive view of the question who it is that is treading the safe paths of experience, and who it is that is chargeable to-night with objections and propositions that are ambitious, that are audacious, or that are bold experi ments upon the country. (Loud cheers.) My hon. friend the member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) gave a different description of the financial scheme. (Opposition cheers.) Be gave a description which was not the most complimentary to the author of an ambitious budget. He said, looking at it from a directly opposite point of view, " the Chancellor of the Exchequer can lay no claim to the merit of originality, he is simply walking in the footsteps of those who have gone before him, and because those footsteps have led us to safety in other times therefore he walks in them now." I affirm that that is the true description of the budget. (Cheers.) It does not lay claim to the merit of originality— ' if originality be a merit—but, at any rate, such have 'peen the providence and sagacity of those who have gone before us that there is no need of originality. They have laid down the pattern of wise and prudent conduct in respect of public finance, and all we have to do is to follow in the course they have indicated. (Cheers.) I must be per mitted to say that I really pass by the proposition of the right hon. gentleman who last addressed us, who conceives that this motion, which was born at the meeting of a great party, has been adopted in consequence of the determina tion of a distinguished nobleman to come forth from almost monastic seclusion to which he had retired, in order to rescue his country from danger (murmurs) —I can't con ceive that such a motion is to be regarded in such a light. (Cries of " Who ?") I mean Lord Derby. (Laughter and cheers.) I speak from what I have seen reported, without contradiction, as having been the language of the noble earl. (Hear, hear.) That noble earl said that he had determined not to become a candi date for the resumption of his office as Prime Minis ter, after having twice held and lost it in a manner not satisfactory to himself, unless under circumstances of some rash and dangerous scheme vitally assailing the best kite rests of the country. (Cheers.) Under these circumstances he would come from his retirement and again be at the command of his party. (No, no.) I apprehend lam right in supposing that Lord Derby is at the command of his Sove reign. (Cheers.) Ido not wish to detain the house by a verbal contest, but I imagine the right bon. gentleman who last spoke treated this as a motion which did not disturb the treaty, and was not intended, if carried, to disturb the Government. (Cheers.) As to disturbing the treaty, the treaty parts with £1,200,000 of the ordinary revenue of the year, and the motion declares that it is not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary re venue, and that I understand to be a plain and flat contra diction of our scheme, Lu the same manner lam right in • duty upon n and Dcates ke out which ivally of the camis- They vey to of the n this stions r mad s re Rot essary . And ms are mpres 7 mere:" iat in- :try of i this ? on the returns e diffe- ld take e num of that sines of om the landed tial and an and s to be to the he right woming at of its .e would 'omit of 001 b. in of duty take the ,356,000 .—Having Lse, to the fess that I apart fro= nclusion— premisses. friend has on, I must nore hope esed to m4l right hon. budget itt reaty with ;h. He is cant cons'. , but still* ry man re' rable to the vourable to scheme and otien of the d ecunter• ctly sera.) But ake it, have an to sup , are tormed port of the friend, but ion to them, vr ray right He says ;o great dd.. ins we have lifficulty, and discuss ?panda and ith France, ing the in' tail on sill' 3r.) I ant fallen from tion of the supposing there is no gentleman who sits opposite, or at least upon the bench immediately before me, who does not frankly regard this motion as one which, if carried, would render it impossible for the Government to continue to hold office. (Cheers.) I have no doubt my right hon. friend who spoke last is the only member here who holds that peculiar form of opinion he has expressed. (No, no.) Let us, then, understand what the motion is. Is it aimed at the treaty with France or is it not ? (Cheers.) Is it pos sible to hold that a motionwhich denounces any addition to an existing deficiency by parting with revenue can be thought compatible with a treaty which does add to the deficiency by parting with considerable revenue ? (Cheers.) It is a motion aimed in terms—and I interpret its spirit solely from its terms—it is aimed at the life and substance of the treaty. (Cheers.) But more than that, I will en deavour to point out why I also say the motion repudiates the commercial legislation of the last 18 months. (Cheers, and "No.") • Hon. gentlemen say "No." Permit me respectfully to suggest that I am to be followed in the de bate by their leader, and he will have an opportunity of conveying the " No" to which they wish to give utterance in a manner quite as effective for their purpose, and much more agreeable to the house generally. (Cheers and a laugh.) The doctrine laid down is that it is not expedient to add to existing deficiencies by diminishing the ordinary revenue. That is the doctrine laid down in the motion, and that doc trine, I say, is fatal to every great and beneficial change that has been made in this country in connexion with the revenue for the last 18 years. I will endeavour to prove that in a short and simple manner, and, without referring to all operations during a number of years, will refer only to three great crises. Putting aside the greatest of those events — the Corn Law and the Navigation Laws, which had no per ceptible connexion with finance—l will refer to those great occasions when we dealt largely with the finances of the country in the sense of propositions of commercial reform -1842, 1845, and 1853. I was glad to hear, when the hon. member for Birmingham last night said we were treading in the footsteps of Sir R. Peel, that some members opposite cried " No." It showed that we have arrived at last at a time when it is admitted that those principles and that po licy constitute not the decoration of a name or of a party, but a great national inheritance for which contending par ties may honourably strive. (Loud cheers.) That is a great mark of progress, when we recollect what has taken place within the memory of us all, when we remember that the changes of 1842 and those which followed led the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks to denounce a Con servative Government as an "organised hypocrisy." Take that as a starting point, and then realise the fact that the two sides of the house are now contesting who shall be the exponents, who shall be the champions, of those principles.' _lt' is a proof of the great progress that has been made, and the only question remaining now is which of the two sides of this house is endeavouring to continue that progress, and which is to resist it. (Cheers.) I will refer to each of those three years-1842, 1845, and 1853—in order to show that in every substantial and important financial change you will find the prin ciples to be precisely the same as those upon which the present Government has founded the scheme which is now before the house and the country. , (Cheers.) I shall place them in the sharpest contract with the motion which you are invited to adopt to-night, which my right hon. friend who spoke last is about to support with his vote, and which declares that it is "not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue." In 1812 there was, as there is now, an existing deficiency of £2,570,000. Sir R. Peel added to that existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue. He took from the ordinary revenue by the remissions he made a sum of £1,210,000. He thereby swelled the deficiency to £3,780,000, and he than laid on new taxes, of which the in tax was nine-tenths to the amount of £1,380,000, thus obtaining a surplus of £600,000. I think that is rather like the opera tion which you are now asked to sanction. (Cheers,) In 1845 there was one point of difference, and you will your selves judge whether it is vital, or whether, as I think, it is comparatively unimportant, if it does not make out a stronger case. In that year S:r R. Peel did not add to an existing deficiency, but he created a deficiency by convert ing a surplus into a deficit. He had in 1845 a surplus of £1,420,000. He converted it into a deficit bylarge remissions which involved a loss to the revenue of more than X 3,502,000. In that way he created a deficiency of £2,082,000. By re newing the income tax he obtained ways and means to the extent of £2,600,000, and so secured a surplus of £518,000. I think that again was rather like the operation of 1842. In 1853, when subs'antially, though in less arduous cir cumstances, meet of us who are here present heard all these dismal prophecies, there was again an existing deficiency of £1,968,000. We again added to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue to the extent 0f£1,656,000. In that way we increased the deficiency to no less a sum than £3,624,000. We supplied that deficiency by new charges that were estimated to yield—but, in point of fact, they yielded more—£4,o9o,ooo, and so obtained a surplus within a few thousands the same as that which is now proposed—a surplus of £466,000. In each and all of these cases you pursued precisely for every substantial and practical purpose the same course. You either found or you created a deficiency ; you aggravated when yod did not create it ; you had it to deal with in each case ; you dealt with it after diminishing the ordinary revenue by the im position of new taxes, and that is the essence and founda tion of the scheme now before you, as compared and con trasted with those rival schemes ref which some faint glim merings have been obtained from one or two of the less cautious of the speeches which have been delivered in the course of the present debate. (Hear, hear.) I may observe that 1853 was so far distinguished from the other cases that in that year not only did we add to an existing deficiency and impose new taxes, but the House of Commons, by so strong and so prevalent a feeling bota in the house and in the country that no one ventured to raise a general issue, effected the operation by means of some indirect taxes laid upon spirits, but mainly by direct taxation, and in no in considerable degree by an extension of the income tax itself. (Hear.) I contend, therefore, that e L demoi-stration, and not merely by loose assertion, it is clear beyond all doubt or arguments, and in the rigid logic of figures themselves, that the plan we are now proposing, not as we describe it, but as described in a hostile motion, corresponds in every point with-the