The Sun. — London, England, 1860-02-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) The Lonn CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. The Marquis of WESTMEATII asked the hon. and learned lord on the woolsack whether there was any inten tion on the part of the Government to introduce any mea sure to alter the constitution of the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts. The answer of the LORD CHANCELLOR was inaudible. SAVOY AND NICE. In reply to Lord NORMANBY, Earl GRANVILLE said there was no correspondence which could be considered official in the possession of the Government as having taken place between the British Ambassador at Paris, Lord Cowley, and Count Walewski. He could not undertake to say there had been no conversa tion between the Ministers on the subject, but certainly nothing that could be considered official existed on the sub ject. Earl GREY said the noble earl who bad just sat down had Said there wav no official correspondence, but he should like to know whether there was any correspondence at all on the subject. • Lord WODEHOUSE said he thought his noble friend had answered the question of the noble marquis very clearly. There was certainly no despatches or correspond ence in the possession of the Government on the subject. SUNDAY SERVICES. Viscount DUNGANNON postponed his motion with respect to the performance of divine worship in the minor theatres of the metropolis until Friday, the 24th inst. Lord .PORTMAN suggested the withdrawal of the motion altogether. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that if the ser vices were conducted with piety, they ought not tobe inter fered with. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said these services had been instituted by private individuals, and as they tended to the promotion of religion and piety, no difficulty ought to be thrown in the way by this house. After a short conversation, Viscount DUNGANNON refused to postpone his motion further than Friday, the 24th. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTERDA.Y.) The SPEAKER teek the chair at four o'clock. The interest felt in the financial statement which it was announced, late last night the Chancellor of the Exche quer would be sufficiently recovered to make this evening, was apparent in the state of the house, which was crowded frem the commence ment of the proceedings. The seats on the floor were occupied &few minutes after four o'clock, and the galleries appropriated to members and strangers were also filled, several Members of the Upper House and distinguished foreigners being present. Exactly at half-past four o'clock the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who appeared to be in good health, entered the house and was loudly cheered. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—Marl borough Branch Railway, and Northleach and Witney Railway. SILK MANUFACTURES. Mr. BRIGHT said he had to present a petition which bore on the subject to bo brought before the house this evening. It was signed by 18 or 20 of the silk manufac turers of Manchester, and prayed for a removal of the re strictions on silk fa brics introduced into this country, in conformity with the principle of fres trade. (Cheers.) HARBOURS OF REFUGE. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to take any steps in the present session with a view to carrying out the recommendations of the Har bours of Refuge Commission. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that, as soon as it was possible, Goveriment would adopt the necessary steps in reference to the subject. MISSION TO THE lONIAN ISLANDS. Mr. MAGUTRE asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he had any objection to produce the papers relat ing to the mission of the Right Hon. IV. E. Gladstone as High Commissioner to the lonian Islands ; and, if it was the intention of the Government to produce them, at what time they were likely be laid on the table of the house ? Lord PALMERSTON said it was not intended to pro duce the papers, as such a proceeding was quite unneces sary. (Laughter.) HOUSEHOLD CAVALRY. Sir HENRY STRACEY asked the Secretary of State for War, as officers promoted to the rank of major-general from the household cavalry receive one pound nine shillings and twopence per diem, and officers promoted to the rank of major-general from the infantry of the line received one pound five shillings per diem, why cavalry officers of the line promoted to the same rank, and who had been re quired, to attain that rank, to expend for the regulated price of their commission one thousand six hundred and seventy five pounds more than the sum rqquired as the regu lated price for the same commission of the infantry officer, should receive the same pay only, i.e., 11 5s per diem ; and, the principle of higher pay for greater outlay being recognised in the instance of the officer promoted from the Household Cavalry, why it was net applicable to the cavalry officer of the line, who had been required , to expend for his commission £1,675 above the sum required of the infantry officer of the line. Mr. S. HERBERT said that in the cases alluded to the rate of paj had no reference to the purchase money. THE TREATY WITH FRANCE. Lord J. RUSSELL laid on the table the commercial treaty with the Emperor of the French. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the Speaker left the chair, and the House resolved itself into committee upon the Customs Acts. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who was again greeted with loud cheers, addressing the Chairman (Mr. Massey), said,—Public expectation has long marked out the year 1860 as an important epoch in British finance. It was well known that in this year, for the first time, we were to receive from a process not of our own creationa very great relief in respect of our annual payment of interest of the national debt—a relief amounting to no less a sum than £2,146,000—a relief such as we have never known in time past, and such as I am afraid we never shall know in time to come. Besides that, other and more recent arrange ments have added to the importance of this juncture. A revenue of nearly £12,000,000 a-year, levied by duties on tea and sugar, which still retain a portion of the additions made to them on account of the Russian war, is about to lapse absolutely on the 31st of March, unless it shall be renewed by Parliament. The income tax, from which during the year we shall have derived a sum of between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000, is likewise to lapse at the same time, although an amount not inconsiderable will still re main to be collected in virtue of the law about to expire. And lastly, an event of not less interest than any of these, which has made public feeling thrill from one end of the country to the other—l mean the commercial treaty with France which has been just laid on the table—rendered it a matter of absolute necessity for the Government to request the House to deviate under the peculiar circumstances of the case from its usual, its salutary, its constitutional prac tice of voting the principal charges of the year before they proceed to consider Supply, and induced the Government to think they will best fulfil their duty in inviting atten tion on the earliest practicable day to those financial arrangements of the year which are materially affected by the treaty with France, and which, though they reach considerably beyond the limits of that treaty, yet, not withstanding, can only be examined by the House in a satisfactory manner when examined as a whole. (Hear.) This must be our apology, if any apology be needed, for asking the houso to take into its earliest consideration the matters which lam about to submit to it. Every considera tion both of gratitude for the kindness of the house to my self and of the public duty likewise will ensure t h at, i f I hav an extensive field to traverse and many subjects to open and discuss, I shall not, at least, make any wanton trespass on the time and attention of the house. (Hear, hear.) The results of the finances of the last year, inasmuch as it has not positively reached its close, can only be presented in a form founded partly on account and partly on estimate. At the same time they will be given in figures on which the house may place reliance as being perfectly safe. It is ne cessary for me here to remind the house that, as is not usu ally and commonly the case, circumstances have occurred during the latter portion of the financial year which tend materially to influence its results. The expedition to China .has made it necessary to enlarge the proposed military and 'naval expenditure of the year, even beyond the liberal scale 'of provision made in the last session ; tied the arrangements likewise accruing or coming into force under the commer cial treaty with France—in case the treaty shall receive the sanction of the house—will act materially upon the Cus toms revenue for the residue of the year. I will, therefore, with your permission, just present to the committee the state of the account as it stood, entirely apart from these disturbing causes, and I will then in a few words show the committee how, since these causes have come into action, it is likely to stand. The results of the year in a financial point of view—at least, so far as receipts are concerned —have been eminently satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) The Customs revenue, which I estimated at £23,850,000, and which I estimated at that amount so lately as the month of. July last, will:produce—apart from the causes' to which I have referred—and I beg the house to bear this parenthesis in mind—L24,750,000. (Hear, hear.) The Excise I estimated at £19,310,000 ; it will produce £ 19 ,724,000. The stamps alone show a small deficit, having been estimated at £8,100,000, while they will produce only £8,000 , 00 0. The Land and Assessed Taxes were estimated at £ 3 ,000,000 ; they will produce the same sum. The In ekeme -tax was estimated at £9 940 000 • it will produce £9,894,000. Th e Post -office revenue ' ' was estimated at 1;3,4:Z0,000 ; it will produce that sum. The Crown Lands were estimated at £280,000 they will about fulfil that es tiraate.