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

" 1); - ~* , a.....• ~- THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 9, 1860, (Continued from our first page.) ad no doubt, be able to state whether the return on the 'hole of the paper made did not amount to about £6,000,000 er annum. But be that as it might, it was only fair to 'rgue that in proportion to the extent of the interest with ahich the house was called upon to deal did it behove them keriously to consider the results whiCh might flow from the :node in which they were asked to legislate. Was it not ;nost unjust that taxation on a certain commodity should e reduced, theTreduction of which materially interfered 4ith the manufacture of the article, and rendered necessary 'he imposition of an additional penny in the pound in the hope of income-tax on the poor clerk, who could ill afford o pay it ? (Hear, hear.) But there was also another ob ection to the contemplated repeal of the paper duty. He had been told by persons conversant with the subject that that repeal would tend to do material injury not only to the manufacturers themselves, but to those whom they em ployed. (Hear, bear.) The right hon. gentleman had net, however, informed the house to what extent he thought the operation of the bill would be to diminish the number of those who earned their livelihood in that way. lie might add that the material from which paper was made was 40 or 50 per cent, cheaper on the Continent than it was in this country, and that it was only the extra penny on each pound paid by the foreigner in the shape of Customs' duty that enabled the English manufacturer to hold his ground against him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, called on honourable members to yield up the advantage which the latter at present possessed, and that, too, without the slightest equivalent. (Hear.) For his own part he could see no justice in such a proceeding, and he should remind the right hon. gentleman that if he desired to see that treaty, which it was argued was destined to unite two great countries more closely together in the bonds of friendship, permanent, the best mode of effecting that object would be to render it more equal in regard to the advantages which it conferred, (Hear.) Mr. PULLER said the Excise duty and the Customs' duty on paper were quite distinct. The question as to the Excise duty was already settled ; the house had condemned it two years ago. The real point opened by the hon. member for Stamford was, whether since the settlement any fresh circumstances had occurred sufficient to induce the house to reconsider its decision and preserve the duty. (Hear, hear.) That was really a question of confidence in the Go vernment—(oh I) —and whether it could be trusted to draw up the estimates. (Hear, hear.) It was an error of the hon. member for Cambridgeshire to bring into the discussion his own peculiar views of the Customs' duty on paper. It would be impossible, by the terms of the treaty, to keep on the Excise duty and the protection duty of a penny also, which he hoped would be maintained till the Government secured a free exportation of rags. (Hear.) Sir M. FARQUHAR was surprised at the course the Go vernment had taken on the present occasion, when he found what were the opinions expressed by hon. gentlemen oppo site in the discussion on the hon. member for Ashton's (Mr. M. Gibson's) resolution in 1858. In that debate the hon. member for Birmingham said : "He believed the object of his right hon. friend in bring • ing forward this resolution was merely to put on the records of the house the opinions of hon. members on both sides, so that, whenever the condition of the Treasury should be such as to permit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to the abolition of this tax, the right hon. gentleman would select it as the very first for remission, and so get rid of it." What said the right hon. member for Bucks on the same occasion ? This— " He objected to the motion as first proposed by the hon. gentleman. He agreed with him that the maintenance of the excise on paper as a permanent source of revenue would be impolitic, but could not agree with him that such finan cial arrangements ought to be made as to enable Parliament to dispense with the tax." The right hon. baronet the Home Secretary said : " He had certainly given the hon. gentleman no enema ragement, for he had said that, when they knew that they had a surplus revenue and the means of diminishing the taxation of the country, then was the proper time to consi der what under existing circumstances were the taxes which had the first claim to reduction." These declarations formed one of the grounds of the sur prise of the country at the determination of the same right hon. gentleman to seize the present occasion to repeal this tax. He would only quote one more authority, the noble lord the member for the City of London—he said distinctly : " The house would recollect that last year the then Chan cellor of the Exchequer proposed that the income-tax should be kept up at 7d. in the pound, and instead of Is. 3d. the duty on tea would be ls. od., and that there should be a pro portionate increase in the duty on sugar. This year they had allowed the income-tax to fall from 7d to sd. in the pound, but they had kept up the duty on tea at ls. 5d., and also retained the proportionate increase in the duty on sugar. It was therefore almost a matter of good faith whennext there was a reduction in taxation, that the duties on tea and sugar should be reduced, which were in fact war duties, and there could be no greater claim for reduction of taxa tion than in those articles of consumption which entered so largely into the comforts of the people." As theincome-tax had been imposed, should any part of the paper duty be retained, he could only congratulate the right hon. gentleman on having that amount to meet any difficulties that might arise. The right hon. gentleman ex pressed his surprise that they should object to the bill on the third reading, Surely he had been long enough in the house to know that they had a right to dispute draeasure at every stage, on the second reading in committee, and on the third reading. Since the period when the Budget and the Commercial Treaty were brought forward the feeling of the country had materially changed. (Cheers.) The people had seen that there was not the desire supposed to exist, on the part of a neighbouring country to meet the free trade proposals of the Government. (Hear.) Under these circumstances it might fairly be argued that the house ought not to press the passing of the bill. The right hon. member for Buckinghamshire had been taunted, he thought unfairly, in relation to the question of fire insurance, having stated last year as a Minister of the Crown the course which he felt it his duty to adopt with regard to it. He himself was in favour of a reduction of that duty, but he had not voted on the question either last year or during the present session, as he did not w;sh his motives to be misiuter • preted. (Hear, hear.) He was extremely glad the hen. member for Stamford had brought forward the question, and he hoped the house would declare its opinion that it was unwise to sacrifice revenue amounting to £1,300,000 when a groat deficiency existed in the present year, and it had been shown that the deficit for next could not be less than £12,000,000. (Loud cheers.) Lord H. VANE thought the discussion had somewhat wandered from the point raised by the hon. baronet, which he understood to rest on purely financial grounds, the hon. member admitting that by the decision of the house the tax itself ought not to form a permanent revenue. The point raised by the hon. baronet, and upon which he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would afford some infor mation, was, that inasmuch as the house would probably be called on to adopt larger estimates than were at first con templated, and as the last of these had not yet been pre sented, it was desirable, before so large an amount of revenue was parted with, that the house should bo in a position to arrive at a just conclusion. In this view he entirely concurred—(hear, hear)— and though it might be said that the increased amount of the estimates would not absorb the entire of the available surplus, there were other questions looming—(hear, hear)—as to which they ought to have some information. It was stated, for instance, that the Government intended to propose certain plans of forti fication ; and it would be well that the house should be in possession of the fact before coming to any definite resolu tion involving such an extensive sacrifice of revenue as they were now asked to make. (Cheers.) lie differed from those who thought that an income-tax ought not now to be imposed with a view of removing other kinds of taxation, for the principle had been already adopted. The sole ques tion was whether sufficient provision had been made for the additional expenses to be incurred. 