measures of 1842, 1845, ' and 1853. (Cheers.) If that be so, the issue is a very short and simple one, be cause the question is, will the house stand by those mea suress—will it endeavour to develop by further application the principles upon which they were founded, or will it, on the contrary, at this time of day, declare that it sees cause to renounce those doctrines, and to adopt instead of them the opposite principle, that it is " not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue ?" So far I have quoted the words of the motion, but I will add on my own account, " for the purpose of making those investments on the part of the public which a long, a sure, and -now an unquestioned ex perience has proved to be almost beyond all other invest ments fruitful, wholesome, and reproductive." (Cheers.) It may be said that that there is one important point of difference between the circumstances of the present year and those of the years to which I have referred, and that is that the deficimicy with which we have to deal is much larger than it was upon any of those occasions. That is perfectly true ; but, on the other hand, let the house reflect whether there are not special circumstances of the most co gent character which almost compel Parliament, by the force of equity and justice, to recognize the claims of trade, of industry, and of the population at large to remissions of taxation. I shall mention two. One of them is tho falling in of £2,000,000 and more of annuities, with respect to which I think it will be admitted that some question at least arises whether they are merely to be added to the means of meet ing an enormous and constantly growing expenditure, or whether they mark an epoch at which we ought to endea vour to apply afresh the principles which we applied with such good effect before. The other relates to the extraordi nary resources which we shall derive during the present year from what may be called casual receipts that cannot recur. Take the single case of the sums we are going to obtain from the malt and hop credits. I have no difficult y in justifying the application of those sums under the cir stances to the services of the year, partly because they may in some sense be set against the really extraordinary expen diture to which we are liable on account of the military ex pedition to China, but mainly because we intend to make a reproductiive use of the money. (Hear, hear.) Just look how the case stands. We are going to apply from extra ordinary sources to the services of the year a sum of £1,400,000. That is only £700,000 less than the whole amount we are to lose by remissions of taxation ; in other words £700,000 is the whole extent for the services of the present year to which the ordinary revenue is really to be a loser on account of the remissions we are making, and that £700,000 represents three-fourths of a penny, or the differ ence between 9d. and 10d. in the income tax. But I must object altogether to the assumptions of those who exclaim against the reduction of indirect taxes as an irretrievable loss to the revenue. an d T th he ey re in ce c i r p e t a s se f t r he from faster,indire ct and con stantlytaxmesainly(Hear, hear.) The receipts from indi r e c t t ax es will be larger i n the p resent y ear, a p art from th e ope ration of the trea t y with France, than they have been, I beeau s e i we increase, rez is an y past year within our recollection—certainly the imposition of the income tax. The believe,in any year since nd the amoßut unt difference is enormous b e tween the . amount at which they stood when the income tax was first Imposed, a emission it does not follow that b eca use we propose an operation of to which they have been raised by judicious rs. this kind in the present ye ar it is therefore to be repeated every year. You commenced these reforms inirs c vl i arell y w i a n s 1812. You went on in 1812, in 1845, perhaps the greatest year of the w returned to the 3 hole. In 1819 you re pealed the navigation laws. In 1850 y ou 1812 and 1853 i repeal of taxation, chiefly indirect. In 1853 you made an other large remission of taxation. Bet ween there were not less than seven or eight years n which you made these alterations, and what has happ ened since ? For seven years, owing to the circumstances, w e will suppose, of the time, the application of the principle has ted altogether; and then comes a year when you intermit have an been extraordinary relief from the public debt, and when you are going to apply extraordinary means to the servicees of the year. With an interval of seven , years since you have done anything for the further application of your principle, is it strange that you should be asked to recur to a beneficial practice? You may tell me that this is a year of great ex penditure, and that therefore it is an unfit year ; but do you•who say that promise me that there will be greater re lief from that expenditure next year ? (Hear, hear.) If it were a year of great expenditure, with the prospect of immediate relief, I grant you it might be better to undergo the inconvenience, and forego the benefit, and wait for a year or a couple of years before proposing what we propose to do now. But what is the spirit shown on the other side, not by all gentlemen opposite, but by the mover of this motion, whom I take as an excellent specimen of the dis tinguished class to which he belongs 9 What is the spirit which he sho ws , an d w h a t i s th e spirit of his motion with regard to expenditure ? Does this motion recognise it, as I believe it is generally recog n i se d o n thi s s ide of the house — as far as it is approved —as a necessity, but a painful neces sity, to which we submit because we think high interests require it—(cheers)--but from which we are desirous to escape—(cheers)—from which we hope to escape, and from which we are determined to keep in oar own hands the means of escaping ? (Loud cheers.) That is the spirit in which the expenditure is supported on this side of the house; but is that the spirit of the hon. mover ? On the contrary, he pours contempt on times of economy—he fears we shall get back to those times to which he applies the miserable epithet of "cheeseparing"—(cheers)—he seems to give countenance to the discreditable assertion that Ministers and Parliament belong to this cheeseparing economy. Why, who have been the Ministers during whose time ec onom y has been most in vogue? (Hear, hear.) I do not speak of those who live and sit on this bench, I speak only of the dead. The Duke of Wellington—(cheers)—than whose Administration none did more for economy —Lord Grey, Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel. Those are the men under whom, by whose countenance, and by whose labour rules of thrift were applied to the expenditure of the State; and those are the men whom the mover of thin motion, partly by its terms, and partly by the language by which he expounds them, thinks fit to throw a slur as cheese paring economists. (Loud cheers.) I have admitted that it is impossible to expect a rapid return for this benefit ; that we have entered—though I trust that the estimates for the present year are exceptional—on a high level of expen diture. But, being on that high level of expenditure, and havin g heavy burdens to bear, can we not strengthen our selves for the task by means which in former years were found so efficacious, and again apply the principles which tives come and take tkeir seats in the old British House of Commons they shall find the house denuded, as far as we can effect it, of some of its powers. They shall find that we have done for them something we thought dan gerous to allow them to do for themselves." (Cheers. If there is to be reform of Parliament—if =asses of our fellow countrymen now excluded, be they great or small, areto be admitted to the franchise,—let those who are returned to the new house, when they assemble, be heirs to every power, to every privilege, and to all the liberty of the old ; and do not lst us presume to lay the foundations of jealousy perhaps of disloyalty and disorder—by promulgating the doctrine that in proportion to the larger number responsi ble for the election and conduct of Parliament the powers of that Parliament to be limited. (Loud cheers.) That is one way of guarding against the dangers of a re formed Parliament, and it is a way which, under pretence of guarding a g ainst them, in fact aggravates their dangers. (Hear, hear.) There is another method of proceeding which I hope this house will pursue. We are at present returned by undoubtedly a most intelligent portion of the population, but a portion more limited in its numbers than we think desirable. (Hear.) 'We aro about to admit new classes to the exercise of the franchise. (Hear.) I have got the specific of my right hon. friend for making the new Parliament in nocuous, and I am not able to adopt it. I will give him mine, and leave the house to judge between us. It is a very simple one. When the new class sends to Parliament repro sentatives who will be more peculiarly its own, when these newly-elected stewards enter upon the discharge of their functions, when they come to review the actions of their predecessors, let them find that, though we represented but a part of the people, we held fairly the scales of justice be tween all classes and interests alike. And now I make my second appeal to the House of Commons. I ask you which of the two plans before you best corresponds to the description I have given ? You know well that the interests of different classes are materially affected by different kinds of taxation. Hear my hon. friend the member for Buckingham—how eloquent he is on the sufferings of the long annuitants. I am very glad that the long annuitants should have a repre sentative in this house ; but there are classes which are not represented, and I want to know what sort of justice it is proposed to do them by the plan of the Government and the plan of the party opposite respectively ? (Cheers.) Here, again, I must resort for a few minutes to figures to prove my case, and they shall be my last. I apprehend it is an ad mitted proposition that in a certain relative manner, but with much of substantial truth, we may say that indirect taxes upon commodities are paid in a largo proportion on a number of articles of consumption by the unrepresented classes, whereas the income-tax is paid almost entirely by the represented classes, and in a great degree by the wealthy classes. These are the terms in which I would state the incidence of the two kinds of taxation, and bearing these terms in mind, I beg the house to observe what has hap pened. Six years ago came the Russian war, and we had to make great additions to the taxation of the coun try. The house thought fit to make those additions in cer tain proportions between what was direct and what was in direct taxation. I put out of view now—what if not put out of view would make f or m y own s id e — t h e additional taxes laid on spirits, because I conceive they were permanent additions to the revenue which we gladly adopted, irre spective of the question of what class they favoured, and I look only to the temporary additions which the House of Commons made to the taxation for the purposes of the war. They were these :—ln 1854 and 1855 we laid on for the pur poses of the war £8,557,000 of direct taxes ; and in the same years, also for the purposes of the war, putting aside the spirit duties, £5,450,000 of indirect taxes. The House will see that this is in the proportion very nearly of 8 to 5 ; 8 representing the direct, and 5 the indirect taxes. That was the measure and the mode of the deviation which we made at that period from our old system of taxation, and I think the houge will go with me when I say that it was desirable when peace returned, and we began to remit those taxes, that we should not have remitted exclusively or mainly the taxes paid by the classes that. returned us to Parliament, but that we should have observed the same proportion, or at least a proportion equally favourable to the classes not directly represented here. What have we done ? Have we conformed to that law—does the plan of her Majesty's Go vernment conform to it—does the plan of right hon. gentle men opposite conform to it or reverse it ? Here are the figures, and I must .say they are more curious than satis factory. In 1857_g we retained of direct taxes—above the standard provided for peace, viz., 5d.