• The miscellaneoue revenue was estimated at £1,530,, 100 , it will produce £1,480,000. The general result will be .tis:—The revenue was estimated to produce £0,460,000 yam] it would have / roduced 170,578,000. (Hear, hear. ) On the other hand, looking at the side of expenditure, we should have stood as follows :—The inte rest ,of the ' , ended and unfunded debt, estimated at £28,600,000, w i, N amount to £28,638,000 ; th e Mi sce ll aneous and Consolidated FAnd charges amount to £1,N0,000 ; the Army was s :mated.at £13,300,000, and it w ou ld h ave ati cost £13,550,000,4 consequence of an excess of expendi ture from the pre ''dingyear. The •N avy was estim a t e d a t e \ . u ld have cost £ 12,630,000 . The Ci v il llaneous—exp£l2,7B2,ooo; it wo enses were estimated at Service—called mime. '1 have cost £7,700,000. The Revenue £7,825,000; they won), Department was esti/nit ed ' at £4,740 000 ; it would have cost £4,447,000. Th e t o t a l re salt is that whereas the estimated charges of the year were A '9,270,000, the total expenditure £6B 953 000. (Hear, Would have been som ew h a t 1, than I hear.) Comparing this expenditure of £68,953,000, with the receipts of £70,678,000, the committee will perceive that we should have had a surplus of income over expendi. ture of not less than £1,625,000. (Hear, hear.) That sur plus would have been the result of the liberal and wise pro vision made by Parliament in the past session to meet the expenses of the year, and though it will not now be avail able, as it has almost entirely been absorbed for the reduc- Lion of the National Debt, yet, nevertheless, it may serve for 7a good example of the prudence of that rule which always induces this house, when appealed to for the pur pose, to provide ample means to meet the public expendi ture. But after Parliament had adjourned we had to encounter additional charges, and I come now to what I call the disturbing causes -which have acted on the revenue. T he necessity of making provision for the expedition to China—to be the bearer, in the first in stance, of peaceful remonstrances—cast an addition on the votes for military expenditure, which, together with an ex cess in the army expeaditure in the year 1858-9, stands as follows .—Army, £900,000; Navy, £270,000. Then has arrived the treaty with France. It is very difficult indeed to estimate for so short a time as that which has to pass be fore March 31 what the results and effects of that treaty will be upon the Customs revenue, more especially as a question may arise with respect to certain payments which it may be requisite to make to alimited elws of persons wh'o are affected by the peculiar circumstances of that treaty. However, we have taken what we think an ample amount, and I have therefore to deduct from the estimate which I have submitted to the committee a sum of £640,000. We, therefore, stand worse than we should have stood by £1,170,000 for additional charges on the army expenditure and 1640,000 likely to be lost on our Customs receipts in consequence of the treaty with France. The total of these two is £1,810,000, which, being deducted from the surplus we should have had, would appear to place us on the wrong side of the account. But deliverance has come in from a quarter from which perhaps it would not have been expected. " Via prima salutis, Quoad minime reris, Grata pandeter ab urbe." A friendly kingdom has undertaken to pay us a debt at the very moment when she herself is engaged in war. (A laugh.) Spain is just now under peculiar pressure, but with a high sense of honour and duty—(cheers),—not wishing to avail herself of the plea which, I do not hesitate to say, she might under the circumstances have advanced for time, has remitted to us a sum in bills which will shortly come due, of £500,000, of which £250,000 will come to the credit of the revenue before March 31. If the committee will take the trouble to compare the figures, it will be seen that we set out with a probable surplus of £1,625,000; adding to that surplus the £250,000 of which I have spoken it becomes £1,875,000, against which we have a charge of £1,810,000, a state of account which will leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a surplus _ _ —undoubtedly one of the narrowest on record, but still a surplus, not a deficit. (Hear, hear.) This is the state of the account for the present year. I now proceed to approach the more extensive and more difficult part of the subject— that which relates to the charge and expenditure of the coming year, 1860-61. The estimated charge for the funded and unfunded debt in the coming year is only £26,200,000, which shows a decrease of £2,438,000—a sum considerably larger than the annuities which are about to fall in. But the reason of that greater decrease is that—as the commit tee may probably recollect—we were called on last year to make a special provision for the quarterly payment that falls into this year in consequence of the determination of the annuities; whereas, if it had continued to run its full term of half a year, it would have gone into the year 1860- 61. That arrangement swelled the charge for the debt in 1859-60, and proportionately augments the relief from that charge in the year 1860-61. (Hear.) Therefore, the charge for the debt stands only at £26,200,000. The Consolidated Functcharges, commonly soicallad,:stand at £2,000,000, ex hibiting an increase of £40,000. The Army and Militia, including a vote of credit to the amount of £500,000, which it will be our duty to propose on account of the Chinese ex pedition, will amount to £15,800,000. The Navy and Packet Services—which I mention together for the purpose of easier comparison with former years, though tke packet service is likely to be separated from the Admiralty—will stand in the Estimates at £13,900,000. These two sums, which together include the whole military expenditure of the country by land and sea, with the cost of the packet service, amount to £29,700,000, showing an increase of £3,618,000 on the . Military Estimates, in the same sense of the term, which were voted last year, and an increase of £2,448,000 on the Military Estimates for the current year, augmented by the additional charge that will be brought into them if the house should grant the sum for which the Government think it their duty to ask. The Miscella neous Civil Estimates are taken at £7,500,000. That amount exhibits a decrease as compared with the Esti mates of last year of £325,000; and if the committee which the house has in some manner declared its intention of appointing should be enabled to enter on its labours at an early period, and shall prosecute them with such vigour and success as to enable us to carry further the process of retrenchment, I assure the hon. gentleman who ' moved, the hon. member for Birmingham who supported, and the other members of the majority who carried the motion for its appointment, that it will be a result acceptable to her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) The Revenue Department standing at £4,700,000 presents an apparent increase of £225,000 ; but do not suppose that this is a real increase of the charge ; it is due, to speak in general terms, to an increase of accommodation in the Post-office Depart ment, which I have no doubt will continua to be fully balanced by the increase of revenue in that branch of the public service. The total of the six sums whick I have stated to the committee is £70,100,000. With respect to one great, but fair and legitimate head of increase, that on the Military and Naval Estimates, it is not my intention at the present to enter into any discussion, but it will be the duty of my right hon. friend and of my noble friend who represent those departments respectively, to explain that subject to the committee at the earliest date, and to lay be fore them the nature of the special, and, we may hope, in a great degree temporary, causes which have rendered.it ne cessary to make so considerable a demand on the country. Now, Sir, when we look at the estimated income for the coming year, it is a matter which at the first view will not appear satisfactory. And I confess I am not sorry that the figures should be such as will draw serious attention to the. whole subject. For it is well that,. in addition to your annual review of the income and expenditure, there should be special junctures with circumstances so marked that you are obliged to institute a deeper and more com prehensiro examination, and to consider more at large what is the proper scale both of taxation and likewise of ex penditure for this great country. The estimated income for 1861 will be taken by me in the first instance with reference simply to the law as it stands ; but I shall assume that the committee would, of necessity, think it right to renew the taxes on tea and sugar at a rate not less than that which they deliberately adopted in 1852. Pray, understand that I am assuming the renewal of these duties at what would be called the minimum rate, but I shall assume no thing else beyond what is absolutely given us by the law, so that I may exhibit to the committee as fully and as clearly as I can the nature and the whole extent of the deficit which they will have to supply, in order that they may exercise the largest and the freest choice with respect to the means which they may think proper to adopt for that pur pose. Approaching the subject from that point of view, we estimate that the Customs will yield £22,700,000; the Ex cise, £19,170,000; Stamps, £8,000,000; and the Taxes, £3,250,000. The Income-tax, that is, one-half year still outstanding at the rate of sd. in the pound, would yield £2,400,000; the Post-office, £3,400,000; the Crown Lands, £280,000; and the Miscellaneous Revenue, £1,500,000. The total of these receipts would be £60,700,000. The total charge which I have exhibited is one of £70,100,000, and the apparent. deficit, I need barely state to the com mittee, amounts to £9,400,000. I am not representing a brilliant state of affairs as respects the revenue and expen diture of the country, nor do I pretend to place on it any such colour. We have a prosperous country, a wealthy wintry, a country rapidly growing in wealth and power ; but the relative state of your revenue and expenditure is 'such as I have depicted. And pray observe that in that charge of £70,100,000 we get the benefit of the £2,000,000 of annuities which will fall in during the year; and lam bound also to say that I am no t i n a cond i tion to ask you to do what might under other cir cums t ances have been desirable. I frankly own that I do not feel myself in a position to propose, as I otherwise might, that you sho u ld make provision r fo p r o t s h e e payment of the sum of £1,000,000 which will be due for Exchequer-bonds in November next. Without any such provision you have the deficit before you. A n d now, sir, it would be perfectly possible for me to close, ware it no t f or the Treaty which I have to discuss ; it would, at any rate, have been perfectly possible for the House, if such were the view which they entertained, to close the whole account by a very simple, but, ,1 must say, a very rude process. £9,400,000 is wanted. I will suggest to you two modes, by either of which you might have thought fit to supply it. You might have said, or you may still say, we shall keep the tea and sugar duties at their present rates ; that would supply a sum of £2,100,000. But £2,100,000 taken from £9,400,000 still leaves the less formidable, yet rather in tractable sum of £7,300,000. And now I beseech the com mittee to observe that if they think, with the Government, that the large and ample provision which we are about to propose for the services of the country is a necessary out lay, they will have to make good the deficit of £7,300,000, irrespective of any relief to the people, of any improvement of the commercial laws, of any remission whatever of taxes affecting trade or industry, even to the extent of a single shilling. And what is meant by filling up the defi it of £7,300,000 ? It means, at any rate, an Income-tax of 9d. in the pound. That would give you £7,672,000, or a sur plus of £372,000. This would certainly be a possible mea sure. .But, again, supposing you were to take a more li beral view of the