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

u the gurns diffe- d take num - ►f that mes of fin the landed ial and u 2. and to be to the Le right coming t of its a would oust of 101 b. in of duty take thi 356,000 the . in— y about eased in 3 it had 1857 it 000, but ringin; r which 1.858 the 843,000. ged, de actually f nearli ) our ex- Lreefold ; 'ng; but It would whether lad of the eman 110 uty—be ty of the regards& let alone Mn of his he would he mem -7 10111 t. Le Chan a gutter )stponutg either to un whim id income n of tau ' the dell- . so either as tax at a would be would be tents to be convinced tat we ex tt ded• so would If, then, any great nine qua'- . (Hear.) ide of the ; he denied. °sty's Go• or the mo• tr.) They a a aurae. , r by means and mode• ionable ob• avoured to Doting that! •ty opposi• ti the quoit.. round teens ng in times rengthened ughly con ►at any Ad• i it did not in'conduet• 'beers.) L.—Haying use, to the 'fess that I apart from onclusion-- s premisses. L. friend has on, I must more hope posed to me right hon. e budget in treaty with ,gl. He 10 tieant conai• •e, but still • cry man re• arable to th• ayourabla to scheme and notion of the rid counter.. 'ectly intelll• Leers.) But take it, have Leans to sup• Lt are termed pport of the i. friend, but !lion to them. ow my right h. lie sari -to great dd.. ions we have difficulty, I and discuie separate and with Frane•, ring the in etail on any ter.) I Ara .s fallen from lation of the ly in one put us to under.. at when they hould retails e-tax. (No, osition to the I maybe al. , part of hisl that the al- .lep the paper or we should luties. (Ne t ,pon the difti• )or duty, and cession I will that my right is view, and r him, which present state ird of Inland position that (hear.) H• rod the leYr o us this con- ies are great, ) great, I say •ia as we pre )nd proposes. ) paper duty uss. It is at per duty and But I passel" isue before tuo come as soon low the right former night vines, or the )n of contract stamp is Id., so small, and paltry tai s indignation u overwhelm ghter.) The ute in conse-_ see a man of Huntingdon re-telling the aturally seek aging, and if ceasions with lie measures id vindicated [ confess that beforo Ins/ )f the future it admitting w denounce• has certainly iber for Hun- Ivo found the resolute and 1 S distinguished opponents of those great measures which have fundamentally reformed your commercial system. (Cheers.) Nevertheless, while I listened to the vaticinations of the hon. member for Buckingham, my memory ran back to the time when I heard him, not in this house, for we then had not the pleasure of enjoying his company here—uttering the, same dismal prophecies on an occasion when it was proposed to do justice to British trade as compared with foreign trade, by imposing a stamp on foreign bills of ex change. Upon that occasion the hon. gentleman was a distinguished member of a deputation from the port of London, and he assured me that if we ventured to impose a stamp duty on foreign bills we should drive the trade from the market of London, and Landon would RO longer be the centre of money operations. That gave me uncomfortable sensations—(laughter)—but we persevered with the plan, the house adopted it, the stamp was imposed, it has contributed for six years to the revenue of the coun try, and London is still the centre of money operations, (Hear, and laughter.) But I have now done, as I promised, with questions of this kind, which, however important, will be more conveniently discussed on another opportunity, and I come to the general issue before us. On Monday night I heard the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucking hamshire explain to the House the dignified course which his party had adopted. The right hon. gentleman said— and I, for one, and I believe the generality of the house, went along with him in what he said—" We have scorned to raise a partial issue; we have rejected the hands that might be held out to us from this and that alarmed and timorous interest ; we have rested our cause on the broad ground of general merits, and on that ground alone we seek to take issue." Upon that declaration of the right hon member for Buckinghamshire, I bethought me of the hang: guage of Burke, who lamented that the age of chivalry had gone ; and for a moment—aye, for a whole evening—l was in hopes that the age of chivalry had come back again— (laughter)—for I heard it declared that it was intolerable to meet a groat measure of this kind—a national and interne • tional measure—by petty and paltry combinations of A and B and C, who object to this and to that, and by putting to gether their separate units endeavour to obtain a mass of force sufficient to overturn the whole scheme. (Cheers and laughter.) Those were the sentiments expressed on Monday night; but it is a bad world we live in—(laughter)—and if any man suffers himself