—£•1,000,000. We retained of indi rec t taxes £3,oo,ooo—those on tea and sugar. In 1858-9, when the right hon. gentleman oppo site was in office, we retained of direct taxes of the war —none at all of indirect taxes—£3,ooo,ooo. In 1859-60 we put on of income tax £4,000,000, not done by the right hon. gentleman opposite, but done by the present Government, br order to meet the charge of the esti mates in the m a i n prepared by their predecessors, and we still retained £3,000 ,000 indirect taxes on tea and sugar. (Hear.) In point of fact, if we take the totals of 1857 and 1858, we levied of the direct taxes of the war £2,000,000 and of the indirect taxes of the war £6,000,000, and whereas they have been laid on in the proportion of 8 to 5, not much short of double, they were retained in the proportion of 1 t o 3. The proceedings of last year somewhat rectified this, because then we should have paid up to April £6,000,000 of the direct taxes of the war, and £9,000,000 of indirect taxes—the proportion still standing at 2 to 3, instead of, as it ought, at 3 to 2. If the house has followed ma in these figures, I think it is clearly demonstrable that, if this house is due from us to the consumers of the really wishes to show the reformed Parliament which is to fellow us that we have done justice as between class and o h d in it g ies in which the people take aninterest, and g r l and sugar duties— egtloraeatshst'sestimlilerneft which is afforded to those classes by the remis sion of duties affecting trade. (Cheers.) If any hon. gentle man opposite says we have ma_de h a great mistake in select ing the paper duty instead f enter into an t to show that it would be nay better for the masses argument should be repealed, still we stand, at that the paper duty though I may ground ; and I am ready to admit any rate, upon common " concerned, the reduction of the that, as far as principle is differ from him, though of the duty on paper. But this is not the fact. Every proposal that has duties on tea and sugar woul d bo as j ust in intention to wards the masses of the people as the re p eal of the house goes on the every farthing affecting principle of maintaining not only of the duties in the trading interest, but every farthing proceeded from the opposite side were to take it con cerned as consumers. (Cheers.) of the case is as a suns in arithmetic, the real state we have millions that which the masses of the people lf are directly this :—ln proportion to the nine levied of indirect war taxation since the war, if we had 1 observed the same rule which we observed in aye . ine• it on,is balance we should have levied £14,000,000 of direct taxation. In stead of that we have levied £6,000,000, and the of £8,000,000 would still be due from those classes. It is under these circumstances, when we have kept up heavy char g es on articles consumed by the people, in which the labouring man man takes a great interest, that we are again asked to .s d a s minister relief; for I admit that a penny in the pound great relief to the classes which have so long been subject . to the burden of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) I am qui t e satisfied with the issues which haae been raised. I do n et think it is necessary longer to detain the House. 'When hon. gentlemen opposite regret that an unnecessarily high in come tax should be levied, I certainly agree with them. I am sorry that any high income tax should be levied, whe ther necessary or unnecessary. We will debate on the mean ing of these terms when the proper time comes. For the present, I have endeavoured to direct your attention to this fact, that the main propiwition of the hon. gentleman the tinction of a small office connected with the Treasury which had a comparatively small sum of public money entrusted to its administration ; I believe not more than £350,000. I proposed that it should be taken, in the revenue for the• year, to have a surplus which would be ultimately found in the balances of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentle man denounced the project, but the right hon. gentleman is in effect doing the same thing, but on a much greater scale and under circumstances far less justifiable. We have now that million of Exchequer bonds. Well, air, I under stand from the right hon. gentleman that we are now in a condition of unexampled prosperity. Well, if we can't pay them now that we are in a condition of unexampled pros perity, when are we to pay them ? (Hear.) The Secre tary to the Treasury, the other night, courteously reminded me that in 1858 I postponed the payment of £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds. Surely the house will recollect the difference of circumstances. The country was still staggering under a great commercial panic. A month before Parliament met the minimum rate of interest was I 0 per cent., and it was felt by everybody that it would be totally impossible under such circum stances to prspose taxes which would especially press upon the commercial classes, then suffering under events of so startling and fatal a character. (Cheers.) The proposition I made was unanimously adopted by the house, and no one rose to make the slightest protest against it. I see no similarity whatever between the circumstances of that time and the unrivalled prosperity with which we are now blessed. (Hear, hear.) What we object to in the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it does not resemble the transactions of 1842 or of 1845. It does not resemble the operations of Sir R. Peel, or the operations which the right hon. gentleman himself conducted in 1853. It is be cause the right hon. gentleman has neglected to take the same security—because his plan is improvident, and because improvidence under such circumstances is extremely dan gerous—that I ask the house to interpose, and express its opinion upon his propositions. (Hear, hear.) What will be our situation next year ? It may not, under ordinary circumstances, be discreet to indulge in very prospective finance; but it appears to me that it would be perfect mad ness not to contemplate a little what may be our position in 1861. The member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), who has some experience, has calculated the amount of the de ficit; and I shall confess myself surprised—l can hardly say pleased—if it does not exceed that amount ; but if the probable deficit in 1851 be £12,000,000, surely the house should pause before it sanctions the propositions of the right hon. gentleman, and should hesitate, with such a prospect before it, before it accedes to a measure which unnecessarily increases that deficit, and of which, if it be not persisted in, the modification would mitigate the pressure of 1861. (Hear, hear.) .The right hon. gentleman seems to be dis pleased that more than one speaker in this debate should have contemplated the dangerous and inevitable conse quence of such a state of affairs, and should have suggested that there will probably b e a very considerable attempt to fasten the expenditure of the country upon direct taxation. The right hon. gentleman has brought forward a paper— and it is not the first time that ho has done so—and he has tried to show the house that in the recent impositions of taxes there has not been that fair proportion between direct and indirect taxation which we believe just and politic. But there is this fallacy in all those papers which the right hon. gentleman read and in the inference which he draws from them. We do not object to a fair proportion be-• tween direct and indirect taxation in our financial system. What we do object to, and what we are objecting to, is that the direct taxation should take the • form of an income tax on this large scale (Cheers.) It is not fair in the right bon. gentleman always to state the question as it it were a competition between direct and indirect taxation, and to describe this side of the house as advocates of indirect taxation as against direct, when the question is not what system is the superior (for I suppose there are very few even now in this house who contemplate a time when a considerable portion of indirect taxation will not be an ingredient in our financial system)—when the real question, I say, is as to the form of the direct taxation --a form which no one has denounced in stronger terms than the right hon. gentleman himself. (Cheers.) The question is whether that form, the national evils of which he has proclaimed, and the demoralising influences of which upon the people he has described in such glowing terms, should still exist, and not only exist, but shall under his owri administration be 'increased, without his holding out the slightest prospect er hope that that increase will not go on in a ratio which no one can contemplate without appre - hension. (Cheers.) From more than one gentleman who has addressed us in this debate we have heard a great deal about the people, and those who have objected to the income tax in this form and to this degree—to this excess, I will say—have been told that they do not advocate the interests of the masses, who are not sufficiently represen ted, but by whom we now learn the house is to be elected in the next Parliament. (Hear, hear) Well, sir, I pro test against the justice of those observations. (Cheers.) There is a class of political philosophers .who are repre sented