matter, and to say we do not think it right' that there should be no remission on articles connected with the trade and industry of the country, or that duties on tea and sugar which were imposed for the purposes of war, and have been kept on during three or four years of peace, should be further prolonged. Well, then, abandoning the war duties on tea and sugar, and keeping on what may be called peace duties, in order to fill up the deficit of X 9,400,000 you would requite the very neat and easilystated and easily understood sum of an Income-tax of ls. in the pound. (Laughter and sensation.) This also would be without any other remission of duty, but simply what is required for the general demands of the revenue. Then, Sir, it may 144E' SUN,'" LOINMON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 11, 1860. be said, and said with justice, to many members of her Majesty's ,Goviernment—but most of all with justice may -if' be demanded of me—what has become of the calculations of 1853 ? (Hear, hear.) It is a perfectly legitimate question, and I can render to my hon. friend who cheers it an answet7so simple that the wayfarer " who runs may read" it. Our financial calculations up to 1853 are to be found in "Haze ;ard," and from that indubitabte source I have within the last two or three days refreshed my own recollections. Those Estimates I find are capable of being presented in a very_ ,simple form. We reckoned that we should gain a revenue in the interval between 1853 and 1361 in the following proportion :—from new taxes then proposed, including the Succession-tax, £2,549,000; from lessened charges on account of the national debt; £1,264,000; at the same time we knew that terminable annuities would fall in in 1860 to the amount of £2,146,000. Adding together these three chief sources of relief, they make a sum of £5,90,000, which is as nearly as possible the sum to which the Income-tax, at the rate of sd. in the pound, amounted for the year 1859. Its actual amount was £6,140,000, which with this aura of £5,959,000 to set against: it, we should have been able to surrender. With regard to these calcula tions, they have suffered some damage; they have suffered considerable damage from what has since occurred. (Hear.) But that damage is not the cause of our not being able to dispense with the Income-tax. I can show demonstrably that this is not the case. The succession duty failed to pro duce what we expected of it, partly, or rather mainly, be cause it was found that by the law of succession real pro perty goes in the direct line in a much greater number of cases than personal property; so that if £100,000,000 a year in real and settled propertycame under the succession duty, that amount would not yield the same average of duty as if it had been personal property. Ido not now speak of a fact known to the committee, that only life interest is valued with respect to real property, but, over and above that, real property descending in the direct line from father to son and grandson pays only 1 per cent duty. And that direct descent prevails in a much greater number of instances in real than in personal property—(hear)—and consequently the revenue from this source attained its maximum more slowly than we anticipated. At the present moment, in 1860, we stand worse than we did in 18.53 by £1,000,000 on account of the failure of the succession duty. Besides this, instead of being able to apply an annual surplus of revenue towards the extinction of debt, that surplus was required by the necessities of the war, and its application to the diminution of debt was stopped for three or four years. That likewise tended to disturb our calculations. The amount of this sur plus was £220,000. But the most serious item of all was the additional debt contracted on account of the Russian war. (Hear, hear.) It created an additional charge upon us of £1,400,000. Under these three heads, therefore—the deficiency in the amount of the succession duty, the stop page of the surplus applicable to tie extinction of debt, and the additional charge created by the Russian war—we stand worse than in 1853 by the sum of £2,720,000. But, Sir, that sum has been fully compensated from other sources. The experiment I commenced with a timid hand in 1853, of raising the spirit duties, was again followed up by myself in 1855 and by my successor in 1858. That increase has added a permanent revenue to the country of £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 a year; and if, along with the general produc tiveness of the revenue, your expenditure had continued to be anything like what it was, you might have done what you please with the Income-tax. (Cheers.) In 1853 the annual expenditure was £52,183,000; I add on account of the additional debt, £1,400,000, and £4,700,000 for the col lection of the revenue; this would make the actual charge £58,283,000. But the estimate of the revenue for the year 1860-61, with the tea duty reduced to the minimum as fixed for a time of peace, is not only £58,283,000, it is £6o,6oo,ooo—(hear, hear) —leaving a surplus at your dis posal, without looking to the Income-tax, of £2,317,000, if your expenditure had continued what it was. (Hear, hear.) In 1853 the whole amount voted for Supply and Services of every description, including the Miscel laneous charges on the Consolidated Fund, was £24,279,000, —that was the amount of the charges under your own control, and actually voted. But in 1860-61, instead of £24,279,000, these charges amount to £39,000,000, showing an increase in your expenditure of £14,721,000, whichis the exact representative of what would be in itself an Income tax of 130. in the pound. (Hear, hear.) I ask now, Sir, whether I have not redeemed my pledge ? (Cheers.) This is a period of so much interest and so much importance that, even at the risk of occupying a few minutes of your time, I wish.to dwell a little on the subject of publice expenditure, because I admit that my statement thus far, though true, and I hope clear, is an imperfect statement. It would not be fair to speak of the great increase in the expenditure of the country without considering the great extension of the dealings by which that increase is caused. The country is richer than it was in 1853 in a degree really astonishing. Permit me to lay before the committee, as well as I can, a criterion by which we may arrive at some idea of the truth with respect to the increase in the wealth of the country ; and then wo can institute a just comparison between the rate of increase in this wealth and the rate of increase in the public expenditure. The best mode of making an estimate of the rate of increase in the wealth of the country is to re sort to the income tax. No other criterion is comparable to it, for though it may not be an exact index of the truth in this matter, in any one year, yet, asbetween any one period and another, I believe it is an index on which we may safely rely. But, in taking the income-tax as a measure of the income of the country, I beg to object to two out of the five schedules of the tax. Schedule C does not, I think, re present any portion of the wealth of the country in the sense of its productive power. It represents incomes from realised property, such as ,capital invested in mortgages. ' Schedule E represents the income of the fraternity to which I myself belong, including the salaries of officials, Ministers, and others supported by public allowances. But I do not take any increase in the salaries of these gentlemen as any material augmentation of the wealth of the country. (Loud laughter.) What this house has been about I do not exactly know; I believe there has been a considerable transfer of officers from D to E ; and the growth of that most respectable company of salaried gentlemen must have been viewed with delight by all who take an interest in the body. (Laughter.) But the test by comparison of the wealth of the country Must be taken principally from schedules A, B, and D. The profits derived from lands and tenements, and other property, are included in schedules A and B. Schedule D includes the profits derived from trades and professions. I will take the period from 1842, when we commenced our great career of commercial legislation, to the year 1852, when we closed it —I hope to be renewed—under the pressure of war. I will also take tho period from 1857-58, because it is the last year in which the returns are made up ; and I will carry it on, assuming the same rate'of increase to have continued to 1859-60. Now the net amount shown by the three schedules of the income tax is as follows 1842, £154,000,000 ; in 1853, £172,000,000; in 1857-1, £191,000,000; and in 1859-60, £200,000,000. The increase in the wealth of the country between the first period and the second was 12 per cent. in 11 years ; the increase between 1853 and 1860 was 161 per cent. in six years. That undoubtedly shows a very large increase in the wealth of the country, and I think it will be interesting to the committee to know in what pro portions that increase has been distributed between the classes represented by three of the schedules to which I have referred; for I must say that the statement is one which throws a very considerable light upon the condition of the landed interest, and more especially upon that of our old friend, Mr. Farmer. (A laugh.) I shall take the period from 1853-4 to 1857-B—a period of Leur years ; and I find that during those fouryears the income under the head of schedule D, which embraces the profits on trades, and professions, grew from £64,974,003 to £70,700,000, or at the rate of 9 per cent. ; while that under the head of schedule A, which represents real and immovable pro perty, grew from £96,129,000 to £106,972,000, or at the rate of 11 per cent.; schedule B—which repre sents the profits of the farmer, but having, also, no small reference to the rent of the landlord—having grown from £14123,000 to £13,436,000, or at the rate of 19 per cent. (Hear, hear) That being the case, I rejoice to think that we now live in times when any hon. gentleman may, if he thinks fit, attend an agricultural dinner and congratulate his hearers upon the prosperity of their condition without fearing to insult them. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) I must at the same time observe, lest I should appear to be representing the condition of this particular class in colours too sanguine, that during the period which elapsed between 1512 and 1853 the case was fat different with it, inasmuch as schedule B exhibited during that time, unfortunately, no increase whatsoever. (Hear.) A change has, however, since taken place, and I am happy to say it is a change which must be satisfactory to the community at large. (Hear.) Having thus spoken of the increase of wealth in the country, the committee will, perhaps, permit me very briefly to compare it with the rate of increase in our expen diture. I shall in the first instance compare it with the total expenditure—that is to say, with the whole State as well as the whole local expenditure, as far as the latter can b oe x e ftt a eh s ne ascertained committee. which e hi d t inte;ea. I calculations, f k oers t wna t na elocal expenditure of the country is likewise begi nn i ng t o f orm a very cons id era bl e it em i n our financial first p p o s a i e t e i o, serious nsttoa state growo attention at to a y n y d e , llinwothr shows a fitehy disposition the l right hon, gn.ofoa enough t riendtheSeco obtain for retaryforthe me certain HomeD r e e p:ir ur t n m s e i n n t has connection cee with orfa t te t i h ; e i s Statewl o e c l a l expenditure wtahsenin, ltBo l:pf w . 