110 did not find fan' with the Government for not having produced these addi tional estimates, for in the position in which they found themselves at the opening of the session they had no choice as to the manner in which they should introduce the finan- cial details, and he believed it was customary for Chan cellors of the Exchequer to bring in towards the close of the session a supplementary estimate, embracing all additional and miscellaneous charges. He differed from the hon. member for Hertfordshire, who thought that the Excise and Customs duties were not intimately con nected ; on the contrary, they were so intimately related that he could not conceive how any member could vote with respect to the one without anticipating that he would be called on to vote in similar sense on the other. (Cheers.) And, therefore, ho thought himself justified in assuming that the decision that night would virtually decide the ques tion on Monday, as all who now supported the Government would vote against him on a future occasion. (Hear, hear.) He was not surprised that the hon. member for Ashton- under-Lynx should take credit to himselffor having brought the question to an issue, for it was he who, by an argument of great ability, induced the house two years ago to agree to the resolution which had placed the paper duty in its present anomalous position. But that position had existed ever since, and he did not see that any great injury would result from the postponement of its final decision till next year—(hear, hear)—the house, in so doing, would be act ing in strict accordance with the principle which had guided them since that resolution was passed. The capital of £10,000,000, alleged to be vested in the manufacture of paper, would remain in exactly the same position. it had oc cupied during that interval. (Hear.) Ile could see a clear distinction between the reduction of Customs' duties and the present case. In the former, the house proceeded by way of resolution, and pledged itself to take off or reduce certain charges, but with respect to duty imposed in accordance with an Act of 'Parliament. its repeal was not accomplished until all the successive stages had been gone through, and nobody had a right to complain if in any of these the bill for effecting that object was defeated! (Hear, hear.) li e b y no means contemplated the permanent retention of the paper duty, against which many reasons could be assigned, especially its harsh operation in the case of literary m en and of certain commercial interests, but he believed the in jury which it entailed was very much exaggerated. (Oppo sition cheers.) There was no tax which was absolutely free from objection, and in every - insiance it was a question of comparison as to the least objectionable mode by which the Exchequer could be supplied. 'ln sUpport of the paper duty it might be urged that it was of long standing, having ex • isted ever since the time of Queen Anne, and that interests had grown up tinter it. and become accustomed to it, while duties more recently-imposed had interfered with existing interests and ran more directly counter to the ideas and WWI of the people, (Hear.) Unless, therefore, some fuller f explanations were afforded than had yet been given, and ' unless fears which were not unreasonably entertained were more satisfactorily allayed than had hitherto been the case, t would be an act of imprudence in the house :o part at such a moment with so large a portion of tie revenue. (Cheers.) Mr. ELLICE—I wish to explain to the house in a few words why I shall feel obliged to vote 53 net the third reading of this bill. (Hear.) Ido not co lie to that deter mination on any of the narrow grounds I have heard stated since I came into the house, but upon the general view I take of the resources and revenue of the country, which I think are placed in considerable jeopardy by my right hon. friend's budget. (Opposition cheers.) In the few remarks I made at the beginning of these discussions I described the budget as being in my opinion an ambitious budget, and the experience I have acquired of it since only confirms that opinion. (Hear.) I have sat in this house the most part o f half a century, during which time I have paid some atten tion to the financial condition of the country, and this is the first instance within my recollection when a Chancellor of the Exchequer has come down askieg us to repeal certain taxes connected with thepermanent revenue of the country, at the same time admitting that he leaves a deficiency to be supplied by new taxes in the ensuing year, of somewhere about £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. (Cheers.) I do not know that any gentleman in this house can furnish a similar pre cedent. It is a course full of danger—(hear, hear)—and it is full of inconvenience ; for at the beginning of the next session we shall be launched into exactly the same discus sions which now prevent us from proceeding with the ordi. nary business of the nation. (Hear.) If it should turn out that some of the great measures of this session do not succeed or are not carried we must recommence our discus sions upon them in the beginnir g of another session, and at the same time we have to provide the means, which will be then very much more disputed than now, of supplying the deficiency of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. (Hear.) Again, we have no security that the sums asked from us on account of the estimates constitute the whole expenditure which we shall be called upon to provide for the service of the year. (Hear.) I have the greatest misgivings with respect to the vote for the China expedition. (Hear, hear.) As to that item, we must be guided not only by the actual estimates before us, but by what our own judgment suggests as to the probable expenditure we may be called on to face. (Hear, hear.) Witk respect to the tax which we are now discus sing, I have not a word to say in its defence. It is about as odious a tax as one can well imagine. It is not only a tax which interferes, as all Excise taxes do, with an impor tant branch of manufacture—being almost the only tax of that descriptien now left in our fiscal system—but it also impedes the circulation of information and of knowledge. Upon all these grounds no man is more disposed to repeal this tax whenever we can do so without robbing the exchequer. (Hear, hear.) But when we are ealled on to repeal it at the risk of leaving a deficit, or when we are called on to impose other taxes equally odious to the people, I think we should wait until some more favourable time presents itself. (Hear, hear.) It is upon these, and upon no mere narrow grounds, that I object to the repeal of this tax. Another reason why we should suspend our judgment is this :—My right hon. friend proposes other taxes which have not yet passed the house. some of them are objected to by various classes of persons who a ill be affected by them. For instance, the mercantile classes object to the petty taxes which are to be imposed upon trade. It is true we remit duties on consump tion, but we impose petty, vexatious, shackles on trade, such as 2d. or 3d. on removing packages, which are not im posed on the commerce of Hamburg, Belgium, Holland, America, or of any other country in the world. (Hear.) It is the first time in the history of the country that such vexatious taxes were imposed. I feel strongly the objections to such imposts, and it is therefore not quite clear to my mind that others may not object, too, and that my right hon. friend may not experience some difficulty in carrying them. At all events, I think it will be better to wait until they are carried before we proceed to remit other duties. (Hear.) Though greatly indisposed, therefore, to do any thing in the least opposed to the measures of the Govern ment, I feel obliged in my conscience to vote against the third reading of this bill. (Cheers.) Mr. HOPE said, that had he voted on the second reading of the bill he should have supported it on the grounds urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that it would relieve a great manufacture from great restrictions, increase the purposes to which the manufacture could be applied, and reduce the price at which the article cord be sold. Having, however, watched the discussions carried on since that time, he had come to the conclusion that no such results would follow; that, looklng to what had passed abroad and at home, it was a delusion to expect them; and he should, therefore, feel compelled to vote against the third reading. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I must frankly admit that my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) does found his opposition to the third reading of this bill upon no narrow grounds. I might, indeed, question the correct ness of some portion of those grounds. He complains of the Government because they are proposing the imposition of a number of new taxes upon trade which havenot yet re ceived the sanction of this house, which may, therefore, be uncertain as to their effect, and with respect to which it is desirable that we shorld know whether they are to be adopted before we surrender revenue. My right hon. friend says he has attended the debates of this house for nearly half a century, and it is perhaps no wonder therefore that he has become so weary of hearing them, that the taxes of which he speaks have been debated by the house, and, with an in significant exception, have received its deliberate approval without his knowledge. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, as re gards that part of my right hon. friend's statement, if it has materially affected his judgment, I can only regret that a voice so authoritative should have been guided or misguided, as the case may be, by considerations so entirely erro neous. (A laugh.) A 9 to my right hon. friend's criticisms on the general policy of the Government scheme of finance, I must point eut to him that he has spoken somewhat late. His statement, which sums up, in fact, the most prominent objections urged against the financial plans of the Govern ment as a whole, would have been extremely important if it had proceeded from his mouth, with his authority, some two or three months ago, and would then have, at least, Leen in place and in time. At present, I hardly know what purpose it can answer beyond that of eliciting warm ex pressions cf approval from that portion of the house which finds a large amount of sympathy in a quarter where sym pathy with them was not previously known to exist. (A laugh.) But I must submit to my right hon. friend that it is too late to discuss these matters now. (" No, no.") With great respect I must decline to follow my right hon. friend into the mere enunciation of counter-statemeAts which it would be I.erfectly easy for us to make, or into that very minute examination, and, as I think, that not very difficul refutation, of his opinions, which would, in point of fac involve the repetition of our principal debates for the last three months. (Hear, and a laugh.) I beg to state to the house what I conceive not to be the question now at issue. We are not debating the general principles of the financial plans of the Government, - and I venture to tell my right hon. friend that if he really has entertained these sinister and dismal apprehensions, it might have been better either to have uttered them in their full force at the time when they might have operated on the decision of Parliament, or possibly to have kept thorn to himself. (" Oh, oh.") The time has passed by when the, decision of Parliament can be governed by these prophecies, because in the main, as I shall endeavour to show to the house, the principal ques tions raised by them are already decided. Ido not ask your assent to