in this house, and who think that they elevate a nation by degrading it into a mob. (Cries of "Oh," and cheers.) Sir, I do not share in that opinion. (Cheers.) The contributors to the income tax consist of various classes in the State. They are very numerous, of very different degrees of wealth, and of very different degrees of cultiva tion and position; but it is no doubt true that those' who pay the income tax are, generally speaking, th e " fl ower o f the' nation." With them are to be found the traditions, the domestic integrity, and the moral qualities of the nation; and it is in the high spirit of those classes, from the highest to the humblest, that the State must look in the time of its exigency. (Cheers.) It is not true that the payers of the income tax are a class apart from the great body of the people. They form a great portion of that body, and they are themselves divided into classes very numerous and very different in their respective posi tions. I am not sure if you go into the question of the pressure of taxation, whether there are not several of those classes who, under the imposition of the income tax, suffer more severely from it than any of the work ing classes of this country suffer under their peculiar bur dens. I am perfectly ready at all times as freely as any other member of this house to acknowledge how important it is that we should consider the condition of the labouring classes in this country—l know as well as any other gen tleman how much depends upon the ample and remunera tive employment which they may command, and what vi gorous action it gives to the wealth of the country—l know that upon tho whole how to accomplish such a result we should extend our commercial intercourse between this country and other countries—(hear)—and I feel, too, that those burdens which remain ought to be judiciously re moved. All these are high objects of policy, and objects which I take for gr an t e d th e present House of Commons are prepared treaccomplish—(hear, hear)—but to accom plish these results only upon the condition that they are practicable and consistent with the financial position of the country ; and we cannot decide upon our financial position without considering in 801110 degree th e f u t ure . (Hear.) Well, sir, let me say one word upon the point raised in re ference to the commercial treaty with France. (Hear, _ . hear.) Sir, I entirely approve of any means which may increase our intercourse with France. That has been for a li r o y f a o f c e t n h t o u r - - - 0 v t e h r n e To object o o f f n h a e n c y o n y s e t a a r n s t — s a o t li l c e i as tu t de a w q i u th ar m te this country. (Hear, hear.) In 1840 we were informed— not publicly, but it was well known at the time—that a commercial treaty with France was in fact, in negotiation, and I am not aware what was the real reason not ratified, except it was in 'consequence of difficulties which arose with the French Government. I should not have alluded to this circumstance had not a member of the Cabinet risen and referred to it, and had it not 'been an nounced by a servant of the Crown. When I was Chan cellor of the Exchequer, not a month elapsed after the Government was in office but they thought of seeing what they could do with France ; and a ft er th e Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had opened the more f orma l part of as business, business,the Earl of Malmesbury requested me to place myself in communication with Lord Cowley. I corre sponded with that noble lord, and I do not say that it would not have taken the form of a treaty but perhaps not the one which has been contemplated by the present Government. If it had been arranged, there would have been mutual alterations in the tariff. (Hear, hear.) What prevented, unfortunately, those changes not taking place ? Why, towards the end'of the autumn circum stances arose which rendered it to be our duty when Pars liament assembled to call upon Parliament for a great increase in our armaments, and we found it impossible to have to pass the budget for a war expenditure. I was the victim, and my budget never recovered that fatal blow. (Hear, hear.) But we had none of those prejudices which the right hon. gentleman imputes to us—(hear, hear) — against the French Government. On the contrary, if the position of affairs had permitted, nothing would be more desirable than that our commercial relations with France should be considerably enlarged, and they might take the form of a treaty. (Hear, hear.) But my objection to this treaty of the Government is irrespective of the financial one, and which in a moment I will refer to. I think it a very bad treaty which was drawn with less care and with less knowledge of the circumstances with which the nego • tiators had to deal, "and I think that altogether, consider ing the many ar ra n gemen t s it re f ers to, that it will be not only injurious to the interests of this country, but inferen tially. Ultimately it will ba injurious to France, and it will sow the seeds of distrust between the two nations. (Hear, hear.) It is not a time now, at one o'clock to enter into the details. But take the previous clause in reference to coal. I think it is a great mistake, and if acceded to at all, it should only have bean upon a reciprocal arrangement on the part of France to let her coal come into this country free of duty. (Hear, hear.) Take the arrangement in reference to the silk trade. That is extremely imperfect. There are articles of our silk manufacture which now enter France at a duty of 15 per cent., and many of them will be charged a duty Of 30 per cent. (Hear, hear.) It is a very great error that France should be permitted to enter into a treaty which leaves an export duty upon raw silk and our manu factures subject to a duty of 30 per cent. import duty. There are many other details of great importance ; but I will not now weary the house with them. I object to the treaty as an ill drawn instrument, and under the the cir cumstances I could not allow the discussion upon it to pass without criticism and some opposition. (Hear, hear.) But what I object to particularly in regard to the treaty is this, that we have entered into it, and have thereby in creased that deficiency in our revenue, under which the right hon. gentleman is suffering. (Hear, hear.) I will say this of the treaty, that it will add to the deficit at least £1,200,000 immediately; and it is so drawn that, when the right hon. gentleman brings it into full operation, I feel persuaded of this result, that he will not put it into order without a further sacrifice of £500,000 to the revenue; and that, I think will be a more considerable sum than that con templated by the right hon. gentleman in his statement when he brought his budget under the consideration of the house. I say, then, as to commercial intercourse with France, there is no abstract objection to such a course. On the con trary, there is the greatest readiness to enter into any ar rangements which have that object; but we object to this treaty, not skilfully negotiated—a treaty entered into at a time which creates a considerable deficiency in our revenue, and probably a much more considerable one than is calcu lated by the Chancellor of Exchequer; and we object to the time at which it is brought forward, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself confessed that the Tench Go. vernment is bound to postpone the carryin g into operation of a portion of it till the year 1861. As there was a seeret negotiation, there was not the slightest reason why it should not have been a secret treaty till it was all brought into operation, But I must consider the proposition of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer this year in combination with the budget of 1853. It is a complement to that budget. They are, in fact, inseparably united. Now, what has been the fate of the financial propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 1853 ? and can we not draw some warnings from their fate as to the probable result of the financial ar rangements of 1860 ? There were four great features of the financial scheme 0f1853, that famousfinancial scheme whose praises have been so celebrated, and on the credit of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has flourished until he made the statement of 1860. I need hardly take up much time with tho first. It was not attempted, I will not say, to pay off the national debt, but t o reduce the interest. But it appeared that when he endow/oared to enter on that enter prise, he found it necessary to give anotice of some months to the owners of some 500 millions of stock, which rendered it impossible to carry out the project. The right hon. gen tleman acknowledged that the scheme was an abortion. But I will say in passing, what is perhaps not known, that it was an abortion that cost us the whole of the balances in the Exchequer, and that we entered into the great Russian war with a balance in the Exchequer of little more than a million. The second portion of the scheme was a reduction on the tea duties to Is. in the pound. Well, I may venture to say that that was a measure adopted from his predeces sors. I had the honour, when in Lord Derby's Government, to bring forward a proposition by which the duty on tea should be eventually reduced to ls. a-pound, and if that plan , had been carried into a law the duty on tea would at this time have been Is. The right hon. gentleman was .deter mined to do it quicker than I anticipated, and what is tho result ? The duty on tea is now much more than Is. in the pound, and I was quite surprised to find that from the de putation from the tea trade the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer received with some complacency a sugges tion from a gentleman interested, that that duty should be increased ld. a pound. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here made an observation across the table which did not reach the gallery. Mr. DISRAELI—One great advantage of the freedom of debate is that we are favoured with a running commentary by the right hon. gentleman. I never object myself to be interrupted, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not object in future. 