The Sun. — London, England, 1860-03-27 00:00:00

[Continued from our first page.] keep ourselves apart from the other nations of Europe— (loud cheers from both sides of the house)—but that, when future questions may arise—as future questions may arise —we should be ready to act with others and to declare, always in the most moderate and friendly terms, but still firmly, that the settlement of Europe, the peace of Europe, is a matter dear to this country, and that settlement and that peace cannot be assured if it is liable to perpetual in terruption—(loud cheers)—to constant fears, to doubts and rumours with respect to the annexation of this one coun try, or the union and connexion of that other—but that the Powers of Europe, if they wish to maintain that peace, must respect each other's rights, must respect each other's limits, and, above all, restore and not disturb that commercial con fidence which is the result of peace, which tends to peace, and which ultimately forms the happiness of nations. (Loud cheers.) Lord J. MANNERS said the cheers which rang through the whole house when the noble lord made the observa tions with which he concluded his speech furnished a com plete justification of the hon. gentleman who had originated that discussion. (Hear.) lie could only say, for one, that when he heard that portion of the noble lord's speech he hailed it as an augury that her Majesty's Government • were about to return to those alliances and that friendly co-operation with the other Powers of Europe which, in his opinion, ought. never to have been for one moment dis turbed. (Cheers.) The announcement just made by the noble lord was of such paramount importance, and fraught with, such infinite gratification to all lovers of their coun- try, that he was quite content to overlook anything that could raise controversy in the previous parts of his speech. (Hear, hear.) Having front the first taken a deep interest in this question, he (Lord J. Manners) could not sit down without expressing his thanks to the honourable mem ber for Bridgewater, the honourable baronet the member for Tamworth, 'and the right honourable gentleman the member for Stroud, for the bold and honest stand they bad made, and the thoroughly English spirit they had neanifested in bringing this subject under the consideration of the house. (Hear.) The noble lord had given utterance to that which would vibrate from one end of England to the other ; and, if it became their duty to discuss this ques tion again, he trusted they would do so in the spirit of the noble lord's concluding observations, and that the country would feel they might still have confidence in the manner in which eur foreign policy was conducted. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BRIGHT—I am unable to say how many times this subject has been before the house during the last month, but I am sure it has been more times than was eonvenieni for the house, or for the despatch .of public business. (Oh, oh.) I may not have been able to remember all the speeches that I have heard made, nor to recollect all I have read of those which I have not heard on this subject; but I have come to this conclusion, that those gentlemen who have been so anxious to introduce this question to the house have entirely avoided that which appears to me the most important point—viz., what clear and direct interest this house has in the matter under discussion. I contend that we are hero for the interests of England. (Oh, oh.) repudiate altogether the views of the hon. baronet the member for Tamworth, whose interest is clearly of the warmest with regard to Switzerland. I repudiate the course taken by the hon. member for Bridgewater, who has taken Sardinia under his particular care. (No, no.) Now that Sardinia is proved to be the only Power that is not trust worthy in this matter, the hon. gentleman probably wishes to discourage discussion. I repudiate the course taken by the right hon. gentleman below me (Mr. Horsman), who appears to find every question p suitable one for attacking the mem bers of the Government; I am here as the representative of a great English constituency, who have no kind of business with this question except in so far as it affects thd honour and interest of England. (Hear, hear.) I can conceive men, being great Englishmen—and I am astonished that it has not struck some of these ingenious gentlemen in their re searches on this question—viewing very favourably the transfer of Savoy to France, and I will give one reason why I think England should rather be glad at it. Sardinia agrees to the transfer as a compensation to France. Has it not been matter of talk among Englishmen and in all the clubs during the last year that Sardinia has been placed in the power of France, and that in consequence France has been aggrandised by the acquisition of Sardinia in an almost perpetual alliance ? But if Sardinia be able by the cession of what may be called politically a worthless pro vince —(oh, oh)—understand me, I say "worthless" poli tically only—if Sardinia has compensated France by the cession of that territory, and has, therefore, disengaged herself from any feeling, of what I may say created that supremacy of France in consequence of what France had done for her in the Italian war, then I say, on your own principles and on the policy of the noble lord, that Eng land should be glad that the score had been settled in this manner rather than that for the future Sardinia should consider herself greatly indebted to France, and bound by a perpetual political alliance with that country. (Hear.) France is now acknowledged even by the right hon. gen tleman near me to have acted in the transaction with per fect good faith. (Oh, oh !) I thought I was stating that which was admitted on both sides of the house the last time his matter was discussed. I heard it said by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), though I see that gentlemen opposite have no faith in his statements ; but that he did say so I call the right hon. gentleman himself to witness. (Hear.) This house, the English people, and the English press have for the last nine months been exciting the English Govern ment to take that precise course which rendered the cession of Savoy inevitable, and therefore we are not in a position to complain of what has taken place. The noble lord has told us in a manner perfectly charming, when we recollect the somewhat hot despatches he has written, and the hottssr despatches gentlemen in this house have desired hire to write, that' he has communicated with all the Pinvers who were parties to the treaty of Vienna. It is a &slight fal thing when all the Powers of Europe slumber at their posts that the hon. member for Bridgewater should be wide awake. (Hear.) No doubt gentlemen opposite fully appreciate the course he has taken. But the noble lord tells us that Austria in reply says—Vat ? Why, that no body cares about the treaty of Vienna, and when her pro vinces were wrested from her they were not taken by treaty, but by force of arms, and that Europe looked quietly on, while the English Ministers almost applauded, and the English people welcomed with enthusiasm every intelli gence that was received of the destruction of an Austrian army in Italy. (Hear.) Then not only is Lombardy taken from Austria, but those pet duchies over which Austria has exerted so much influence are also gone, and that patrimony which is held by Austria to be sacred—the patrimony of the Pope—is in part wrested from the Papal Government ; and all this is transferred bodily to Sardinia, which has tripled in extent since this time last year. All this has been done with the sanction of the English Go vernment and the English people. (" No," from Mr. Bow. yer.) Did hon. gentlemen opposite, or did the hon. member for Bridgewater think that the Austrian Government would join in a quarrel about Savoy when they had not a word to say when Austria was dismembered ? Then you go to Russia, and yen ask her to join you. Russia replies, "As there is no question involved affecting Ihe principles on which Government rests, it does not concern us." And then, if you look back seven years, is there any man such an idiot as to suppose that the Russian Government would step out of its path to join you upon a miserable question like this ; remembering 'the course you took with regard to Russia sev en years ago ? Then 1. suppose the noble lord appealed to Prussia, and the Court of Prussia is pailicularly allied to the Court of England, and is, for many reasons besides, rather disposed to side with England. Well, what is the answer of the Court of Prussia ? I am not sure that the noble lord has stated exactly that answer to-night, but the general impression is that, as the Fr enc h Government do not insist upon what are called the natural boundaries of empires, Prussia has no interest in this ques tion, and does not desire to take any steps with us. Then it comes to this,That no one hat any interest in this matter but England ; and yet every one will admit that whatever interest England has is necessauily smaller than the interest of the ether Powers of Europe, for it is sheer folly and child ishness to say that we who live in this island have a greater interest in this question than the great nations which in.. habit the continent of Europe, and which are nearer to that point whore the boundary touches: But. I ask, who in Eng land is so far interested in this matter ? I have looked in vain to the English press to find any considerable alarm on this question. There is, of course, some following of the rumours spread in this house, and there is one newspaper in London which is celebrated—l should rather say noto rious—for a mixture of piety and ruffianism which has never before been equalled in the press. (Laughter, and cries of " Name, name I") Day after day that newspaper—(Name I) endeavours to stir up the passions of this country by vitu perating everything connected with the French people and their Government ; but beyond that I am at a loss to find any that express any serious alarm about the question. I do not hesitate to express a suspicion that has filled my mind. It should be remembered that at this moment there is in France, as there was in England 150 years ago, a great question of dynasty. The partisans of deposed dynasties are restless and unscrupulous; and I am not at all certain that means have not been taken by those partisans who had no friendship f or E ng l an d w hil e t h ey were connected with the G overn ment of France--means which do not come to the light of day—for the purpose of influencing the press and public opi nion in general throughout England against the existing Go vernment of France. And this is done not with any good in tentions toward Ewngeln they end e , but for objects g oo d on l y to a f am i ly or a faction who, h in it, power,anwdewrehionhave n 0 wereeiclaim nnot whateverab le t o maintain themsel ves upon the influence of thiscountry to replace them in the posi tion they have lost. (Oh, oh.) I cannot,u I say, find any one in England who really feels alarm p question, and the only people who I believe arereemaolnbt}e-tirinifsoa r Stroud state of great trepidation are the ri ght hon. m (Mr. Horsman), the ho n. me mber for Bridgewater (Mr.d Hinglake), and one or two others. (No, no.) 