to be deluded for a moment with the notion that high ideas govern the conduct of persons and parties, there is a great chance that in a very short time he will be painfully undeceived. (Laughter.) For my part, I was undeceived when I opened the newspapers next morn. ing, for I found there that a right hon. gentleman had com mitted himself in the manner lam now going to describe. That right hon. gentleman attended a meeting of an alarmed and timorous interest, which, fearful of the withdrawal of the protection they enjoyed, might be acted upon, it was hoped, to oppose a great national measure on account of their own narrow interests. (Cheers.) There is one valuable principle of free trade which appears to be well understood by the hon. gentleman opposite, and that is the division of labour. While the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire was announc ing in sounding periods the high ground on which he took his stand, another right hon. gentleman was holding differ ent language in a different place—l mean the right hon. ba ronet the memter for Droitwich. (Hear, and laughter.) The right hon. baronet attended a meeting of a set of gentlemen who are well known to almost every successive Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, those who are called growers of hops. (Hear, and laughter.) The county to which the right hon. baronet is an ornament is not a great hop-growing county; it produces 11 per cent. of the total consumption, and consequently—l believe lam correct inthe statement — until the eventful week in which we now are the right hon. baronet had never thought it worth his while to attend a meeting of hop-growers. (Laughter.) But on this par ticular occasion, when the financial scheme and a chance of opening the trade with France, were in question, my right hon. friend the member for Droitwich, his bowels with mercy and sympathy moved towards the hop-growers, ap peared for the first time at a meeting among the champions of that sovereign interest. (Cheers and laughter.) And what was the advice given by my right hon. friend within 24 hours of the time when the right hon. member for Buckingham shire had so surreptitiously excited our admiration and al most enthusiasm by the enunciation of lofty principles ? (Laughter.) I have miide inquiry about the accuracy of the report, and therefore I have less hesitation in quoting a few words from it. My right hon. friend spoke among hop growers and said thathe was not connected with a great hop growing county. I suppose his audience knew that as well as. 'he; but he went on to observe that his county had a good deal of land planted with hops, and he thought it right to attend the meeting. My right hon. friend then entered on hops, but very lightly, and did not show that acquaintance with the manipulation of details which no one knew better how to employ when master of details; but it was a resistless impulse which brought' him among those unfortunate people in order to point out the way of salvation to them—(cheers and laughter)—and he said, " I .would suggest, as a matter of business"—(great laughter and cheers)—the house will see that, unlike the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire, who spoke in a tone of feel ing and romance, the right hon. baronet, observing the division of labour agreed on, applied himself rigidly and without any chivalrous feeling to the part alletted to him. (Renewed laughter.) He said—" I would suggest, as a matter of business, that instead of their going to the Chan-. caller of the Exchequer they should instruct their members to go at once to the House of Commons, and say, ' This budget does not suit us, and we will oppose it " As for the budget itself, the right hon. baronet said he looked on it as "a rash, meddlesome, and unsatisfactory scheme." (Cheers from the Opposition.) That is all very well.. Regarding the budget in that light, it is doubtless the right honourable baronet's duty to oppose it, but he never thought it at all necessary to understand whether the hop-growers he was addressing partook of his opinion. He did not go to them and ask, " Do you think the budget bad ?" but he said, " Your particular interests are attacked, and therefore turn against the whole budget." (Loud cheers from the Minis terial benches.) The right hon. gentleman went on : "And if all the interests injuriously affected by it could combine together, giving up their immediate views with re gard to their own individual interests, the result would very soon be to get rid of it altogether. He therefore counselled them to unite with other interests and bring such a pressure to bear upon Parliament as would put an end to the budget at a blow. That is the disappointment which I for one have undergone in comparing a declaration in full of the highest mediaeval spiritmade by the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire with the more