3r o h xvc i Ge c sse h s:,62, a o2 r o3t e entirely1:010e0000g. :aln trustworthy, although I do not mean to contend that they are t el h ixt e perea l n o ld c lY a it l u e ar xpenditure iu the three kingdoms £13,221,00) ; making a total, in round numbers, 1853.4 the total State expenditure was £55,769,000, or very nearly the same amount as in 1812.3, and tho local expenditure £15,819,000 ; making together, in round numbers, 71 millions and a half, instead of the 6 millions and a Jug which was the amount in 181.2i0-dfrolrnn the year 1859.60 the gross State ex t p o eild 7 i o tu J r 2 e s, g o r o e o7 ff i cti l l e t honour ables local s ' 7rexpenditure,v9aol rivalry—(a (awhich a un laugh)—increased t h d:o v it s b i n t e in e actuated a l s B e s d 3 in b the ea same spirit pe f riod e £15,819,000, which it was in 1853, to £17,458,000—the total expenditure for the year 1859-60 having been £87,697 000, that is to say, that in the 11 years from 1842-3 to 1853-4 the havem expenditure entione d of in th er e e c a o s un ed t a r t y u th n e d r e a r te th o e f 4 two heads ere ent whi ch I wwhhilhe in the six years which have elapsed between 1853 and 1859 it became much more mercurial, and increased at the rate of 22t per cent. But in order to bring home to the corn - rallies the real importance of the question which is raised pot so much by the gross amount of the Imperial expendi • ture as by that portion of it which is under the control of Parliament, and for which Parliament is responsible, let me take the increase which has occurred during the same period in tho expenditure which has been voted by this House, or which is, for certain miscellaneous purposes, charged on the Consolidated Fund. The two items which come under this head I shall call optional expenditure, and I may briefly state that they amounted in 1842-3 to £21,487,000, in 1853- 54 to £23,361,000; the increase in this expenditure which, as I before said, is under the control of Parliament, and• whose amount is in the main determined by public opinion, having . thus in 11 years amounted to a sum of £1,874,000, or at the rate of 81 per cent., while from 1853 to 1859, a period of six years, it increased to £36,898,000, or at the rate of 58 per cent. on the entire national expenditure. Now, therefore, you have at your command a tolerably com plete comparison between the growth of the wealth of the country and the increase in its expenditure. Between the years 1842 and 1853 the increase in her wealth was at the rate of 12, and that in her expenditure at the rate of 8 4 , per cent. ; while between 1853 and 1859 the national wealth grew at the rate of 166, the national expenditure at the rate of 58 per cent. (Hear, hear.) I have troubled the committee with these particulars, because I deemed it right to invite their attention to what is a subject of vital impor tance. (Hear.) The country may be right in the course which she is now taking, but, at all events, that course ought not to be pursued blindfolded. We ought, on the contrary, to have a clear knowledge of the proportion which our wealth bears to our expenditure, in order that we may be able to take a comprehensive view of our financial posi tion, and die policy which we ought to adopt. (Hear, hear.) Let me now recall to the recollection of the committee the fact that our fiscal situation—to borrow a phrase from our neighbours at the other side of the Channel—as it stands is, that there is a deficit of £9,400,000, the best means of providing for which it becomes our duty to consider, and we ought not, in my opinion, to face a question of such magnitude as that without having duly weighed the prin ciples upon which we are to proceed, and the policy on which we mean to act. Now, as I have already indicated to you a summary Budget which might have the effect of filling up the hiatus which I have mentioned, I have also sha dowed out to you another and a more generous Budget, which, providing you with an Income-tax of Is. in the pound, would achieve the same object, and would enable you to relieve the consumers of tea and sugar to a certain extent, as well as a more niggardly Budget, which would keep up the duties on tea and sugar, and would still leave the country liable to an Income-tax of 9d. in the pound. With what views, then, and upon what principles are we to face this state-of circumstances ? I may at once tell you frankly that I am not satisfied with the rate of expendi ture. (Cheers.) I trust, therefore, that we mean in a great degree to retrace our steps. (Hear, hear.) The pro cess of retracing our steps in such a matter, however, is one which must necessarily be gradual ; for, if it be not pur _sued with circumspection and with caution, it will serve but to aggravate the very evils which it was intended to remove. (Hear, hear.) I assume, therefore, whether the committee concurs with the Government in the expe diency of the Estimates which they have submitted or are about to submit to the house or not, that you can effect no radical change in the scale of that expenditure on which you have now for a series of years embarked—no radical change, I mean, applicable to the operations of the present year, or to the provision you will have to make for filling up the gap which yawns before you, and which is represented by the figures £9,400,000. The real question with which we have to deal is whether we ought upon this occasion to say our necessities are great, our means too narrow to enable us to effect any commercial reforms. Such reforms are all very well, it may be contended, for fine weather, but they do not suit a period of pressure and alarm. That is, I know, a favourite doctrine with some classes, but against the justice of that doctrine I, for one, protest. (Cheers.) And upon the part of the Government • Ido not hesitate to say that, in an epoch so marked and signal in our financial history as the year 1860, it is their opinion that it is the duty of Parliament to take some steps in advance in that career of commercial improvement which, perhaps more than any other cause, has contributed to confirm the prosperity of the country and to the security of its institutions, under the auspices of the Sovereign under whose rule it is our happiness to live. (Cheers.) There are in the present year special reasons why we should pursue such a policy as that to which I refer. Are we to be told that when a sum of £2,000,000 and upwards, which we have hitherto been obliged to pay on the national debt, comes into our possession, it only remains for us to cast it into that great gulf of expenditure, there to be swallowed up and to disappear ? (Hear, hear.) That sum is a mighty engine for the purposes of relief, while for the pur poses of expenditure it is comparatively unimportant. (Hear, hear.) Applied to the purposes of relief, you may by its means shed a thousand blessings over the land; thrown into the scale of your expenditure it represents, after all, but the difference between the £13,000,000 which you have already added to that expenditure and the £11,000,000 which you might have added. Take, upon the other hand, the question of the relief which it is in your power to afford in dealing with the duties upon sugar and upon tea, and, I may observe, in discussing that part of the question you must pay regard to the claims of the people as well as the claims of trade, on which the prospe rity of all classes mainly depends. (Hear, hear.) You have at this particular season a considerable remission of taxa tion by the lapse of annuities. There is another special rea son. It is my intention before sitting down to propose to the committee that they shall apply in aid of the expendi ture a sum of not less than £1,100,000, which is no part of the proposed taxation of the year, but obtained by render ing available another portion of the malt credit and the cre dit usually given on hops. That will be a salutary measure; but undoubtedly I think it marks in a particular degree the obligation under which we lie at this time to make the means, if we have not got the means, of carrying forward the great work of public improvement. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I am not satisfied to place this duty on narrow grounds of whatever kind. It is not simply because annuities are fall ing in—it is not that you have considerable funds to be drawn from this source or that; you must look at it from another point of view, you must take it for granted that for the present you have attained to what may be called a high level of public expenditure, and that you are likely to re main on that high level for some time at least. Is that a reason, or is it not, why you should stop the process of re forming the commercial legislation of the country P I say that is no reason for stopping (hear, hear)—l say more, it is a distinct reason for persevering in that process and carry ing it to its completion. (Hear, hear.) If we were, in the year 1860, to hold our hands, let us consider what aspect our procedure would wear. In 1860, when the people have paid war duties on tea and sugar for three years in the hope of something being Joke for them, in 1860 we stopped—we at tempted not in the slightest degree to carry forward the work of commercial relaxation and improvement. If, after that period of years, on a review of a juncture like the pre sent, when a particular fund of this nature is placed in our hands, we stop in 1860, will it not be supposed that you stop for ever. (Hear, hear.) And if this be not the opportunity for endeavouring to give increased effect to the beneficial principles of your legislation, I, for one, must frankly own I know not when such an oppor tunity will arise. (Hear, hear.) This, sir, is shortly the truth of the case. Our high taxation is not a reason for stopping short in our commercial reforms ; it is a reason why we should persevere in them. (Hear, hear.) It is by means of these reforms that we are enabled to bear high taxation. What, I ask, has the country done during the last six months ? Paying an income-tax, which during the half-year was at the rate of Is. ld. in the pound. Would that have been done had it not been for the felt belief that we should go on with our commercial reforms ? (Hear.) I am speaking generally. Certainly I myself had about two weeks ago a letter addressed to me, complaining of the monstrous Injustice and iniquity of the income-tax, and proposing that, in consideration thereof, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be publicly hanged. (A laugh) I don't mean to say there has not been a murmur ; but upon the whole, speaking with the necessary latitude that must attach to general expressions, I am justified in saying that this high rate of taxation has been borne throughout the country with a most extraordinary, laudable, and honour able forbearance. (Hear.) It was Lord Londonderry who