'Well, th at is my opinion. (Laughter.) The right hon. member for Stroud has this evening touched upon a question W hi c h it is a great pity that he did not further explain. It occurred in the right hon. gentleman's defence of freedom of speech. Now, lam not about to contest that point. The house, allows me to use freedom in my sr eech. I shall not com- Pl4in of any one else using it. But the right hon. gentleman intimated by what he said, that diplomacy having failed, parliament had power to do something that diplomacy had not. Well, what has parliament power to do under such circumstances? It must either succumb, or proceed to a mode of compulsion which is different from that of diplo macy. Did the right hon. gentleman refer to that latter course P Mr. HORSMAN said he did not. Mr. BRIGHT —No; because he has told the house that he does not mean to make war upon France. But the right hon. gentleman is determined to make war upon those who sit on the Treasury benches; and I have not the least ob jection to his doing so, though, if the right honourable gen- tleman will permit me, I will give him a piece of advice. When he wants to make war upen the Treasury bench, he should not begin his assault when they are in the right. (Laughter.) I have been opposed to governments, and I hope I have on such occasions done something to reader their position unpleasant —(hear, hear, and laughter) —but I have always acted upon this plan. Every Govern _ _ ment—even that of Lord Derby--sometimes does things that are right—(laughter)—and then I have always been happy to give them my support. But on the other hand, even such governments as that of the noble viscount ara apt to make great mistakes, and my course has been to attack them upon those mistakes. (Cheers, and laughter.) But the right hon. gentleman not only makes war upon the go- vornment, but upon all the party with whom for the last 20 years it is supposed that ho has been acting. The right hon. gentleman makes war upon all the past of his own life; and for a gentleman of his power of debate, of com prehending questions, and of being useful both to the House of Commons and to his country, it is a lamentable thing to see him committing, as I think, s'o great a mistake. (Cheei:s.) With regard to the main object at issue, I am opposed to the house placing itself in the humiliating position which it has so often of late been invited to occupy—that of bark ing when it does not intend to bite. and of making itself, not the guardian of the powers of Europe, for that would be foolish and impossible enough—but making itself the common scold of all Europe. (Cheers and laughter.) Nothing could be more humiliating, nothing mom hopeless than such a position. lam not sure that some of our de bates, pernicious as they have been in other respects, have not rather affected the judgment of the noble lord at the head of foreign affairs. Ido not perhaps quite understand the observations with which the noble lord closed his speech—(oh, oh)—but the noble lord opposite (Lord John Manners), always glad to ally himself with that which ci vilisation is day by day departing from, namely, privilege and despotism—(renewed cries of" oh, oh")—rose imme diately to compliment the noble lord the Secretary for Fo reign Affairs, and to say, 'what I have heard him say be fore, viz., how grateful he felt to the noble lord for the opi nions he had expressed, and for the course which the Go vernment were about to take. The house are aware that I have more than once expressed an opinion that a close per sonal alliance between the Sovereign of this and the Sove reigns of other countries is not, in my opinion, advanta geous to England, nor indeed to Europe. I think the noble lord means to take that course which, in the impartial opi nion of every one, must be admitted to be wise and good— he intends, namely, that the policy of England shall in fu ture not be such as to estrange England from any of the Governments of Europe—that it shall not be such to France on the one side, or to Austria on, the other, as shall make one of those powers the embittrired enemy of Eng land ; but such as will enable Englaud to take an impartial position among the Governments of Europe, giving her opinion, as she is only bound to give it, when the question does not immediately affect her own interest—only when she is asked for it. If this were the proper occasion I should take the noble lord to task for the course which has been taken with regard to Naples. There is nothing which I believe is more firmly and more unchangeably established than that the past policy of England with regard to various matters connected with the Governments of continental Europe has been a policy not tending to her honour, not good for her people, disastrous to her finances, needlessly meddling, and of no advantage to her whatever. (Opposi tion cheers.) lam not asking for a policy of entire and absolute isolation; but I believe that a policy of isolation would be better than a policy of incessant meddling. (Cheers.) I hope the noble lord will take this course—that he will move with France, when he has to move with her, clearly, frankly, honourably, and in a manner that cannot be mistaken. I know the noble lord will never truckle to any power in Europe, but I hope he will so conduct the policy of this country that all the nations of Europe may say that which I believe they have heretofore not said, that England is a power that regards its own great interests, namely—that it interferes not in Europe where interference can be avoided, and that when it does interfere, it inter feres, not for the sake of degrading one power or of exalting another, bait in favour of those great principles of justice and moderationwhich it is necessary to observe if the peace of Europe is to be preserved. (Cheers.) Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON said he could not think it possible that the statements which had been made by the hon. gentleman were in accordance with those sentiments entertained by the English people. If the question of the annexation of Savoy had been passed over sub silentio they would be liable to the imputation of giving encouragemerit to still further encroachments in that course of policy. England would be wanting in its duties if it did not com plain in the strongest terms of the annexation of Savoy. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bright) had, however, said. that it was a matter of very little importance. Did that. hon. mem ber wish then to see the glorious republic of Switzerland shackled on one of its frontiers by a great. military Power like that of France ? He (Lord C. HarrAton) denied that tho general sentiments of the people at all accorded with those which had been expressed by that hon. member. The subject of complaint wus, that the uoble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had nr.lt raised his voice when he had first been made aware of tb.e intentions of the French Government. If they were ellent on such a subject they would be sanctioning a xae,st odious policy, and would be worthy of strong condemnation. Ile was bound to say that the policy pursued by the noble lord at the head of the Go vernment, since 1830, when he was called to the Foreign Office, had been such as to irritate and alienate the old Allies of England ; and he was rejoiced to hear, by the speech, of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell), that it was found necessary to draw closer the intimacy with foreign Powers, a speech which had been loudlycheered by a crowded house. (Hear, hear.) / Mr. KING LAKE said he was very sure he would not have addressed them but for the language which had been used by the hon. member for Birmingham as to the conduct which he (Mr. Kinglake) had thought proper to pursue with reference to these transactions. The speech of that hon. member had been truly characteristic of the man, be cause he had disclosed in every sentence the assumed in fallibility of his own opinions, and his ignorance of the views which were entertained by other men. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Kinglake) denied that he had acted in these matters in the character of a friend of the King of Sardinia, which the hen. member might have known if he had paid any attention to what he ,had said when he came down to the house and disclosed to hon. members the family compact which had been entered into 'between France and Sardinia. The hon. member had alleged that those who had spoken had not shown him how England had any interest in this matter; but that only showed that he had paid no atten tion to the discussions on the subject, for it had been proved that military considerations made it of great im portance that England should endeavour to prevent the an nexation of Savoy. (Hear, hear.) He wondered at the audacity of the hon. gentleman coming forward to give a military opinion, and speaking with his usual confidence that Savoy and Nice were early worthless provinces. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Hon. members in speaking of these provinces were influenced principally by military con siderations, and of course the hon. member must mean that they were worthless provinces in a military sense— Mr. BRIGHT.—I said politically. Mr. KINGLAKE said it must depend on the degree of strength which these province gave to a nation, and there fore it was not right in the hon. member for Birmingham to speak of them as being worthless in a pelitical sense. The hon. member had said that there was great danger of the house degeratitig into the positiOn of being the common stole of Europe, but the language and the demeanour of the hon. member was such as would prevent England being the scold of Europe. (Opposition cheers.) He (Mr. Kinglake) was glad to say how much he had been gratified with the speech of the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he congratulated himself in being, to some ex - tent, the cause of that speech bythe notice of motion which he had given. He was also glad to say that, happily, the views which he entertained upon so important a subject were now entertained by the Government. (Hear.) Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY said he would venture to recall the attention of the house to the subject which was int rn ediately b e f ore t h em w h en t hi s discussion arose, ho meant the in tax income tax. He had already said he th o ught it very doubtful w h f e o t r h t e h r e th s e ak h e ou o s f e w a ott m ld ore not tin e an bje ci c a t l to ex p p a e y ri a m l e O n d t. . income But he thought it Virt9 : now . his duty to make some remark upon the inequalities which deformed this tax. The house was aware that s i was of very unequal pressure, taken with ref erence to in stance, with resp ect to a t ll he the various ro se rty he m dule s s e . F hedu o l r e avlaich included all th e land and house property of the country, people paid the tax upon their gross rental. This was clearly a great injustice to the in this country. He proposed, ther o e w f ners , real property that some . reduc tion, b y wa y of per centage, should be °l made upon this gross rental, and that the income tax should be the reduced amount. He begged.aleo to Calculated ask. on gentleman whether he had any objection to giveeright lion. to owners of landed property a right of appeal to the commissioners. Sir J. PAK INGTON said that before the right hon. gen tleman rose to answer the question, there was one or two points on which he thought it desirable that he should give the house some further information than it had yet rec e i ve d . The Chancellor of the Exchequer having thought fit to im pose a 10d. income tax, with a remarkable inconsistency, i n the very year in which he had promised it should cease al together, had omitted to state to the house what would be the estimated proceeds of the tax. He had told the house what they were to pay, not what he was to reeeive. The right hon. gentleman, in his statement on the budget, had estimated the produce of half-a-year's income tax at sd. at £2,400,000 ; this would give £960,000 for each penny of tax. But a few sentences later in his speech, he had said that the actual produce of the tax in 1858.59 at sd. was £6,140,000. That would make each penny to produce £1,258,000. He gave a third and different statement when estimating what would be the receipt from the three quarters of the tax which he proposed to collect in the ensuing financial year ; this he estimated at £8,472,000, and the fourth quarter at £2,250,000; giving an aggregate of 10,722,000, or £1,072,200 for each penny. If the seco n d ca l cu lation was correct, the 9d. tax proposed on a former evening would actually produce a larger revenue than what the Chancellor of the Exchequer now estimated from a 10d, tax. Another.point was the mode in which he proposed to collect the three quarters within the year. There would tie considerable practical dif ficulty in this; and he should be glad to hoar some explana tion. He also hoped that some alteration would be made in the remuneration allowed to the collectors. They were extremely well paid, and as the tax was to be doubled, their ought to be some reduction in their poundage. Mr.. DEEDES expresse d hi s di sappo i ntment at the finan mai statement. Mr. L. BLAKE • expressed his conviction that the income tax pressed unjustly on th e commerc i a l c l asses, as compared Mr. LONalwhoEivir exempt up to £2OO a-year. was to be levied in Irelans d e o d n whether any augmented tax mised by the Chanc e ll or of the EexecZ eg a u s e s r essm i e i n e t ie asd that on the schedules B, C, and D, there had been an actual de crease of receipts between 1854 and 1857. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER referred to the inconvenience of re-opening the question on partial _ _ grounds, Sir H. Willoughby had complained that the pre sent arrangement of the income tax bore unjustly upon those in schedule A. Another hon. member had opened another source of complaint, one that was much more rife, and much more serious and difficult to deal with whenever the subject was fairly broached—its unequal pressure upon *ichedUle D. The truth was that thegreat battle of the in come tax was between schedules A and D. The question of remissions in favour'of the farmers under schedule B was a very small one, the real question was between schedules A and D. If the hon. baronet made the motion which he promised; with a view to improve the terms for schedule A, he would find other thembeis on his right and left up. in arms for Schedules . D and E, aid he might be left to be dealt with by these gentlemen. (A laugh.) There was no doubt that the tax was full of inequalities ; but there would be no advantage to any particular' interest in opening the question of those inequalities, except at a time when the house could give to the subject an attention bearing some proportion to its extreme difficulty, its,vast importance, and the immense financial and social dangers which, he hesi- bated not to say, would infallibly attend any precipitate pro- ceeding in regard to it. (Hear.) He was not afraid of any such precipitate proceeding ; but ho thought it his duty always to keep in view the extremely perilous and critical nature of the whole question, which would, in fact, open something like a soramble between class and class in this country, and for the opening of which he did not wish to be responsible, though he fully admitted the right of members to give their attention to the subject and to bring it before the house. If Sir H. Willoughby made the motion he pro- posed, it would be convenient to both houses, with regard to the progress of the public business, if he would make it either that evening or on the report of the bill. What he (the Chancpllor of the Exchequer) had said with respect to assessment was intended entirely in favour of the tax-payers. It had reference exclusively to schedule B ; and the object was not to increase the burden on leaseholders. It had been asked whether any relief could be given under sche dule Ato the tax levied on mines. He had not had any recent application on that subject, but he should be happy, either in or out of the house, to hear any statements which might give an opportunity of adjusting the tax in propor tion to the receipts of the owners of mining property. In speaking of the unfavourable result that might happen to schedule A, from a general discussion of the subject, he was quite aware that the matter was a grave one. He himself had laboured in that house to show that the tax fell upon schedule A much more heavily than was generally sup posed, as all house proprietors in particular were aware, for on them it fell with a weight that was really extreme. (Hear, hear.) He had been so distinctly charged by Sir J. Pakington with breach of promise with regard to the in come tax, that ho must quote to the house the substance of his statement in 1853. The right hon. baronet appeared to think that he had promised that a certain course should be pursued in 1860 irrespective of what might happen in the meantime, and the demands of the public service. Had ho made so rasha promise as that, it would have been the act of an insane man to attempt to keep it. But he did not find, from the authentic records of their proceedings, that he had been guilty of such an excess of folly. He had said in 1853 —" I think it also desirable that effective measures should be taken to mark this tax as a temporary tax. My own opinion is decidedly against the perpetuity of this tax as a perma nent ordinary portion of our revenue. But while I state the wish of the Government to propose it as a temporary tax, I do not ask you to rely upon their words as binding either them or yourselves, irrespective of what may occur in the interim, to put an end to the tax entirely in a given year." The answer to those who said that stleh expecta tions ought to be fulfilled was to point to the increase of fourteen millions in the expenditure of the country. How far that was a sufficient answer he pretended not to say ; but itlmerely showed how foolish it would have been in the Government of the day to make such a pledge, or in the Parliament to accept it, supposing they had done so. As to the figures quoted by Sir John Pakington, he thought he should be able to show that they were strictly accurate. He was not aware that he had referred to the produce of the tax in. 1858-59, or that he had stated it at £6,140,000. But tin produce of the tax in that year, whatever it was, did :tot represent the value of a sd. tax; it really repre sfmted the value of a 7d. tax for the first half-year, and a sd. tax for the second half-year. He had stated, as was truly said, that there was due of the present year's tax, in respect of the law expiring en the 31st March, £2,400,000 ; also that there would be obtained by collecting three-fourths within the year, if the tax were voted by the house, a sum of £8,472,000. He had likewise stated the sum which would remain to be collected after the Ist April, 1861, at $2,250,000. There was an apparent discrepancy, but no real one. All the calculations were as accurate as could be made in the form of estimates. The reason of the apparent discrepancy was this, that the collection was not quite equally distributed. In Scotland, for example, the whole annual tax under sche dules A and and he believed B also, was collected about January. • That was one reason. It so happened that owing to the lateness of the period at which, from other circum, stances, the financial statenient of last year was made, the July dividend, which ought to have paid an income-tax of 13d. in the pound, escaped with an income-tax of only sd. That consequently deranges. the collection. Instead there fore of getting £9,000,000 within tthe year, they got £8,472,000 within the year,and £2,250,000 beyond the year, making £10,722,000. That was the cause of the apparent discrepancy in the figures. With regard to the collection of three quarters of the tax in lieu of one quarter within the year, there was no alteration of the law. The collection was not uniform as it now stood, it being paid in some cases quarterly, in others half-yearly, and ence for all, as in the case of Scotland. With regard to another point of consi derable importance which the right hon. gentleman touched upon, namely, the per tentage on the collection of the tax, there was only one change which they proposed to make, and that was to take the assessment on the railways from the head office of the railways, and transfer it to the head office of the Government at Somerset-house. It was absurd, for example, that because the head office of the North- Western Railway, which had its revenue of so many mil lions, was in the parish of St. Pancras, the collector there should have the per tentage on the whole amount of its in come tax, They proposed, therefore, to make this a matter of direct arrangement between the Government and the railway companies. And he felt no scruple in doing this, because thepoundage afforded ample and adequate remune ration to the collectors. (Hear, hear.) The whole question of the poundage on collection required revision, when the House of Commons was in a position to vote the tax for a term of years. (Hear, hear.) When the income tax was at sd. in the pound, the poundage did not give adequate remuneration for the trouble. Oa the other hand, when it was 16d. the receipts were much larger than they ought to have been. It was desirable, therefore, to adopt a better balanced system. Another reason why he did not make a proposal of this kind, and one which the right hon. gentle man would appreciate, was this, that in the present session it would be the duty of the Government to propose a mea sure to Parliament bearing on the very important question whether the assessed taxes should be continued to be col lected by local authorities or by officers directly responsible to the Government. (Hear, hear.) He did not propose to submit to Parliament any plan by which a general and corn. pulsory change should be made in the present system ; but there was so strong an expression in many quarters of a de sire to be freed from the responsibility of the collection of these taxes, and to put them under the control of the Execu tive Government, that they thought it right to submit a measure for the purpose of transferring the function to the Executive Government. (Hear, hear.) After a few words from Sir J. PAKINGTON in explana- tion, Mr. DISRAELI said he had already expressed his opi nion that the financial scheme of the right hon. gentleman was improvident and unwise, and had an opportunity of voting against the repeal of a particular tax—a portion of that scheme—on a subsequent occasion. The house, how ever, approved of the general policy of the budget, and de cided in favour of the' repeal of that particular tax. This being the case he did not think he would bo justified in voting against the 10d. income tax. But he could not understand the remarks of tho hon. member for. Kent (Mr. Deedes), who voted in favour of the general financial policy of the govern ment, and he believed in favour of the repeal of•the tax on paper, and now seemed alarmed at the dangerous financial policy of the country. The hon. member for Kent was ready with his warnings against the consequences of events which he himself assisted in