The Sun. — London, England, 1860-02-22 00:00:00

.............t+"'"......—.......--......—................., mittee of Cewacil on Education when the report a the Royal Commission was likely to be presented to Palia ment ? Mr. LANE said that at present the report alluded to wag not ready for presentation. THE FRENCH TREATY. In reply to Mr. E. )3ALL, Lord PALMERSTON said that it was competent to either party to this treaty to make a settlement in reference to any alteration or modification that might be made in its terms. He would take that opportunity of moving that the house should adjourn at its rising that evening until two o'clock to-morrow, it not, of course, be expected to acquiesce altogether in the view which the gallant admiral takes of the transaction in question, but that view was so temperately expressed, and it was so natural that he should desire to place before the public his own version of th e affair, that if his statement had stood alone I should not have thought it my duty to take any notice of it whatever. But I must say I read with some feeling of surp r ise the observations _ which fell from a right hon. baronet, the late First Lord ta the Admiralty, who referred to a verdict which he ere ste d d . had been pronounced upon the unfortunate misundton ing which arose between the gallant adrairal and_ s of myself — a verdict which I have never see n, and the ground which sua wo l Ido not know. It does seein to me to be a_ ino een unu t proceeding, when diffe ren ces have occurr d betw at persons in any position of life, that a verdict should be given in favour of one of the parties without the other being in formed either of the result which has been arrived at or of the grounds upon whic h it is based. (Hear.) I westnire I shall know with the rest of your lordships wha the verdict is when the p a p ers now moved for have beat p laced in your hands. Of course Ido not intend to enter inta the ques ti o n now. s hall only say that I think whe n those) p a p er s are laid o i n the . table our lordships will see that was placed in a position of v ery great difficulty at the com mencement of IssB, with the forces at my disposal reduced by the demands of India and the requirements of the Canton garrison, with instructions directing me to obtain from the thinese Government concessions which amounted to an entire subversion of the traditional policy of that great empire, and with orders to prosecute my mission in com bination not only with the representatives of France, with whom I had always acted, but also with the represents fives of two other Powers, Russia and America, who were still in the position of neutrals, and from whom, if we were forced into acts of hostility, we must entirely have broken off. I think you will gather from these papers that I had some good reason for believing that prompt;direct, and energetic action in the shape of a demonstration in the neighbourhood of the Court of Pekin was the only expedi ent which seemed to afford any hope of our being able to bring to an early close, and without bloodshed, the war in which we were then engaged with China upon conditions consistent both with my instructions and with what I be lieved to be required by the honour and interests of this country. (Hear.) I can assure yourlordships that when I pro ceeded to the north I went in the firm belief that the gallant Admiral was entirely cognisant of the policy I intended to pursue in that quarter, that he thoroughly sympathise d with that policy, and th at I might count upon his ready and energetic support. Ido not refer to private communica tions which passed between us, and of which no record is kept, but I had in my possession at the time a despatch, to which I may now refer, because it is before your lordships — a despatch written by the gallant admiral in answer to my applications for gunboats, not stating that he did not know the object for which I wanted them, or that the monsoon or any other difficulty would prevent_ him from supplying them, but, on the contrary ; stating most distifiCtly that the tad been under his consideration for a long time, that one of the gunboats had already started, and that pre parations were being made for others to follow. (Hear, hear.) The best proof I could give of the entire confidence which I reposed in the gallant admiral is the fact that I went to the north, because it would have been an act of absolute insanity, to do so had I not been supported by him when I arrived there. The admiral arnved and informed me, on the 24th of April, that so far from the gunboats being at hand, very few of them had been ordered to leave Hong Kong, and that those few would not leave until a period long after that at which I had been led to understand they were to arrive in the north. I confess that information filled me with the greatest possible disappointment, and it is very probable that the despatches which I wrote at that time bore the reflex of my feelings. My disappointment arose from the fear which I entertained, not only that the policy I was en gaged in carrying out in that quarter would be compromised by non-arrival of the gunboats, but that the commer cial interests, and even the lives of Europeans in the diffe rent open ports of China would also be placed in jeopardy ; because I apprehended that if we made an abortive attempt of that kind in the north the Emperor would be very likely to send down word to the authorities in the different pro vinces to attack the Europeans in the open ports. Our ap prehensions on that head were entirely borne out by what actually occurred. The Emperor did send down such a message as I anticipated to the provinces, but it took effect only at Canton. There the war was revived, and in con sequence we were so urgently entreated to send back from the north the forces we had collected there, on our advance to Tien-tsin, that we were obliged, as soon as the treaty of Tien-tsin was signed, to return to Canton. I had, there fore, to abandon the intention I always entertained of pro ceeding to Pekin myself, in order to deliver to the Emperor the letter of credence I was charged with. I believe that to that unfortunate omission the whole of our present dis asters are due, because I believe, if I had been able to de liver that letter of credence to the Emperor, I should have been able to have made such arrangements with the Impe rial Court as would have disposed of the delicate ques tiorrof the personal reception of the British Minister, and • then none of the difficulties we are now involved in would have occurred. There is another point I must refer to, be cause the misconstruction repeatedly put on it in various quarters has created, very naturally, a strong prejudice against me. It has been observed that the despatches to which I have referred, which were written home at the time, were not shown by me to the gallant admiral. That is per fectly true. I have been for 17 years employed in the public service, and I do not think I ever showed a despatch to any one but the Secretary of State. I am quite sure I never saw any despatch written to the head of a department in which my own conduct was commented upon. I have always regarded a despatch as a confidential communication which the Secretary of State alone was at liberty to relieve from the condition of secrecy. But I must solemnly say that when Admiral Seymour made to me the communication I have referred to, I stated to the gallant admiral that it was absolutely necessary, not only for my own vindication, but also in order that her Majesty's Government might be in possession of the facts of the case, that I should report in the fullest manner to the Government the extent to which, in my opinion, our prospects in the north were compromised by the failure on his part to furnish me with the armament on which I had relied. I added that if he had any counter statement to make, if he thought anything in my conduct, either in the way f omission or commission, was the cause of his failure, I begged of him to make a corresponding re port to the Admiralty, in order that the whole case might be before her Majesty's Government. My lords, I state this on my honour as a peer, and am quite ready to repeat it in any other more solemn form in which an asseveration can be made. I ought to add, and it is the only sentence in the whole of this address which I have any satisfaction in ut tering, that, apart from the unfortunate misunderstanding I have alluded to, and which the looseness and forgetful ness pertaining to verbal communications may, perhaps, explain; nothing could be more loyal, more cordial, more generous, or more gallant than the support which I received from the navy during the whole course of my service in the East. I must say I think there were performance of the British navy during that period of a most remarkable cha racter. I think the manner in which we visited many parts of the coast of Japan and the expedition for 600 miles up an unknown river, without pilot or chart, accomplished both in going and returning with perfect safety and good order, were transactions reflecting the highest credit on the gallant officers who were engaged in them. In alluding more parti cularly to these circumstances, I wish to say at the same time that an equal degree of gallantry and skill was shown by the whole fleet in all the operations which occurred, whether belligerent or otherwise ; and I have only to repeat what I have more than once said in private and official communi cations, That to the happy audacity of my gallant friend Captain Osborne, on board of whose ship I was for 16 months, I was much indebted for the success of my mis sion. (Hear, hear.) Lord COLCHESTER said that an imputation of the ut most gravity had been cast upon the conduct of the gallant admiral who commanded in China at the time the events referred to by the noble earl took place. He would not then go into the question which had been raised ; but he begged their lordships to suspend their judgment on the matter until all. the papers bearing upon it were before them. The motion was then agreed to ; and their lordships then adjourned. being Ash Wednesday. MR. DU CANE'S MOTION. Sir J. GRAHAM said that he would avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the motion of the noble lord to address the house on a point of order. The honour able member for Essex had placed on the table a motion which was not in conformity with the general precedents of the house. He was of oTiaion that no resolution could be proposed in committee of supply. However, in 1853, it was permitted to the right hon. member to move a resolution in reference to the in come-tax, but that was a precedent which ought not to be followed, as it was likely to prove dangerous. (Hear, hear.) He would submit, therefore, to the house that it was not competent for an hon. member tp move,a resolution in committee not arising out of a question of revenue. It was necessary that there should be an ample discussion on the financial policy of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which could not be raised on the motion of the hon. member. After some discussion on the point of order, Lord PALMERSTON said that of course the hon. member would be the best judge of the course he intended to pursue. If however, he wished to press his motion he would postpone the further progress of the committee on th e Customs' Act. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DU CANE said he would avail himself of thee:offer of the noble lord, and proceed with his inotion. Mr. GLADSTONE observed that he would not move his resolution relative to foreign wines befoi:q Friday next. Mr. DU CANE then rose to move, in a subseantive form, the resolution of which he had given notice in reference to the financial statement of the Government. In doirsi,g so he expressed a hope that it was needless to assure the louse that he felt he was about to trespass upon their attenteqn under circumstances of no ordinary embarrassment. The' financial acyeene to •which-he was about to offer hie coppo - sition was one of a character so complicated and so dif ficult, and had, moreover, been submitted to the house in a speech of such remarkable eloquence and subtlety of rea soning, that nothing but the kind indulgence and forbear ance of hon. members and the confidence which he felt in the justice of his cause could sustain him in the course which he had deemed it to be his duty to take, (Hear, hear.) He entertained no doubt that it would be his fate to hear during the progress of the discussion to which his mo tion would give rise, as he had already heard it faintly whispered out of doors, that in allowing himself to bring forward the present resolution he had suffered himself to be made aninstrument in supporting a party and a factious movement. He could only say in answer to such a charge that if the words " party:movement" were to be interpreted as indicating the existence of a desire on his part to inter pose needlessly between the house and the discussion of the proposals of the Government in Committee with the view to embarrass the Ministry, and by that means to clieck the further progress of useful and beneficial legislation, the ac cusation was entirely unfounded, and the house, he felt assured, would deem it unnecessary that he should enter any more energetic protest against its justice. (Cheers.) So far from the charge to which he referred being true, he believed he was giving expression not merely to his own sentiments, but to those of a large number of hon. gentle men. by whom he was surrounded, when he asserted that it was to them a matter of extreme regret that the finan cial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were of such a nature as to render it impossible that they could re ceive—in their leading features, at least—from his (Mr. Du Cane's) side of the house an independent support. If, how ever by the charge which he had mentioned it was intended to be implied that he had come forward manfully and openly to throw down the gauntlet in opposition to the scheme of the Government, which he believed to be both unsound and unjust—(cheers)—and thereby openly and manfully to vindicate what he regarded as true and sound Conservative policy—if to act so could be termed a " party move," then he frankly and gladly accepted that descrip tion of his resolution. (Cheers.) He might now, perhaps, be permitted to say, as some return for the compliment which the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had been pleased to pay him on the previous even ing, that if, in the present instance, he found it impossible to give his proposals a warm support, the right hon. gen tleman would, at all events, learn that he was something better than a mistrustful adherent or a lukewarm partisan —an open and candid enemy. (Hear, hear.) He should next proceed to lay before the house as briefly as he could the main objections which ho enter tained to the financial scheme of the Government. He ob jected to the budget in the first instance because it appeared to him not merely to fail to grapple with the financial exi gencies of our present position, but to be calculated to leave the country worse than it found it, and to lead to a state of increasing financial difficulty. (Hear.) He objected to it, in the second place, because he was of opinion that the principal remissions of taxation which it proposed—and he alluded more especially to the reduction and abolition of the duties on wine and paper—proposals which, though, perhaps, unob jectionable in themselves if made at the proper time, yet were singtilaily inopportune at the present moment-=were highly inexpedient, especially when it was borne in mind that the income-tax was to be continued at a rate higher than it had ever before been known to have reached in time of peace. (Cheers.) And lastly, ho objected to the budget because it seemed to him to be based upon an unnecessary and one-sided commercial treaty. (Hear, hear.) He had en tertained the hope that the determination at which the house would have arrived on the previous evening might have relieved him from touching upon the merits of that treaty, but he had been disappointed in that expectation, and the house was at that moment, he could not help think ing, placed in the anomalous position that they could not, at any future psi nod amend the terms of the treaty, if they should deem it expedient to do so, without essentially vitia ting some important feature of the budget (hear, hear), while they could not venture to alter in any of its main points the budget itself without running the risk of vitiat ing and annulling the treaty. (Hear, hear.) Her Ma jesty's Government, in. short, acting upon the division which had taken place the previous evening, called upon hon. members to open their mouths to the widest possible stretch, and to swallow in one great gulp the budget and the treaty combined. (Cheers and laughter.) All he could say was, that if Parliament and the country could swallow such a dose, they must henceforth be prepared to make up their minds to swallow anything which might be presented to their notice. (A laugh.) He should now, with the per mission of the house, proceed to recount as briefly and as succinctly . as he was able those which appeared to him to be the main features of our financial position, as stated by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the budget. The right hon. gentleman esti mated the income of the country for the present year at £60,700,000 ; its expenditure at £70,100,000 ; the deficit for the year being thus £9,400,000. Well, that being so, the right hon. entman, acting upson a very simple, but at the same time g a ve le ry novel principle as applied to financial matters, that his deficit— " Was great because it was so small, And if 'twere greater would be none at all." —la laugh)—proposed to increase it by the reduction of some and tLe total abolition of other duties to the extent of £4,000,000 upon articles which, to use the words of the noble lord the member for London in his first despatch to Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden, " are not in general articles of such primary necessity or such universal use among the people of the United Kingdom as to entitle them upon that ground to the special attention of the Government. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman had then proceeded to reduce the deficiency with which he had to deal to the ex tent of £2,000,000 by means of sundry savings in the Re venuereductionsdeficiencyhave Department, by making certain allowances for the increase c it de been ohuf accordingt would o e u a sy l d ew e her would,l conseque nt taoshyssunder ur dnry o tnihoet sew mate, £11,500,000, which deficiency he proposed to supply charges.ustcontemplatedcircumstances, he c in part by re-imposing the income-tax at the rate of 10d - in the pound, thus securing a sum of £8,472,000. He . re . 11 imposed also the extra duties on tea and sugar, and called in the hop and malt credits to the extent of £1,400 ' 000 Th es e amounted to £11,972,000. Then by the tr ea ty, ac cording to the right hon. gentleman's own showing, we s hould have a surplus of £470,000. But he as k e d the com mittee to observe, in the first instance, that of these items there was one certainly of £539,000, or thereabouts, that must be looked upon as an item of a purely speculative character in amount, anon was supposed to be derived from the increased consump of wines and spirits. They must also bear in mind that, ace nding to this scheme, they would have to s ubmit to a further reduction of these duties to the ex t e nt of £250,000. He w ould next ask them to observe and hop credits that, by anticipating.the malt _ to the amount of £1,400,000, the right hon. gentleman .was, in point of remaining portion of a cum of fact, anticipating the been con "cl db si re an in y no- £2 500 b 000, which had hitherto _ e the right hon. gentleman hi d mself , , the body more than Government to the malting and hop light of a loan by the Gover f while on the one interests of the country ; and, there ore, • • • these credits, he caused very consi hand, by anticipating . ry to the smaller mem derable annoyance and positive inju n ht h 0 gentleman hers of the malting intere st, the rig . availed himself at the same time of an entirely temporary mpora expedient; and the house would be fully justified in assurn ing that no such sum as £ 1 , 400,000 would be forthcomin g next year to meet the financial exigencies of the country. There was a third matter to which he would call the atten tion of the house, and that was that the right hon gentle men postpones for a period of three years the payment of £1,000,000 of Exchequer-bonds, which became due in the present year. These bonds would therefore have to be re issued, and, therefore, one of the very first happy results they had to encounter in this year of bliss, that was to have been marked by the falling in of the Terminable Annul tio s, was the addition of a very c nisiderab'e amount to the un funded debt of the country. (Hear, hear.) He must next ask the house to bear in mind that the income tax of 10d. in the pound and the war taxes on tea and sugar were only re imposed for one year, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1831-62 whoever he might have the good or bad fortune to be—for lie confessed he never consi dered the position of the Chancellor t'f the Exchequer to be a very enviable one—the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 13 61-62 could not possit4 count upon a renewal of this tax without obtaining the formal consent of Parliament. Let him early the house for a moment in imagination to the commencement of the 1861,andaskthem year he their novel financial position. Unless the house should thought, most • the pre s e n t s t a t e o f the continent he improbable, to sanction a material reduction of the army and navy very much the sa me rts estimates, the expenditure would be and to this he might aieo aa aseesent—roaoomo at least; tof the income ? They £1,000,000 Exchequer bonds. What, then, would b e th e would have virtually parted state with the income tax and with the tea and sugar duties; they would have m alt duties ; and they would have done alitatticipated the m had pledged themselves to a further reductionertelieTleye HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills wero read a second time :—London and North Western Railway No. 2) ; London Railway Depot and Storehouses ; Moy River Navigation : Conway. Llanrwst, and Bettws y Coed Railway ; Denbigh, Ituthin and Corwen Railway; and Ulster Railway and Corpora. tion of B7lfast. THE SUN,:,!LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING FEBRUARY 22, \ 1860. tleman had said, " If I were a Bordeaux wine merchant, I should be in raptures with the proposed budget. If I were an English wholesale dealer, depending for custom upon the higher classes of society, I should be simply indifferent. But if I were on Englisn retail dealer, dopending upon the lower classes, and, having, as I inevitably should, to meet increased prices and diminished consumption as its first effects, I should oppose it tooth and nail. (Hear, hear.) Having considered the wine duties, he would next refer to the intended abolition of the paper duty. He did not stand forward to advocate the retention of that duty as a perma • nent feature of our taxation, nor would he advocate the retention of any tax which might be in any way injurious to the spread of education, He would net attempt to follow the right hon. gentleman into the interesting and ingenious account which he gave of the various trades in whose manu factures paper formed a principal ingredient feat still less would he attempt to grapple with the pleasing e, No. 2 of the budget, which referred to the blessings about to fall upon the agricultural population by covering the banks of all our streams with innumerable paper-mills. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He might safely leave that portion of the right hon. gentleman's remarks to be dealt with by the great Leviathan of the press, which, a day or two since, in a few brief sentences, completely dispelled the vision, which he had conjured up. But when the right hon. gen tleman said that he considered himself bound, to no small extent, by the fact that a resolution of the house had con demned the tax, he (Dlr. Du. Cane) had heard that statement with surprise. (Hear hear.) If a vague and shadowy reso lution of the house, passed at anytime, was to be a sufficient justification of the abolition of a tax, how could the right hon. gentleman justify for a moment the retention of the income tax ? (Hear, hear.) If there was one tax which more than another the house had condemned as a permanent feature of taxation, not by one vague resolution, but repeated majori ties led by the right hon. gentleman himself, and even by statute, it was the income tax. (Hear, hear.) If there was one tax which more than another the present Government, judging from the former professions of its members, should have let untouched, it was the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) In his memorable budget of 1853 the right hon. gentleman might have dealt both with the wine duty and the paper duty. He had then all the financial world open to him, but he left both those duties unaltered. (Hear, hear.) From that time until 1857 the house heard very little in deed of reduction of taxation. (Hear, hear.) But in the year 1857 the right hon. baronet the present Home Secre tary, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a financial _statement, in which he thus spoke of the paper duties to the amount of £250,000; they would be pledged also—though on this point hewas not so clear—to a further sacrifice of paper duty ; and, allowing at the same time for the payment of the remaining portion of the £250,000 of the Spanish debt, there would ba a total deficit of £12,172,000 (Hear, hear.) Deductingthis sum fromtho present revenue, It would leave exactly £58,392,030 to meet £71,100,000 of expenditure, and the Chancellor of the Exchcquer would therefore have to announce to the House of Commons the pleasing intelligence of a deficit of £12,700,000. (Hear.) If they took into consideration, as he thought they were bound to do, the probability that, instead of an increased, there would be a diminished consumption resulting from the reduction of the wine duties, with a reduction of the malt tax arising from a diminished consumption of beer— (hear, hear) --they would be very safely justified in assum• ing that the deficiency would not be far off £13,000,000. The house must seriously consider what was likely to be the position of Parliament at that time. The night of Feb. 20, 1860, must have breia destined long ago by the fates to be a very remarkable era In the annals of Parliament. It was not often that their Parliamentary bill of fare was so luxuriously catered for as it had been on that memorable occasion with dainties of the first class. Seldom, if ever, did it happen that the Government of the country had to choose in presenting to the house on the same evening be tween three subjects of such vital importance to the future welfare of the country as a French treaty, a budget, and a bill for the amendment of the representation of the people. (Hear, hear.) Although he had not the honour to agree in many political doctrines of the hon. member for Birming ham, yet, from what he had read of his speeches out of doors, the hon. member would concur with him when he said that the subjects of a budget and a Reform Bill were very nearly allied—(hear, hear)—inasmuch as it must be the general tone and character of the Parliamentary majo rity of that house that must ultimately determine the gene ral nature and incidence of the taxation of the country. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord, owing to circumstances over which altogether he had no control, had postponed the pro duction of his Reform Bill till what he sincerely hoped would be a more auspicious occasion. It was not for him on the present occasion to widen the field of discussion by endeavouring to anticipate what the probable provisions of the Reform Bill might be ; but he thought at the same time he should be interpreting the general wish both of the house and the people of the country when he said that there was a growing feeling among both that this great constitutional question of Parliamentary Reform should not be made the stalking-horse by which to hurl Ministry after Ministry from office, and that they should, if possible, during the present session endeavour to effect a satisfactory , settlement of the question. (Hear.) Let the house in dulge him in what at the present moment must appear to be rather a wide stretch of the imagination. Conceive the budget passed, the Reform Bill passed, with a new Parlia ment elected by constituencies into which many new and popular elements had been introduced—what would be the condition of affairs with which that Parliament would have t o scrapple ? They would have, in the first place, a defi ciency of £13,000,000 to deal with — an inco me tax f 10d. in the perulla, renewed for one year, shortly abo ut to ex p ire. They ves:ald find the tax which eve ner statesman in the Parliamecitizry history of the country, !Tom Mr. Pitt down to Sir R. Pled, and from Sir R. Peel to the present Chan cellor of the Exchequer, bad successively deprecated as a p erma nent elerOent in the taxation of the country. What would be the ineitable eonsequence ? That house would then stand between Scy lla and Char y bdis. If they p the budget and canl•ed into effect the provisions of the andtrea tym,otshtehyarmwoulelsds hsoauvre,7zesutofoffinsdetvrejeatl t o axa f the ti most useful of tw oCoemvimlsownsoulwdouicedrtsaeinizleyweintsbnea—videittthyeurpthone reformed was presented ready to their hands, and they would see this elifeormenegidnHe House tar, which they had so long deprecatd, in its most odious form, established as a permanent feature in our system must of t axa tion, and gradually mounting to a height which make it utterly intolerable ; or, on the other hand, they would see a hardly less dangerous course adopted—they would see an ignorant impatience of expenditure running riot in that house, developing its first effects in the revival of that miserable cheese-paring economy which had already brought such disastrous consequences on this coderinguntry— at w hi c h disbelieved in war till the ene m y was thun our gates, and laughed to scorn all idea of national defence. (Hear, hear.) Let the Chancellor of e Exchequer beware how, with that great gulf yawnin th g before , sought to reimpose this tax in its aggravated shape. He would say to that right hon. gentleman—" Can it be you, who ex hausted all the power of your matchless eloquence and closest subtlety of reasoning to prove the inquisitorial and objectionable nature of this tax, the utter impossibility of its retention in any form as apermanent feature of our taxation, and the expediency of reserving it as a potent engine for spe cial occasions—can it be you who are now throwing aside all thought of the future, heedless of the reckless legislation whickyour present proposals may provoke ?" (Hear, hear.) Who did not remember the budget of 1853 and the brilliant oration which had since served as a textbook of political economy to every schoolboy—who did not remember how the right hon. gentleman minutely analysed and scattered to the winds every conceivable scheme by which that tax could be established in a graduated form? And now, when the hour for the:financial raillenium had arrived, the same right hon. gentleman remorselessly put a new load on their backs, cut the rope, and sent the vessel of the State adrift in the vortex of a financial whirlpool. (Hear, hear.) There were various reasons why a reduction of that tax might have come with a peculiar grace from the right hon. gentleman. The people of this countryhad without a murmur made the sacri fices and borne the burdens of war. They had consented to endure a heavy taxation on the necessaries of life because they believed that as soon as an extraordinary exigency was passed measures would be proposed that would carry wel come relief to every cottage in the land. These hopes, how ever, seemed doomed to disappointment. The people now learnt for the first time in our history that they were to be subjected to an oppressive load of taxation in order to assist a neighbour in difficulties, who was himself—for they could not conceal it from themselves—the cause of their extrava gant expenditure. (Hear.) They knew that a lavish and un called for generosity to France was openly vaunted as a noble achievement for the Government of this country. (Hear.) Knowing this, the people would ask where were the four millions of indirect taxation that they were about to sacri • flee so recklessly ? That question the Conservative party were now endeavouring to have answered; and when it was said that party connexion should have nothing to do with this movement, he for one thanked God that the name and traditions of party were not yet extinct ; that there was still a party left in the country—call it Conservative or call it what they pleased—which would put forth its strength and animate its ranks to support the effort of an inde pendent member to confront oppression and quell injus tice. (Cheers.) Let him now turn to another part of the question, and let him say that, while he thought the duties now pressing heavily on the necessaries of life had the first claim to revision, he would not deny that the reduction of the wine duties might be fairly dealt with at some future period. Putting aside, however, for the moment, the prior claim of the great consuming classes of the country to have some remission of the malt-tax and the duties on tea and sugar, he would look at the reduction of the wine duties as an abstract question, both in regard to its probable effect on the interest of the consumer and its effect on the public revenue. Since the scheme of the Go vernment was first proposed he had consulted several high authorities on this matter, and they one and all agreed in thinking that, whatever might be the expediency of an ulti mate reduction of the wine duties, never was there so inop portune a time for making that reduction as the present. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman had drawn a pleasing picture of the halcyon days about to arrive, when under his proposed arrangement wine would no longer be a rich man's luxury, and the choicest vintages of France and Spain would flow in upon us. It was therefore necessary, however pain ful the task, to arouse the right hon. gentleman from his happy dream and conduct him back to the realm of sober realities. (A laugh.) It was an undoubted fact, which could not be gainsaid, that at that this moment, partly from the continued vine disease and partly from a :succession of bad harvests, the stock of wine in the hands of the principal dealers in the south of France and in Spain was now so diminished that nothing but the return of four or five con secutive harvests of more than average productiveness could restore that stock to its normal condition. Another fact, to which he challenged contradiction, was that the wine mer chants of Bordeaux, anticipating a very considerable rise in price as the first effect of the reduction in the duty, were now withholding all the stock they possibly could from the English markets, and in many instances the Spanish wine dealers were refusing to part with their stock at all. He also believed that the great bulk of the rehiil dealers in this city were now laying in their stocks for the year in order if pos sible to escape the rise in price which they foresaw as the re sult of the reduction of duty. But supposing no rise at all occurred what was that price likely to be? He held in his hand an extract from the circular of the London correspon dent of one of the largest and best known houses at Bordeaux. He found from that circular that the cheapest wine, pure and sound to bear exportation, cost at the rate of LO per hogshead at Bordeaux, which, under present rates of duty, would bring the cost in this country to something like 255, or 265. per dozen, and, with the proposed reduced duties would cost 20s. or 21s. per dozen. That might be a pure wine certainly, but it would be of the thinnest and poorest character, utterly unfitted, unless a great