complained of the people of England as exhibiting an " ig norant impatience of taxation ;" but I think, were he to rise from the dead and again take his place in this house, he would be very much more likely to complain of an igno rant patience of taxation. (A. laugh.) I wish, sir, to show the connexion there is between commercial reforms, as affecting trade and industry, and the power to pay the high taxes you have imposed. These two subjects are inseparably locked the one to the other. You shall have the demonstration in figures. I again ask you for a mo ment lo attend with me to the experience of two periods. I take 10 years from the crisis of the Reform Bill down to 1841, during which our commercial legislation was upon the whole stationary ; and I take the 12 years from 1842 to 1853, within the circuit of which are comprehended the beneficial changes that Parliament has made. In the 10 years from 1832 to 1841 this was the state of things :—You imposed of Customs and Excise duties, £2,067,000, and you remitted £3,385,000, exhibiting a balance remitted over and above what you imposed of .0,317,C00, or at the rate of £131,000 a year. Now, observe the effect on the state of the revenue. During these 16 years the Customs and Excise increased by £1,707,000, or at the rate of £170,000 a year; while the increase of the export trade was £15,156,000, or at the annual rate of £1,515,000. Let us now take the 12 years from 1842 to 1853. You re mitted during that period of Customs and Excise £13,238,000, and imposed £1,029,000, presenting a balance remitted of L 12,209,000, or an annual average of £1,017,000. What was the effect on the revenue ? The Customs and I?xcise increased £2,656,000, or at au annual rate of £221,000 When you remitted practically nothing, your Customs rc venue, in consequence of the increase of the population, grew at the rate of £170,000 per annum ; and when you re mitted £1,017,000 a year, your Customs and Excise revenue grew faster than when you remitted nothing at all, or next to nothing at all. (Hear, hear.) I ask, is not this a conclu sive proof that it is the relaxation and reform of your com mercial system which has given to the country both the di's position to pay taxes and the power to pay taxes i 1 The foreign • trade of of the country at the same period, instead of growing • at the rate of £1,515,000 a year, grew at the rats of £1,304,000. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, I say it is the duty of the Government, both on account of the special circum stances of the juncture, and likewise, and still more, on the broad ground of general and comprehensive principle, at this time to make considerable remissions; and if that be so, the next question is on what principle you should make them. Of course, the subject of the tea and sugar duties would naturally occur to the mind of ovary one as having a claim, at any rate, to the first consideration. lam bound, however, to say that these are not the subjects on which it has appeared to the Government that they might operate with the greatest advantage. No doubt the duties on tea and sugar are taxes most desirable to be re pealed. They are harmless and beneficial articles— articles of universal consumption, and I trust the time may arrive, and arrive at no distant date, when we may be able to recur to our former standard in regard to these taxes. But, on the other hand, there never was a time when the people wore so well able to pay these taxes as now. The increase in the consumption of these articles is regular, and the revenue is a growing revenue. If we are to have a very large scale of expenditure and a very high income-tax, I cannot think, while the bulk of the burden should fall on the shoulders of those having pro perty, that it is desirable the labouring classes should boar no share of the burden. But, sir, I stand more especially on this—the duties on tea and sugar, whatever else they may be, are simply revenue duties. They entail no com plexity in their system of Customs law; above all, they en tail none of the evils that belong to differential duties ; and I will by and bye invite you to join the Government in enacting measures whereby you will be able to counteract and root out eviis of that kind, as well as give relief in the price of commodities. But Ido not hesitate to say that it is a mistake to suppose that the best mode of giving benefit to the labouring classes is simply to operate on the articles consumed by them. If you want to do them the maximum of good, you should rather operate on the articles which give them the maximum of employment. (Hoar, hear.) What has made the great change in their position of late years ? Not that you have legislated here and there taking off ld. or 2d. in the pound of something consumed by the ' labouring classes. That is not what has bettered their con dition as it has been bettered during the last 10 or 16 years. It is that you have set free their trade—(hear, hear)—it is that you have put in motion the process to give them the' widest field and highest remuneration for their labour. (Hear, hoar.) Take the great change iu the corn laws ; it may be doubted whether you have given them cheaper bread—it may be a trifle cheaper than before—that change, however, is comparatively immaterial; but 'you have created a regular and steady trade of something like £15,000,000 a-year ;by that trade you have created a corresponding demand for the commodities of which they are the producers, their labour being an essen tial element in their production, and it is the price their labour thus brings, not the price of cheapened commodities that forms the main benefit they receive. That is the principle of a sound political economy applicable to com mercial legislation, and that is the principle on which we will invite you to proceed. I may say therefore, in passing, in regard to the tea and sugar duties, we shall ask Parlia ment to renew them—not to renew them for any lengthened period, but only for ono year, with the further addition of three months till July, 1861, because the Ist of April is an inconvenient period for Parliament to eonsider the question. Sir J. PAK INGTON—You propose to leave the duties as they are ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Oh, I mean to take the duties precisely as they now stand—that is, ls. sd. per lb. on tea, and the duties on sugar, which are classified, but which may be represented on the whole as being about 3s. the cwt. above the minimum point at which they stood fixed in 1853. Having stated to the committee the conviction of the Government that we ought to have remissions, and large remissions—that we ought to have remissions by which we may most effectually act upon the trade and commerce of the country, and upon the demand for the labour of the people—l come now to the question of the Commercial Treaty with France, and I will confidently recommend the adoption of that Treaty to the house, as fulfilling and satisfying all the conditions of the most bene ficial change in your commercial legislation. But perhaps, sir, as the committee has not yet had an opportunity of reading the Treaty, it may be convenient that I should state to them very briefly its principal contents. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) First, I will take the engagements of France. France engages to reduce the duty on English coal and coke from the Ist of July, 1860 ;ou bar and pig-iron and steel from the Ist of October, 1860 ; on tools and machinery from the Ist of December, 1860 ; and on yarns and goods in flax and hemp, including, I believe jute, in which a great and very just interest is felt in semo important dis tricts—from the Ist of June, 1861. That is the first im portant covenant into which France enters. Her second and great engagement is postponed to the Ist of October, 1861, it being, I think, in the knowledge of the committee that that is done under a pledge by the Government of Franco to the classes who suppose themselves to be inte rested in the maintenance of prohibition. On the let of October, 1861, France engages to reduce the duties and to take away the prohibitions on all the articles of British pro duction mentioned in a certain list, in such a way that no duty upon any of those articles shall exceed 30 per cent, ad valorem. Ido not speak of provisions, which do not mate rially enter into the Treaty; but those articles, Sir, include all the staples of British manufacture, whether of yarns, flax, hemp, hair; wool, silk, or cotton—all manufactures of skins, leather, bark, wood, iron and all other metals, glass, stoneware, earthenware, and porcelain. I will not go through the whole list, but I am not aware of any great or material article that is omitted. France also engages to commute these ad valorem duties into rated duties by a separate convention; but if there should be a disagreement as to the terms on which they should be rated under the convention, the very maximum chargeable on every class will be 30 per cent. Then the duties will be levied at the proper period upon the value, which will be determined by the process now in use in the English Customs. That is to say, the importer will declare the value, and it will be in the option of the Custom-house authorities in France to appropriate the article upon paying the price which he has declared, with a percentage added. (Cheers.) And I must say that I hold it to be a signal proof of earnestness and liberality on the part of the French Government that it has introduced an administrative regulation into its code for the purpose of disarming suspicions and insuring the effica cious execution of the Treaty. (Hear, hear.) There is a further provision, Sir, that the maximum of 30 per cent. shall after a period not exceeding three years be reduced to a maximum of 25 per cent. And I may be permitted to remind the committee that this rule of 30 per cent., to which France is nominally about to pass from a sys tem of prohibition, is the very rule which was adopted nominally by the British Parliament when Mr. Huskisson was our Minister for Trade, and we first set about making important commercial changes. But there is, I am bound to say, this difference between the two eases— that the rule was accompanied in England with such modes of operation that duties far exceeding 30 per cent, were in a multitude of instances kept alive ; whereas, as far as the terms of this instrument go, F rance h as, I think, given us a security that 30 per cent, will really be the maximum, and that, from the nature of things, in a great multitude of instances the duties will be much below that rate even on manufactured goods. (Hear, hoar.) I come next to the I English covenants. England engages, with a limited period of exception, to be exercised with respect only to two er three articles, to abolish immediately and totally all duties upon all manufactured goods. There will be a sweep, clean, entire, and absolute, of manufactured goods from the face of the British tariff. She engages to reduce the duty on brandy from 15s. a gallon to the level of the colonial duty viz. Bs. 2d. She en gages t e re d uce i mmediately the duty on foreign wine. In the Treaty it is of course French wine which is specified ; but it will be perfectly understood that we proceed with regard to the commodities of all countries alike. England engages, then, to reduce the duty on wine from nearly ss. 10d. to 3s. per gallon. She engages fur ther to reduce that duty from the let of April, 1861, to a scale which has reference te the strength of the wine as measured by the quantity of spirits it contains. That scale is as follows :—On all wines in bottle, whatever the strength, and on all wines having 26 degrees and upwards of proof Ppirits, 2s. per gallon ; on wine havine. 