accomplishing. (Hear, hear.) They were now called upon to vote an income tax of very great amount, without any prospect, as far as he could judge, of a speedy release from what he still believed was an unpopular burden. (Hear, hear.) rho right hon. gentleman, not for the first time, referred to what took place in 1853 in order to prove that he entered into no compact with Parliament, or with the country, that there should be an absolute abolition of the in come tax in 1860, when by an unfortunate coincidence the right hon. gentleman was the Minister to make the proposition foritsc ontinuance. Of c ourse n o one su pp ose d th a t any Minister could enter i nto an absolute tottilittt, or that the Chancellor of the Exchequer Was to be held to the " letter of his bond" apart from all financial considerations and the circumstances of the co untry. But the right hon. gentleman would not pretend to deny that the scope of his policy was not—that in 1860 the termination of the 'mettle tax should take plice. (Hear.) He could not deny—for he must feel— that upon the expediency of that policy and the hope of its realisation he enjoyed for seven year% the reputation which that statesman-like scheme was calculated to altord. (lto.) He could not forget that he particularly retorted to the Ter minable Annuities, on which he might calculate on £2,000,000 or more as affording positive data for his caltula , tions, and to show that his estimate ,wart not based upon mere transient and illusory speculation. (Hear.) What he complained of now was that the Chancellor of the Exche quer, having all the credit of a policy which proved so frail and fallacious, was the person who having power to appro priate these £2,000,000, had not appropriated them to the relief of the country, but on the contrary, opened out new schemes which; if it were improvident and unsafe at any time, as he believed, were replete and rife with danger un der present circumstances. (Hear.) That was the cause of the dissatisfaction in the public mind, and it was a point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer always evaded when he came to tbe consideration of the question. He could not THE SUN, LONDON; TUESDAY EVENFSG, help contrai3ting the present position of the. Chancellor df the Exchequer with the position he took in the end of 1852. He still remembered the fierce denunciations of the right hon. gentleman against the Government of that day, on ac count of :heir policy with regard to this particular tax and their financial propositions on that•occasion. The right hon. gentleman then called on the house to crush the budget of 1852, on the ground that it was immoral and dangerous to appropriate to the service of the year £400,000 that had not been furnished by the revenue of the year. But what was the position of the right hon. gentleman now ? The right hon. gentleman proposed that there should be appropriated to the service of the year not £400,000, but £1,500,000, which was not furnished by the revenue of the year. (Hear.) With regard to the income tax, tilt, right hon. gentleman said no Minister was justified in proposing a continuance of that impost without providing for its final termination. (Hear, hear.) What was the position in which they now found themselves ? The income tax was double the amount at which it stood in 1852, and was there any one who could say that provision was made for its final termination ? The right hon. gentleman next charged the then Government with proposing to make a difference in the assessment of uhedules A and D. But he learned with surprise and asto nishment that the right hon. gentleman promised when this important financial proposition was taken into consi- deration next year, that he would consider the policy o greatly increasing the whole scale of exceptions, and reduc. ing the scale of assessment in the different classes. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, here made a remark across the table which did not reach us. Mr. DISRAELI said it was a pity the right hon. gentleman had been represented to have so spoken ; he was not in the house at the time himself. The right hon. gentleman, how• ever, must have stated something, and if such was his policy the proposition of 1852 shrinks into entire insignificance in comparison with that of the right hon. gentleman. It was very true, as was pointed out by the hen member for Kent, that the Chanbellor of the Exchequer had embarked in as important an enterprise as could be. Heshad, he was afraid, succeeded in substituting direct for indirect taxation to a great extent, and he laid down principles which, if followed, would lead to measures of greater imr ortance. He plated on the Minister who would have to deal with the finances of the country next year the task of meeting a deficiency of from £12,000,000 to £15,000,000; and the manner in which the finances of the country were to be re-established was to be reserved, to use the right hon. gentleman's own phrase, for the representatives of the masses. Tne CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated that he had not used such an expression. Mr. DISRAELI—Did the right hon. gentleman mean to deny that he had used the word " masses ?" The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I contra dict you entirely as to the phrase. Mr. DISRAELI—The right hon. gentleman said that the masses were about to become possessed of the franchise, and he should be sorry if their representatives were to be deprived of an opportunity of deciding on the principles on which the taxation of the country ought to be levied. That is a very serious state of affairs when you were promised a system which was mainly to depend on direct taxation and at the same time were informed by the same minister that a new constituent body was about to be formed who were themselves no payers of direct taxes. (Hear, hear.) A position more dangerous to the country could not be con templated. They had discussions in that house whether the Emperor of the French was influenced in his policy by what was stated in the House of Commons, and whether he might not be irritated and offended by what was said of him there. But he did not think the Emperor of the French had any cause to complain of the House of Com mons, for it appeared to him that the House of Commons was doing his work as expeditiously and as completely as any minister of his own could do it. (Hear, hear.) A' system of direct taxation, which was not to be paid by the great majority of the constituent body, appeared to be a policy which, if anything could break down this country, would break down its free spirit and that salutary influence of ancient property which so often exercised a great and powerful weight in the vindication of their rights and liber ties. With such a policy pursued by the Government, and supported by the House of Commons, the Emperor of the French could not feel offended at anything which was ex pressed in that house. (Hear, hear.) When such was the financial policy avowed:and pursued by the right hon. gen tleman, and such was the political policy working in unison with it, Necker himself, in all his glory, could not contem plate anything so enduring for the monarchy, and so advan tageous for the people, (Cheers.) Mr. LAING said that all the visionary pictures which had been for some time in circulation had been brought to a climax by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. They had been told that they were throwing away all that annual taxation which formed the mainstay of our revenue, and substituting direct taxation to the extent of confiscation of the rich as against the poor. But in speaking on matters of finance there was only one sort of figures al lowable, and those were figures of arithmetic. (Hear, hear.) They ware told that they were throwing away an immense amount of indirect taxation in their budget, but the fact was that the amount of indirect taxation next year would be greater than ever it had been before. (Hear, hear.) Let them for example go back to the year 1856-57, when the Russian war was at its height. In that year the amount raised from the Excise and Customs was £41,486,000, and in the same year the income-tax was £16,089,000. Now, in the budget as prepared this year the amount of indirect taxation would be £42,970,000, being a million and a half more than in the great year of the Russian war—(hear) — whilst the amount of direct taxation, which had been de scribed as something so extraordinary, would be £10,900,000 against £16,000,000. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, comparing the indirect taxes with 1856 they were a million and a half less, and the income tax a reduction of something in the shape of £5,000,000. He put it to the house and the coun try whether this was a wholesale abandonment of indirect taxation. (Hear, hear.) The fact was that the object of the present budget was to increase the fruitfulness of indi rect taxation; because experience had shown that by reduc ing the duty on an article of direct consumption, and by similar reductions on raw. materials so as to lighten the springs of industry, your indirect taxation would go on in creasing until it far surpassed the amount it had returned before reduction. In 1842, £12,000,000 of indirect taxes were repealed, and the result was that they now produced £5,300,000 more than when we began. Therefore, if the last 20 years showed such a result, it was only reasonable to ex pect something similar as a consequence of the reductions that were now proposed, whilst they started now with a larger amount of indirect taxation than at the former period. Mr. MALINS complained that, after the emphatic decla rations of former years against the income tax, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer should now be found, in 1860, the year in which be promised it should come to an end, about to reimpose the burden. Last half-year he levied 13d. in the pound, and now he reimposed it without giving them any prospect of its abandonment. The right hon. gentle man forgot, perhaps, that the weight of this tax would fall on Schedule D, comprising 260,000 persons, of whom 200,000 had incomes of less than £3OO a-year. These were the people upon whom the tax fell heaviest, and to whom the reductions on French wines, or the abolition of the paper duties, were matters of not the slightest consequence. In tits paper duty the right hon. gentleman was sacrificing £1,200,000, of which nobody had ever felt the burden, and all the alleged difficulties of collection had been cleared away by the evidence that had been taken, whilst the ad vantages which the French Emperor had promised us in the import of rags turned out to mean an export duty of 100 per cent. He hoped that as hereafter the taxes were to be levied by the classes who did not pay them, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, if he should be in office next year, would remember his promises of 1853, and endeavour to do something for the income tax payers, who would then be no longer able to protect themselves. Mr. PIGOTT was anxious to get some intimation from the right hon. gentleman respecting a future re-adjustment of the tax which, while it pressed but lightly on the wealthy men of Manchester, was heavily felt by the members of small trading communities. In towns such as that one which he had the honour to represent the amount of the tax was a matter of very great importance. Mr. BARROW said it was most desirable the mode of assessing the income tax should be considered as early as possible, and he thought a great improvement might be made in assessing small incomes. Mr. PEASE lutist unite with other hon. gentlemen in disliking the income tax, but he thought, failing other sources of revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was hound to levy the only tax which he had at his command. The charge against the right hon. gentleman at the pre sent moment wasp that he was levying 3d. in the pound more than was necessary on the income tax for the sake of taking the duty off paper. Mr. It. HANB URI' thought an income tax was about the best tat that could be inflicted, but he wished to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that If he had any desire to obtain a majority of the house in favour of the tax next yeats lie must take tneans to levy it more justly. Mr, N E wpm-lA.I'E thought that if the house had made up its mind to an income tax, it wits absolutely necessary something should be done to remedy its inequalities. Ile confessed that having studied the question, he had not been able to surmount the difficulties which defeated Mr. Pitt and Sir It: Peel. He believed it would be impossible to establish a just system of gradation. They would not be able to define strictly between the accumulation which created capital and Income Itself, and for his own part, he thought the Goternment were launching into a system of taxation which Was fraught Willi injustice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had undertaken the task of adjusting the income tali, a task which defeated Mr. Pitt and Sir P. Peel, and he (Mis eirtlegate) only hoped the house would exact from the right hon. gentleman the fulfilment of that task. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I just Wish to explain, after what the hon. gentleman said who had just sat down, that I was certainly not aware that any person was under the impression that I had undertaken to re-adjust the schedules of the income tax. That is a task far beyond my strength, and the utmost I said was, that if there Wets a disposition on the part of the house to institute an intlitiry ob. the subject, It would not be my duty to oppose it. (Hear.) Mt. S. LOCIIFI thought that the income tax was carried a Vast deal tut, low ih lreinp levied upon incomes of £lOO a-year. lie considered it ought to be limited to incomes of £l5O a-Year. Taxation should be made as equal as it could be oft ei'ery class of the community, but under the present systetti the itseottis fat fell much more heavily upon the small trader than upon the large one. Mr. W. WILLIAMS begged to say that when the bill went into Committee, he should take the opportunity of Meting that the charge of sevenpenee on incomes from £lOO to £l5O should be altogether abolished. (Hear.) Mr. HUBBARD thought it must be obvious to every one, that if they cut off the means of indirect taxation they would have nothing left but to resort to such a scheme as that entertained by the Government. They would cer tainly have been justified in levying a tax upon the export of coal. What we had omitted to do for our exchequer the Emperor of the French had taken care to do for his, for he had imposed an import duty of ls. 2d. per ton on coals. (Hear.) If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had imposed an export duty of that amount on coals, it would have pro duced a comfortable sum of £lO,OOO, and enabled him to get rid of a great mass of aggravating taxes which now in terfered with the operations of trade. With regard to the income tax, he thought we were bound by no antecedents MARCH 27, ILF6O, to respect it as it now stood if we could find anything better as a substitute. But such was our present position with regard to revenue and expenditure that unless we trusted in some degree to direct taxation, he did not know where the revenue was to come from. We could not re- mpose indirect taxes, and the inevitable conclusion there fore was that we must resort to direct taxation. He trusted that another year would not pass without this question of the income tax being taken into the deliberate considera tion of .the house, and that the house would not be dis suaded from dealing with it by any feeling of despair as to the results of its labours. Lord H. VANE said that the cnnmittee of 1853 arrived at the conclusion that the .difficulties in the way of a real adjustment of the income tax, so that justice might be dealt out to all parties, was impossible. He was not opposed to direct taxation, yet looking to the state of our relations abroad, especially after the discusoion in the earlier part of the evening, he confessed he viewed the budget with some alarm. M rBENTINCK said that having refrained on a forraer. occasion from trespassing on the time of the house he would now offer a few observations. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer was about to propose the repeal of the 7th Geo. 11., an act which was passed in the first place for three years as an experiment, and then made perpetual, and was still in operation. The right honourable gentleman intended to propose its repeal. The.preamble of the act recited the evilslattending stockjobbing, and he (Mr. Bentinck) was well aware that the practice of what was called time bargains was sanctioned by custom but not by law. Custom, however, had not removed the evils in con- nexicn with time bargains. But there were many other things which society tolerated, but which the Legislature could not sanction. It would be remembered that the Le- gislature had suppressed gambling houses, and it had exer cised a sound discretion in so doing. Now he should like to know upon what ground the police were to be autharised by the Government to break into houses of that description to see whether gambling was carried on or not, when the Legislaturd was about to sanction a more extensive and a more mischievous system of gambling by many degrees than any other ever invented by the mind of man. Upon what possible ground could the present or any other Go vernment continue to suppress the practice of gambling if they were now to sanction, by legislative enactment, time bargains ? There was a name not to be mentioned to ears polite applied to gambling houses, but he thought it was strictly applicable to the Stock Exchange. It was a perfect Pandemonium But where did this proposal come from ? Why, from the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represented one of the seats of learning and virtue, piety and religion. (Laughter.) He proposed to the Legislature to sanction one of the most mischievous practices which ever prevailed in this country, and he (Mr. Bentinck) thought that such practices could not be hold to be consistent with good order and public morality. (Hear, hear.) TheC HANCE LLO R ofthe EXCHEQUER said he would in the first place answer the appeal of the' hon. gentleman the member for Norfolk. It was true he represented one of the universities, and he would assure the hon. gentleman that although his constituency were among the most dis tinguished supporters of piety and virtue, yet they had not —and they numbered 3,Boo—sent him a single remon strance against the proposal, which had been published to the world for a length of time, to repeal the act 7 Geo. 11., —Sir John Barnard's Act. Whether it would have the effect which the hon. gentleman imagined he did not know, but the principle upon which the Government had acted was this, that it was not wise to keep on the statute book a pretended prohibition, which was constantly violated by the sanction of that branch of the community which stood in connection with those practises. There was a great con fusion of ideas in what had been stated by the hon. gentle man. The hon. gentleman lamented and deplored the great temptations offered to young men on the Stock Ex change, and no doubt many resorted to that place who had less, discretion than means, from a desire to acquire a for tune rapidly. The matter was one to be regretted, but these things were not bad in themselves, but made so by those who resorted to the Exchange for the purpose of speculating. But that observation did not apply to the Stock Exchange only, for all descriptions of dealing in the funds and in mining speculations, and in joint-stock banks, and in a quantity of other things, involved the principle of gambling when taken to by persons who had, from their limited knowledge and means, no business with them. (Hear.) With regard [to time bargains, the question was whether they were so bad in themselves that the legislature ought to interfere with private discretion and to prohibit them. This prohibition was perfectly ineffectual ; the law in question was an absoltite dead letter, and had been so almost over since the day it was enacted, and for the sake of the respect in which laws should be held by the whole community, the laws ought, practically, to have some force in them ; they ought not to be passed by the legislature as mere expressions of abstract opinion, but as instruments of government. The question was not whether foolish persons might be tempted to ruin themselves, both in their fortunes and morally, by dabbling in these time bargains, but whether they were so essentially immoral as to make it proper to proscribe them, like the practices carried on in a gambling-house. Even the transactions in a gambling-house were not easy to define or describe, when it was sought to put down the evil by law, and as no great philosophical nicety could be attained, it was requisite to include every thing which bore a resemblance to the evil in question. With regard to these time bargains, he was not prepared to say, on the - face of the facts within the knowledge of every body, that there was anything essentially in the nature of a time bargain which was vicious or immoral, so that it ought to be proscribed by law. As . for the class of gentle men who dealt in money, he did not believe there was a more respectable class of men in the commercial world than those who were connected with the Stock Exchange in London ; and time bargains were a part of the regular busi ness of the class of gentlemen whose business it was to deal in money as their trade and daily occupation. These trans actions could not be divided by any difference of principle from transactions in the funds. No doubt that they involved a greater degree of hazard, but that was just as the insur ance of high risks involved greater hazards than low risks. At the time when Parliament attempted to proscribe these time bargains, an idea prevailed that all dealings in the stocks and funds were deserving of reprobation, and there fore stock ; jobbing was called " a wicked practice." In those days, also, what were called forestalling and regrating were considered moral offences ; the forestaller being a man who bought corn when a scarcity was coining on in order to sell it at the time when the scarcity was at its height ; and it was now considered that the conduct of such a man, by early raising the price, and so diminishing the consumption, had a beneficial effect. These things were quite elementary, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was almost ashamed to dwell upon them ; but if the lion. member objected to the repeal of Sir John Sarnard's Act, let him go back and re vive all the other old statutes of that good old time in George ll.'s reign, of which this act was a remnant. ' Mr. BOVILL remarked that in the eighth and ninth year of the present reign an act had been passed to prevent wager contracts being enforced in courts of law, and the legisla tion against time bargains, which it was new proposed to repeal by a simple resolution, was based on the same prin ciple. In India, where wager bargains were legal, enormous mischief had resulted from speculations in opium, by which some of the largest mercantile houses bad been placed in jeopardy. He had heard of one firm which stood to win a million and a half of money upon a single operation. The resolution, as reported from the Committee' of Ways and Means, was then agreed to, and so were the resolutions for a penny stamp on dock warrants, delivery orders, bills of exchange, and sundry other instruments. In reply to a question from Mr. HUBBARD, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said these resolutions did not at all affect the question of law which had been raised with regard to the liability of coupons and dividend warrants, under the act passed in 1855, to bear a penny stamp. It was well known that, in consequence of a decision against their liability, it was not intended to en force it. The next resolution, imposing a stamp on certificated copies of registry:of births, deaths, baptisms, and marriages, transfer of mining shares, certificates of probate, and lease agreements, were then reported. In reply to Mr. PULLER, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it wits hard to draw the line as regarded foreign stocks, and levying a probate duty upon thew. However, he thanked his hon. friend for calling attention to the matter. The difficulty was in levying probate duty on property not ab solutely English. The matter would be anxiously consi dered by the Government. The report was then agreed to. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES BILL. On the order of the dziirfoTtl;;;;Cond reading of this bi:l, Petitions were presented against it by several members, including Mr. J. Ewart, from Liverpool; Sir C. Napier, Mr. Ayrton, and Mr. Ker Soymer. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in rising to move the second reading of the bill, said his hon. friend the member for Liverpool had just presented a peti tion which described the measure before the house as a con fiscation of the property of the licensed vikituallers. Now he was anxious to say that it was extremely difficult to dis cuss the question before them without more or less indi cating the opinions of the Government as to the present system under which drinking houses were licensed and managed ; and he was afraid that, so far as his opinion might become apparent, it would be very unfavourable to the system. But at the same time the Government were very anxious, in framing a bill which had in view a ccm paratively limited object, to avoid everything like the feel ing described in the language of the petition from Liver pool. There was much that been pressed upon the Go vernment by the sellers if beer, and there was much au thority due to the report of a committee of that house, which warned them that some time or other they must deal with the whole system under which the sale of strong liquors had been regulated. It was not their intention, however, upon that occasion to propose a complete and final settle ment of the question, but a measure of much more limited tendency. The question was one of very great practical importance, and one which no consideration of a party or purely political character could interfere ; and the measure which he had to propose was undoubtedly also of consider able fiscal importance, because it originated in a fiscal pro posal, for it would have been absurd to propose a great di• urination of the wine duties and to bold out a hope to the house that the revenue would be rapidly recovered, unless, at the dame time, the Government was prepared to submit a measure to Parliament by which the channels for the sale and consumption of wine should be greatly altered and enlarged. But although fiscal considerations formed the immediate occasion of the measure, it had undoubtedly an important bearing upon the social eondition of the cora rounity—(hear, hear) —it had a decided bearing upon the great question of public sobriety ; and the ground on which ho earnestly commended it to the house was not be cause of its importance with respect to fiscal ends, but upon the ground that it was a good and wise measure, with re gard, first, to the enlargement of the comforts of the people, and, secondly, with reference to the promotion of temperance, and sobriety as opposed to drunkenness and de • moralisation. (Cheers.) In the discussions which he had had with the various ps.rtios who viewed the bill with more or less aversion and suspicion, he was obliged to hold firmly by two conditions. The opponents of the bill had been two parties who for the nonce had acted in conjunction, and yet it would seem a jest to mention such an alliance in that house. One of them had been the humbler tho licenssellersed victuaofllersbeer , who represented in some degree and of wine, but, at the same time, the sellers of ardent spirits, which sale was by far the favourite portion of their trade. The other party had been a body of gentlemen, of whom he was unable to speak either there or elsewhere sav e w ith th e profoundest respect, inasmuch as they were gentlemen who were anxiously endeavouring. to lay the axe, as they thought, at the root of a great social evil. (Hear, hear, hear.) H e spoke of them, then , with the utmost res p ect, and ho referred to " the Temperance Society." But at the s ame ti me h e at once avowed a broad difference of opinion between the society and himself. Ho believed that so far as the article of wine was concerned, there was a use apart from an abuse of wine ; whereas those gentlemen drew no distinction be tween the use and abuse—and in their view it would be just as proper to talk of legalising the use of perjury or theft as to `propose the introduction of cheap wines. Ho was bound, however, to say that of those two classes of opponents, he had not the slightest doubt from which the most formidable opposition was to be expected. .(Hear, hear.) He frankly avowed that those who represented the National Temperance Society had much more in view than the acquittance of their consciences and the liberation of their souls, in wash- ing their hands of all responSibility in connection with a measure of this kind, than the prosecution of a real and earnest opposition to it. Indeed, apart from their general objections, they did Rot hesitate to say the bill was a great improvement upon the existing system. With regard to the other class, he would only say that he was quite sure the house might pass an impartial judgment upon the bill, both as it effected public policy arid public morality. Those who were adverse to the principle of the-bill varied greatly in the grounds of their opposition. But the answer of the Government was, that there 'were two conditions which they could not depart from. One of these conditions was, that they could not consent to leave the sale of wine at the mercy of the restricted channels now in existence. That was a fundamental proposition. It rested on the ground thit the channels of consumption were ludicrously restricted. The other fundamental ground was, that the channels for the sale of wine were unduly restricted in pro portion to the channels for the sale of other strong liquors. It was stated to him by a deputation of licensed victuallers, as a plea for the efficiency of the present channels of con sumption, that there were sixty-three thousand houses licensed for the sale of spirits. It appeared unreasonable to deny that in quantity at least such a number ought to be sufficient. But he found that though about 100,000 houses licensed for the sale of strong liquors to be consumed on the premises, though beer was the natural drink of the population, and after that wine, no house could get a license for the sale of wine which had not also a license for the sale of spirits. That was to offer a premium on the sale of spirits. He appealed, therefore, to the advocates of tem perance and sobriety as to whether it was possible to justify that %tate of the law. But how did that state of things work? The houses licensed for the sale of spirits were 63,000 in number; but of that nnmber only 23,000 had licenses for the sale of wine. Under these circumstances he felt confident by anticipation of the judgment of the house when they were asked whether it would not be wiser to give increased facilities for the sale of wine than to ad here to the present system. Then as to the quality of the wine sold in public helms ; on that ground alone it would be requisite to alter the channels of sale and consumption, so as to admit of free competition. Every one knew the de scription of wine sold in this country, and that with the ex ception of the high priced wines to be had in hotels of a car tam class, what was sold as such was a mixture that no pen or tongue could describe. White -wine, as sold in public houses, was a mixture of fire and water; and red wine was composed of the juice of the sloe, or of other substances which may be more baneful, with a strong infusion of some descrip - tion of spirits. The second proposition was fundamental in respect of a useful and salutary measure such as that be fore the house—namely, that whatever might be done with the control of the police and magistrates, the Government would not be responsible for the extension of the present licensing system. He made no reproach to the magistrates. Indeed, the bill was framed en the principle that confidence might be fairly reposed in them, in so far as intelligence and integrity went. But the licensing system imposed duties on the magistrates which it was impossible they could satisfac factorily discharge. It made them the judges, for instance, of the quantity of liquor which any number of human be ings could consume ; and so led to absurdity and inequality. In some places the magistrates determined the capacity of the population to consume strong drink was limited, and they accordingly limited the number of licenses. In other places the contrary principle prevailed. In Liverpool, for example, with a population about the same as Manchester, the number of public houses was threefold more. If, then, this matter was to be regulated by authority, it should be regulated on a definite principle, so as to ensure uniformity of action, and to give satisfaction and content to the people of this country. But it was not only because the present licensing system gave rise to inequality, and produced heartburnings and discontent, that it was objectionable; it was, moreover, entirely inefficient. Ile (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had received a statement from certain li censed victuallers of Liverpool in opposition to the bill, which showed the moral tendency of the system of licens ing. These persons stated in that memorial that there were in Liverpool 1,536 licensed public-houses, and that in that number there were 178 known to the police to be the resort of thieves and prostitutes. And yet these houses were regu larly licensed by the magistrates. That was the state of things, and that was the system which, on moral grounds, the Government were aeked not to meddle with. (Hoar, hear.) The tendency of the present licensing system was to create a monopoly. Where there was a monopoly there were proprie tary interests---or rather what were called vested interests ; and, accordingly, such an interest had grown up in the licensing of public-houses, apart from the interest on the premises. The existence of that vested interest was one of the most formidable opponents to the effectual control of the police and the magistrates