practical proceedings of the right hon. mem ber for Droitwich as a matter of business. (Laughter.) But, however that may be, and whatever may be the pro - ceedings that may be taken by those who sat on the same bench with the right hon. baronet at the meeting of hop growers or others, whether reported ;or not reported, hav ing availed himself of the little light that was thrown on • them through the medium of the daily journals, let me now endeavour to deal with the motion as it stands on our books, and apart altogether from the question of what interests can be got to support it. But this lam bound to say, after the challenge given by the right hon. gentleman. —the invita tion given by him to those parties—that lam deeply con vinced that all such invitations in a country like England will miserably fail. (Cheers.) Those who think that this budget does them injustice will use their best exertions to defend themselves upon their own ground and with their own legitimate weapons, but they will not, from fear of losing their own legal privilege, be deluded and seduced into an error so grave as that of absorbing the greatest na tional interests in their own individual and particular con venience as a class, and they will give, I am convinced, an impartial judgment upon the main issue which is brought before them. (Cheers.) The right hon. and learned gen tleman (Mr. Whiteside) who spoke last night described the budget, and referred to the descriptions that had been given of it. He said my right hon. friend the member for Coventry had characterised it as an ambitious budget. I know the position of my right hon. friend, and I cannot in the slightest degree quarrel with him for the use of that epithet, but I am sure he will admit to me that if it shall be found that the people of England receive these financial plans with approval it is not because they are fond of am bitious budgets, but because they wish for measures which they think will contribute to the extension of trade and the prosperity of the nation. (Cheers.) Some one else went far beyond my right hen. friend and said is was an audacious budget. The right hon. and learned gentleman himself would not go so far as that, but said it was a bold experiment upon the country. (Opposi tion cheers.) lam desirous that the house should come to a clear and conclusive view of the question who it is that is treading the safe paths of experience, and who it is that is chargeable to-night with objections and prepositions that are ambitious, that are audacious, or that are bold experi ments upon the country. (Loud cheers.) My hon. friend the member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) gave a different description of the financial scheme. (Opposition cheers.) He gave a description which was not the most complimentary to the author of an ambitious budget. He said, looking at it from a directly opposite point of view, " the Chancellor of the Exchequer can lay no claim to the merit of originality, he is simply walking in the footsteps of those who have gone before him, and because those footsteps have led !Is to safety in other times therefore he walks in them now. ' I affirm that that is the true description of the budget. (Cheers.) It does not lay claim to the merit of originality— if originality be a merit — but, at an y rate, such have neen the providence and sagacity of those who have gone before us that there is no need of originality. They have laid down the pattern of wise and prudent conduct in respect of public finance, and all we have to do is to follow in the course they have indicated. (Cheers.) I must be per mitted to say that I really pass by the proposition of the right hon. gentleman who last addressed ut, who conceives that this motion, which was born at the meeting of a g reat Party, has been adopted in consequence of the determina tion of a distinguished nobleman to come forth from almost monastic seclusion to which he had retired, in order to rescue his country from danger (murmurs)—l can't con - ceive that such a motion is to be regarded in such a light. (Cries of " Who ?") I mean Lord Derby. (Laughter and cheers.) I spea k f rom w hat I have seen reported, without contradiction, as having been the language of the noble earl. (Hear, hear.) That noble earl said that he had determined not to become a candi date for the resumption of his office as Prime Minis ter, after having twice held and lost it in a manner not satisfactory to himself, unless under circumstances of some rash and dangerous scheme vitally assailing the best inte rests of the country. (Cheers.) Under these circumstances he would come from his retirement and again be at the command of his party. (No, no.) I apprehend lam right in supposing that Lord Derby is at the command of his Sove reign. (Cheers.) Ido not wish to detain the house by a verbal contest, but I imagine the right bon. gentleman who last spoke