15 and unde r 26 degrees of proof; Is. 6d. per gallon; and on wine with lass than 15 degrees, Is. per gallon. A power is reserved to us of increasing our duty on wine in case we should increase our Excise on spirits. And if, upon due fiscal considera tions, we should find it necessary on that account to increase our duty on wines, we also engage to charge on any French articles which are subject to Excise in England a duty cor responding with the Excise duty, together with extra and fur ther charges to which the English producer may be put in consequence of the regulations of our Inland Revenue, Department. These, Sir, are the chief covenants on the part of England. Both parties reserve to themselves power to place Customs' duties anew on any foreign articles whatso ever, provided they place the same duties on the like articles of domestic production. They likewise agree to treat each other en the same terms as the most favoured nations. All the articles of the Treaty are to continue in operation f r a period of ten years, with a provision as to giving notice of any desire for their revision. These, then, am the prin cipal stipulations of the Treaty with France, which may have been seen by hon. members in one form or another, but which have not collectively, or upon authority, as yet met the public eye. I will not affect to be unaware that many objections have been stated to this Treaty. It has even been said that its terms indicate a subserviency to France, and involve a sacrifice of British interests to those of foreign nations or of a foreign Government. Sir, I am thankful to think that no Ministry, be its merits or bo the distinction of its chief what they may, can in this country hold office for a single session upon terms of subserviency to any Power whatever. (Cheers.) There is here a per fect security in the nature and in the traditions of the two Houses of Parliament. But, sir, I know not what is meant I.y eubee •viency to France as regards the articles of a Treaty like this. We have given Franco nothing by this Treaty, if I except some very trifling fiscal sacrifice which we are to make with respect to the single article of brandy. I mean that it might not be necessary to reduce tip duty to quite so low a point as we take, and therefore there might be a question whether some infinitesimal advantage may not bo surrendered in that form. But, with that small and soli tary exception, we have given nothing to France by this Treaty which we have not given with as liberal a hand to ourselves. (Cheers.) And the changes hero proposed aro changes every sne of which deserves the acceptance of this house on its own merits, in conformity with all the prin ciples that have been recognised and acted upon for many veers past. Sir, as to the charge of subserviency to France I know that this Treaty may be said to bear a political cha racter. The commercial relations of England with France have always borne a political character. What is the history of the system of prohibitions on the ono side and on the other which grew up between this country and France ? It was simply this—that find ingyourselves in political estrange r', en t from her at the time of the Revolution, you followed and confirmed that estrangement both on the one side and the other by a system of prohibitory duties. And Ido not deny that it was effectual for its end .I don't mean for its economical end. Economically it may possibly have been ruinous to both countries. But for its political e n d it I S effectual. And because it was effectual call upon you to legislate now by the reverse of that process. And if yolk desire to knit together in amity those two great nations whose conflicts have often shaken the world, undo for your purpose that which your fathers did for their purpose, and pursue with equal consistency an end that is more bens • ficial. (Cheers.) Sir, there was once a time when close relations et amity were established between the Govern ments of England and France. It was in the reign of the later Stuarts; and it marks a dark spot in our annals, be cause it was an union formed in a spirit of domineering ambition on the one side, and of base and vile subserviency on the other. But that, sir, was not an union of the na tions; it was an union of tie Governments. This is not to be an union of the Governments ,• it is to be an union of the nations—(cheers)—a n d I confidently say again, as I have already ventured to say in this House, that there never can be any union between the nations of England and France except an union beneficial to the world, because directly either the one or the other begins to harbour schemes of selfish a gg ra ndisement —(Opposition cheers) — that moment the jealousy of its neighbour will powerfully react, and the very fact of their being in harmony will of itself be the most conclusive proof that neither of them can meditate anything which is dangerous to Europe. (Hear, hear.) There is another class of objections of which Ido not complain, but which I hope to remove. There are those who say that a commercial treaty is an abandonment of the principles of Free Trade. Well, certainly a com mercial treaty would be an abandonment of the principles of Free Trade, in the latitude in which we now employ that phrase, if it involved the recognition of exclusive pri vileges. In this sense I admit that Mr. Pitt's commercial treaty would, if we had now adopted it in the terms in which it was expressed, have been on our part an aban donment of Free Trade ; but, at the same time, I can not mention that treaty without saying that I think it was for the time at which it was made one of the best and one of the wisest measures ever adopted by Parliament, and has contributed at least as much as any other passage of his brilliant career to the fame of the great statesman who concluded it. (Hear, hear.) We, however, have no ex clusive engagements we have not the pretence of an ex clusive engagement. France is perfectly aware that our legislation makes no distinction between one nation and another, and that what we enact for her we shall at the same time enact far all the world. lam surprised at the number and variety of these objections which come rushing from all quarters. It is like the ancient explanation of the physical cause of a storm--all the winds, north, east, west, and south, rushing together : " Una Eurnsque Notusque ruant creberque procellis " Africus." Sometimes a treaty is an obsolete and antiquated idea ; sometimes it is a dangerous innovation ; and at others it is an abandonment of free trade. There are also another class of men, and those are gentlemen with whom we shall have much difficulty in dealing. These are they who find fault with it—and that I must say is by far the soundest objection —because it is an abandonment of the principle of Protec tion. (Hear, hear.) This treaty is an abandonment of the principle of Protection. lam not aware of any entangling engagement which it contains ; it certainly contains no ex clusive privilege, but it is an abandonment of the principle of Protection, and a means of sweep i ng f rom the statute book the chief relics of that miscalled system which still re main upon it. The fact is, and you will presently sex that it is so, that our old friend Protection, w h o use d f ormer l y t o dwell in the palaces of the land, and who was !dislodged some ten or fifteen years ago, has, since that period, found very comfortable shelter and good living in holes and cor ners—(a laugh)—and you are now invited, if you will have the goodness to concur in the operation, to see whether you cannot likewise eject him from those holes and corners. I told you that we are to remove the duty from all manufaotured goods, and there is hardly one of that class of duties which is not, in point of fact, the representa tive of a strictly protective duty; nay, more—and mark my words—in many cases of a prohibitory duty. Perhaps the case will be best explained by my stating to the committee what will be the financial results of the treaty as it stands. I will not enter into any small details, and will take three branches of reduction only . —the reduction of duty upon wine, the reduction of that upon brandy, and the abolition of the duties upon manufactured goods. The reduction of the duty upon wine from ss. 10d. to 3s. per gallon will afford to the consumer a relief of £830,000, and will entail upon the revenue, after ' allowing for an increase of consumption to the extent of 35 per cent, a loss of £515,000. The reduction of the duty on brandy from los. to Ss. 2d. a gallon will give to the consu mer a relief of £446,000, and, assuming that the consump tion will be raised to the point at which it stood in 1850, just before the disease of the vine commenced, it will cause 1 a loss of £225,000 to the revenue. There are three small articles the abolition of the duties on which we propose to postpone for a single year, in the meantime reducing it by one-half. One of them its the article cork, which has been the subject of a great deal of debate in this House. I must i say that altogether there never was a stronger apparent case made out for Pretection, and although, in consequence of the measures which were adopted, there has been a con siderable shock to the trade, and a considerable change of its nature and of the course which it takes, the House has nothing to repent. On the contrary, the total consumption o l corkfB6 affectingO , fo r i s the t m w la bour, to whi c h it i s no t d es i ra b le to give a sudden shock. These are the g l ove t ra d e and the trade in straw plaiting. In the meantim e th e d u ti es w i ll be reduced, and next year much or c eo h dt largerother c e t r reduction trades, nowdofes, to t h h ne a t n dhue i t t yswi simple le b eo e rg f , k o r, r o e u na t n h dd e t d oh u fa t t y t th w i iee a sy are trades carried on a l mos t ent i re l y by diffused e s reduced. On account of the importance . of the present change, however, w e propose to give until th e I s t o f Ap r il, rural la ' they will be taken off. The amount of duty on manufac tured goods, which will be abolished, amounts to no less than £432,000. The principal articles are silk manufao tures-1270,000 ; gloves, subject:to a short delay, £48,000 ; artificial flowers, £20,000 ; watches, £15,003 ; certain oils, £10,000; musical instruments, £9,000; leather, £9,000 ; china, £8,000; glass, £7,001. There are also a great num ber of minor articles of industry produced largely abroad, especially in France. The total relief to the consumer, that is the amount of duty remitted, under the French treaty, will be £1,737,000 ; the loss to the revenue for the first year will be £1,190,000. Now, Sir, the objections which are taken to this