over public-houses. When, therefore, it was proposed to him to rear up a new class of houses of the same description, his answer was it would be to raise up the same system, and to make wine houses the nucleus of fresh vested interests, and so to impede the ope rations of the power of the police and the magistracy. That conclusion was the reason - why he declined to present any bill to the house for placing wine liceisses under the same system as public .houses. Short of these two propositions, however, to rest satisfied with the present licensing system, in connection with the sale of wines, and to create a new system of vested interests, such as had been created under the public-house licensing, there was no proposition for the maintenance of good order in these houses that Ike was not willing to receive and entertain. So much for the general view of the question. He would now describe the main ob jects of the measure. They were three in number, in two of which he anticipated the unanimous concurrence of the house. One of these was for the sale of wine not to be Con sumed on the premises. The sale of wine in that form was both unexceptionable and desirable for the supply of fami lies, and he therefore proposed that, subject to a moderate license duty, every retail shopkeeper should have the power to take out a license for the sale of wine not to be consumed on the premises. Passing on to a more socially important portion of the bill, it proposed to obtain one object, viz., an efficient police control in connection with the sale of strong liquors. To that effect it proposed that any house wherein strong liquors were sold should be under the direct control of the polies. The ground of this was that some of those houses might be the receptacle of disorderly characters. He believed theta was no second opinion as to the propriety of biinging these houses within the scope of the bill. There was, however, an important exemption, viz., of houses be low the value of £lO, in places the population of which was under a certain number. That would include those vil lage shops where ginger wine and other things were sold. He believed this exemption would also be generally agreed to. The third portion of the bill referred to licensing eating-houses for the sale of wine. The idea had got abroad that all refreshment houses were to be licensed for the sale of wine, but there could be no greater error. The fundamental principle of the bill was to draw a distinction between refreshment houses and eating houses. In licensing eating houses the bill had in view the creation of a system more healthful and natural, and less liable to the contingencies of evil than the present system. Obviously Nature intended that the functions of eating and drinking should be carried on together: (Laughter.) But the existing law did everything to separate these functions, the one from the oth er . Th ere were some 70,000 or 80,000 di-ink ing houses in England, and not one eating house among them all. The law had constituted a monopoly for the sale of drink, but not for the sale of victuals. The result was that the trade in drink was fostered and promoted, to the neglect of the trade in victuals ; and so the business of eat ing and drinking had been separated. People of the higher classes took care of themselves in that respect in clubs ; but the licensing system placed it beyond the means of the mid dle and poorer classes. The operation of the system of sepa ration was against sobriety of habit ; and the consequence was, not that the desire of drink was got rid of, but that man were compelled to go to places where drinking was a busi ness. If it was desired to devise a scheme for the promo tion of drunkenness, it would be impossible to devise one more effectual. He was told that the bill ought not to be supported, because the Beer Mated failed ; but nothing could be more inappropriate, as the objects of the two bills were widely different. In Sweden, where the people, though intelligent, were prone to the vice of drunkenness, gleat - efforts had been made of late years to restrain that vice ; and one measure to that effect, which had been very suc cessful, was a provision in the law that spirits should not be sold in any house except that victuals were sold also. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think the use of wine would cause any decrease in the consumption of beer and spirits, as there - was a population inereasmg number and wealth, which aflOrded a legitimate sphere for the consumption of that article without trenching on these. But the bill would give the people an easier access to a mild liquor than they heretofore enjoyed, and he looked upon that as a matter of great consequence. He had had letters stat ing that there were many drunken people in Paris, but he would willingly exchange the drunkenness of Paris for the drunkenness of London. It was a universal principle that where wine was abundant there was little or no drunken ness, and though he was not likely to insist on the converse of that proposition, be was obliged to admit that in many instances it held good. Besides the advantage of reuniting eating and drinking, which he presented to the house as the main object of the bill, he thought he might say it pro vided a much better and more effectual system of control than any at present in existence. Every one who kept a refreshment house, subject to a limited exemption, would be required to make out a license, and would thus come under the control of the police. Every one who kept an eating-house would be enabled to apply to the Excise for a wine license ; but the officer of Excise, before the license issued, must make known the fact to the magistrates, and the magistrates had the power to elect, and to put an ab solute veto on the issue of the license, provided that they could assert either that the house was not an eating-house within the meaning of the act, or that it was a house kept or frequented by disorderly persons. He admitted that that was a large power, that it might almost be called an arbi trary power, and that it was one which could not be justi fied, unless they had confidence in the integrity and intele ligence of the magistrates. (Hear.) The reason for giving that stringent power to magistrates with respect to the ap plication of the definition of the term "eating-house" with in the meaning of the act, was, that if they were to enable persons on undertaking to sell bread and cheese, or articles of that kind, to call their establishments eating-houses, and to entitle them to take out wine licenses, the practical effect would be to give wine licenses to drinking houses instead. of to eating-houses, whereas the object of the bill was to give wine licenses to houses where the business of drinking was subsidiary to that of eating. (Hear, hear.) The magistrates would also have the power to object to granting a license, on the ground that the house did not correspond with the rental or value prescribed by the act, or that the person applying had been disqualified in another place in consequence of misconduct. He hoped that these would prove efficient restraints upon any undue facilities for the first issue of these licenses. (Hear, hear.) The licenses must be renewed from year to year, and the bill gave the magistrates the same power in cases of renewal as they had upon receiving the notice of the first application. Besides that, there was in the bill a system of penalties, with the details of which he would not now weary the house. They had been copied, for the most part, from the Beer Act, which contained very stringent penalties, but had been im proved and rendered more workable. He should propose, for example, to disqualify, under certain circumstances, the "house" as well as the " individual ;" and he should also propose that the penalty inflicted should be without appeal, except on the third conviction. On the whole he thought that if the penalties erred, it was not on the side of laxity. Possibly, in some cases they might be considered too strin gent ; but that might be discussed when they got into com mittee. He had now explained the general scope and cffest of the bill, and the principal provisions which it contained. And, as he had said at the commencement, so he said at the close : he did not propose this measure with the intention of making it the precursor of an attack upon the privileges now enjoyed by licensed victuallers or beer-house keepers. That question stood on entirely distinct and independent grounds, and would no doubt some day or other call for the attention of the house. But this bill he recommended as one which had a decided tendency to the promotion of habits of sobriety in the people, and which would have that effect both by establishing a better system of control than any new existing, and by offering to them the means of rea sonable access to liquor and its refreshing influences in con junction with the meals which they required to take. He hoped that the house would sanction the second reading of the bill, aiming as ,it did at benefits of no common import- ance with reference to all itx social and its moral bearings. (Cheers.) Mr. WYLD moved the adjournment of the debate. (Cries of " Go on.") Mr. WYLD moved the actiournment of the debate. Mr AYRTON seconded We motion, on the ground that as the bill was a taxing bill, it could not he conveniently discussed until the house had considered the tax itself in committee. It was haHly possible to imagine a more im nortant question than that which the measure involved ; for it was really whether the house should impose a tax upon a particular class of shopkeepers; and at the proper time he should be prepared to ,state at laigth the objections which he entertained to it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would agree Niith the hon. gentleman's conclusions if he could agree to his premises. There could not be a greater mis take than to suppose that this was a taxing bill. The licenses were wholly -incidental to the great social objects which the measure had in view with respect to the use of wine; and it would be absurd to consent to a tax of this kind until the house had had an opportunity of considering the plan of granting the wine licences. Under these cir eumstances, he could not consent to the adjournment. Mr. LIDDELL expressed the objection he felt to the bill, which he ti ought would prove injurious to the public morals. As ter it being conducive to the public comfort an d con venience, the answer to that was the 1,700 petitions that had been preseated against it, while no petition had yet been laid en the table in its favour. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR contended that the bill was certainly a taxing measure, and that in accordance with the forms of the house the tax ought first to have been con.- sidered ire committee. Mr. NE WDEGATE thought the measure must be con sidered as a whole. Its meaning was to recompense the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the revenue which he had given up. Mr. HADFIELD said he had presented a petition from his constituents, who had assembled in public meeting, with the Vicar of Sheffield in the chair, to protest against it. He thought that it would diminish the control of the magistrates over the sale of liquor, and would. prove as per nicious as the bill which permitted the establishment of beer-shops. Mr. E. JAMES said it was quite clear from the language of the bill that it was a taxing bill. Mr. CRAWFORD said that the hon. and learned gentle man could only have formed that idea from his inexperience of the forms of Parliament. The house was precluded from considering, on the second reading, the taxing clauses, which were printed in italic on that very account. The.house then divided on the question of the adjourn ment of the debate, and the numbers were— For the adjournment Against The motion was consequently lost. On the question that the bill be read a second time, Mr. AYRTON moved that the house should adjourn. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, as he understood that several hon. members wished to express their sentiments on the bill, he would consent to the ad - journment of the debate. F . Mr. AYRTON hereupon agreed to withdraw his motion for the adjournment of the house. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Then I fear I shall be under the necessity of asking the house to meet at 12 o'clock on Thursday. (Oh, oh.) Mr. HARDY protested against this proposal, on the ground that several committees were now sitting. Lord PALMERSTON said that that was a reason against any morning sitting. He urged the importance of forward ing the business as much as possible before Easter. Mr. DISRAELI said that morning sittings before Easter were most unusual. (Hear. hear.) Without this there was ample time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry all his financial measures before Easter ; and if the Govern ment chose to bring on other business, in which the house was not at all interested, the sittings of the whole of the committees ought not to be suspended on that account. (Hear, hear.) This ought not to be done in order that some caprice of legislation might be again held up to the scorn and derision of the house. (A laugh.) He should support the bill before the house, but would not consent to a morning sitting on Thursday, as there was ample time to dispose of all the real business. (Hear, hear.) Mr. E. JAMES said that the Government had been warned of the inconvenience of allowing the discussion on the Reform bill to be mixed up with those on the budget. They ought to have brought forward that great constitu tional measure, the Reform Bill, at as earlier period. Mr. S. HERBERT said the right hon. gentleman oppo site did not state what was the important measure to which he made allusion, and which he appeared to treat with so much scorn and contempt. But if he was not wrong in supposing that the measure thus darkly indicated was the Bill for the Better Representation of the People, he begged. to remind the right hon. gentleman that there was a Re torte Bill last year, and that the right hon. gentleman then. thought it so important that he submitted it to a general election. (Cheers.) He hoped the House of Commons would have the decency to show that they did not regard that measure as trifling, paltry, and contemptible, by as senting to the proposition for meeting on Thursday morn ing. (Hear ' hear.) Lord J. MANNERS said that if the right hon. gentleman had shown that the Government measure was a considerable amelioration of the representation he would have made out some claim for his demand. But looking to the way in which the Reform Bill was introduced, and the way in which 'twos treated by the Government, it was not unreasonable to infer that it was not regarded by the Government or the house of so much importance as to require its being read a second time before Easter. (Hear, hear.) The proposition that VW should meet on Thursday morning was one of the most astounding he ever heard. The noble lord treated it with that charming indifference with which ho treated most questions, but it was a proposition quite unusual, and wo ala be most inconvenient to the members of committees. Mr. BEAUMONT did not understand the right h on• gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) as referring to a reform of the representation of the people of England, but to the Reboil), Bill of the Government. (Hear, hear.) He voted for the b tu of.last year, but he did not.thin' It that the bill of the pr e ,,,ait Government was of such a nature that the house should be forced to agree to the second ring before Easter. Sir G. GREY complained that the right hon. gentleman• having ,d,aclared that neither he nor his party intended_i..„, to it offer any opposition to the seco n d rea di ng o f t h e R HO ' ` 13i11, was naw attempting to delay what they could not de feat. The right hon. gentleman should remember that Lora Derby's bill was rejected by a large majority, whereas the present bill had met with no opposition. He thought the present conduct of the Opposition unprecedented. (Hear.) Mr. WHITESIDE denied that Lord Derby's Reform Bill had been rejected by the house. The noble lord the member for London succeeded in carrying an abstract pro position, and thus prevented any discussion on the bill- They' would not, however, be prevented discussing the pre' sent Wilt as there were 25 gentlemen of great ability on that side of the house who meant to address themselves to its merits. laugh.) Lord FE.RMOY said that the Ministry were themselves to blame for ell that was now taking place. They had post poned the bill for six weeks, and thus had got everything connected with the business of the house into a dead lock. lie thought that there was a reat deal of good in the bill of the right hon. member for Bucks, and mine good, and much that was not good, in the Government measure. He should certainly oppose the proposal for a morning sitting on Thursday. Mr. BENTINCK advocated the postponement of the measure until after Easter. He must protest against their carrying out so unusual a proceeding as to have a morning sitting before the holidays. Mr. BRISTOW said that he for one would give up an) amount of time for the discussion of this question. He should certainly support her Majesty's Government. Mr. S. BOOTH hoped the Government would not per severe in pressing a morning sitting on the house. Mr. SALOMONS also opposed the morning sitting. Mr. VT. E. DUNCOMBr , said that considering the money bills which must be passed before Easter, he thought it would be impossible to discuss so important a measure al. this of Parliamentary Reform. Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, as the general feeling of the house appears to be in favour of a postponement, the Go vernment will go on with this bill on Monday. (Hear.) It may possibly involve the necessity of sitting on Wodnesc/51 and Thursday, but I am sure the house will not object to that. (Hear, hear.) That is the usual course, and therefore we will take the bill on Monday. (Cheers.) CUSTOMS ACTS. The house went into committee on the Customs Act s. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the ExcnEctullt, the resolution No. 22, respecting spirits in the Channel Islands, was agreed to. PAPER DUTY REPEAL BILL. This bill was postponed until Thursday. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL. The adjourned debate upon this bill was fixed for Friday* MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL• After a brief discussion, this bill passed through commit tee pro forma, with a view to the insertion of certain amemd ments. The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the house adjourned at one o'clock. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—It is ever a pleasing duty for journalist to introduce to his readers some discovery calcw lated to benefit that vast portion of our fellow creature° which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies. It ill with ilia feeling that we call the attention of invalid" to the following extracts from Du Barry's interesting report of cures without medicine of indigestion (clys, pepsia), flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious, anti, liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility by Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food Cure No. 52,422—Bridgehouse, Frimley, 3d April, 160,. I have suffered these 33 years continually from disease d lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement, deafness, sing ; ing in the ears, constipation, debility, shortness of breath an d cough, which have been removed by your Revalenta Arabic's' My lungs, liver, stomach, head, and ears are all right, of hearing perfect, and my recovery is a marvel to all a acquaintances. James Roberts, timber merchant' In tins, at ls. 6d.; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., Ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 12 114 , 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of per, office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, Londe ) ) Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; Abbis, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, ()dol' . street; 330 and 451, Strand • 49 and 60, Bishopager street ; 85, Tottenham-conri-road. Also at Dubw: Bewley 'and Draper ' • at Edinburgh, Raimes and C°l at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew ; at Manchester, Skarp an Scott ; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and Co. ; at Sow ampton. Handal I and Son. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO Y": 1 c: of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, 1 4 °' o f Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy , i n the NO" Middlesex, Tuesday, March 27, ISGO, 4 aud tieli Pur lini otht Com othe purl and noun for "A Rath .. A. Ways Long Spa-n " A to joir Juncti Way,, Reste th en " other Bedfor Quay, 1 Raiiw their r the the can ust.( AR For the Ittcorp proti PATtto-2 Gn clench Ilia Gra' land, Most N tiaCi Right Rt. Hon TheN formed I P ESTII SATURD The Rig William Samuel Frederic' J• Samll4 James D William William I toYdell Robert P James LI Charles Dinner Tnents un don Glee 'rickets WYndliai v er-sqlllll street, Ru Roy (Egtabli Po Groi Sir JoH Renry Ba John Gar Pdwd. William l Thomas I Alexande Predk. Jo Charles F Riversdal, Robt. Ant Wm. Teti Jas. Stew, NOTICI FIRE p 1 On 9th ri„PIRE Ap In the ti ciPation The ea Th e ) lev hearly 2 pi ee ,nt• upon payable by The futt Years. e fe n Y gut Thin Cot Libe the lia A ra Stock Societi The of an( Perieni The ri 4 1 the Ri Co ll uulted Kii GRE. It. t, Caen Ab ov „ e, on a 4 "Lis of Mc of 4 0th Se Rene", uud J. gynopsig Ori Algo, an F. Me nts and The mod Olonorrhce the Urinar T}ie P 1 r.r t their Fx oval o (;),,'' Use 'oPring. n TIE J " 2 De 5i Itj'r Obi e • other 14 144 stecu eang 4;' 3 Ca v o ice be 4 Ittbl CU 1 ( 1 ; 4 tif i e ittli Sep t ,e o a, At I ANA 1 ;`, et I Ait) le'r, en, \{ §OI eivr e , ) 1 , 1 V( 01 A t AF T] 41. 0111 1rri alc ea '4 Or i. Api f ,p v e „ i 4 k111: Tl, °Pr brefi e 'tool ' l 4ot t o Av; 'l: 4 Curti, „,,,041(1 i ‘-‘l,l Itareehl 11 ;;1,;be au; Whi s work, pk t .1 ro , At 1 , 4444;'Z't BIRTHS. GOFF.—On the 26th inst., at 25, Grosvenor-place, th. Lady Adela Goff, of a so. LIFFORD.—On the 16th i ns t., a t M een Gl as , co. Doneg al ' the Viscountess Lifford, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. CRITTENDEN—CHARLIEn.—On the 17th inst., J. D. ter tenden, sculptor, to Laura Elizabeth, eldest daugh Professor Charlier, of Camden-town. HALL—SissoNs.—On the 22d inst., at Sculcoates P ar e, church, John Edwd. Hall, Esq of Barton-on-Humus -- to Ann Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Thos. Sissons, Esq., of Sculcoates. DEATHS. AusTix.—Ou the 25th inst , at Bath, Brigadier-Gene John Austin, aged 85. BUCK.—On the 25th inst., at 215, Maida-hill, uck, aged 70. the RevH B nn Ats.—On the 23d inst., at Updowne Eastry, Colonel Sir Thomas Neel Harris, K.C.H. SHEARD.—On the 24th inst., at his residence, liensingl°l" square, Henry Sheard, Esq., aged 39. NINs. ..--`