that proposition now, but I will attempt pre sently to show that it is a sound and correct proposition. We are not discussing the question whether it would have iieen wiser on the part of the Government to have refrained fro-n proposing a repeal of the paper duty, which was to be made up by an additional penny of income-tax, be cause that additional penny has already become law, and at this moment been levied from many of her Majesty's subjects—(hear, hear)—and a large party in this house opposed to the policy of the Government has, by its deliberate vote, in its own self-chosen language, sent forth to the coun- try that the proposition of a tenth of the income-tax and the repeal of the paper duty were correlatives ono to another, and inseparably united. (Hear, hear.) That has been declared by the motion of the hon. member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles), and supported generally by the party opposite. Neither are we discussing the question whether the Govern ment would have done better to have proposed the reduction of the duties on tea and sugar rather than of that on paper, because we have seen that while it has been argued that at any rate it would have been a preferable change, yet there has been no serious intention of recommending a Change of that sort, or it would have been submitted to the house in the shape of a formal motion. Neither are we discussing the question whether a protective duty of a penny per lb. is to be maintained upon foreign paper in consideration of the legislation of foreign countries. I think I may assure my noble friend who lately addressed the house that, as far as arL-unient at least, the two questions of the duty to be im posed upon the importation of paper from.abroad and the _ _ . question of the retention of the Excise duty on paper y at home are entirely distinct. He may say if he pleases, and he has a right to do so, that the same inclination which led a majority of the house to vote for the ono may lead them to vote for the other; but, in truth, the two things are quite distinct. Neither at this stage do I• propose to re-argue the general question of the repeal of the duty on paper. My right hon. friend has not gone 'further than to say that a more odious tax than that for the retention of which he argued could not be conceived. And this most odious tax he desires. to retain after the house has given to the Ex chequer the equivalent which was stipulated for when the repeal of the duty was proposed. (Hear, hear.) I do not re-argue the general grounds against the tax. I merely re cite them. Among them were, of course, the general ob jections to Excise duties upon what is called a legitimate and unexceptionable manufacture. Prominently among them are the uncertainty and inequality of the present law, which have led the responsible department to report that " it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that we are levying a duty upon A while we allow B to send out goods pre ci-ely similar in nature without any interference from the revenue officers." So that, according to the opinions of those who are most competent to speak upon the subject it issnot - possible to go on longer as we are, and if the duty is not repealed there remains for Parliament the doubly odioxs task of new, vexatious, - and restrictive legislation. Another and a less weighty ground is the resolution of this house, and I hope that hon. gentlemen who voted for that resolu tion, meaning, apparently, nothing by it, will derive from , that vote a salutary lesson for the future when they se e what effect such a vote produces in weakening the hands of those whose duty it is to maintain and enfoice the law. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend has said that this duty is a tax on literature and education, and the effect of it is to confine within narrow limits the whole manufacture from fibrous substances (hear, hear) which it is reasonable to ex pect, if the shackles of the law are removed, may become the basis of a trade vastly multiplied, and which will contribute t 3 the general prosperity of the country in a degree far beyond the measure of tribute which it now supplies to the revenue. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend the member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) stated the case not unfairly. I under stood him to take as his ground not that the financial policy of the Government ought ab initio to have been rejected, but that since it had adopted the principles of the repeal of the paper duty such changes had taken place in the prospects of our expenditure as impises upon us the duty and obligation of withholding the relief we had promised in respect of this particular item of finance. The state of our expenditure and the probable demands upon the public purse were declared by the Government at the commencement of the session, and requires no declaration from the Government to show that it contained some elements of uncertainty, because we had undertaken to send, in conformity with what was our duty and honour, a costly expedition to one of the remotest coun tries of the globe, with respect to which the cost must ne cessarily depend much upon circumstances attending the despatch of that expedition; and the course of political affairs which might follow its departure and arrival. I never dis guised this, nor do I now, that there is a degree of uncer tainty affecting the expenditure of the present financial year, and probably that of future years. (Opposition cheers.) That is not a matter that is new to the house, which had it in view when it assented to our financial propositions, and gave them its sanction and approval. (Hear, hear.) And although the precise amount of that expenditure has re • ceived some degree of modification, yet there has teen no change as would justify us in altering the financial propo sitions which we submitted to the house. It is still a case of uncertainty, but still it is precisely the same case. (Hear.) Now I come to the specific case upon which my hon. friend rests. He said there was a change in the estimates for the collection of the revenue, and he intimated that there would be a similar change in the estimates for the miscellaneous services, although those changes would not involve any in crease of charge. I think he will see that although there are changes, yet they are not such as will justify his rno lion. He says that several military votes have been al tered. It is true, and when we come to discuss those esti mates a good reason for the alteration will, I am sure, be given, and the hon. baronet knows well that a state of ac counts involving su di large sums between the Govern ments of India and of England is necessarily a disturbing cause, which from time to time tends to vary estimates and to modify charges on either side. The estimates as pre sented by my right hon. friend he is prepared to stand by; and the house w;11, I think, admit that he is not in the habit of presenting estimates got up to meet an emergency, and then relying upon supplementary estimates to carry him through the year. My hon. friend adverted to the vote for fortifications, and asked for details. Undoubtedly, nothing can be more reasonable than that the house should be informed as to the details of that vote; but the house and the Government are essentially in the same pre dicament, inasmuch as it is known that a special body has been appointed for the purpose of con sidering the important questions connected with the de fences of the country, and the report of that body, embodying the recommendations whicliNit may think fit to make to the Government, is not yet in the hands of the Cabinet for its consideration. What course, then, has been taken by the Geyer ament under the circumstances? Why, this; they have submitted to the house necessarily a sum without details, which remains in a great degree un fixed, but at any rate a sum which is much more than the vote of last year, or, indeed, of any preceding year, for the purpose of fortifications. But that matter stands precisely now as it did at the time when the house arrived at the decision which it is now asked to retract. I come now to the third head—that of the miscellaneous estimates, which my hon. friend anticipated would be increased to £7,772,000, but that is sheer anticipation. I think I may venture to assure him that it is an inaccxrate estimate, and that the charge for the miscellaneous estimates will approxi mate nearly to the figure at which I originally stated it. I won't say there will not bo a variation of some £20,000 or £30,000, but substantially that charge will correspond with my former estimate. Then there remains the charge for the collection of the revenue ; and with respect to that, there is something in what has been stated by my friend, because, owiag to the early period at which the estimates were pro posed, they were stated at a lower figure than that at which it was afterwards thought prudent to fix them. But it is im possible for me to state even now in what degree that change in the figure is likely to represent a real increase of expendi ture, because important alterations are contemplated in re ference to the revenue establishments and the collection of the taxes, and at present it would be impossible for me to say in what degree any changes that may be made in that sense may affect the estimate ; but even if the whole of the difference he anticipates were to be represented by a real ex penditure—that difference being above £2oo,ooo—although it may constitute a change in the circumstances since the budget was proposed, yet constitutes no change of a nature or magnitude that would justify us in stopping the course of a measure which involves a revenue of five or six times that amount. So far, therefore, as regards change in circum stances since the period when the financial statement was submitted to the house, there is nothing that would justify the Government in making new financial proposals to Par liament. (Hear, hear.) But even that is not the whole of the question before us ; and I entreat the house, before coming to the vote of to-night, to consider what its mean ing and bearing really are. The third reading of a bill is now contested, and you are, in circuitous and vague terms, but still with no doubt as to the practical ob ject, invited to reject that bill on the adjourned debate on this its very last stage, the object of that bill being to repeal a duty which involves a large amount of revenue, and a trade praducing many millions of pounds every year, I entreat the house to consider what is really involved in that proposal. My right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) says he has sat in the house for nearly half a century, and I ask him if he has ever known such a vote given as that in which he is going to join to-night. (Cheers and counter cheers.) If any other gentleman has known it, let us have the pre.