'Well, that was the fate of his second great proposition. The third great feature of the financial scheme was the succession tax. Let me recal to the house the mode in which that scheme was recommended to us, and the estimate of its produce. Here was a taxdirectly against the landed interest, which recommended itself very much to the hon. member for Birmingham, and which was to produce £2,000,000 a-year, and with these £2,000,000 and £2,000,000 of terminable annuities the Chancellor of the Ex chequer said, " I shall have a pretty good sum of money to assist me in' putting an end to the income tax." But the succession tax, instead of producing £2,000,000 per annum, has produced about a third of that sum. The fourth great measure, much larger in proportion, is now before the house, and the income tax, the promised remission of which gained the right hon. gentleman the applause of all parties, and the gratitude of a grateful country, which in 1860 was to termi nate, is now to be reimposed in an aggravated form. (Opposi tion cheers.) The income tiix of 1853 is unfortunately still alive, and is a child that has grown wonderfully. The income tax of 1853, which year after year was to diminish, and this year to cease altogether, is now 4 per cent. or 10d. in the pound, was the fourth great measure and the fourth great failure of the right hon. gentleman. And it is in conse quence of this successful measure that we are to put great confidence in the wild and improvident proposition now be fore us. But I shall not state the case unfairly against the right hon. gentleman. Ho had reminded the house that circumstances intervened which he could not control, and to which he attributed the failure of his arrangements. A revolutionary war which was not expected occurred. But let me remind the house that the Russian war was entered into as an excuse, because he repeated his views, and opinions in 1857, when he criticieel the budget of; the right hon. member for Radnorshire. So far as a speech could aid. him he recommended the same course himself. So far back as 1858, when I occupied his position in the Ministry, and when the income tax lapsed to 6d., the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ever and still faithful to his pledges, main tained the course which I thought• it my duty to state. But now for the plea. Instead of witnessing the termination of the income tax, we are called on, not only to sanction an increase, but also an arrangement which will inevitably cause its re-imposition another year in a more odious form. We are told that it is to the Russian war that we etre to at tribute the budget of 1853. Let me remind the house that we now know much more of that war and its causes than we did in 1853. He never had placed on the table the se cret correspondence between our Minister at St. Petersburg and the noble lord opposite, and which, in consequence of authentic information which I received, could not be kept back, and in which we fi n d th a t no sooner was Lord Derby expelled from office than the Russian Emperor declared to the new Government his designs on Turkey. 1 could bring .the evidence of a man of great commercial, now of great di plomatic reputation—the secret negotiator of the F aria Treaty—l can bring forward Mr. Cobden to prove he never gave a vote with greater reluctance than that which expel. led Lord Derby from office, because, as he stated, he had not the slightest doubt that that fact produced the Russian war. (Loud Opposition cheers.) On the Ist January he informed our Minister he intended invading Turkey, the Menschikoff mission followed, and yet it was with all this knowledge that the right hon. gentleman brought forward his budget of 1853 with all these arrangements, which only the certain expectation of peace could justify. He held out to the Parlament which had long repudiated the income tax a plan for settling this long difference when Europe was on the eve of convulsion, and a war was imminent, in w hich England must be the prime mover. (Hear, hear.) But, jti Sir, is that all ? The Emperor of Russia acted great hesitation and perplexity, watching the course of the English Government ; and at that period, had that Go vernment been energetic, it could have arrested its course. But we know that our Cabinet was torn with sensions with two parties, by theirown confession in it. 'We know that if the First Prime Minister had remained the war would not have taken place„ but there was a party that exercised a greater influence than the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, and that was the party that pro duced a peace budget when it should have been preparing cheers.) And what was th e war armaments. (Opposition consequence ? That famous vote of supply in 1854, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, forced to join in a course that would arrest the progress of the Emperor, and s h ow that England would not be trifled with, proposed to send certain battalions of Guards out to Malta, and proposed at the same time the vote that should bring them back again. (A laugh.) Who could be surprised that war took place three months after such feeble conduct on the part of the English Government ? And what has been the consequence of that war? An addition of £40,000,300 to the debt, en tailing an annual charge of £1,180,000, exactly the sum we are going to pay annually for this French treaty of com merce. Yet we aro told of that successful financier who proposed the great budget in 1853, and who has now brought forward the budget of 1860—that g reat statesman whose policy is to equalise th e i nc id ences o f taxation upon differext classes who shrinks from unnecessary expenditure —whose constant call is for retrenchment, and who re• sorts to every possible means to lighten the bur den of taxation on the people. (Cheers.) Why, had one of those great statesmen shown more force and firmness and prevented the Russian war, which they precipitated by their feebleness, do you not see that the incidences of taxation would have been much lightened ; and do you not see from what has occurred that other qualities than mere political economy are necessary for the government of nations ? (Hear, hear.) ' I told you that the budget of 1853 was inseparably connected with that of 1860. You have seen how completelythe budget ef 1853 was founded on all these four features ; you see whyit failed —because external circumstances that were not foreseen by those who ought to have been prescient of them interfered with their consummation. What is the state of affairs now ? Is the aspect more serene than in the spring of 1853? No one can supposed that the right hon. gentle man now is ignorant of the state of external politics, The right hon. gentleman takes great interest in the affairs of Italy. He has favoured us in this house with his opinions on that subject, and if the budget of 1860 ends in that confusion which I believe awaits it, as must await all schemes so truly improvident, he will not be able to tell us next year that his plan has been frustrated by external causes he could not foresee. He takes great interest in the affairs of Italy, though he has quarrelled with the Pope, as he has quarrelled n ith many other of his friends— having, I suppose, learned that Christian charity which the other night he grudged too for the Greek Church. But, sir, it would be well ashen the house has a scheme of finance so improvident placed before it —when a deficit exists, a deficiency is created, and a tax is increased, that at the moment of emergency should be the source upon which we can most rely—it would be well to consider what is the state of oar foreign relations. They-contain at this moment the greatest causes that can possibly impel men to action, or that can influence the des tinies of empires. Totally irrespective of many causes of comparative insignificance that in &den times have produced wars, we have now in Italy three causes, any one of which is enough to convese the world. We have first the question of Papal supremacy —we have the question of the natural boundary of empires, and we have the question of the na • tiouality of races. Each of the first two has in its time pro duced the longest and most sanguinary struggles that have taken place in the history of mankind. The question of the Papal supremacy once gave you the 30 yearn' war. The question of the natural boundary of empires gave you the long war of the French revolution. Both these questions are still at work, and in addition there is that which cannot be avoided, nor perhaps long delayed —the question of the nationality of races. And we are told he such circumstances as these that all statesmen should do is to simplify their tariff. (Opposition cheers.) Why, was there ever a mo ment in the history of the country when we ought more to husband our resources ? Is this a time wantonly to put an end to any of the sources of even ordinary revenue ? Is this the time you should fix upon to anticipate the resources of your direct taxation? There is not a man out of the house who doubts the course that we ought to pursue. I think the course recemmenced by the Government is the most improvident—l could use a stronger word, but will not do so—that ever yet was counselled to Parliament. Under ordinary circumstances I should hesitate to adopt it. But in a moment like this I feel it my duty to thoroughly and completely protest against their policy. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman the member for Liskeard spoke with great friend liness to me this evening. He told me aloud, and of course in confidence—(laughter) —that I recommended my friends to a very unwise course in requesting my hon. friend to propose that resolution which he did with so much spirit and promise. (Hear.) The member for Liskeard said tome, "Why. did you have a resolution of this kind—why did you not admit the principle of the budget—that is, the principle of the policy—and worry the Government in corn mittee. (Laughter.) You would have got a great deal of assistance. I would have helped you, and would have beaten the Government on details." (Laughter.) But nothing could be more unwise than the course you have taken in doubting the propriety of the policy, and chal lenging the whole syetem which they recommend to the country. I have no doubt my hon. friend the member for Liskeard would make a much more adroit leader of a party than I can pretend to be; and it is only, indeed, with the assistance and the constant indulgence of my friends that I can for a moment pretend to fill and carry out the duties of the office which I now occupy ; but the hon. member for Liskeard will allow me to tell him that he has totally mistaken the motives which influence us— (cheers)—and that those motives are quite different from those which would regulate his conduct. (Laughter.) The Chancellor of the. Exchequer seemed to deride the speech of my right hon. friend the member for the Univer sity of Cambridge —a speech inspired, I believe, by as true a sense of patriotism as ever actuated any hen, gentleman, and characterised by as pure and noble an eloquence as any speech which h as over b een made in this house. (Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to deride the pos sibility that we had any object in the course we have taken but to ernbarass or subvert the Government. He sai d it is our duty to terminate their Ministerial career if we enter tain the opinion we have expressed. But I differ from him. I remember that the Parliament I am addressing was sum moned by the Queen by the advice of her councillors, of whom I was one, andlthat Parliament, on its meeting, though by a very narrow majority—still by a majority— expressed that they had no confidence in the then Govern mens of her Majesty—they had no confidenc e i n our f ore i gn policy—they had no confidence in our reform. policy. (Ironical cheers.), What confidence the present Parlia- • ment has in the foreign policy of the present Government I will not at present decide. (Hear, hear.) All I know, as far as I can form an opinion, is that the affairs of Italy are exactly in the same position in which they were whe Parliament was prorogued in August. (No, no.) I think T speak with some knowledge of the circum stances. As far as the reform measure is concerned, I confess that after the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the franchise is to be given to the masses, no bill of reform that we could propose will vie with the coming measure of her. Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think they have a right to understand that neither I nor my colleagues after that vote are at all anxious now to attempt to occupy the places whitle they then filled. (Hear.) But I at l eas t ma y sa y f or m y se lf that hon. gentlemen for more than two years led this house in a minority. I shrink from the unparalleled anxiety and responsibility of such a post, and I would recommend no gentleman, on whatever benches he may sit in this house, who has any regard for his nervous system—(laughter)— to aspire to that position. (Laughter:) The important post which the Chancellor of the Exchequer fills gives an ample opportunity for the exercise of his eager mind and great resources, and ho may perhaps aspire to the proud position of leading this house, which no one could fill more efficiently. (Hear, and cheers. But from what I have observed of the temperament of the right hon. gentleman--(cheers)—l think I may tell him that it is as well for him that, however eminent his position, he reposes, at least for a term, beside the multi, sapientium of the noble lord the Foreign Se ire tary, and the mild patience of the noble viscount—(cheers) —that there is is such a thing as fulfilling a noble duty. We are not unconscious of that duty, and we will not enter into combinations and cabala. to embarrass the Government. But when a party comes forward with a distinct principle and to advocate a cause which is perfectly intelligible— which they believe a great portion of the nation sympathise with—to hold that such a party movement is liable to re proach is to confound the nature of things, and not to com prehend the scope and spirit of our constitution. (Hear, hear.) It is the duty, and the noblest duty that can fall to members of this house to fulfil such a task, and such is the course we are now about to take. It is our opinion that the proposal of the Government is one. pernicious, impru dent in finance, not to say proffigate—one that may lead the country to an extremity of circumstances at this time next year which few can contemplate without the utmost alarm. (Hear, hear) I wish to see such a course arrested. I have no hope that by asserting in this straightforward manner our policy we can accomplish that object at present , but when by this resolution we all declare that to add to a, de ficiency is a course in finance to be deprecated, and that we will not disappoint the just expectations of the people by largely increasing the income tax we assert the policy which we believe in, and will maintain. (Opposition cheers.) At least those just expectations I myself will not disappoint, and to the country I ultimately appeal. (Loud cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—Mr. Speaker, I am not going to follow the right hon. gentleman either in discussing the details of the budget of 1853, or the causes and effects of the Russian war, or the affairs of Italy, or even the nervous system of the right hon. gentleman himself. (Loud laughter.) I beg to say, in passing, that I feel an unfeigned pleasure in finding him in se good a condition. I will endeavour in a few short sen tences to recal the house to the subject really now to be decided • ; and I will venture to say that a more im portant subject never was confined within six short lines of a resolution, ample enough, however, for the decision of Parliament, without mixing with it those various topics— some personal and others general in their character—with which the right hon. gentleman has indulged in the speech ho has just made. The resolution before the house contains a decided opinion upon two great questions, the on relat ing to our commercial arrangements with foreign countries, ot the other relating to the developoment of our national for re sources at home. Either one or the other i s a fit subject na a separate discussion. The hon. member for Essex, how ever, has judged proper to put them both together, and what is the result he proposes to accomplish by obtaining the as sent of the house to his resolutio n ? Nothing more orless than this, to reject, by anticipation, without any detailed di scuss ion, summarily the treaty with France, and the budget of my right hon. friend. (Hear.) That intention is sufficiently to be gleaned from the words of the resolution ; for if any doubt could have been entertained, that doubt must have been destroyed by the frank avowal of the right hon. gentleman opposite that that is the intention and the spirit and object of the notion now under discussion. I shall not enter into any details as to the treaty or the bud get, because the house knows that we are going to invite it to enter into a discussion of the different provisions of the treaty, and it will have an •opportunity of giving its opi nion in detail upon each. We have accomplished that with regard to our commercial relations with France which has been admitted to have been the object of Government after Government in constant succession. We are called upon now, although the right honourable gentleman has not laid the ground for the premature rejection of the treaty by the words of the reso lution to do that which is tantamount to an utter and entire rejection of the treaty. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the budget, by that part of the resolution which deals with the income tax it is palpable that if the house agrees to the re solution they will set aside summarily the whole financial arrangements which my right hon. friend has proposed. The latter part of the resolution disposes of the budget as theformer does of the treaty. On what ground is it advo cated ? That of the increased expenditure ? Why, if we are obliged to have an increased expenditure, which hon. gentlemen opposite and the country don't find fault with, but which has been in a manner forced upon us, then it is the duty of Parliament to increase the income of the country by all possible means ; and one great means of doing that is by promoting commercial intercourse with our nearest neighbours. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman talked of a secret treaty, to come into force a year hence. What would have been thought of the Government if they had adopted such a course, so directlyinjurious to all commerce? (Hear, hear.) "No doubt the example set by England and France will be followed by other countries, and this treat y will lay the foundation not only of increased intercourse be tween England and France, but amongst all the nations of Europe. (Cheers.) So far from increasell saexy that it pen being an argument against the treaty , strengthens the reasons for it. (Hear, hea:.) While par suing the course of developing ourresoutf-creee the springs of in 1842, 1845, snd 1853, we are setting as e xemplified t t o our foreign com industry at home, giving develop men (Hear, hear.) merce, and increasing our own resources.the fallacious arguments Let gentlemen not be led away by y which on the other side. Let them reflect spnthat, osili b ib ydis t disapproving of this treaty, they wou ld incur a responsibility they would not like to be a nswerable in the future. (Chee rs. ) l The house divided. o numbers were— For Mr. Du Cane's resolution A g ainst it .. ...... rit Majoy for Ministers • The announcement of the numbers was received with great cheering by the Ministerial side. The Attorneys and Solicitors Bill was read a third time and passed. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Sir W. JOLLIFFE, a new writ was NOES-339. Acton, Sir .T. Foley, Hon. H. W. MOstyn, Hon. T. E. Adair, H. E. Fo!jambe, F. J. S. Napier, Sir C. Adam, W. P. Forster, Charles Newark, Lord Adeane, H. J. Foster, W. 0. Noble, J. Agar-Ellis, Hon. L. Fortescue, Hon. D. Norris, J. T. Alcock, T. Fortescue, C. S. N or th, F. - Andover, Lord Freeland, 11. W. O'Brien, P. Angerstein, W. Garnett, W. J. O'Ferrall, M. Autrobus, E. Gaskell, J. M. Ogilvy, Sir J. Arnott, Sir J. Gavin, Major Onslow, Guildford Ashley, Lord Gibson, T. M. Osborne, Bernal Atherton, W. Gifford, Earl of Owen, Sir J. Ayrton, A. S. Gilpin; C. Packe, G. H. Bagwell, J. 'Gladstone. W. E. Paget, C. Baines, F. 'Glyn, G. C. Paget, Lord A. Baring, 11. B. Glyn, G. G. Paget, Lord C. E. Baring, Thos. Geo. Goldsmid, Sir F. Palmerston, Visct. Bass, M. T. Gordon, C. W. • Patten, J. W. Baxter, W. E. Gower, F. L. Paxton, Sir J. Bazley, Thomas Graham, Sir J. R. G. Pease, H. Beale, Samuel Greenall, G. Peel, Sir R. Beamish, F. B. Greenwood, J. Peel, F. Beaumont, W. B. Gregory, W. H. Peto, Sir M. Bellew, R. M. Gregson, S. Pigott, Francis Berkeley. H. Grenfell, C. P. Pilkington, James Berkeley, F. Greville, Col. F. Pinney, Wm. Bothell, Sir R. Gray, William Pollard UrquhartW Biddulph,•.,Col. RM. Grey, ltt. lin. Sir G. ronson by, A. Biggs, John Grosvenor, Earl Portman W. H. 13. Black, Adam Gurdon, B. Pryse, Capt. E. L. Blake, J. A. Gurney, John H. Pritchard, John Bleneowe, J. G. Gurney, Samuel Proby. Lord. G. L. Bonham-Carter, J. Hadfield, Geo. Pugh, D. (Connor.) Botfield, Beriah Hanbury, It., jun. Puller, C. W. Bouverie, E. P. Handley, John Itamsden, Sir J. W, Bouverie, P. P. Hankey, Thomson Rayuham, Viscount Brameton, T. W. Hamer, Sir J. Ricardo, .T. L. Bright, J. Harcourt, G. G. V. Ricardo, 0. Briscoe, J. I. Hardcastle, Jos. A. Rich, IT. Bristow, A. Hartington,Marquis Ridley, G. Brocklehurst, John Hayter, Sir Wm. Robartes, T. J. A. Brown, James Headlam, Thos. E. Robertson, D. Browne, Lord J. T. Heathcote, G. H. Roebuck, J. A. Bruce, H. A. lleneage, G. ltothschild,BaronL Bulkeley, Sir R., Bt. Henley. Lord Rothschild Baron I( Buller, Sir-A. • Herbert, H. A. ltoupell, W. Buller, J. W. Herbert; S. - Russell, Lord J. Burke, Sir T. J., Bt. Hervey, Lord A Russell, Hastings Butler. C. S. Hodgkinson, G. Russell, A. J. E. Butt, Isaac Hodgson, K. D. Russell, F. W. Buxton, C. Holland, E. St. Aubyn, J. Byng, lion. G. !LC. Hope, G. W. Solomons,Alderman Caird, James Hornby, W. H. Salt, Titus Calthorpe, F. H. Ilorsfall, T. B. Scliolefie.d,•W. Campbell, W. F. Howard, Hon. C. Scott, Sir W. Cardwell,ltt. Hu. E. Howard, Lord E. G. Scrope, G. P. Carnegie, Hon. C. Humberstone, P. S. Scully, V. Castlerosse, Vist. Hutt, W. Seymour. Sir 31. Cavendish, Hon. W. Ingham, R. Seymour, H. D. Cavenclish, Lord G. Ingram, H. Seymour. Digby Cayley, E. S. Jackson, W. Shafto, R. D. Childers, H. C. E. James, Edwin Shelley, Sir J. V. Cholmeley, Sir M. Jermyn, Earl Sheridan, R. B. Churchill, Lord A. Jervoise, Sir J. Sheridan, H. B. Clay, James Johnstone, Sir J. Smith, J. B. Clifford, C. C. Kendall, N. . Smith, M. T. Clinton, Lord R. Kershaw, J. Smith, Aug - ustus Clive, George King, lion. L. Smith, Sir - 14'. Cogan. W. H. Kinglake, Serj. J. Smith, Abel Coiebrooke, Sir T.E. Kingscote, Lt.