change should take place in English tastes, for English palates. (Hear, hear.) That was the beverage that was to flow into this country in such a stream as to supplant the principal be verage of the country, to check the cultivation of barley, and to inflict almost irreparable injury upon the maltsters, the farmers, and the brewers of this. country. (Hear.) The very idea of such a thiae., however, appeared so absurd that he should not presume to l stand before the committee as the farmer's friend with an agricultural grievance, but he must ask the right hon. gentleman what sort of even-handed justice it was he proposed to deal out in the name of free trade when he left the highly-taxed growers awl manufac turers of the principal beverage of the country t enter into competition with the untaxeeforeigner. (Hear, hear.) It might be that some of the Sp anish wines would be more acceptable to English tastes than cheap French wines, but it must be borne in mind that Spain was suffering under the effects of repeated bad harvests, and that the stock of wine in hand was very much diminished. The right hon. gentleman had treated the house with an interewin and pathetic narrative of the evils of adulteration, and from his language it would almost appear that adulteration was a crime unknown to foreign countries and peculiarly indige nf greatoi Nafio fact tl s tb . t rh o aeoagxft English ottnehueots o\vaiotnsreßo adulterationi Co l .raad( Catalonian aflt e ofu t : ! tan ) unaer l new t dsd w ay asn sßp, openlylioorm d importedee elsewhere.avpuer x r a , ew a (t i in i as e e sead s acb t rt i oe b tsia l s evs h ateohr el t s frontier, and after undergoing a process of conversion at Bordeaux, it was returned across the frontier as prime Bor deaux wine. (Hear, hear.) There was a port in the Gulf of Lyons called Cotte, the chief business of whose popula tion was nothing more nor less than wholesale (Hear,adulteration. , ' what was f :v r a e s ig n n o or to g ri f o r u om s in entering to igliese w ines, and supposing that the duties were lowered, as pro competition with our own adulterat ors a t h ome , anestoed nfur nishing us with a chea p wine,of unknown manufacture with what effect, to q uote the ri g ht hon. g entle m a n's own words , upon the British public he need not say ? Reverting, how ever, to the possible supply of pure wine, he would give an instance w ithin his own knowledge of what had occurred in Australia. Smile time since one of the largest firms at Bor deaux sent to Melbourne a large consignment, including 4,030 dozen of a wine which cost about 10s. per dozen at Bordeaux. At that time wine was generally cheaper, and consequen tly the par ticular wine he refer] ed to was of a better quality than could now be produced for the same price. After a considerable interval, the Bordeaux mer. chants received a let ter from their correspondent at Mel bourne, informing thorn that the wine in question was un saleable among the lower and middle classes, and requet *eher rice might be that wine of a superior quality and hi c , p sent in its place. (Hear.) And that was s the article from which, during the present year, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer expected to derive £530,000 at the reduced scale of duties. (Hear.) Upon that ingeeiaus but speculative theory the committee were called upon to supersede our na tive beverage by taking off duties up on wine, which was a now and roust for some time continue to be emphatically luxury of the rich, and yet to continue the war taxes upon tea and sugar, which were the necessaries of the poor. (Hear, hear.) Ho would conclude his observations upon the sub ject of the wine duties by quoting the remarks lately made to him by a gentleman intimately acquainted with Bordeaux and well up in the mysteries of the wine trade. That gen- " I onfess, having carefully considered the subject, Ido not believe that the total abolition of the paper duty would produce to the ordinary purchaser of books any appreciable advantage. Therefore, Sir, without at all denying the claims of the paper duty to be considered at a time when our expenditure may be less and our revenue may be greater, I cannot admit that at the present moment it is a proper subject for remission." (Hear, hear.) The house must bear in mind that at that time the right hon. baronet was a rara avis in financial history—a Chancellor of the Exchequer with a surplus; and such was the condition of financial plethora he enjoyed that the hon. member for the West Riding of Yorkshire said he could only aptly compare him to a prize ox in the midst of butchers. (Cheers and laughter.) But upon what g rounds and upon what theory of taxation did the right hon. baronet go on to justify the retention of the paper duty ? The right hon. baronet justified it upon a theory of taxation which for the most part commanded his cordial assent, but which was as nearly as possible the direct oppo site of the present budget. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet quoted from the writings of Adam Young : "If I was," says Adam Yonne- r' , "to define a good sys tem of taxation, it should be that of bearing lightly on an infinite number of points, heavily on none. In other words, that simplicity in taxation is the greatest additional weight that can be given to taxes, and ought in every country to be most sedulously avoided." (Cheers.) A few days afterwards a still more extraordinary scene took place in the house. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer made a furious onslaught upon the financial statement, and condemned the budget as being based upon principles of finance utterly contrary to any which the country had before adopted. It seemed that those high financial authorities had been able to compose their differ ences, as they now sat side by side in the same Cabinet. (Hear.) He begged the house to listen to the terms of the memorable resolution on the paper duty : " That this house is of opinion that the maintenance of the excise duty on paper as a permanent source of revenue would be impolitic." The house would see at once that it was a resolution assert ing a mere abstract principle of the very vaguest character, and could not, by the widest possible construction, be sup posed in any way to fetter the house as to the right time to deal with the paper duty. (Hear.) Perhaps the house would agree with him that one of the shortest and most sensible speeches ever made in Parliament was made on that occasion by his hon. friend the member for Malden, who interrupted the Speaker in putting the question to say, " I suppose it is fully understood that the resolution means no thing V' (Cheers.) It was a remarkable fact that the nearer they approached the present time the stronger were the ob jections of members of the present Government to deal with the paper duty. The language of the right hon. baronet in 1857 was sufficiently strong, but it was very mild compared with the language of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary. On a subsequent occasion the noble lord said : " The house would recollect that last year the Chan cellor of the Exchequer proposed that the income tax should be kept up at 7d. in the pound, and instead of ls. 3d. the duty on tea should be ls. 6d. ' with a proportionate in crease of the sugar duties. This year they had allowed the income tax to fall from 7d. to sd. in the pound, but they had kept up the duty on tea to ls. 5d., and retained the proportionate increase of the sugar duties. It was, therefore, almost a matter of good faith that when next there was a reduction of taxes those duties on tea and sugar should be reduced, which were, in fact, war duties, and there could be no greater claim for reduction than upon articles which entered so largely into the comforts of the people." (Cheers.) That was an argument which he must say he entirely approved of. But a change appeared to have come over the spirit of tho noble lord's dream. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this year proposed to retain and increase the income-tax, to re-impose the war duties on tea and sugar, and to abolish the paper duty. And the noble lord sat by his side and applauded the proposition. (Cheers.) Throughout this elaborate financial scheme, and in this part particularly, he discerned a desire to conciliate the goodwill and support of a certain section, without whose support they were told that no Administration could en dure for a day. He remembered to have heard the hon. 'bomber for Rochdale (to whom they were indebted for the construction of this French treaty) say that he addressed the house in the name of the people who lived in towns. They had before them a budget which bore but too plainly a town image and superscription. If there were one epithet which would better describe it than another it was calling it a Manchester budget. (Loud cheers.) The President a of the Board of Trade was a very able and distinguished member of the house. His administrative abilities were doubtless as useful in the Cabinet as his destructive powers were effectual out of tile Cabinet. Yet, great as they might be, he could not help thinking the people would consider they purchased those talents at a somewhat dear rate with dear tea, dear sugar, and an increased income-tax. (Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them the other night that if they wished permanently to benefit a people, they should set free their trade. In that doctrine, if carried out honestly and impartially, he entirely concurred. But he thought that at the present time the middle classes would feel they were poorly recompensed for an:in creased income-tax by a dream of cheap wine, and the masses of the working population would feel they were sadly compensated for the sacrifices which they had cheerfully made by dear tea and dear sugar. (Cheers.) There were doubtless many important questions which would be sure to arise in the course of the discussions—many taxes, no doubt, in the scheme to which opposition would be made—but they were already provided with appropriate champions. Such questions as the grievances of the silk trade, of the licensed victuallers, and of the hop-brewers would bettor be dimmed further on in committee, inas much as they did not go to the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's propositions. But from the number of amend ments which were rapidly gathering paper, on the from the number of grievances which had been put into his hands ever since he had given notice of his amendment, and from the number of public meetings which had been held up and down the country, the right hon. gentleman must be pretty well aware by now what a nest of hornets he had got into. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But he would now go on to consider his last objection to the budget—its foundation on a one-sided and uncalled for commercial treaty. One of the sentences in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech the other evening most loudly cheered by those around him was that in which he said, •‘ We have done doubly good—good for ourselves if France had done nothing, and doubly good bee ruse France had done a great deal." The right hon. gentleman himself must admit that the converse of that proposition was true, and that if what he had done could be shown to be financially bad, it was doubly bad in connection ith a one-sided treaty. It had been his fortune to enter the house just at the close of the great struggle be tween free trade and protection, and he was one of those who went through what was called the ceremony of "bow ing the knee," but in thus bowing to the voice of the coun • try he had always understood that the policy of free trade was hereafter to be adopted by the country in its fullest and most extended sense. (Hear, hear.) But the more he scrutinised this treaty the more puzzled was he to discover on what principle it was framed. If it was free trade they were aiming at, why, in the name of the past free trade, had they taken up with such an extraordinary fhea sure as a free trade treaty ? It could not be re ciprocity surely, for reciprocity he had always understood must be conducted on fair and equal terms. To use a fa miliar instance, if you asked a man to your house one week and he asked you back to his the next, and treated you with much the same fare, that would be reciprocity; but if you were called upon to admit into your house at all times and seasons a crotch etty neighbour, who kept his door absolutely slammed in your face for one year to come, and then only promised to open it half-way, keeping up a good strong chain all the time to see how he liked you, that was not re ciprocity. (Cheers.) The house had been told the other night, that our old friend Protection, having been driven from the palaces of the earth, had taken refuge in holes and corners. The hon. member for West Norfolk, if the quo tation had occurred to him, while defending the rags and remnants of his ancient faith, might have replied,— " Extrema per illos " Justitia excedens terris vestigia fecit." (Cheers.) But this was the unkindest cut of all, that the arch high priest of free trade should abjure the worship of his favourite deity, and fall down on his knees before the snonstrum horrendum called one-sided reciprocity. (Cheers.) The privilege which the House of Commons had always valued most highly was that of remitting and imposing taxation, but if it passed the treaty in its present shape, it would be cutting off valuable sources of indirect revenue, and fettering in a most arbitrary manner the whole system of taxation for years to come. (Cheers.) No matter how great the financial exigencies of the country might be—no matter how great the political difficulties in which we were involved—once bound by this treaty, our hands would be inextricably tied unless France consented to unloose them. What man could tell what would c e.mr even in six months P Iu 1853 the right hon. gentleman had endeavoured to cast the horoscope of 1860, and signally failed. (lcer, hear.) There was but one little cloud in the sky, but it was un heeded, and in a short year we drifted into war on a peat.. budget. (Hear, hear.) The political and financial horizon was now eark enough, but it was fondly hoped that with a war buds:ref we should drift into the haven of lasting peace. He might be blind, but he felt cons inced that he should have companions in his blindness, when he professed himself unable to discover the objects of this treaty. Was it to enable the Emperor of the French to exhaust our resources of steam coal, and to enable him to supply himself with one of the most important elements of naval warfare? If tha were the case, the proposal should have his most decided op position: (Hear, hear.) According to the hon. member for Birmingham, one colliery in the north would suffice for the whole French navy; but if that were the case, how was it that the price of coal was rising, and that that which was now a luxury for rich and poor promised soon to become an expensive luxury for the rich alone ? (Hear, hear.) If the object of this treaty were free trade, how could the reten tion of the differential duties on foreign shipping in French ports be fora moment defended ? (Hear.) If it were a fair, impartial treaty, why should the Government have endea voured to stifle the discussion of it ? why should it have been smuggled into the house and shaken out of the same bag as the budget —a pair of worthy companions undoubtedly? (Hear.) It was said that a similar treaty was one of the most glorious acts of Mr. Pitt ; but now it appeared that Mr. Pitt's policy was so antiquated that it was necessary totally to reverse it. He took the treaty first, and then the budget ; we were to have the treaty and the' budget together, and then, when the mischief was done, there was to be a sepa rate discussion on the treaty It was said that this haste was necessary in order to defeat the opposition of the French Legislative Assembly, which in this instance spoke the wish of a large majority of the French people ; but this was, in his opinion, an additional reason why the measure should receive the strongest opposition. They were told that the extension of commercial intercourse with France would carry with it, to the furthest ends of Europe, the bless ings of peace and civilisation. An object such as this would at all times enlist his hearty eoncurrence ; but he ventured to question the means by which these blessings were to be extended, and the permanence of an alliance which was to be cemented in such a fashion. He had now brought to a close his remarks on the financial propositions of her Majesty's Government, having, he feared, but feebly and inefficiently discharged the duty which he had under taken. He had endeavoured to show that the financial scheme of her Majesty's Government was one which failed to grapple with the exigencies of the time, and had disap pointed the just expectations of the people ; he had at tempted to show that it was based on unsound and danger ous principles of finance, that it was clogged with a com mercial treaty, and that it forced a rivalry of commercial interests upon an irritated and distrustful nation. The proposition had been recommended to them as a budget of peace—he called on the house to reject it emphatically as a budget of war—of war to the future security of our domestic interests, and to the future permanence and tranquillity of our foreign relations. He had listened and shared in the thrill of admiration at that magnificent peroration in which the right hon. gentleman commended his financial scheme to an impartial trial at the bar of the British Legislature and of British public opinion. That impartial trial he did not doubt they would both receive at the hands of Parlia ment. But the right hon. gentleman had so often charmed the house with his eloquence—his tongue had so often dropped manna, and made the worse appear the better reason—that if it vtere left to some novice in Parliamentary discussions to decide, he would feel at a loss whether to select him as a model for future study or for present imita tion. If, in the course of his varied career, he had shown that he could with signal success invoke an English House of Commons to sanction his own elaborated schemes of financial policy, he had shown also that for the measures of a rival he had spells to invoke them to censure and con demn. (Hear, hear.) It might be that in the hands of an uninstructed novice the charm of the arch-magician would lose its power—it might be that the arrow which he now ventured to borrow from his quiver would recoil upon him self—(hear, hear).- —and he would, therefore, conclude the imperfect observations which he had addressed to the house in the same words which, eight years ago, summoned the house to pronounce the doom of a Conservative budget and make an end of a Conservative Administration : " I feel it my duty to use that freedom of' speech which I am sure, as Englishmen, you will tolerate, when I tell you that if you give your assent and your high authority to this most unsound and destructive principle on which the financial scheme of the Government is based—you may refuse my appeal now—you may accompany the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the lobby; but my belief is that the day will come when you will look back upon this vote—as its consequences sooner or later unfold themselves—you will look back upon this vote with bitter, but with late and ineffectual regret." (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman concluded by moving the following resolution :—" That this house, recognising the necessity of providing for the increased expenditure of the coming financial year, is of opinion that it is not expedient to add the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordi nary revenue, and is not prepared to disappoint the just ex pectations of the country by re-imposing the income tax at an unnecessarily high rate." Mr. BENTINCK seconded the motion. Mr. LEVESON GOWER said he believed the budget, as a general scheme, carried out the great commercial policy initiated by Sir R. Peel. For that policy he entertained the greatest admiration ; but the motion which they had just heard was in every respect opposed to it. There could be no doubt that all the objections they had heard against the treaty were based upon protectionist principles. There was no force in the objection that it was a one-sided treaty, for, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained, they could not expect to receive indemnity from another coun try, but should be satisfied at receiving additional benefit from the engagement - itself. (Hear, hear.) Protected trades suffered by the very protection afforded to them. Mr. Ellice, of Coventry, and Mr. Williams, of Maccles field, objected to the free trade proposals of the late Mr. Huskisson on the ground that, if they were carried, Coven try and Macclesfield would be ruined. He was sure that the hon. member for Coventry was now glad that he had failed in opposing Mr. Huskisson's proposition, because the state of Coventry and Macclesfield showed the advantages which had resulted to them from free trade. Next it was said that the reduction of the wine duty would not increase the sale of wine. But this he denied, for on referring to Mr. M'Cullagh'a book, he found it there clearly demonstrated that the reduction of duty always led to a large increase in the sale of the article on which the reduc tion took place. But it was said that wine would never be an article of consumption here, as it was not suited to the taste of the people or to the climate of England. But what was the fact ? Why let them take the article of claret. In Holland the importation of that character of wine was five times what it was in this country, and though the popula tion of Holland was considerably smaller than that of this country, yet the consumption of wine was fifty times greater than it was in this country. Yet Holland was a much colder country than England. The facts were applicable to Sweden, Hanover, and other northern countries. Now, until the duty on wine was lessened, they never could hope to establish free trade with France, but a reduction of the wine duty would lead in the end to this desirable result. Then, with respect to coal, it was said that by taking off the duty on that article, they were giving up an advantage to France which would be highly prejudicial to this country. But how so ? Not, certainly, as regarded the quantity of coal produced in this country, for, according to the autho rity of the best geologists, there would be sufficient coal in this country to supply the industrial requirements of this country for the next 2,000 years. This being so, he thought it was time enough at the end of that time to consider the effect of foreign ports being opened for the admission of our coal free of duty. (Hear, bear.) The argument, too, that the llth article of the treaty would enable France to have English coal cheaper than England herself, was purely a fallacy. He had recently read a paper on the subject of coal in France, and it was clearly shown that there was in that country a large quantity of coal suited to maritime purposes, but no efforts had been made to extract it. If France would persevere in the course of policy initiated by the treaty of commerce, by other acts of a similar character, the result will be that the people will cultivate the arts of peace, and instead of following the false glare of military glory, would seek to exalt their country among the nations of the earth, on account of the manner in which she sought to promote the advance of trade and commerce, and those arts by which its social and industrial character would be upheld. Lord ROBERT MONTAGU said it might be true that the treaty with France was, commercially speaking, a good treaty, but there were other interests to be considered in re gard to this treaty. The Emperor of the French seemed to act upon the principle of the necromancer in the Arabian tale, who cried "Old lamps for new ones." He said to Eng land that she had old shippinglaws and Customs duties and that if she gave them up ho would give in exchange new principles that would promote their welfare, while it served France. They had, however, the fact communicated