• codent. Has my right hon. friend, I repeat, ever known a case in which the repeal of a tax affecting trade, deliberately proposed by an executive Government as part, and a funda mental part, of its financial propositions for the year, long debated in the House of Commons, variously discussed on both sides, and deliberately affirmed by a large majority, I say has he ever known such a case, in which, at the last moment, on the motion for the third reading of a bill, the House of Commons has :interfered and arrested the boon on its way to the people ? (Cheers.) What does thisinvolve ? What is the effect that is uniformly produced on the house and the country when the repeal of a tax upon trade is an nounced by the authority of the Queen's Government, and is accepted by the higher authority of this house ? (Hear, hear.) I state, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that such an arrangement, when so announced, is almost uniformly taken for granted as a thing accomplished. (Hear, and no, no.) These aro surely matters for a free expression of opinion, and I state it as my opinion that even upon the announcement by the Queen's Government of the repeal of a tax on trade, that repeal is usually taken for granted. But what I insist upon is this—and here I chal lenge contradiction in any form—that, without exception, when such a remission of taxation has been proposed by the authority of the Government and accepted by a deliber ate vote of the Hou;e of Commons, it is from that time regarded by every person concerned as if it were already the law of the land. (Cheers.) Ts there an exception to that ? ' Can my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) furnish me with an ex ception ? Let us recollect what this matter really is. The business of the Queen's Government is to make demands on the House of Commons for the sums necessary to carry forward the public service, and to suggest the means by which those charges are to be met. But this power of alter ing the taxes of the country is one of the greatest, most im portant, and most vital parts of the functions of the House of Commons ; and what I now wish to bring to the particu tar notice of the house is that there is no instance of the correction of a deliberate vote of this kind. Directly the remission of a tax is annodhced by the Government and ac- cepted by the House of Commons every description of trading arrangements begin to be made by those who are affected by the tax; the whole operations of that trade are, in point of fact, dependent on the vote of the House of Commons; and when the house had deliberately given that vote I say it is always and without exception regarded as the definitive and authoritative expression of its opinions. (Hear, hear.) I think my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) must be led to consider whether, even for the purpose of retaining the paper duty, it would be worth while to give such a shock to public confidence as the new course of prac _ _ tiee now recommended could not fail to give. (Hear, hear.) During the last 40 years you have at intervals repealed • from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 of taxes, and in every one of these instances the first affirmation of the house has been accepted by the country, and are we now going to break up the traditions of the house, and destroy that confidence which the country has ever felt in its declarations relative to taxation. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Hert • _ _ _ „ fordshire says we have not lost our right to vote against the second reading of a financial bill because the principle of it has been affirmed in preliminary committee, nor to object to the third reading because it has passed through committee. Certainly not. (Cheers.) No person asserts that either le individual members of Parliament in this house havo Lost theirright to do what theypleaso in the matter. (Hear.) I am not questioning the right of the House of Commons, but addressing arguments to its sense of fairness—(" Oh, oh," and laughter from the Opposition)—and to that dis- - - position which the hou s e almost uniformly shows to paying regard to its own traditions, and to fulfil those expectations with regard to financial changes which it has raised in the country. (Hear, hear.) I must also say that Ido not think that, even in a financial point of view, you can effectually reanimate the paper duty. YOu have gone too far. (Hear, hear.) Your own deliberate resolution, and the continual announcement of your own servants whose duty it is to collect the revenue, would have this effect, that even if you could be persuaded to reverse your vote you would only, be able to bring back the trade to a paralysed existence. (Hear.) You would check the manufacture, you would proscribe all enterprise, and you would only half obtain the fiscal objects which you contemplate, while no small loss 1 and suffering would be the con sequence o f your h av i ng dis- appointed the just expectations that you had raised. (Hear, hear.) But these considerations are apart from the import ant merits of the question whether the Government judged wisely or not wisely in proposing the repeal of the paper duty. What I submit is that it is above all things neces sary in matters relating to taxation that the people of this country should know when the voice of Parliament has been uttered. (Hear, hear.) The practice of 40 years has exhibited a system of uniform conduct in this respect, and I do not hesitate to express my individual opinion, that if we were about to be, I will not say involved in war, but to be placed in circumstances that would demand of us addi tional charges, it would be better that the Government, having arrived at this point, should propose some other appliances, and ask the house to find the means in some other way, rather than do that which would involve the breach of a legislative promise. (Hear, hear.) I feel confi dent that the house retains the opinion which it expressed on the second reading of the bill. I also feel confident that even some of those who doubted the merits of the measure when it was introduced will not doubt now, when the pies tion is whether the house will or will not fulfil a solemn pledge that it has given to the country. (Cheers.) Mr. T. BARING said, I trust the house will allow me to state that I for ono do not concur in the opinion ex pressed by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that every removal or every reduction of a duty proposed by the Government is to be considered al most by consent imperative. (Hear, hear.) In 1852 the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire proposed, on the part of the first Government of Lord Derby, a reduction of the duty on tea, but the house re jected that budget entirely. (Hear.) Does the right hon. gentleman mean to say that because the Government pro poses a reduction of duty, such is the prestige and import ance attached to the proposal that all transactions of trade in the particular commodity affected by it are brought to an end, and that a rejection of the proposal ley this house cannot be carried into effect without inflicting serious and fatal injury on that trade ? I ask the right hon. gentle man, is he sure that in consequence of his proposal for the removal of the Excise duty oa paper there has been such an extension of the manufactures of that commodity as he seems to suppose ? Does he mean to say that the paper ma nufacturers are in favour of his measure if that measure be coupled with a reduction of the duty on foreign paper, with out any compensating reduction of duty on the import of the raw material ? (Hear, hear.) So far as I can gather the opinion of paper manufacturers, they would rather have the • duty on paper remain if its repeal is to be accompanied by a • reduction of the duty on foreign paper without any corre ' sponding reduction on the import of rags. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says it will be a breach of faith not to carry out this proposal. But I think it is but too pro bable that if it be carried out English capital will be car• ried away to be embarked in paper manufacture abroad, when proof will be given of the right hon. gentleman's mis take in thinking that the rejection of this bill on the third reading would inflict injury on the trade. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman is correct in saying that when a resolution is carried in this house with reference to an import duty on a foreign product commerce relies on that resolution being formally passed, because it affects the duty on the import of the commodity ; but when a resolution of the house affects the manufacturing industry of the country it is a very dif ferent thing. (Hear.) I agree with the right hon. member for Coventry that it is better to remove excise duties if we can, but that of all excise duties that on paper is the least injurious to the production of manufactures, the least hurt ful, the least preventive to inventions and the introduction of newmatorials. But we are not now considering whether excise duties are or are not hurtful, nor whether the remo val of the paper duty might or might not benefit the manu facturers and extend the trade of the country. We are not now even considering whether it is better to repeal this duty or those that press more heavily on the labouring classes; but we are considering whether, looking to the future, and looking to the uncertainties of expense, and to what may happen next year, with perhaps another Parliament— at any rate, with a great deficiency, we should now remove a source of revenue which now exists without great pressure on the productive powers of this country, and without great injury to the manufacturing classes or detriment to the consuming classes, and which may be wanted, and I believe is now wanted, but which at all events this house would be unwise to part with. (Hear.) For a Government to refuse this proposition on the part of an Opposition was most ex traordinary. We have heard in old times of "her Maj sty's Opposition," but this appears to be " the Government Op position," which grants the Government £1,200,009, and places right hon. gentlemen opposite in the happy situation of perhaps avoiding a deficiency, or at least secures to this country its power to meet future contingencies, and to main tain public faith. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—I should be quite contented to allow this debate to close with the able speech of the hon. member for Huntingdon, had .t not been for references repeatedly made to me, not only to-night but on a former occasion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the conduct I pursued in reference to this tax two years ago ; and I should not think it becoming to myself or the house to re main silent when I am aware that the right hon. gentleman has spoken under an entire misapprehension of what took place on that occasion. With respect to the question gener ally, as moved by way of amendment, it appears to me that a very simple issue is raised ; and when we strip it of all the envelopment which had been thrown around it by the rhe torical dexterity of the right hon. gentleman, we have be fore us only one point to consider, and of all points in the world it is the one most entitled to the grave and earnest consideration of the House of Commons. (Hear.) The Go vernment, from peculiar circumstances on which we need not now dwell, had this year to make their financial state ment at an unusually early period, when we were not in pos session of the results of the financial year; and the proposi tions of the Government were of a very extensive and singu larly complicated character. Well, the consequences of these circumstances was the result which the right hon. gentleman has admitted, that there were necessarily in the statements made what the right hon. gentleman has hap pily and fairly described as elements of uncertainty ; and it is because we are now in the middle of the Parliamen t:erg session, and because those elements of uncertainty have to a certain degree been developed, and because there is a prospect of a still further development of them, ending in an issue not in harmony with the calculations of the right hon. gentleman, that my hon. friend the member for Stamford takes this opportunity, when the house is called upon to sanction a further remission of revenue, to advise you to consider your position and sec whether you are juse tified in taking the step which the Government counsels you to pursue. (Hear, hear.) I listened with great atten tion to the right hon. gentleman to see how he would an swer the objections urged both with moderation and modesty by my hon. friend. In the first place my hon. friend says that we are not yet in possession of all the estimates of the Government, but that, nevertheless, we have already had one estimate which exceeds the calculations made at the beginning of the year by a sum considerably exceeding £200,000; and as the Government calculated only on a surplus for the whole year of £100,000.; therefore more than half this surplus has already disappeared. I have not heard any denial of the accuracy of that statement. (Hear.) My hon. friend as well as the member for Coventry called our attention to the vote of credit for China. Was the answer of the right hon. gentleman on that point satisfactory ? So far as I could follow the ambiguous though adroit phrase° • logy of the right hon. gentleman, I understand that he is in possession of evidence at this moment to the effect that the estimate this year has been exceeded. Then what has become of that surplus revenue calculated on at the begin ning of the year ? (Cheers.) The member for Coventry, following up with more detail the intimation made by my hon.' friend, appears to have excited great indignation on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because that hon. member succeeded in showing that some of the taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer counted on, and which were framed, if not with the intention, at all events with the effect of greatly vexing and embarrassing the trade of the country, would probably fail in producing the antici pated amount of revenue, and might not even receive the sanction of the house. What was the answer of the Chan• cellor of the Exchequer ? The house cannot have forgotten the dignified reproof the Chancellor of the Exchequer ad ministered to the member for Coventry. Undismayed by that hon. member's experience of half a century, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer positively gave him a lecture— (laughter)—for not being aware that all these measures had already received the sanction of the house. Is that so (Hear, hear.) I have watched the progress of these mea sures, and I have observed that the charges in the various operations in warehouses, such as "tapping, regauging, bottling," &c., which stood on the motion paper of the house for a considerable time, have disappeared from that paper. (Cheers and laughter.) I have made, not a pub lic: inquiry, but an inquiry, I believe, at an authentic quarter in this house, and I shall be greatly mis led, if those measures will ever reappear. They are dropped. (Cheers and laughter.) There was an estimate when the financial statement was made that these particu lar measures would produce £130,000. To that add the sum of £230,000 in excess occasioned by the collection of the revenue and the unknown, but certain excess on the China vote, and we shall soon be arriving at the amount of this very tax, the remission of which is under our con sideration, (Cheers.) For I must remind the house that though this tax produces a revenue of more than £1,200,000 a-year, and is increasing in amount—(hoar, hoar)—yet, as far as the financial year is concerned, the amount which it will give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will only be £1,000,000, and the items to which I have already alluded approach to an amount something exceeding two-thirds of that sum. (Hear, hear.) But a very important element is still to be noticed, and tLat is the subject of fortification. (Hear, hear.) The member for Stamford very properly called the attention of the house to that matter, which is no longer a rumour, but an understanding sanctioned by an announcement from Ministers to the effect that the question of the fortification of this country on a very great and costly scale has been under the consideration of a corn. raittee, and the report of that committee has, I understand, been made to the Government. At any rate, there is a general impression that the report, when made, will be acted upon. No denial has been given by the Chahcellor of the Exchequer on that head. The right hon. gentleman evaded the question by merely saying that the report is not yet submitted to the Cabinet, but he offered no defence against the grave and sensible objection made on the pos sible resulting expense. (Hear.) He said there. was an item for fortification in the Army Estimates of £640,000, without the usual specification in detail; and then he con veyed to the house the impression—indeed, he more than conveyed an impression —I might say he made the state ment, that if the great expenditure on account of. fortifica tion to the amount of £10,000,000 were on, it would be minus, at all events, tie sum already included in the Army Estimates. The house must recollect that only a few weeks ago, in answer to a most specific inquiry, the Secretary for War in a most frank and unambiguous manner announced that that item of £6.10,000 in the Army Estimates on ac count of fortification was not in any way connected with any future plan for the general fortification of the country, but was, as it were, a mere routine item. The right hon. gen tleman has really totally evaded the objections that were made by my hoz. friend. The President of the Board of Trade has appealed to me to support this bill upon the grounds which I expressed some years ago and more than once expressed in favour of the repeal of the paper duty. He says that the financial views of my hon. friend the mem ber for Stamford aro not to be entertained:; that my views are of a high character, and that I take the moral, literary, and educational view of this matter. To consider the mat ter in this view is, in his opinion, to take the high view of it ; to consider it in a financial point of view, and with re ference to the national revenue is a low view. Now, Ido not agree with the right hon. gentleman, because moral, literary, and educational progress is entirely dependent on the state of the country, and if the finances of a country aro in disorder, if its general prosperity ceases, then, depend upon it, that intellectual progress to which he refers must cease also, and the efforts which multitudes make to edu cate themselves must vanish as a dream. (Cheers.) And when the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who ought to undersfand what important consi derations are involved in the finances of the country, decries that view of policy as low which only aspires to keep the revenue of a country in a healthy and satisfactory condition I say that a sound state of the public revenue and expendi ture is the only foundation upon which you can build up those plans for the amelioration of the people to which I should be most happy if it were in my power to contribute. (Cheers.) The President of the Board of Trade says my hon. friend is unreasonable, because we have got the income tax, and now my hrn. friend wants to have the paper duty too. The right hon. gentleman says we are bound by the tenth penny of the income-tax to remit the paper duty. But dces the right hon, gentleman mean to maintain that we ought to remit the paper 'duty, whether we can afford it or not ? (Cheers.) Because, that is the question. (Hear, hear.) " But then," says the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, " remember the resolution you sanctioned two years ago. Your mouth is closed by this resolution." Now, if that resolution were more concise and explicit than it is, I should still consider my liability to support it with refer ence only to the present financial condition of the country. (Hear, hear.) But