treated this as a motion which did, not disturb the trea and was not intend ed, if carried, to disturb th e Government. (Cheers.) As to disturbing the treaty, the treaty parts with £1,200,00 0 of the ordinary revenue of the year, and the motion declares that it is not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing. the ordinary re venue, and that I understand to be a plain and flat contra diction of our scheme. In the same manor I ant right '' E gtrN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, 1860. were applied in 1842, in 1845, and in 18.53? (Cheers.) There is another view of the case, to which no allusion has been made by gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the house, but which I must confess impresses itself very forcibly upon my mind, and it is this :—I heard with pain the speech of my right hon. friend the member for Ports mouth, which gave the weight of his authority, not so far, as I could understand, in support of the motion, but, at any rate, in disapproval of the financial proposals of the Govern ment. My right hon. friend referred, and my hon. friend the member for Stamford referred, to a political reason for the recommendation of schemes different from those of the Government. My hon. friend the member for Stamford gave us a glimpse of finance to which he would gladly have been a party, and he said that, instead of an income-tax of 10d. in the pound, we ought to have an income-tax of 7d. in the pound. My first objection to that agreeable sugges tion is, that he proposed entirely to abolish the very small and modest surplus which I asked the house to provide, and that entire abolition of sulpha is not, as I understand, a condition or characteristic of safe Or prudent finance. (Hear.) My hon. friend proposed to restore to the revenue what we took away. He proposed to take away 3-10ths of the income-tax, or about £3,550,000, and the difference be tween those sums swallowed up the modest surplia which I have asked. "Aye, but," says my hen. friend, "you have . always an increase from indirect taxes." It happens that we have reckoned that increase already at as high an amount as the opinion of official persons warrants us taking it, and I need not tell my hon. friend we cannot eat the cake and have it too— (laughter)—we cannot reckon a sum twice on theisame side of the account. But then my hon. friend said he would provide a surplus by new taxes. But what new taxes ? (Hear.) By taxes on the trade and industry of the country. Depend upon it if ever you adopt a stationary fi nance—stationary in fact, but retrogressive in spirit—you will not simply stand still; you will lose those continual supplies welling forth year by year from sources which prudent legislation has opened, and you will be obliged to make provision by new taxes, to which my hon. friend so very mildly glanced. (Cheers.) My hon. friend said, we do not make proper provi sion for 1861. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Supposing hon. gentlemen opposite had attained a Spartan heroism, and were as rigid financiers as they are Puritanical Free traders when it suits them—(laughter)—and they had said, "It is intolerable that this £1,400,000 should be applied to the purposes you propose ; take £1,000,000 of it and apply it to the payment of Exchequer-bonds ;" I am not sure they would have had the hop-growers to assist them ; but they would have acted on those high principles of finance which I must say have for many years too t the peculiarcha racteristic of the party which they claim to represent. (Cheers.) But it is not so. They ask you to give the utmost possible relief to the class which chiefly returns members to Parliament—nothing to any other class—and to apply the malt and hop credits as an expedient to meet expenditure in seAdead season, fin accordance with a policy which provides from hand to mouth, looks not to the future, and contains within it no germ of possible improvement. (Cheers.) My hon. friend said, "Take care what you are doing," and he was echoed by my right hen. friend. What are we doing ? We leave to April, 1861, to make provision fir 1861, as we are making provision for 1860—(cheers from the Opposi tion)—and the reason of that proceeding is not concealed. It ii a very tame reason—that we do not recognise this ex penditure as fixed and immutable. We with it to be watched by the people of England, to be controlled by Parliament, and therefore it is well that the Government should be de pendent on Parliament for a portion of the revenue, instead of its being absolutely fixed, in order that Parliament shall have control over the taxes. (Cheers.) Here I think lam entitled to make a strong appeal to my right hon. friend. He did not speak of great expenditure as desirable, or to be looked on with indifference. He, I thought, from the tone of his speech, looked with anxiety, which in my idea every prudent statesman must feel, to see the expen diture increased. I have no article of faith more cardinal than that large expenditure is not only an evil in itself, but constitutes a social and political danger to the country. (Cheers.) But my right hon. friend said, " You will never get down the expenditure until you refuse some of the taxes," and yet he objects to us when the course which we take is to leave in the Parliament of next year the power of employing that lever, if it thinks fit, for the pur pose of acting on the expenditure of the country. .