-Col. Somerville, Sir W. Collier, R. P. Kinnaird, Hon. A. Stafford, Marquis of Coningham, Wm. Laing, S. Staniland, M. Cowper, Hon. W.F. Langston, J. H. Stansfeld. J. Craufurd, E. H. J Langton, 11. G. Steel, John Crawford, It. W. Lanigan, J. Stewart, Sir 31. R. Crook, Joseph . Lawson, W. • Stuart, Col. Crossley, Frank Leatham, E. Stuart, Major W. Dalglish Robert Legh, G. C. Sykes, Col. W. H. Dashworicl, Sir G. H. Levinge, Sir R.G.A. Talbot, C. R. AI. Davey, R. Lewis, Sir G.C., Bt. Taylor, Hugh Davie, Sir H. R. F. Liddell,•Hon. IL G. Tempest, Lord A.Y. Davie, Col. I'. Lindsay, W. S. Thompson, H. S. Deedes, Win. Locke, Jos. . Tite, Wm. Denman, G. Locke, J. Tollemache, Hon.)'. Dent, John Dent Lockhart, A. E. Traill, G. Divett, Edward Lowe, Rt. Hon. R. Turner, J. A. Dodson, John G. Lysley, W. Tynte, Col. C. J. K. Vane, Lord H. G. D D u ou it gl 3 a r s :E Sir C. Verney, Sir Harry Duff, Major. Mackinnon, W. A. Villiers, Rt. Hon. a. 3 3 1 1 a 'C ek a f i e ln , 'Jj. J. Duke, Sir James Mackinnon, IV.A.jn. Vivian, H. H. Dunbar. Sir Wm. Dlaguire, J. I'. Warre, J. A. Duncombe, T. S. Mainwaring ' T. Walter, John Dundas, Frederick Marjoribanks, D. C. Watkins, J. L. V. Duukcllin, Lord Marsh, M. 11., Wemyss, J. Dunlop, A. Marshall, W. Western, T. S: Dutton, Hon. It. H. Martin, P. W, Westhead, B. Egerton, A. F. Martin, J. Whalley, G. 11. Egerton, E. C. Massey, W. N. Whitbread, S. Ellice, Rt. Hon. E. Matheson, A. White, Col. H. Enilyn, Viscount Matheson, Sir J. Wickham, H. W. Ennis, John Mellor, John Willcox, B. M. Esmonde, John Merry, James Williams, W. Boston, Earl of . Mildmay II • Winnington, Sir T. Evans, T. W. Miller, %Villiam Wise, J. A. Ewart, William Mills, T. T Wood, Rt Hn. Sir C. Ewart, J. C. Milnes, R. M. Woods, Henry Ewing,. H. E. C. Mitchell. T. A. Worsley, Lord Fenwick, Henry Moncreiff, J. Wrightson, W. B. Ferguson, R. Alonsell, lit. Hn. W. Wy Id, James Ferinoy, Lord MonsOn, W.. 1, Wyvill, M. Finlay, A. S. Montgomery, Sir G. TEL LE Rs. Fitzwilliam, C. W. Moody, C. A. Brand, 11. B. Foley, J. H. Morris, D. Rimitchbull-Hugess PA For Goverment. Against. Mr 0 Stanley Col. Pennant Dr Lyons • lin J Wynne Col I. rench Mr le Cole .RS. For Government. Against. Col Smyth Mr Davison Sir De L Evans Mr 0 Morgan Lord E Bruce Ld A Lennox Dlr Dillwyu Mr Sullivan Mr li; lice, Jun Mr Potts Trelawuey Mr Cubitt Mr \Varre MrS Esteoult Mr Brady Mr Pugh Col Coke Col Vaudeleur Mr Thornhill Mr Mn u dy Ca O'C onnellCapt Palmer Col Clifford Mr Connolly Sir G-Pechell Col Bernard Mr Waldron Sir It G Booth Sir A Agnew Mr Tottenham Mr Copeland Mr Hume Sir It Feiguson Col Fiircle Mr Lee Sir It Hayes Major-General Buckley wa from voting against Mr. Du CI I prevenW by indisposition me's resolution. [ADVERTISEMENT.] — Notice. — In consequence of Messrs. Lawes and Morton having just commenced 1840 with opposi tion similar to that which they previously adv anced, and wish ing; to do those gentlemen every justice , 31 r . Thorley is induce insteadd to enlarge his coming pamphlet, making it 64 pages of 32- showing beyond doubt that their observations on the so-called " Concentrated Cattle Food," and so-called " feeding statistics," are without foundation ; that the liothamsted experiment was not made with his food, and consequently that this complete failure must either be through mism mage. ment or from buying the Condiment at the wrong shop. will be The first impression of One Hundred Thousand Copies ready about the first d a y of March, and may be had post free on receipt of Three st a mps, on a pplication to Joseph Thorley, the Inventor and sole Proprietor of " Thorley's Food for Cattle," 77, Newgate-street, London ; 21, Broadway, N ew York, United States; Mr. J. W. Thorley, Melbourne; vi e . toria ; Mr. Alfred Burt, Sydney, New South Wales; and of a ll his agents throughout the United Kingdom.—Feb, 2.1860 lADVERTlSEMEinterestingNT.]—Nothing can be more • than the num erous extraordinary cures wit h of indiges tion (d y s p epsia), flatulenc y , constipation, medicine of m nery ic ous e , bili o us, and liver com plaints , cough, asthma, comm. pation, and debility effected by Du Barry's delicious re Health -storing Revalenta g ive a few :—" Winchester' Arabic} Food. We G e ntlemen,—l am happy e to be able to inform Decemb ernber3, 1847. you that the person for whom your vale ta dr ve o ry ps g y, readtybespneepfistiaf, andromits us n e; w di as stt p •e r sl ur g ed sy n m as pt d o e ms rived of have be en re constipation of long stand inghealth induced moved, and a feeling of restored Having witnessed the beneficial effects in the above mentioned case, I can with confi dence recommend it, &c., &c. John Shorlar.d, late surgeon, 96th Regment."— 48,314: Miss Elizabeth Yeo man, Gateacre, near n i r le N rp o oo . 1A cure of ten years' dys pepsia, and all the horrors of nervous in itability.—Cora No. 46,814-11 Ir. Sam xton, Leicester, o.f two years dim , rhcea.—Cure No. 52,612—The Dowager Co untess of Castle stuart,of many years nervous irritabianbile. , and indigeation - En tins, at ls. 6d. •11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 5113. , 12,R . - 12.1 b •, 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, t . na rep eipto ; f post:: office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent- - stro , ,t; London' Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly : Abbie, 60 . Gracechnrcb.-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Oxford street ; 330 and 451, Strand ;49 and 60. Biehopsgatos street ; . 85, Tottenham-court-road. Ai .0 at Dublin. Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, It aimes and Co. ; at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew • at Mar l'A iee ter, Sharp and Scott ;at York, Raimes, ißlaricharcif and Co, ; at SoUtbr ampton, Randall and Son. 111 E SUN, 'LONDON, SA FURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, 1860. were applied in 1842, in 1845, and in 1853? (Cheers.) There is another view of the case', to which no allusion has been made by gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the house, but which I must confess impresse. itself very forcibly upon my mind, and it is this :—I heard with pain the speech of my right hon. friend the member for Ports mouth, which gave the weight of his authority, not so far, as I could understand, in support of the motion, but, at any rate, in disapproval of the financial proposals of the Govern ment. My right hon. friend referred, and my hon. friend the member for Stamford referred, to a political reason for the recommendation of schemes different from those of the Government. My hon. friend the member for Stamford gave us a glimpse of finance to which he would gladly have been a party, and he said that, instead of an income-tax of 10d. in the pound, we ought to have an income-tax of 7d. in the pound. My first objection to that agreeable sugges tion is, that he proposed entirely to abolish the very small and modest surplus which I asked ' the house to provide, and that entire abolition of surplus is not, as I understand, a condition or characteristic of safe or prudent finance. (Hear.) My hon. friend proposed to restore to the revenue what we took away. He proposed to take away 3-10ths of the income-tax, or about £3,550,000, and the difference be tween those sums swallowed up the modest surplus which I have asked. " Aye, but," sayri my hon. friend, "you have always an increase from indirect taxes." It happens that we have reckoned that increase already at as high an amount as the opinion of official persons warrants us taking it, and I need not tell my hon. friend we cannot eat the cake and have it too—(laughter)—we cannot reckon a sum twice on thelsame side of the account. But then my hon. friend said he would provide a surplus by new taxes. But what new taxes ? (Hear.) By taxes on the trade and industry of the country. Depend upon it if ever you adopt a stationary fi nance—stationary in fact, but retrogressive in spirit—you will not simply stand still ; you will lose those continual supplies welling forth year by year from sources which prudent legislation has opened, and you will be obliged to make provision by new taxes, to which my hon. friend so very mildly glanced. (Cheers.) My hon. friend said, we do not make proper provi sion for 1861. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Supposing hon. gentlemen opposite had attained a Spartan heroism, and were as rigid financiers as they are Puritanical Free traders when it suits them—(laughter)—and they had said, "It is intolerable that this £1,400,000 should be applied to the purposes you propose ; take £1,000,000 of it and apply it to the payment of Exchequer-bonds ;" I am not sure they would have had the hop-growers to assist them ; but they would have acted on those high principles of finance which I must say have for many years l oe 1 the peculiarcha racteristic of the party which they claim to represent. (Cheers.) But it is not so. They ask you to give the utmost possible relief to the class which chiefly returns members to Parliament—nothing to any othsr class—and to apply the malt and hop credits as an expedient to meet expenditure in <dead season, tin accordance with a policy which provides from hand to mouth, looks not to the future, and contains within it no germ of possible improvement. (Cheers.) My hon. friend said, "Take care what you are doing," and he was echoed by my right hen, friend. What are we doing ? We leave to April, 1861, to make provision for 1861, as we are makinc , provision for 1860—(cheers from the Opposi tion)—anifthe reason of that proceeding is not concealed. It is a very tame reason—that we do not recognise this ex penditure as fixed and immutable. We wish it to be watched by the people of England, to be controlled by Parliament, and therefore it is well that the Government should be de pendent on Parliament for a portion of the revenue, instead of its being absolutely fixed, in order that Parliament shall have control over the taxes. (Cheers.) Here I think lam entitled to make a strong appeal to my right hon. friend. He did not speak of great expenditure as desirable, or to be looked on with indifference. He, I thenght, from the tone of his speech, looked with anxiety, which in my idea every prudent statesman must feel, to see the expen diture