treaty in the interests of free-trade will not, I am quite sure, be very long alive ; but there is one ob jection which turns upon another point with which I must endeavour to deal. It is that which tells us that the duties we are about to repeal are, forsooth, revenue duties, and duties which are levied upon luxuries, and do not affect the poor man. Compassion for the poor man is a very fine thing, and I should be very sorry to say anything that appeared to depreciate or undervalue so sacred a sentiment, but I must say that it is entirely out of place here. There is not one of these duties that is a revenue duty—no, not ono of them. How they work with respect to poor men, how they work with respect to those not rich men, we will presently inquire. But if these are revenue duties it is very curious to see who are the people who are alarmed at the treaty. Are the manufacturers of British brandy the guardians of the British revenue ? Are the im porters of Cape wines the guardians of the British revenue ? Have the manufactures of British wines a peculiar interest in the wellbeing of the exchequer ? The manufacturers of Spitalfields and those of Coventry, who have an incom parable organ in my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice), are most excellent citizens, and no doubt contribute their share to the revenue, bat my right hon. friend won't tell me that their great activity in rushing up to London aid making representations upon this sub7ect has arisen fro m th e i r in terest in the Briti s h revenue. It has arisen from something very different. They don't come into my room and tell me that they are there as the guardians of the British revenue, they tell a much more simple and a much more intelligible tale. They say this—that the duties which now stand upon your tariff are, and it is perfectly true, levied upon articles consumed by the rich. But why ars they not levied upon articles consumed by the middle, the lower middle class and the poor ? Because they won't let them in ; because they are prohibitory against those articles. (Hear.) That is the solution of the whole case. Our manufacturers give over to France the highest qualities under cover of duties which are as good for them as prohibitions, and reserve for them selves the making of the lower qualities, and the power of exacting from the British consumer a higher price than they will be able to get if this treaty is confirmed by Parlia ment. (Hear, hear.) I took the liberty of saying to one o f the deputations, '• It s eems t o me this is much the case of the corn law over again." Don't let there be any mistake. What is wanted is, a higher price than that at which you can get goods from France. That is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end of it. I said, "Is not this the case of the corn law ?" "Oh I dear, no ; not the least like thecorn law." In fact, there is generally, on the part of the most respectable classes, a desire for the protection of their own business. They show that though they are without exception adherents of free trade they are not adherents of free trade without exception. (A laugh.) Let us now consider the circumstances which render it necessary to make a special arrangement. I entreat the committee to look at the present state of the trade between England and France; it is not a little instructive. Con sider in the first place, the relative positions of England and France. It is perfectly true that France is a foreign coun try, but she i s a f ore i gn country a b solute l y separated from you by a narrower c h anne l t h an t h a t w hi c h divides you from Ireland ; an d w hil e na t ure , or prov id e nce rather, es has placed y ou in th o c l oses t prox i m ity, it has given to these two great c oun t r i es suc h di vers ities of soil, climate, products, imate ' products, and c h arac t er , th a t I d o no t b e lieve you can find, on the face of th e wor ld, t wo o th e r countries which are so constituted for carrying on a beneficial and extended com merce. Cheers.) I believe, indeed, that the prohibitory system subsisting between England and France is no less unnatural as to every commercial—l think I may add as to every moral and political—result formerly thanryneirflyyousewpaerraetteodrEerinvge. those prohibitory systems which Eng land from Scotland, and Great Britain from Ireland. (Hear.) I shall be teld, perhaps, that our system is not prohibitory and certainly in respect of many articles it is not, for we have considerable importations from France; but when I remember how much we still prohibit, I have no hesitation in saying that, although our system is far bettor than that of France, yet, on the other hand, it is far indeed from being what it ought to be. (Hear, hear.) Lot us look at the question on the French side. The doctrine is that we should attend to our own interests, and leave France to manage hers. What, then, is the state,of trade as regards France ? In 1858 the total value of exports from England to France —not British exports, but exports of whatever origin —was £14,821,000. Of that amount the home consumption in France was £10,465,000. A portion 'of the articles are unenumerated, and I cannot get at the details, but I have obtained the particulars of articles to the value of £9,819,000, about 19-20ths of the whole. Observe how they are dis tributed. Of the goods sent to France in 1858, amounting to £9,819,000, raw materials, upon which no labour whatever was passed, and the great bulk of which were not of British origin, but morelY passed through our warehouses, were £8,700,000, and half-manufactured articles, £160,000. The total amount of manufactures which we send abroad every year is about £130,000.000; but in 1858 our experts of manufactured goods to France were only £688,000. It is worth while to go a stop further in the analysis. Of that £68,000, £208,000 wore for Cashmere shawls, which merely came here in transit, and £217,000 for machinery, which our friends over the water were pleased to admit under some notion of special advantage. The value of all the other manufactured articles was £263,000. (Hear, hear.) I want to know whether that is a state of things so satisfactory that when we have an opportunity of amending it we sh ou ld refuse to do s o . I understand the statement of the moderate Free-trader who says that half a leaf is better than no bread, that all treakine• down of restrictions is good, and that it is wiser to break awn our own restrictions and leave those of our neighbour if we cannot touch them than to perpetuate both. That is true and reasonable; but I cannot under stand those immoderate and unmanageable Freetraders who eome from other quarters, who, I must say, know little of what they talk about, and who say it is a positive evil to induce our neighbours to break down their restrictions. Tisey do not see what they condemn is a doubling of the benefit. They think there is a chivalry in free trade, which is degraded if it bteomes a matter of bargain, whereas it appears to nie that bargain is really at the root of the whole thing. The only reason why we have not made bargains similar to the present in former years was simply because we could not make them. It was not for want of trying. For four or five years such was the chief business of several departments of the State, and yet no progress could be made. Why P Because they set out upon a false principle—the principle that the concessions which each party made to the other were not a benefit but an injury to itself. (Hear, hear.) We have not proceeded upon that principle. We never pre tended to Frances that we were going to inflict injury upon ourselves. We have offered Frame our beet aid in breaking • down her own vicious prohibitory system. In doing so, we m What hh y aa h tu a w v ne e o ht g a i av v t e e t e n dmo a np g et r iso a g t m e o r oe b da s e_ u n nr e e fi a y t i t t , d o o on l: r bo a i n n ; c g e os t oi h dd a e n ; go t or o ot o dh u r ef o s e or t l ivuee our selves selves if France had donenothing at all, doubly good because France has done a great deal. (Cheers.) One word upon our exports to Franco at a former period. About 20 years ago there was a trade in:English manufactured goods with France. It was in linen and linen yarns. In 1842 we greatly reduced our duties, not by treaty, but independent of France. How did that country reply to us ? France was under a very friendly Government at the time, but how did she meet the immense benefit we had made in favour of her commerce ? She met it by smiting this single branch of trade in British manufactures with prohibitory duties. She raised her duties upon linen yarn, which before 1842 had been from 9to 12 per cent., to from 13 to 27 per cent. Her duties upon linen cloths, which before 1842 h a d b een f rom 15 to 23 per ce n t., were increased to from 20 to 36 per cent. The result may be anticipated. In 1841 we sent to ?ranee linen and linen yarns to the amount 0f4000,1*7, tribe:NM ii 1858 we sent only £151,483. Such is the state d tmeis between England and France, and I confess lam not so well satisfied with it as not to think that it admits of some improvement. As an hon. friend whom I see opposite said . the other day with respect to our wine duties, so I say of our trade with France, it is not in the best " possible" state, but, on the contrary, might be amended with advantage. (Hear, hear.) I have promised, however, to show what the real meaning of the doctrine is, that we are here dealing with revenue duties. Take the article of brandy. I pre sume nobody will pretend that a duty of 15s. upon French brandy, compared with a duty of Bs. on British spirits, is a revenue duty. There is an article manufactured in this country which some of us may have been happy or un happy enough to taste. It is called British brandy. (A laugh.) In consequence of the immense price to which French brandy is raised by our duty, which has the effect not only of raising the price of the best French brandies, but of excluding entirely everything but the best French brandies, our middling and indifferent British brandy comes into the place which is left empty for it by means of our pro hibitory duties. As far as brandy is concerned, therefore, we are not de a li ng w i th revenue duties. Can we regard the duties upon silk and wine as revenue duties ? The mystery of the wine duty is a very deep one. Here especially we are met by the cry that wine is the rich man's luxury. It is the rich man's luxury, but I shall show presently that those who* are not rich are making desperate struggles to get at it—(a laugh) —and that, too, with some limited and qualified success. But wine, forsooth, is the rich man's luxury. Is tea the ri c h man's luxury ? No. It is the poor man's, and, above all, the poor woman's luxury. But 1 speak in the year 1860. In 1760 tea was the rich man's luxury. In 1760 there was no more tea consumed per head of the popu lation than there is wine now. In 1760 there were 4,000,0001 b. tea consumed ; now the annual consumption is 76,000,0001 b. The price of tea which is now sold at 3s. per lb. was then advertised by the chief houses at £1 per lb. (Hear.) Wine is the rich man's luxury, and you may make tea, or sugar, or any other article of