what was this resolution so frequently eferred to and misrepresented by the right hon. gentle man ? lam not surprised if hon. gentlemen do not remem ber it, especially considering the fallacious manner in which it has been adverted to. The stream of public affairs is too rapid to permit these matters to be remembered, and only those who are responsible for them can remember particular acts and the motives by which they are actuated. • That motion which declared that the paper duty ought not to be a permanent branch of revenue really meant nothing, as my hon. friend the member for Norfolk said at the time. What were - the circumstances under which that resolution was brought forward ? It was brought forward after the finan cial statement of the year had been made. In that financial statement I proposed, on behalf of my colleagues, a policy which the house entirely and unanimously approved and sanctioned, and no one more cordially than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—viz., that it was the bounden duty of this house, although at great sacrifices, to fulfil the compact that had been made in 1853 by the right hon. gentle man himself, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the entire abolition in the year 1860 of the income-tax. (Loud cheers.) I expressed on the part of my colleagues, with the entire concurrence of both sides of the house, our desire to remit the war duties on tea and sugar. We gave reasons, however, which were unanimously approved of by the house why we could not do so, and we showed that the first thing a Finance Minister had to do was so to guide the revenue and expenditure as to get rid of the income tax in 1860, and thus to complete and consummate the financial policy of the right honourable gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers.) If that wss the policy of the then Government, approved of by their political opponents, how could it be supposed that when two or three weeks afterwards we came to consider the paper duty, that policy could be supposed to be upset by a resolution of that kind ? Such a resolution only meant that when the war duties on tea and sugar were removed and the other obligations to Parliament were fulfilled, then, if the opportunity were afforded and the state of the revenue permitted, this Excise duty should be remitted. I admit that I should have been most happy to remit it when the state of the revenue permitted. I had always been in favour of repealing Excise duties, on the ground that they interfered with the national industry, and I should have been delighted to repeal this particular Excise duty, the remission of which was recommended to me by considera tions !of moral influence that I highly esteemed. (Hear, hear.) That is my answer to the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) Has the income-tax terminated in this year, .1860 ? (Cheers.) Have the war duties on tea and sugar been abolished ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman is now responsible for the finances of this country. He has 'doubted the income-tax—(loud cheers)—he has retained the war duties on tea and sugar; and then he turns round upon me, and says I called for the abolition of the duty on paper I Why, anything more illogical or inconsequent,any p!ea more futile or fallacious, was never put forward. (Cheers.) Of late years I have doubted whether we have not been dealing with the forms of this house too lightly, and whether we paid them that eneration and attention which our predec essors th oug h t i t w i se to give. But I did not expect to hear a Minister of the Crown rise and make a speech which, if it had any meaning, would imply that the forms of the house are entirely abolished on all ques tions of finance, and on all proposals to levy taxes— the subjects of which most interest the country, and which are the main and principal reason for our sitting here as their representatives. 'Why, sir, suppose a war should occur during some fantastical financial proposition, in which a tax of this kind is included ? Well, there is a war. (Cheers.) There is a Chinese war, the cost of which is estimated rat £500,000, but which may be nearer £5,000,000. (Cheers.) Here is a war. And then the right hon. gentleman—with all the mysterious dogma tism he knows so well how to assume when it suits him, contradicting himself as he constantly does—with rapid in coherence, but covering his contradiction's with that robe of glittering phraseology which prevents one from detecting the weakness of his argument—(cheers)---first laid down the principle that when once this house has consented to the remission of a tax it is impossible to offer any further resistance to its repeal. The house seemed astonished, and the right hon. gentleman, becoming more audaciousi, ad • vanced another principle, that when a Minister once pro posed that a tax should be repealed the house had no right to interfere, (Cheers.) I gave, unfortunately, an indiscreet cheer, as much in admiration of his coolness as anything— (laughter)—which reminded the right hon. gentleman that he had better reconnoitre his position. Having, therefore, treated the right hon. gentleman the member for Coventry to another admonition, the right hon.. gentleman turned round and said that there was no instance in which the House of Commons, having once voted the repeal of a tax, had afterwards refused to carry out its vote. I do not know what the half century of experience and observation and wisdom which has been referred to to-night in so ad monitory a tone can supply to the right hon. member for Coventry. My experience is much more limited ; but I re member some remarkable instances in which this house having come to a determination upon most important taxes— taxes of far more importance than the paper duty —recon sidered and changed its opinions. The house came oncein my time to the determination to repeal the malt-tax. (Cheers.) The malt trade is one of some importance, and I suppose that decision of the house put all the maltsters of England in a flutter, but the malt-tax was not repealed, which shows that there is nothing so essentially unconstitutional as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says in this house reconsider ing a resolution to which it may have previously come. (Hear, hear.) I remember, too, the house once coming to the determination to repeal the sugar duties. The sugar trade is one in which there is immense speculation, and, I dare say, a great effect was produced in Mincing •lane when that vote was arrived at; but did the house pursue the policy which it had sanctioned with its approval ? On the contrary, circumstances occurred which made the house deem it prudent to reconsider its decision, and the sugar duties were not abolished. (Cheers.) What more do we pro pose to-night ? We think the house on the subject of the paper duty has arrived at a very imprudent, premature, and precipitate decision. (Cheers.) We are not so much sur prised in this case as we might have been in the case of the malt tax or the sugar duties. These were isolated questions placed fairly before the house, and the house had every opportunity of arriving in either instance at a sound decision without being perplexed by extraneous circumstances. What has been the condition of the house in the present case ? It had an immense scheme with respect to the corn-. memo and the finances of the country placed before it the moment it assembled. It had not a decent opportunity to consider that scheme. (Cheers.) If any gentleman asked for those fair opportunities which the forms of the house and Parliamentary precedents secure to ,us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose like a dictator and a despot in this house (cheers), and under a species of terrorism tho house arrived at a premature and precipitate decision, which has been ruinous to our trade and has made us ridiculous in the eyes of Europe. (Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not satisfied with tfiat, demanded of the house to rescind _ _ all the financial policy which for years he had been profess: lug and upholding, and which so nearly concerned the in- terests of the whole people. Ho asked the house in the year when he had pledged himself, so far as a statesman can _ _ pledge himself, to abolish the income tax, to double that im post; and when his propositions were not received with all the enthusiasm which he seemed to count upon—for incon sistency is always sanguine (a laugh)—h e : v i n di ca ted his _ _ _ _ policy,:akhe has vindicated it to-night,by a statement which upon reflection he must feel has no foundation. He told us that he had been disappointed in the policy which he had established in 1855--that the Russian war had oc cupied and baffled all his plans. He quite for got that in 1857, ►hen he was not in office, and when th& then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Home Secre tary, wanted to induce the house to consent to retain the war income tax, on the ground of the great expense of the Russian war, which had added to the national debt an an nual charge of £1,200,000, he rose and scoffed at the right hon. gentleman, and treated him with intense and unutter able derison. (Cheers.) And upon what ground ? Upon the ground of his ridiculous assertion that the Russian war had made any considerable addition to the annual charge of the country or had diminished its permanent revenue. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an indignant tone whether he would pretend for a moment that the charge occasioned by the Russian war ought to induce the house to abandon those solemn pledges which it made to the nation in 1853—pledges which induced the people of Ireland to consent to the income tax being extended to that country; and then he referred to the succession tax, by which alone the Government had been able to settle some of the most difficult and delicate questions ever submitted to Parliament. Such was his language in 1857. What is the moral ? What confidence can we have in following the counsels of the right hon. gentleman ? (Cheers.) I showed you on a previous occasion, when you were in the delirium of the French treaty, which every man on both sides looks back to now with ehame—(cheers)—how the right hon. gentleman had failed in every one of the great propositions of his famous budget of 1853. (Cheers.) Having traded ur on that false celebrity for seven years, you now meethim again in 1860. Three months of they session have not yet passed, and you already deplore the course which, following his counsels, you have pursued. (Cheers.) Now, while there is still an opportunity of at least mitigating our previous folly by some prudential movement, how can you reconcile it to yourselves to sacrifice, in the present financial condition of the country, a large branch. of revenue which the trade interested—and that is an important consideration—does not want you to part with, and,which the evidence before you proves is not a declining but an increasing revenue ? Above all, will you do this at a moment when Europe is in a condition which must make the boldest man quake and the wisest man tremble ? (Great cheering.