increased. I have no article of faith more cardinal than that large expenditure is not only an evil in itself, but constitutes a social and politidal danger to the country. (Cheers.) But my right hon. friend said, " You will never get down the expenditure until you refuse some of the taxes," and yet he objects to us when the course which we take is to leave in the Parliament of next year the power of employing that lever, if it thinks fit, for the pur pose of acting on the expenditure of the country. (Cheers.) I must say we are acting on the principle of my right hon. friend, and I shall be very sorry if we have not his aid to give it effect. But here he and my bon. friend came in and intimated that there is a peculiar danger in leaving to the Parliament of next year to make provision for the exigen cies of next year, because it is likely to be a Reformed Par liament ; and so, because it is likely to be a Reformed Par liament, you are to tie up its hands, as a man who holds an estate in fee simple, and has got a disreputable son, entails -and hampers it in every way he can, for fear his son will abuse his power. (Loud cheers.) That is the spirit in which we are to act towards the reformed Parliament. We are to go and say to an additional portion of the people, "We hold you worthy to be associated with your fellow citizens in the great and noble office of choosing your re presentatives in Parliament, but when those reppsenta . member for North Essex is a proposal which attacks the whole of the past course of legislation since 1842, and which stigmatises it for the past, and which renounces it for the future. (Cheers, and cries of " No.") I have also shown that, if Parliament is to be reformed, the best security we, can take for the institutions of the country, for the loyalty of the people under the action of the new system, is to show that we have done justice to all classes while the old one was in existence. (Cheers.) Upon these two issues the house has now to decide, and I am convinced both that their decision will be favourable to the scheme of the Go vanmeat, and likewise that in delivering it the House of Commons do no more than echo back the voice which has sounded throughout the nation from one extremity to the other. (Loud cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI then addressed the house as follows: I rise to answer the•challenge of tho right hon. gentleman, and to interpret the indignant negative which he heard from my friends behind me, and which he said I was bound to translate. (Hear, hear.) The right hen. gentleman says the motion of my hon. friend the member for Essex is one which impugns the whole policy of our commercial legisla tion for `,ha last 18 years—that the measures which he in troduced and the policy which he recommended are pre cisely the same as those which on preceding occasions have received the sanctien of Parliament and the approbation of the nation ; and that if the house accedes to the motion of my hon. friend, weare doing all we can to reverse the spirit and principle of our commercial code for the last 18 years. But I deny the position assumed by the right hon. gentle man, and deny that there is any similarity between this and the measures of 1812, 1845, and 18.53, when he himself in troduced that budget to the house. Sir R. Peel in 1812 and 1845, and the right hon. gentleman in 1853, found or made a deficit; but when they proposed a tax it was for a period which covered the period during which the experiment was to apply, and during which the revenue might be rallied. But the right hon. gentleman now finds a deficit—he makes a deficit, and does not propose any experiment by which that deficit can be supplied. (Hear, hear.) The whole of the speech of the right hon. gentleman depends upon this position; for if he be not warranted in the assumption ho has made the whole of his arguments and calculations fall to the ground. I hope I shall succeed in showing this to the house. The house, lam sure, will generously rememba _ _ that the hour is late (20 minutes to one), that this is not an occasion on which I should shrink from representing the opinions of the party which I have the honour to represent. I will therefore consider as briefly as I can, and for the mo ment in a merely financial point of view, the plan of the right hon. gentleman, and see how it agrees with the position he has laid down, and how he can reconcile it with the character he has given of the motion of my right hon. friend. Of this budget of the right hon. gentleman, I would say that it aims at too much and provides too little. The right hon. gentleman finds a deficit, he increases it, and he closes his proposition with introducing a tax of a very extensive cha racter, to exist only for a very short term. The right hon. gentleman has estimated the deficiency at £9,500,000. When he made his financial statement, however, the army estimates werenot on the table, and I think it will turn out that the expenditure for the army will be one million more than appears in the estimates. We heard to-night of an armament sent to China from the India establishment, and when they arrive in China froin India they will be im mediately on our own establishment ; in the same way, when regiments arrive here from India, they, too, will be on our own establishmenr. In the same manner I find that only £500,000 is taken for China, an amount ludicrously small. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—You are not to suppose that the vote of credit represents the whole charge of the Chinese war, it only represents certain extra ordinary charges which could not bo stated in the ordinary estimates. Mr. DlSRAELl—Certainly £500,000 appears on the irst blush very inadequate to the occasion; the estimate has already assumed the form of £850,009. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated dissent. Mr. DISRAELI proceeded. Without dwelling at this moment too much on the estimates, there should not be a very sanguine anticipation on the part of the house to sup pose that the estimate could not be exceeded. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the enormous deficit already existing, will next year have a fur ther deficit in the malt and hop credit of X 140,000, and the appropriation of which I protest against as a measure un - 2 , mnd in finance, and of which I am quite surprised the right hon. gentleman should have proposed to avail him self. In 1852 I proposed as a measure of reform the ex- - _ ordered to issue for West Surrey, for the election of a mem ber in the room of Mr. H. Drummond, deceased. The other orders were disposed of, and the h ouse ad journed at half-past tw o . • P A lAILEN TA 14! YD I VISION. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Frn. 24. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE. Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on question (2 let February), "That this house, recognising the necessity of providing for the increased expenditure of the coming financial year, is of opinion that it is not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue, and is not prepared to disappoint the just expec tations of the country by re-imposing the income tax at an unnecessarily high rate." Question again proposed; debate resumed ; question put. The house divided— Ayes, 223 ; Noes, 339. AYES -223. Annesley, H. Goddard, A. L. Naas, Rt. Hn. Lord Arbuthuott, Gen.H. Goff, Captain Newdegate, C. N. Arclidall, Capt.M.E. Gore, J. R. 0: Newport, Viset. Astell, J. H. Gore, W. IL 0. Nicol, William Bailey, C. Ramie, 11. J. Greaves,G::ahunt i l : .. d o;l A ard Vm. Ball, E. G reene , C a p t. J . N or thcote, Sir S. H. North, N o el (. 1 .3 J. Col. Baring, A. H. Grey deWilton Lord O'Donoghue, D. Baring, Sir F. Grogan, Sir Edward Parke, C. W. Baring, Thomas Haliburton, Justice Pakenharn, Col. Barrow, W. H. Hamilt on , L or d C . P a ki ne t on , Sir J. S. Bathurst, A. A. Hamilton, Jas. H. Palk, L. Beach, W. W. B. Ha m ilt on, M a j or P a pill on, P . 0 . Bective, Earl of Banbury, Captain Parker, Major W. Beecroft, G. S. Hardy, Gathorne Paull, FL Bentinek,.G. W. P. Hartopp, E. B. Peacocke, G. M. Beuttock, G.C. Hassard, M. D. Peel, Gen. Beresford, W. Henley, J. Pevensey, Viscount Bernard, Thos. T. Hennessy, J. P. Powys, L. P. Blackburn, P. Henniker, Lord Quinn, Peter • Bond, J. W. Herbert, Col. I'. E. ltepton, G. W. J. Boyill, Wm., Heygate, Sir F. Ridley, Sir M. W. Bowyer, W. Bill, Lord E. Rogers, John Boyd, John - Hill, Hon. It. Bolt, J. Bridges, Sir 8., BL Holford, It. S. Salt, Thomas Brooks, R. Holmesdale, Lord Sclater-Booth, G. Bruce, C. L. C. Hood, Sir A. Selwyn, C. J. Bruen, Henry Howes, Edward Seymer, H. K. Bunbury, Capt. W. Hubbard, J. G. Shirley, E. P. Burghley, Lord Hunt, G. W. Sibthorp, Major Burrell, Sir C., Bt. Ingestre, Viscount Smith, M. Carnac, SirJ. R., Bt. Jervis, Captain Smith, S. G. Cartwright, Col. H. Johnstone, Hon. H. &limes, Joseph Cave, S. Jolliffe, Capt. H. Stanhope, J. B. Close, y. C. Jones, D. Stirling, Wm. Cobbold, _ ~ John C. liekeWich, S. Steuart A. Cochrane, A. D. Kelly - , Sir F. Start, IL G. Codrington, Sir W. Kennard, C. Sturt, Capt. C. N. Cole, Hon. 11. A. Kerrison, Sir E. Talbot, Hon. W. C. Collins, T., jun. Kinrr, 3. K. Thynne, Lord R. Cooper, E.. 1. Knatchbull, W. Till - lane, Lord H. Corry, H. T. Knight, F. Tollemache, J. H. Cross, R. A. Knightley, R., Tomline, G. Curzon, Viscount Knox, Lt.-Col, B.W. Torres, R. Dalkeith, Earl of Knox, Major IV. S Trait., Hon. C. H. Darner, L. S. IV. D. Lacon, Sir E. Trollope, Sir John Dawson, It. P. Leeke, Sir IL Upton, Gene' al Dickson, Col. Lefroy, A. Valetort, Lord Disraeli. Benjamin Legh, W. Vance, John Drax, J. E. Leighton, Sir B. Vansittart, W. Du Cane, Chas. Leslie, C. I'. Verner, Sir Wm. Duncombe, A. Lever, John 0. Vernon, L. V. Duncombe, W. E. Lindsay, Colonel Walcott, Adm. J. R. Dunn, John Long, R. P. Walker, James It Dunne, Col. Long, W. IValplle, S. H. Du Pre, C. G. Long - held, Robert Walsh, Sir J. B. East, Sir J. B. Lopes, Sir M., Bt. Watling - ton, J. W. Edwards, Major H. Lowther, Col. H. C. Way, Arthur E. Egerton, Sir P. Lowther, Captain Welby, W. E. Egerton, W. Lyall, G. Whiteside, Rt Hn J. Elmley, Viscount Lygon, lion. F. Whitmore, H. • Elphinstone, Sir J. Lytton, Sir E. B. Williams, T. P. Farquhar, Sir M. Macaulay, K. Willoughby, Sir H. Farrer, James McEvoy, E. Woodd, B. T. Fellowes, Edward Malins, IL, Wyndham, Sir H. Fergusson, Sir J. Manners, Ld J. Wyndham, Hon. H. Pithier, Sir E. March, Earl of Wynn, Col. Fitzgerald, W. S. Maxwell, Col. Wynn, Sir W. W. Forester, Col. G. C. Miles, Sir W. Wynne, C. G. Forster, Sir G. Miller, T. Wynne, W. W. IL Franklyn, G. W. Mitiord, W. T. Yorke, Hon. Ii Galway, Viscount Montagu, Lord Gard, IL S. Mordaunt, Sir G George, John Morgan, Major Gilpin, Colonel Mowbray, Rt. lip. J. Jolliffe, Sir W. Gladstone, Capt. Murray, Williafh Taylor, Colonel TELLERS, eland diffi- o far, t the arged trade, have story rlan If the l I r