consumption the rich man's luxury if you put on duty enough, by which you will not only effectually bar the access of the poor man to it, but reserve to yourselves the proud satisfaction of saying " Our taxes aro paid by the rich ; none are levied upon articles consumed by the poor." (than) Let us consider now the nraetceesosfadryutoy. Wine,peration upon an article lik e w i ne o f a un if or m I suppose, more than almost anything else that is produced from the earth by the labour of man varies in quality and price. It is not too much to say that the price of wine runs from 1 up to 100. Upon all qualities we lay the same rate of duty. What is the effect ? That we tax even the highest wines somewhat heavily ; the next to the highest we tax very heavily ind ee d, an d all except those limited classes we totall y and absolutely prohibit. Let me give one illustr a ti on f rom a simpler case than that of wine, which very clearly explains how this matter stands, and dispose, once for all, of the notion that we are dealing with revenue duties, laid upon the luxuries of a class, and not upon articles wanted for the consumption of the poor. It is the very simple case of gloves, which was stated to me by a most intelligent and respectable deputation, who, as became them, made n o secre t at all about the matter. Our duty upon gloves is 3s. Bd. a dozen. We imported in 1859 about 300,000 dozen. The value of the gloves we import in about 245. a dozen wholesale ; the retail price ranges from 30s. to 365. Our duty is something like lo per cent., which seems very moderate, and enables those who are so dis posed to say, "Ah I we do not discourage the importation , of French gloves; we merely lay upon them a duty of 15 per cent. for the sake of revenue." How does this work ? It works in this way, that it causes the French to furnish us with the finer qualities of gloves, while they leave to us the supply of the poorer qualities. Abolish the duty, and you will find that a quantity of gloves would be imported from France, Naples, Germany, and Belgium. They will r not be gloves at 245. a dozen, but gloves at 18s., 155., 10s., , and 6s, a dozen. The lesser-priced gloves cannot pay the duty, for the duty, when applied to gloves of 100. a dozen, is 37 p er cen t., an d w h en applied to gloves o f 6s. per dozen is 58 per cent. ; and those gentlemen, whose words I heard with implicit belief. told me die• tinctly that if this duty were removed a large quantity of gloves would be imported here at 10s. and 12s. the dozen. Therefore the duty is not a revenue duty, but it is a;protection duty on the higher qualities as regardethe bulk of the trade, and as regards the bulk of the British consumers it is a duty not of protection but of prohibition. So it is with the wine duties. Is that doubted ? Let us ow , how the wine duties operate as a system of protection. We have heard of Cape wine, and if we visit places much fre quented by the lower and middling classes we see advertise.. incite representing large tune surrounded by jovial peoples with the words Cape Port and African Sherry written on them. In all probability that is not Cape port or African sherry. Those who import African sherry know how to make a better use of it. There is a system of promotion and preferment. (Laughter.) The African wines are need for mixing with foreign European wines, and to employ language familiar to my right hon. friend the Secretary for War, vice the African wine promoted some new composts Fit brought forward and delivered to a discerning public, with what result it is not for me to say. (Laughter.) The African wine has a differential duty in its favour of n ear ly 3 s . • f g r a o l m lo n w ; i ne, and i b f e t s h ee e ro e h ere se w b t t o hi fe s e g r l t e h a a t t c a a n r x e theifeotry t o g r e o v e n alongu with us reforming the wine duties ; for they will see that the decrease in the receipt duty from year to year would, apart from any treaty with France, but from fiscal 0 01 ; siderations, compel th em i n th e course o f a few yam' 51 reform the wine duties. I t a k e f or each period of ar. during the last nine years the consumption of foreign Wine and Cape wine i n th e U n it e d Ki ng d om. The averag e °' foreign wine consumed in the three years, 1851-3, wa l was 6,225,000 gallons. (Hear, hear.) During the same period the average consumption of colonial wine Wl° 254,000 gallons. In the period of 1854-56 the average eon" sumption of foreign wine was 6,393,000 gallons, being an increase of 168,000 gallons over the previous period. This increase took place when the disease of the vine was at its worst ; and I mention this particularly be' cause, as this represents the consumption of foreign wins during the disease, it shows that the increase which has taken place in the consumption of Cape wine cannot be owing to the disease in the European grape. When that disease was at its worst the consumption of foreign win* increased, as I have already stated, by 168,000 gallons; the average consumption of Cape wine during the same period-1854-56 —rose from 254,000 gallons to 298,000 gallons. Daring the last term of years-1857-59—the also of the vine was very much mitigated, but the average consumption of foreign wine showed a decrease of 500,000 gallons as compared with the consumption of 1854-1856. The average consumption of foreign wine in 1858-59 wadi 5,893,000 gallons, while the consumption of the colonial wines had increased by 357,000 gallons, the average con sumption in that period being 655,000 gallons. The cola• nial wine is, in fact, rapidly displacing the foreign. The present duty is purely a protecting and differential dutry, and is hostile to the revenue of the country. But there le another element affecting the wins revenue, and that is the manufacture of what is called British wine. While the consumption of foreig n wine has fallen from an ave rage o f 6,225,000 gallons t o 5,893,000 gallons there has been an in• crease in the manufacture of British wine, British wino...* I mean that in the hands of small respectable manuface turers, and am not referring to what is sold for fraudulent purposes—is made very much with raisins, sugar, and brandy. The duty paid on these materials is reckoned as amounting to Is. 2d. a gallon. Therefore you have a duty on foreign wine of ss. 10d. a gallon —on colonial wine of 2s, lid . the gallon, and on B.itish wine of Is. 2d. the gallon. The result is that the consumption of foreign wine dimie nishes, the consumption of colonial wine has increased, and , the consumption of British wine has trebled within the last , 10 years. This has all the tr essential characteristics of • ade carried on und er th e influence of differential duties. I therefore say that the present wine duty is a protective and differential duty with respect to the three classes which enter into our consumption, namely, foreign, colonial, and British wines, they all paying different rates of duty to the revenue. (Hear, hoar.) Out of the enormous quantity. of foreign wine manufactured abroad no doubt it is true that only a small fraction would become available for this coun• try. The great bulk ie a wine which an Englishman would not take in exchange for his beer; bat it is also true that between that common and coarse wine and the fine wined there are 10,000 intermediate shades, and there is an ime manse capacity for producing wines fitted for the English market and for the taste of the middle and lower middle classes in this country, which capacity is at present en• tirely stifled by the operation of the wine duty. There fa a notion that there is something fixed and unchanging is an. Englishman's taste with respect to wine. You find a great number of people in this country who believe, like an article of Christian faith, that an Englishman is not born to drink French wines. (Laughter.) Do what yon will, they say; argue with him as you will; reduce your duties as you will ; endeavour even to pour the French wine down his throat, but still he will reject it. (A. laugh.) Well, these are most worthy portions of the community; but they form their judgment from the narrow circle of their own experience, and won't condescend to look beyond that circle for any consideration whatever. What they maintain is absolutely the reverse of the truth, for nothing. is more certain than the taste of English people at ono time for French wine. (Hear, hear.) In earlier periods of our history French wine was the great article of cone sumption hero. (Cheers.) Taste is a mutable thing. If you go back to what an eminent living poet has called " the spacious times of great Elizabeth," you will find that the most delicate lady in the land did not scruple then to breakfast off beefsteaks and ale. Down to the Revolution French wine was very largely consumed here. I have seen it stated, and have no reason to doubt the assertion, that in 1687 there were imported into this country 3,800,000 gallons of French wine, or about two. thirds of the whole quantity of foreign wine which we now consume. How was this consumption checked and die. couraged ? By the influence of prohibitive duties. The prohibitive system grew up by degrees, and by degrees the English people were positively beaten and sterved eut of their taste for French wine. But for 100 years after that the taste itself remained, for when Mr. Pitt made the treaty of 1786 what was the result ? According to the interesting paper written by Lord Chelsea, in the year preceding 1786 the import of French wine into England was under 100,000 gallons. In the six years from 1787 to 1792 the import grow to 683,000 gallons. Then with the war two or three years afterwards a nearly prohibitive, at all events a high differential, duty was imposed, and the average import fell to 161,000 gallons. At that average ib rem ained till 1824, when the differential duty, instead of 4s. 5d., became 2s. sd. ' and the consumption rose to 372,000 gallons. I must admit that when the duties were equalised in 1830 the consumption of French vine did not increase. It seemed as if by that time , after the pr essur e of heavy duties f or a century and a half, the taste fir it was nearly forgotten, and it became the luxury of a very' limited class in the community. But it is remarkable that, in conjunction with the very changes of taste which have been proceeding of late years, we may likewise perceive in the operation of the present wine duties proofs of a grewisi taste for French wine ; for whereas from 1825 to 1830 we only consumed 379,000 gallons a year, and after 1830 thAl consumption was reduced to something like 310,000 or 315,000 gall ons . on th e average of tho last ten years _ have consu me d 584,000 gallons, so that the importation 05 French wino is absolutely increasing, and the pereentso of the total consumption is rapidly increasing. Taste, 1 gori is mutabl e . It i s idl e t o t a lk of the taste 'for port anua sherry and the hi g hly b ran di e d w i nes as fixed ttil • call fo or ren upon 1 rata tl by the sates lemons, £12,000 X 9,000 ; the tots rose lik unporte duty, e: treaty— reduce t niel rat £400,00 increase I propo duty on importa those of are larg , to have in conic made it reductic We prop loss of increase raisins f pose to give • f reduce I