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who, on rising, was received with cries of " Spoke," and " Divide," said,—l•request the indulgence of the house for a moment while I make an explanation upon two points on which the right hon. gentleman has entirely misrepresented me. One of them touches my personal honour, and the other is ( f vital importance in the present discussion. The right hon. gentleman says that in 1857 I urged that the financial con sequences of the Russian war had not made it impossible to fulfil the plans of 1853, and that in 1860 I stated that they had. I wish to meet that statement of the right hon: gen tleman with the most direct contradiction which the forms of the house will allow. (Hear.) My words are upon record, and they were distinctly and emphatically the reverse of that which the right hon. gentleman has stated to the house. (Hear, hear.) The other point is one upon which I am content to rest the issue of this debate. The right hon. gentleman says I alleged there was no instance in 'which the house, having voted the remission of a tax, thought proper afterwards to change its mind. To that statement likewise lam obliged to give a direct contradiction. (Hear.) What I said was, not that there was no instance in which the house, having given a vote for the repeal of a tax, had afterwards altered its mind and reversed the vote, but that there was no instance in which the house, having voted the repeal of a tax upon the proposition of the Executive Go vernment--(hear)—had afterwards reversed that vote, which I stated to be equivalent to a pledge to the country. Mr. S. HERBERT (amid cries of "Divide, divide I") said,—l cannot allow to pass, as if I acquiesced in it, the statement of the right hon. gentleman the member for' Buckinghamshire, that in moving the estimates of my de partment I had frankly stated that the lump sum for forti fications included nothing more than would be moved under ordinary circumstances. Mat I said, in answer to a ques tion of the hon. member for Norfolk whether any new works were contemplated, was that no new work or no work not sanctioned by Parliament should be commenced under the vote given on account. As I Gould not tell either what works the commission would recommend, or what tie Gove-nment might decide upon, still'less what this house would sanction, I took the vote as a sum in a lump, instead of in detail, the details being then unknown. In the esti mates I purposely inserted a large sum without detail, in order that, whatever might be the decision of the Govern ment or of this house upon the question, I might have the means of providing what, in the responsibility of my office, I might deem necessary for the defences of the country. (Hear, hear.) The house then divided. At the moment when the tellers approached the table to announce the results of the division, Mr. STE WART, remaining seated and covered, informed the Speaker that one hen. member did not pass through the door to be counted by the tellers in the regular manner, but passed through the rails in the lobby. (Laugh‘er, and cries of "Name.") He believed it was the hon. member for Boston. The tellers announced the division to be— For the third reading 219 Against it 209 Majority for the third reading lO The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers. Mr. STEWART said the name of the hon. member for Boston, who did not pass the doors, had still to be counted. The SPEAKER asked whether the hon. member for Boston was in his place. Mr. INGRAM appeared in front of the table, and The SPEAKER said—Was the hon. member in the lobby with the "Noes" ? Mr. INGEAM—Yes, Sir; but I was there by mistake. (Laughter.) I did not hear you separate the questions. The SPR AKER—There was a case exactly similar to this some time ago. Au hon. member was in the lobby with the "Noes," and declined to vote. Having appeared at the table, his vote was ordered to be given with that party in whose lobby be was. (Cheers.) Mr. W. MARTIN said he was the member who was caught on that occasion. He did hear the question put, but he understood the hon. member for Boston to say he did not—(no)— The SPEAKER—The name of the hon. member for Boston must be entered with the " Noes." (Cheers and laughter.) The SPEAKER then announced that the " Noes " to the [eft were 210. • The bill was then read a third time and passed. The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad journed at a quarter to 2 o'clock. THE MAILS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South ampton) May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) June 4. Bahamas and Havana (via New York) .. .. June 7. Canada, &c. (via Cork) May P. Cape of Good Hope, &c. June 1. China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) May 13. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. May 19. India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &e. (via Southampton) May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) May 13. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. May 25. Do. (via Marseilles) .. May 19. Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, Bce. .. June 5. Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto • • • • • . May 11. Malta, Egypt , and Aden (via Southampton) .. May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) .. May 13. United States, California, &c. is Cork) .. May 16. Western Coas t of Africa, Madeira, Teneriffo .. May 10 West Indies and Pacific, Carthgena, Cuba, &c. May 14. The Mysterious Power of the Magnet is most beautifully developed by Mr. F. M. HERRING, of 32, Basinghall-street, in his Patent Magnetic Brushes and Combs, which are the remedy for grey hair, weak or falling hair, neuralgia, nervous headache rheumatism, stiff joints, &c. Ilia Teazle Brushes for cloth, velvet, &c., are admirable ; they not only cleanse but preserve the fabric in a remarkable manner. The public are cautioned against counterfeits.—[ADVT.] ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway ' s pills are renowned as a safesand salutary remedy for indigestion, liver complaints, and all manner of eruptions and skin diseases. Pains in the stomach after eating, evictations of wind, pains in the back, aching of the right shoulder, weakness, languor, and tawny hue of the skin, all disappear under the purifying powers of these admirable pills. They contain no ingredient which could by possibility hurt the feeblest frame. They effect a momentous change throughout the system, by tho roughly expelling all impurities, and imposing on every organ its natural functions. Many testimonials of their efficiency can be produced, the latest of which has been for warded by Edward Smith, of Newport, Monmouth, who was cured after wasting under dyspepsia fifteen years. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—The salutary effect of Du Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabica Food in removing indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility, without medicine, is admirably displayed by the following letters :—" Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk, June 10, 1850. — No. 4,2oB.—Eight years dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms, and nausea, for which my servant had consulted the advice of m an y have been effectually removed by Du Barry's health-restoring Food. I shall be happy to answer any inquiries. —Rev. J. W. Flavell." "Bury, Lan cashire, Aug. 17, 1851.—Gentlemen,—F'or acop_siderable time I have suffe re d severe l y f rom a violent pain in my left aide, extreme flatulency, accompanied by an intolerable sensation of heartburn, and other disagreeable sympt oms o f dyspepsia. Various remedies, alleged infallible, were tried in vain, and for a long time I was never 24 hours without violent pain; indeed, I was unfit for the performance of my daily duties. I was induced to try your food. In less than an hour I found relief, and my recovery was very rapid. The duties which previously had been an int o l era bl e burdep, became a delightful exercise, and I have since accomplished more labour with less fatigue than I ever expected to be able to perform. I have never had a retturn of my complaint.—D. Thomas." In tins, at Is. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; Slb., 125.; 121 b., 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly • Abbis, 60 Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ' • 63, and 'l5O, Oxford street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and. 60, Bishopsg ate street ; 85, Tottenham-court,road. Also at Dublin. Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Co.; at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp an!' Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, extel.Co.:; at,;Soult ampton, Rondo] load Bos PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION'. HOUSE OF COMMONS. —MAY 8. PAPER DUTY REPEAL BILL. - Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (24th April), " That the Bill be now read the third time :" —Question again proposed :—Debate resumed :—Amend ment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words " the present state of the finances of the country renders it undesirable to proceed further with the repeal of the Excise duty on paper," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question :"—The house divided :--The tellers reported the number as ayes 219, noes 209:—Notice taken that Mr. Ingram, one of filo members for Boston, had been in the division lobby with the noes, and having passed the division clerks, had avoided being counted by the tellers : Whereupon Mr Speaker directed the honourable member for Boston to come to the table ; and Mr. Ingram being come to the table, stated that he bad gone into the lobby with the noes by mistake :—Mr. Speaker accordingly directed his vote to be added to the noes, and declared the numbers to be, ayes 219, noes 210. AYES - 219. Acton, Sir J. Forster, Charles Ogilvy, Sir J. Adam, W. P. Fortescue, Hon. D. Pacimore, R. Agar-Ellis, Hon. L. Fortesc ue, C . S . Paget, Lord A. Alcock, T. Fre e l an d , 11 . W. Paget, Lord C. E. Andover, Lord Garnett, W. J. Paget, C. Angerstein, W. Gavin, Major Palmerston, Visct. Antrobus, E. Gibson, T. M. Paxton, Sir J. Atherton, W. Gifford, Earl of Pease, H. Ay" , m, A. S. Gilpin, C. Peel, F. Bagwell, J. Gladstone, W. E. Pilkinglon, James Baines, E. Glyn, G. G. Pollard UrquhartW Baring, Thos. Gco. Goldsmid, Sir F. Pousonby, A. Baxter, W. E. Gordon, C. W. Pryse, Capt. E. L. Bazley, Thomas Gower, F. L. Pritchard, John Beale, Samuel Graham, Sir J. R. G. Proby, Lord. G. L. Beamish, F. B. Greenall, G. Puller, C. W. Berkeley, F. Gr eene , C ap t . J . Raynham, Viscount Bothell, Sir R. Greenwood, J. Redmond, J. E. Black, Adam Gregson, S. Ricardo, 0. Blake, J. A. Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir G. Richardson, J. Blencowe, J. G. Gurney, John H. Ridley, G. Bouverie, E. P. Hadfield, G eo . Robartes, T. J. A. Bouverie, P. P. Hankey, Thomson Robertson, D. - Briscoe, J. I. Harcourt, G. G. V. Rothschild BaronX Browne, Lord J. T. Hardcastle, Jos. A. Rothschild,Baron L. Buchanan, W. -Hartington,Marquia Roupell, W. Buller, J. W. Hayter, Sir Wm. Russell, Lord J. Buller, Sir A. Headlam, Thos. E. Russell, Hastings Buxton, C. He n l e y, Lo r d Russell, A. J. E. • Byng Hon. G. H. C. Herbert, S. Russell, F. W. Caird , James . Hervey, Lord A Russell, Sir Wm. Calcutt, F. Hodgsen, K. D. St. Aubyn, J. Caithorpe, F. H. Howard, Hon. C. Salomong,Akierman Cardwell, Rt. kin. E. Ingham, R. Salt, Titus Carnegie, Hon. C. Jervoise, Sir J. Scholefle,d, W. Castlerosse, Viet. Johnstone, Sir J. Scott, Sir W. CavenCish, Hon. W. Kershaw, J. Seymour, Sir M. Childers, H. C. E. Ring, Hon. L. Seymour, H. D. Clay, James - Kinglake, Seri. J. Seymour, Digby Clifford, IL M. Kingscote, Lt.-Col. Shelley, Sir J. V. Clinton, Lord R. Laing, S. Sheridan, R. B. Clive, George Langton, H. G. Sheridan, H. B. Cogan, W. H. Lawson, W. S m ith, J. B. Collier, R. I'. Le a tham, E. Smith, Augustus Coningham, Wm. Lennox, Lord H. G. smollett, P. Cowper, Hon. W.F. Lewis, Sir G.C., Bt. Stacpoole, W. Craufurd, E. H. J Li n d sa y, W. S. Stafford, Marquis of Crook, Joseph Locke, Jos. Staniland, M. Cross, R. A. Locke, John Stansfeld. J. Crosgley, Frank Lockhart, A. E. Stuart, Col. Dalglish, Robert Lowe, Rt. Hon. R. Sykes, Col. W. H. Davey, R. Lysley, W. Thompson, H. S. Davie, Sir H. R. F. M'Cann, J. Tollemache, Hon.P, Deasy, Rickard M'Cormick, W. Turner, J. A. Denman, G. Mackinnon, W.A.in. Verney, Sir Harry Dent, John Dent M c M a h on, P. Villiers, Rt. Hon. tf. Dillwyn, Lewis L. Maguire, J. F. Waldron, L. Douglas, Sir C. Mamwaring, T. Walter, John Duff; M. E. Marjoribanks, D. C. Warner, Edward Duff, Major. Marshall, W. Watkins, J. L. V. Duke, Sir James Martin, P. W. Wemyss, J. Dunne, M. Ma r ti n , J. Westhead, B. Ennis, John Massey, W. N. Whalley, G. H. Esmonde, John Merry, James Whitbread, S. Evans, T. W. Miller, William Wickham, H. W. Ewart, William Mitchell, T. A. Williams, W. Ewart, J. C. Moncreiff, J. Wood, Rt H n. Si r C . , Ewing H. E. C. Monson, W. J. W oods, Henry Fenwick, Henry Morris, D. , Worsley, Lord Ferguson, R. Noble, J. Wrightson, W. B. Feraioy, Lord North, F. Wyvill, M. Fitzwilliam, C. W. O'Brien, P. TELLERS. Foley, J. H. O'Connell, D. Brand, H. B. Foley, Hon. H. W. O'Conoi Don, The Dunbar, Sir Wm. NOES-210. Adderley, C. B. Forster, Sir-G. Mowbray, Rt. Hu. J. Adeane, H. J. Gallwey, Sir W. P. Mundy, IVilliam Annesley, H.l Galway, Viscount Naaa, Rt. Hn. Lord Archdall, Capt.M.E. Gard, R. S. Napier, Sir C. Astell, J. H. George, John Newport, Visct. Bai'lie, H. J. Gilpin, Colonel Noel, G. J. Ball, E. Gladstone, Capt. North,'Col. Baring, A. H. Goddard, A. L. Northcote, Sir S. Baring, H. B. Greaves, Edward Packe, G. IL Baring, Thomas Gregory, W. H. Pakenham, Col. Beach, - W. W. B. Grey deWilton,Lord Pakington, Sir J. S. Bective, Earl of Griffith, C. D. Palk, L. Beecroft; G. S. Grogan, Sir Edward Palmer, R. W Bentinck, G.C. Gurdon, B. Papillon, P. O. Bentinck, G. W. P. Haliburton, Justice Parker, Major W. Benyon, R. Hamilton, Lord C. Paull, H. Beresford, W. Banbury, Captain Peacoeke, G. M. Bernard, Thos. T. Hardy, Gathorne Peel, Gen. Blackburn, P. Hartopp, E. B. Pennant, Col. Bond, J. W. Hassard, M. D. Philips, J. H. Booth, Sir R. G. lleathcote, G. H. Portman W. H. 8.. Bovill, Wm., Hennessy, J. P. Powys, L. P. Bramston, T. W. Herbert, H. A. Quinn, Peter Bridges, Sir 8., Bt. Herbe r t, C o l. P . E . Ramsden, Sir J. W Brocklehurst, John Heygate, Sir F. Repto n , G. W. J. Brooks, R. Holford, R. S. Rogers, John J. Bruen, Henry Hood, Sir A. Salt, Thomas Bulkeley, Sirit., Bt. hope, G. W. Selater-Booth, G Burghley, Lord Hopwood, J. T. Selwyn, C. J. Cairns, Sir IL, Horafall, T. B. Seymer, H. K Cartwright, Col. H. Horsman .E. Sibthorp, Major Cecil, Lord R. Hotham, Gen. Lord Smith, M. T. Cobbett, , J. M. Howes, Edward Smith, S. G. Cochrane, A. D. Hubbard, J. G. Smyth, Col. Codrington, Sir W. Hume, W. Somerset, Col. E. Cole, Hon. H. A. Hunt; G. W. Spooner, It. Colebrooke, Sir T.E. Ingestre, Viscount Stanhope, J. B. Collins, T., jun. Ingram, 11. Steuart, A. Conolly, Thomas Jermyn, Earl Stuart, Major W. Corry, H. T. Johnstone, Hon. H. Sturt, H. G. Cubitt, George Johnstone, J. J. H. Sturt, Capt. C. N. Dalkeith, Earl of Kekewich, S. Stracey, Sir H. Darner, L. S. W. D. Kelly, Sir F. Sullivan, M. I)eedes, Wm. Kendall, N. Talbot, Hon. W. C. Dickson, Col. Kennard, C. Thynne, Lord E. Disraeli, Benjamin Kerrison, Sir E. Thynne, Lord H. Du Cane, Chas. King, J. K. Tollemache, J. H. Duncombe, A. Knatchbull, W Torrens, R. Duncombe, W. E. Knightley, R. Trefusis, Hon. C. H. Dunne, CoL Knox, Lt.-CoLB.W. Trollope, Sir John Du Pre, C. G. Lacon, Sir E. Upton, Genet al . East, Sir J. B. Lefroy, A. Valetort, Lord Edwards, Major H. Legh; W. Vance, John Egerton, Sir P. Liddell, Hon. H. G. Vandelettr, Col. Egerton, A. F. Lindsay, Colonel Vane, Lord H. G. Egerton, E. C. Long, R. P. Vansittart, Wm. Egerton, W. Lopes, Sir M., Bt. Walcott, Adm. J. E. Eleho Lord Lovaine, Lord Walker, James It Ellice, E., jun. Lyall, G. Walpole, S. H. Ellice, Rt Hon. E. Lygon, Hon. F. Wallington, J. W. Elphinstone, Sir J Melina, It., Way, Arthur E. Emlyn; Viscount Manners, Lord J. Whiteside, lit HnJ. Estcourt, S. March; Earl of Whitmore, IL Farquhar, Sir M. Maxwell, Col. Williams, T. P. Farrer, James Miller, T. * Woodd, B. T. Fellowes, Edward Milnes, R. M. Wyndham, Sir H. Fergusson, Sir J. Mittord, W. T. Wynn, Col. Fitzgerald, W. S. Montagu, Lord R. Yorke, Hon.E. Foljambe, F. J. S. Mordaunt, Sir G. TELLERS. Forde, Lt.-Col. W. Morgan, C. 0. S. Taylor, Colonel Forester, Col. G. C. Morgan, Major Jolliffe, Sir W. PAIRS ON THE SECOND READING OF THE I WINE LICENSES BILL. For Against For Against Sir W Scott Mr King MrHodgidnsonMr W 0 Gore SirWHeathcoteMr Cave Col Greville Sir W Verner Mr Lyons Mr Rogers Mr R Long Col Maxwell Lord R ClintonMr S Smith 91r Huessen Mr Cooper Mr Heneage Mr J Cole Sir W Russell Col Rowley Mr Matheson Mr J Wynne Mr Crawford Mr R Gore Mr Bright Col Lowther Jlr W 0 Foster Capt Hanbury Mr Divett Mr Joni& Sir J Owen Mr Cobbold. Mr Glyn Mr Murray 3lr Briscoe MrT T Bernard SirlVlCholmeleyLordHenniker vlr Handley Lord E Hill Mr Slaney Sir M Ridley lir FlVltussellMr Moody MrAdair Mr A Mills Ur Bristow Alder Cubitt Mr Aug Smith Capt Jervis Mr Beale Gn Arbuthnott Sir II Verney MrsFiztgerald Mr M Sullivan Mr Pugh SirJTrelawnyMr Potts Mr Western Mr Stirling llonGDenmanlar Haliburton Mr Holland Mr Longfieid Mr Rich Mr Bowyer Mr Brady Mr J Dunn Mr Bottleld Mr Shirley Mr D Seymour Mr Davison Mr WrightaonMrJ Hamilton. COUNTRY MARKETS. :LIVERPOOL—MAY 8. We had a small attendance at this day's market and the consumptive demand for wheat is still only on the merest retail scale; prices at Friday's currencies in the few sales made. Flour neglected. Oats were in fair request, at full prices, and oatmeal has been more animated at about late rates. Beans and peas is down; barley as before. Indian corn neglected, at Friday's currencies. LEEDS-MAY 8. With a small show of wheat, prices are unaltered from Tuesday. Barley as before. Beans held for more money. Oats and other articles quite as dear. SHEFFIELD—MAY 8. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...l9s 6d to 21s Pd White - • 2 9 2) ...21s Od t o 22 5 Od New red 1, ~ ...17s Od to 1850 d New :white „ ~ ...18s Od to 19s 6d Beans , „ )1 ...18s Od to 205 6d Peas, per qr. 42s Od to 60 s Od Grinding barley, per qr 3 35 Od to 365 Od Malting ditto, „ 3Bs Od to 43s Od Oats 26s Od to 345 Od ~ Millers' prices for flour—ls 11d, 20 Od, and 2s 2d per 141 b. BRISTOL-MAY 8. At our market we had a fair attendance, but holders re fusing to give way in wheat, little or no business was trans acted. Some refreshing showers have fallen yesterday and to-day. ®NORWICH CATTLE—MAY 5. Scots, 4s Od to 48 6d ; shorthorns, 3s 6d to 4s ; Irish, 3s Od to 3s 6d; Devons, Os Od to Os (estimated weight when fat). Sheep—There were good supplies of sheep in the pens. Fat sheep, 7s 6d to 8s per stone ; prime, 9s Gd to 10s. Pigs—A. fair supply. Store pigs 26s to 30s ; fat pork, 7s Gd to 8s Od per stone. B I It 1' II 3. GRANT. —On the sth inst., at herfather's residence, Green wich Hospital, tho wife of Commander Henry D. Grant, R.N., of a daughter. PETRE.—On the 3d inst., at Bedford, Essex, the Hon. Mrs. H. W. Petre, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. HAYMAN—MALLOCK.-011 the sth inst., at Uplyme, De von, Ellis Bartlett Hayman, Esq., of Axminster, Devon, to Edith M. Raymond, eldest daughter of Thos. Mallock, Esq., R.N., of Hill Cottage, Axminster. DEATHS. DAWSON.—On the Bth inst., at Watford, Herts, Jonathan Dawson, Esq., aged 77. DUKE.—On the sth inst., at Brighton, Chas. Duke, E sq. , late of East Lavant, aged 58. EBRINGTON.—On the 4th inst., at Southsea, Major W. s, Ebrington, late of the 11th Foot. LILLTE.—On the 6th inst., at Dover, Dame Louisa Lillie. wife of Sir John Scott Lillie, C.B. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, is the county of Middlesex, WedneatlaYi May 91:1860. I F littl whi old A ;Sun C, ter to a ] dux dtar 11111 lane]