to them that the proposed change had given offence in France and he must say, notwithstanding the assertion to the con trary, that the treaty was not advantageous to this country. Re contended that the 3d article of the treaty was clearly against the interest of the shipping of this country, while it was beneficialto that of France ; and, as to ccal, that article was to be sent everywhere free of duty except to the metro polis of this country. In 1842 when Sir R. Peel imposed the income tax it was to be only for three years, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed it in 1853, he said it was to be only for a short period. It seemed however to be a perpetual tax renewable from year to year. (Hear.) Mr. BAXTER said that representing as he did great commercial interests, he was desirous of offering a few observations. He considered that this was the very best budget which had been proposed since the day. of Sir Robert Peel. He considered that the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exehequer was a dis play of eloquence which had never been surpassed in the House of Commons, but that speech did not need any praise from him. Let them look at one great fact, that with the vast empire of France, with a population of be tween 40 and 50 millions, the amount of the exports from this country for the last year amounted only to about £200,000. He was certain when the great body of the French people tasted the fruits of free trade policy they would be desirous of going on still farther in the same direc tion. When it was complained that France did not give us equal advantages under this treaty, it ought to be re membered this was getting in the small end of the wedge, and besides, we should remember how comparatively short a period it was since this country accepted the principles of free trade. He firmly believed that the time was not far distant when they should have a similar treaty with Spain, and with Austria, and, in fact, he looked upon this treaty as being the inauguration of free trade throughout Europe. (Hear, hear.) The argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Du Cane) simply amounted to this, that under the new sys tem the wine would become so bad that they could not drink it, it would become so dear that they could net obtain it, and at the same time it would seriously affect the reve nue at present derived from beer. Now, under this treaty, he (Mr. Baxter) believed that the trade of England would receive a great stimulus. As regarded wine, they found the adulteration of wine was carried on to a frightful extent, and in this matter alone the provisions of the treaty would have a most beneficial effect. Looking at the political as pect:of the question, he would ask, How was it there was so frequently such a war of words between this country and the United States, and that neverthe l e ss they never came to blows ? Why, it was simply because of the commercial intercourse that existed between the two'countries.— results hear.) —Looking at the vast empire o f France,,wha t t r ( es ' of the most beneficial kind might they not expect whoporethsuolt to this country in a commercial po int of view, y . had before them the example of their commercial relations with the United States? As to they abours of th e e ho ho l n d . member for Rochdale (Mr, Cobden), r t v h e ie d tgetittyue wouldu be fully carried out, he (Mr. Baxter) be confer by it as great a benefit to this country as he did when he carried the repeal of the corn laws. Mr. LIDDELL thought the advantages of this treaty were not to be measured by common rules. He objected to this motion as an abstract resolution upon finance i which depended entirely upon the c i r cumstances of fthe time were the circi a rm nd - the exincies of State. stances o ge f the time ?the The EiNeenro'rwofl thethe F rench _found hi ms elf wanting the moans for many of .t most valuable arts of peace. The treaty_was an abso u e necp in isity for the w be as onlybeginning to see F s upply of those means. her way, and the a dvantages to her would be certain. The question was whether the .. advantages would be equally g reat to ourselves. He beireved in his heart that it would. The extension of trade with a great and powerful neighbour was a most impor tant advantage, and he said confidently that no man living could anticipate the results. (Hear.) Now, as to the exigencies of the State, it was impossible to hide the fact that, while on the one hand they were making great sacrifices to France, they were on the other hand re quired to make unprecedented sacrifices in time of peace. (Hear.) He deplored their military expenditure. He thought the existing scheme was one means of lessening in time these enormous estimates. The present and any Go o vernme nt in France must o be y the im p uls ive energy of the people of that country, and the more the'ir Interests were united to our own the greater would be the chanc es o f p eace, and a relief from the burdens of war. An hon. gentleman said that the present alliance between the two countries wag; t a hollow alliances but did be t 144 it W 0 tba 4 1,1 Ma, a it more PETITIONS. The presentation of petitions, ehiefly in favour of and against different portions of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer's Brldget, occupied nearly an hour. THE BUDGET. Sir W. MILES said that he intended to move the omis sion of the 16th and 17th clauses of the budget, and that the sum 10d. should be reduced to 9d. (Hear, hear.) TROOPS ENGAGED IN THE PERSIAN WAR. Mr. ADAM asked the Secretary of State for India if he would state the substance of any communication which he had lately received from the Government of India, regard ing the payment of extra batta t o the troo p s engaged in the Persian war; and, whether her Majesty's Government wero prepared now to recommend the payment of such batta? Sir C. WOOD said that the Government of India had recommended her Majesty's Government to allow six months' donation. If Parliament acceded to that proposi tion, no time would be lost in waking a financial vote on the subject OFFICERS OF THE ARTILLERY. Lord BURGHLEY asked the Secretary of State for War when the field allowance claimed by the officers of artillery and of the line, who were sent in the year 1857 to the attack of Canton, in lieu of the consolidated allowance which they were ordered in April, 1859, to refund, was to be repaid. Mr. S. HERBERT said that the allowance in ques tion had been granted to some of the officers, and would be paid to others who might apply for it. THE VOLUNTEER CORPS. Col. NORTH asked the Secretary of State for War, if the fees to be paid by officers of the volunteer carps far their commissions will be the same in all counties; and: if so, what amount they will be called on to pay. Mr. S. HERBERT said he had no authority to adjudi - cate on the q ues ti on as t o what amount of fees should be paid, but it was intended to pursue the precedent laid down by his precleceesor in. office. Mr. pAL-K. asked the Secretary of State fur Foreign a Affairs whether coinraunication, made to her Majesty's , vas to tthoesa, Atnbassador, effect that, in the case of annexa tion of Central Italy was of obininn that it wodinia, the French Government have somemcrease of tenitoliriclbe necessary for France to on the side of Savoy : whe ther the Secretary of State for l ;'oreig n Affairs will lay this the table of the house ? despatch and communication upon'iwould not be convenient Lord J. ItUSSELL said that to supply the information required Ao so that' day fertnight. AT ZOI.twICH. at preker.t. but he would TIIE 'ALLEGED BRIBERY Attorney -General ,Mr. E. JAMES inquired of the wi 1 0 ,`her his attention had been called to certttitErYo-ceedings at 1 \lorwich, with reference— to the alleged Vox • and to the refusal of a witness, a magielYstroafteoric)f Joel the sa. city, t o answer certain _questions on the ground Id 1 ,;nswers thereto might tend to criminatete hihimsel f; that th and to 1 bsf4onduct of certain other magistrates in v o ti ng djaurnment of a charge in whichthey were all ege d for the a to be imp Heated . The Al YORNEY-GENERAL said he did not think it acce ssary eo pr efer any crimin al indictment in the case al hurled to. .R.IDDISTR.ATION OF BIRTHS, &c. (IRELAND). ,Lord. DITNKELLIN asked the Chief Secretary for Ire lana. , w hether her Majesty's Government proposed to take any e t cps -to the pro-motion of a general system of regiat t itio* of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland during i his session of Parliament. Mr. C. A.RDWELL said it was intended by Government to take su‘ la steps on'an early day. _. 10MMISSION ON EDUCATION. Sir J. PA VINGTON asked the Yice-President of Coin _ \ _ _ • - ..„ stable by throwing away this treaty ? (Hear, hear.) He was prepared to say that this treaty was the best guaran tee for peace, and for that reason he was prepared in the main to support this budget. Mr. DODSON said that the income tax would tend to produce a spirit of economy on the part of the house and the people. (Hear, hear.) It was said that this treaty was politically wrong, but commercially right. He was almost inclined to reverse that dictum. The Chancel- _ . for of the Exchequer had contended some years ago, in op position to Mr. Oliviera, that a reduction to the extent of ls. per gallon on wine would produce very little effect on the consumption. But they must consider the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1860 as replying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1856, and say whether or not he had the best'of the argument. It was difficult to trace the precise effect of the wine duties. The reductions effected in 1787 _ _ by Mr. Pitt had the effect, for some years, of largely in creasing the consumption. But there were additions made to these duties in 1795, and in 1803, 1804, and 1805, none of which, however, materially affected the consumption, while, at the same time, they brought an increase of reve nue. It was not till they got to 1813, when the duties were very high indeed, that they found both a diminished re venue and a diminished consumption. In 1825 Lord Ripon reduced the duties on wine by nearly 50 per cent., and in 1831 the duties on all kinds of wine were equalised. The effect of this was an increased consumption, which, however, by no means kept pace with the increase of popu lation ; and in 1858, and over an average of six or seven years preceding, the consumption of wine per head had not been so great as it was in 1813 and 1814, at the time when the wing duties had been raised to the height of which he had spoken just now; Social habitshad a greater influence than any change of duty on the extent of consumption. He should accept the treaty in the hope that great and lasting good would spring from it. (Hear,. hear.) It seemed to him that the budget was not more remarkable for its bold- ness than for its foresight. It was a plan which would lay the foundation of a wealth which would hereafter amply repay us for any sacrifice which we might temporarily make for the purpose of carrying it into effect. Mr. DAWSON said the people of Ireland would'not be satisfied with the financial expectations of this year as likely to foreshadow the future financial policy of the . . country. The income tax was originally imposed only for three years; but had now become a permanent one ; and he believed it would not only be kept on, but increased. As a salve for this evil, which was now declared to be a necessary one, they had giyen them a treaty with France, by which we gave them coal and iron, essential for their commercial and aggressive purposes, in order that we might have cheaper wines for the wealthier classes. Ireland must feel a considerable loss in the admission, free of duty, of eggs and butter, for she now exported 50,000,000 eggs, and pro duced a far larger quantity of butter than she consumed. Take next linen; a duty of 20 per cont. ad valorem or even of 25 per cent., the maximum duty after October 1, 1864, would be prohibitory. Even if the duty were reduced to 10 per cent. when the French manufacturer could import machinery free, he would have the advantape over us. For some years the restriction on the exportation of machinery was abandoned. The French were the greatest linen con suming people in the world. The blouse was worn by all the peasants and the artisan class. The trade had fallen from £1,000,000 to £150,000, owing to the facilities given to France to import free machinery, and now by giving them coals and iron we should make them our competitors in all the markets of the world. Unless the duty were re - duced to 10 per cent., the linen trade would gain no benefit whatever from the treaty. The people of this country ought not to be so severely taxed as was proposed, under this scheme, for the sake of any treaty which would not given them equal advantages in return. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CROSSLEY found considerable disparity in the views of hon. members, and it was alleged there was no use in taking the duties off wine and paper, for they would get them no cheaper. With respect to the system of libenses, he thought the right hon. gentleman must alter it, because he could assure him the extension of beer-shops in the country had produced great evil. He quite agreed with him that in taking off a portion of the wine duties he must extend the places for sale, but if he did so, the parties ought to be placed under the supervision of the magis trates and the cognisance of the police. It would be a great injustice to the licensed victuallers, who had a large pro perty embarked in trade, to allow parties to obtain licences at the option of paying a certain sum of money. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would take care that no such in justice was perpetrated, and as regarded the budget gene rally, it had his cordial concurrence. Mr. P. HENNESSY, as an Irish member, thought the budget of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the very worst ever presented to Parlia ment. He referred to a number of articles where all the gain under the proposed system would be £580,000 to the English, and less than £2,800 to Ireland. In 1840, the populatioa of Ireland was something over 8,000,000, and the population now was something over 7,000,000 ; but in 1840 the larger population consumed somewhere about 4,000,0001b5. weight of tea, while now the smaller popula lation. consumed 10,000,0001b5. of that article, so that the larger population, as ho said, consumed less than the smaller, and whilst last year the duty paid on tea amounted altogether to £4,700,000, the duty in Ireland alone amounted to £700,000. He should confine his remarks to those few facts, and looking at them seriously, he believed they justified him in giving his vote against the budget. Mr. GRANT DUFF said, with regard to the wine duties, it had been said that it was impossible that the British palate could ever reconcile itself to the French wines. In refutation of this he would only refer to the case of Scotland. It was perfectly notorious that up to a very recent period French wines were very largely consumed in Scotland, and hon. members would remember the adage— " Firm and erect the Caledonian steed, Prime was his mutton and his claret good : ' Let him drink port,' the English statesman cried : He drank the poison and his spirit died." (Hear, hear.) And a countrymen of his own, Sir R. Gor don, in his travels, related that he found French wine in Morayshire actually cheaper than he had found it in Normandy. With regard to the paper duty, there seemed to be a general consent in the policy of not keeping it up an hour longer; and whilst a great deal was said about the height to which the education vote was rising, he must observe that there was no education like that which a man gave himself by reading when once the rudiments of education had been acquired. Cheap books were a most important element of education ; and if this educa tion were not exclusively spread among the working classes, an extension of the franchise would be a curse instead of a blessing. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) The proposed simplification of the tariff would, he thought, have I an advantage both ways. It would not only have a general effect, but, by cheapening a number of foreign articles, it would cause new branches of invention and Industry to spring up. (Cheers.) Besides which, the obnoxious searches at the Custom-house, which all had experienced with so much annoyance, would be done away with. It might be said that these rerations would affect only the upper and middle classes, but it was these classes after all which con tributed most to the revenue, and it must be always remem bered with satisfaction that we had no passports and no quarantine. Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said he fully appre ciated the great merits which were contained in the scheme which was at present under the consideration of the house. When the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer sat down, an hon. gentleman rose in his place and said he had never listened to a speech in which there was more tinsel. (Laughter.) He (Sir S. Northcote) was fully prepared to admit that there was a great deal of real ster ling gold in the proposals of the right hon. gentleman; but then he could not help remembering an old proverb, which told them that gold might be bought too dearly. (Hear.) They must consider whether on the whole the benefits offered to them were worth the price which they were called upon to pay for them. There was one consideration which im mediately suggested itself, and would occur to the minds of hon. members, namely, the great benefits which they were told would be derived from the simplification of the tariff. Much discussion had taken place on the policy of such a course, and the right hon. gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said in that discussion that it was desirable to get rid of those infinitesimal duties, and that when they came to balance the gains against the losses, they would find the advantage in favour of this country. He did not now wish to express any opinion on one or the other side of that question, as it had yet to come nnder their consideration in the course of the discussion which would take place on the treaty. But he wished to say a word in reference to that important part of the subject, the treaty with France, for it had been arranged that the treaty and the budget should be considered together. A great deal had been said on both sides of the house, but more particu larly on the other side, that this treaty was contrary to the principles of free ti agile. That observation had been made made J h ,testingly, perhaps, on that side of the house, buth i s con fessed that when this matter first presented itself to mind, he was not disposed to think there was anything con trary to the principles of free trade iu it. He had always reciprocity e been were uot brought very up much intihne favour opinion ef that tne treaties p rin mar ut ain d by the free trade school ; but without caf ) r e y e i u ng etple :f inta v in e e l i rigorously the doctrines which might ha v e condemned on that ground. If a measure by no means to be . at different periods on that question, he to ok it_ that this was d to the duties on wine was in this treaty with regard hon. members would consider what the nature . of the provi sion which made • it appear thae they would see it was a very loose provision. There was nr thing in the treaty at first sig ht the duties imposed upo n French wines were lighter than those imposed upon the wines of other countries ; but if hon. members would consider they would see that there was a considerable difference. The duties proposed by the treaty to be imposed on the importation of French wines wore, upon wines of 15 degrees of proof spirits, ls. per gallon; upon wines from 15 to 25 degrees, Is. 6d. per gallon; and upon wines containing from 26 to 40 degrees, 2s. per gal lon, that was to say, eighteenpence as against one shilling, upon wine which contained a higher degree of spirit. The effect of the treaty would be that the wines of France would be imported into this country at ls. a gallon, and the wines of Portugal at ls. 6d. a gallon. That was a very questionable policy, and it was certainly not in accordance with the principles of free trade. If they went to Spain and Portugal, what inducement could they offer those countries to import their wines ? They would say, " You have so arranged your duties that the wines of France shall come into England at a lower price than ours, and you must rearrange your duties so as to allow us to enter your market on the same terms." But this country would not be able to do that, because it is bound by the terms of the treaty for 10 years to maintain the differ en ti a l d uty. It might be said that it was unreasonable on their part to condemn the treaty, b d e e utbhtefu reall , it effect. W as e t h f eti the e d t u r t e y a t t y o c u l p o e s n e I y t h e e x but surely when there wer e ma t ters like these so very g a min euer e a l w i u h t a e t r e w s o tz u l e d f r e eat th o e hj t e r c e t a i t o y n ; w ap as a , rt th fr a e t m it thtieedcounps rationitdhee this eof the country. detailsliisgreat hands of the Government for 10 years. (Hear.) He was quite willing to admit th a t h e s aw many advantages to be derived frith the treaty. (Hear.) He believed that, though it would not give them all they had a right to expect, and though it contained conditions which might bo embarrass ing to the Government, yet, at the same time, he quite ad mitted it made a breach in the prohibitive and protective system of France. (Hear.) His objection was not to the advantages, but to the price that was to be paid for them. 1 The hon. member for Montrose had that night paid a high tribute to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, he said, was characterised by its simple eloquence. It was eloquence, no doubt, but as to its being "simple eloquence," ho could hardly admit that. (Hear.) But sub sequently the hon. member for Montrose had illustrated his meaning of the term "simple eloquence" by telling them that all the great ad vantages that were to be derived from this budget would be obtained by only an additional penny to the income tax for one year, Well, the Chancellor of the Exche • quer told them that ho had a deficit of £9,400,000 to make up, and he sketched various modes by which that might be done before coming to the plan which he proposed for the acceptance of the house. What was the plan ? He ex pected £8,472,000 at the result of collecting three-quarters income Up; within the present financial year, lie pro posed to take up in advance £1,400,000 of malt duties, and to receive from the continuance a the war duties on tea and sugar £2,100,000. But he (Sir S. Northcote) contended that if they did that, apart;; from uncalled-for reductions, they won ld not require a 10d. but a 7d. income tax. If they were to collect 7,loths of that income tax within the year, 7 _mh o o f a 74 , biome tax would give them £5,900,000. Add to that the ,£1,400,000 malt credits to be taken in ad- vance, and the £2,100,000 tea and sugar duties, it world make a total equal to the deficit of £9,400,000. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—How will you get a surplus ? Sir S. NORTHCOTE said he did not think that a large surplus was required, and he believed that the natural rate of progress in the revenue which had been maintained for the last 10 years would have provided an ample surplus. Ever since 1852, the income from revenue duties had shown great elasticity. But what he was anxious to point out to the . house was, that if the consumers were to be relieved _ to the amount of £4,000,000, the price to be paid for that relief was not only an additional ld. of income tax, but an additional 3d., because he had shown that if the object was merely to meet the deficit of £9,400,100, a 7d. income tax would have been amply sufficient. (Hear, hear.) But if they accepted the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though their revenue might increase in future years, it would do solvery slowly, and in the meantime the country would have to bear taxation of some kind or o th er t o meet the deficiency caused by the remissions proposed by the budget. He believed that if the deficiency was met by the continuance of the income tax, that next year they would have not a 10d. but a ls. income tax, and perhaps more. When people, therefore, out of doors, and hon. members in that house, talked of getting the advantages of these re missions for a single penny of income tax, they were quite in error. Next year the Government would not be able to take up £1,400,000 of malt credits-- they would still have to pay the war taxes en tea and sugar, and they would have nothing to replace the absolute loss caused by the total abolition of the paper duty. That loss was estimated byithe Chancellor of the Exchequer at £1,000,000 for the present year, but next year it would be £1,200,000. Looking :at the paper duty from 1849 to 1858 he found that it had steadily in creased in amount. (Hear, hear.) In the ten years it had increased from £BlO,OOO to £1,142,000, or more than 40 per cent. He did not say that that was any reason for not taking off the duty, or for maintaining a tax which pressed upon a particular interest, but at the same time, when people were talking so glibly about the remission of taxes, and about tiding over the year, it was as well to look for ward and see in what position they would be placed next year. He fully admitted the elasticity of the revenue, but hew were they to maintain the revenue if they took away those great elements, if they totally repealed those pros perous sources of income which were the basis of that elas ticity. He admitted that though the duties on bricks, on soap, and upon glass had been totally abolished, the re venue from the Excise had increased from £15,000,000 to £17,000,000, making an increase of £2,000,000, but the duty on ardent spirits of itself had increased during the same period £332,000, not because of increassd consumption, but because the duties had been raised upon spirits in Ireland and Scotland. Notwithstanding that increase, the people had been in circumstances which enabled them to eonsume the spirits at the higher rate, but there had been no great increase. In 1839 the consumption was 22,962,000 gallons, and in 1858 the consumption was 23,996,000 gallons. (Hear, hear.) The effect of the financial course upon which they were now being solicited to embark w ou ld not le a d to the production of a greater quantity of malt and hops, or to a greater consumption of them. They would cripple themeelves, therefore, in this expectation of a revenue from malt, hops, and spirit, while the paper duties would already have disappeared altogether. If they carried out that line of policy, then, depending merely upon the elasticity of the revenue, they would miserably fail in their calcula tions. So with respect to wines, the duty arising-from which was to recover itself. It was quite an experiment, however, whether those duties would recover themselves or not, and at the best it would be a work of time. There was an article in constant use among the lower classes of the community for example—namely, tea, the reduction of the duties upon which was begun in 1863, when it was reduced from 2s. ld. to is. sd. per lb. That was a great reduction, and the result was a greatly increased consumption. But had the reduction brought the revenue from the tea duties up to what it was before the reduction took place ? At that time the revenue from tea amounted to £5,984,000, but now it was under £5,500,000. Hon. gentlemen told them the right hon. the Chanceilor of the Exchequer was only treading in the steps of Sir R. Peel, and asked them to look at the result. But the circumstances were very dife ferent.- In 1842, when Sir - R. Peel began his reforms, the system of indirect tax a tion had reached its limit, and Sir R. Peel, therefore, said that more revenue must thence forth be derived from direct taxation. In doing so he broke virgin soil, giving the people raw materials in abundance, and the necessaries of life at a cheapened rate, covering the revenue by an income tax, for which he had appealed to the better classes of society, to enable him to set free the trade of the country. Sir R. Peel succeeded, but the right hon. gentleman had not the virgin soil to breakup. Undoubtedly there was some to work upon, but not much more, and whereas Sir R. Peel put on an income tax for three years, the right hon. gentleman put it only for one year, which would not cover his expenditure. The advantages to be derived from this treaty could not be deemed equal to those of free cotton, cheap food and relief from many oppressive Excise and Customs duties. He thought, therefore, they would probably find themselves mistaken in the amount of good which they contemplated from this treaty, but still that consideration was perfectly insignificant In con9arison with another grave objection to which the project was _ open. This system of direct taxation had now got into such a state that it was absolutely necessary to reconsider it, if they wished it to be any longer tolerated; yet the right hon. gentleman was throwing away the opportunity of doing what must inevitably be done next year. At the present time it was impossible to defend that tax as now levied. In. 1860 it was somehow or other to cease, and after the exer tions which had been made to enable the house to keep its word in this matter, they had a fair right to expect that some effective step would be taken for that purpose. Next year there would he an enormous deficit, and whatever might have been the faults of other Governments her Majesty's present Government at least had the credit of having pro posed the highest estimates.-- Under-the_axciting oratory_of the hon. memberfor Birmingham, and in a reformed Plata.- ment, they would find themselves obliged to have recourse to some new mode of taxation. Direct taxation was by no means in favour, and no member of that house had spoken in stronger language against the income-tax than the hon. member for Birmingham. By depriving themselve; of Customs and Excise duties they would really be burning their ships. They would next be told that they must put a tax upon realised property, or else reduce their establish ments. Either of those alternatives would please the hon. member for Birmingham, and indeed, if the budget had been prepared by him, he (Sir S. Northcote) should have re • sisted it as a dangerous measure, but it would not have sur prised him. He was surprised, however, and greatly sur prised, that such a proposition should have proceeded from her Majesty's Government. They were told, too, that this was not all—that a commission was new sitting whichwould probably recommend an expenditure of £10,000,000 or £2o,ooo,ooo—for in these days a few millions more or less were of no great consequence—for national defences. If that were so, it was clear that the present resources of the Government would be insufficient, and in that case he should hope that the plan of the hon. member for Bir mingham, of making a tax of Bs. in the £lOO on realised property would not be seriously entertained. By such a scheme as was now proposed, however, ' they ran the risk of a tremendous diminution of the establishments of the nation, or ele of the imposition of a tax on the holders of property, from which the manufacturers and otherprodueers would be exempt. The Economist—a paper for which he had a great respect—admitted that the proposal had advan tages to offer, though they were to be attained at a great price; but it went out of its way to taunt, unjustly as he thought, the right hon. gentleman the member for Buck inghamshire with too great a disposition to tide over diffi culties. Surely the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) himself was equally liable to such a re proach, and he had rather disingenuously declared that he had so far yielded to the suggestion of the Opposition. fer While ed to a p t h p e r m e appreciating e f s o o r m e h o e f the l a d d v n a n o t t a b g u o t s b which el ev e w t e h r a e t o f it would lead them into a dilemma so serious as there was no previous example of within the memory of any of them. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. AYRTON said he was glad the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had arranged not to bring forward the income tax until they had decided what they proportion were to do with the various complicated matters which he had placed before them for their consideration. He hoped yeart he tincome-taxdhHeypuAcßo: could w ; o ltDo u I nsa d mTi doo b evNr e e d c owemtxhhpeaertaespsre perm an entexpressed adjournment p should bear to theother taxation of the country. M L o r ; t t h t e he de h bat oust would come to a decision on Thursday night. The motion was then agreed to. . The Consolidated Fund (4407,649) Bill was read a third time and passed. VALUATION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion that this bill go into committee, Mr. BLACKBURN moved as an amendment that this helm should go into committee that day six months. ' Mr. LAING supported the motion for going into cora • mittee, which was agreed to. After a short discussion, the bill passed through com• mittee. j, The house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock. , o- oonpetthothrincanomd income -tat THE TREATY OF COMMERCE. The Conservatives who voted with the Government on Mr. Disraeli's motion were Alderman Copeland, Mr. J. M. Gaskell, Mr. P. 3. Humberston, Mr. A. E. Lockhart, Mr. T. Mainwaring, Mr. D. Pugh, Colonel Smyth, together with two or three members described by " Docl" as Liberal Conservatives. _ _ _ The following Liberals voted against the Government : Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Bowyer, Mr. Bracklehurst, Mr. Greene, Mr. M. Hassard, Mr. E. Horsman, Mr. E. MacEvoy, Mr. J. E. Redmond, and Mr. M. Sullivan. With two mop. tions the foregoing are Irish Catholics. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment.—Blotchei, pimples, dry eruptions, and all irritations of the skin soon pass away before the action of this extraordinary Ointment, which produces its effects with a rapidity and certainty never experienced in the case of any other medicine in the world. Many of the ordinary eruptions are caused by suppressed perspiration, and as this penetrating unguent at once opens the pores andlnvigorates the absorbents, it disperses the in flammation by a double &mess. Any lady who is disfigured by cutaneous diseases may quickly remove the blemishes and restore the skin to its natural state. It requires no skill to use it rightly, and all that is required is that it should be well rubbed into the parts affected. BIRTH s. BAGSUAWE. — On the 19th inst., at Sutton-Maddock Vicarage, Mrs. Edward Bagshawe, of a son. JA exsox.—On the 20th inst., at Upton-park, the wife of Welby Jackson, Esq., of a son. PRICE.—On the 20th inst., at Oxford, Mrs. Bartholomew Price, of a son. MARRIAGES. PRIOR—DALTow.—On the 21st inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, Lieut.-Colonel L. M. Murray Prior, D.L., of Earl's-terrace, Kensington, to Laura, widow of William Dalton, Esq., of Sleningford-park, Yorkshire. WILDE—BOUVERIE.—On the 20th inst., at Coleshill, Berks, James P. Wild e , E sq., Q.C., to Lady Mary Ploy dell Bouverie, daughter of the Earl of Radnor. DEATHS. BURGESS.—On the 10th inst., at Naples, Commander GO. Foster Burgess, H.M.S. Cressy, aged 33. DuummoisTD.--,-On the 20th inst., at Albut7-park, Gull& ford, Henry Drummond, Esq., M.P., aged 73. MILL.---On the 20th inst., at his seat, Mottisfont near Itomsey, Hampshire, Sir John Barker Mill, Bart., aged 56. W j n o t hn uuT mr .— ri O gh n t, th K e .i l i 6 . t , h la i t n e st it ., o a y t al S ii. ou la th ri s n e e a, s, LagieedutitG. =era LONDON : Printed and Published by 111 URDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of. Middlesex, Wednesday, February 22, 1860. 4. F rlOO Fon ivliii help mitt the • 1) ati etre of It ber 10, eitly .mon Grol -Jon( ,Will a 'HOF only Prof tali prod sing Two Band princ past missl T' T 1 of tb . to ti purl ledg trieE the Win tton lee atom Win etre ?all the act tam and of 1 bea ter, ma Ma f