(Cheers.) I must say we are acting on the principle of my right hon. friend, and I shall be very sorry if we have not his aid to give it effect. But here he and my hon. friend came in and intimated that there is a peculiar danger in leaving to the Parliament of next year to make provision for the exigen cies of next year, because it is likely to be a Reformed Par liament ; and so, because it is likely to be a Reformed Par liament, you are to tie up its hands, as a man who holds an estate in fee simple, and has got a disreputable son, entails and hampers it in every way he can, for fear his son will abuse his power. (Loud cheers.) That is the spirit in which we are to act towards the reformed Parliament. We are to go and say to an additional portion of the people, "We hold you worfky to be associated with your fellow citizens in the great and noble office of choosing your re presentatives in Parliament, but when those representa tives come and take their seats in the old British House of Commons they shall find the house denuded, as far as we can effect it, of some of its powers. They shall find that we have done for them something we thought dan gerous to allow them to do for themselves." (Cheers. If there is to be reform of Parliament—if masses of our fellow countrymen now excluded, be they great or small, are to be admitted to the franchise,—let those who are returned to the new house, when they assemble, be heirs to every power, to - every privilege, and to all the liberty of the old ; and do not let us presume to lay the foundations of jealousy perhaps of disloyalty and disorder—by promulgating the doctrine that in proportion to the larger number responsi ble for the election and conduct of Parliament the powers of that Parliament to be limited. (Loud cheers.) That is one way of guarding against the dangers of a re formed Parliament, and it is a way which, under pretence of guarding ag ainst them, in fact aggravates their dangers. (Hear, hear.) There is another method of proceeding which I hope this house will pursue. We are at present returned by undoubtedly a most intelligent portion of the population, but a portion more limited in its numbers than we think desirable. (Hear.) We aro about to admit new classes to the exercise of the franchise. (Hear.) I have got the specific of my right hon. friend for making the now Parliament in nocuous, and I am not able to adopt it. I will give him mine, and leave the house to judge between us. It is a very simple one. When the new class sends to Parliament repre sentatives who will be more peculiarly its own, when these newly-elected stewards enter upon the discharge of their functions, when they come to review the actions of their predecessors, let them find that, though we represented but a part of the people, we held fairly the scales of justice be tween all classes and interests alike. And now I make my second appeal to the House of Commons. I ask you which of the two plans before you best corresponds to the description I have given ? You know well that the interests of different classes are materially affected by different kinds of taxation. Hear my hon. friend the member for Buckingham—how eloquent he is on the sufferings of the long annuitants. I sin very glad that the long annuitants should have a repre sentative in this house ; but there are classes which are not represented, and I want to know what sort of justice it is proposed to do them by the plan of the Government and the plan of the party opposite resmtively ? (Cheers.) Here, again, I must resort for a few minutes to figures to prove my case, and they shall be my last. I apprehend it is an ad mitted proposition that in a certain relative manner, but with much of substantial truth, we may say that indirect taxes upon commodities are paid in a large proportion on a number of articles of consumption by the unrepresented classes, whereas the income-tax is paid almost entirely by the represented classes, and in a great degree by the wealthy classes. These are the terms in which I would state the incidence of the two kinds of taxation, and bearing these terms in mind, I beg the house to observe what has hap pened. Six years ago came the Russian war, and we had to make great additions to the taxation of the coun try. The house thou g ht fit t o ma k e th ose a dditions in cer tain proportions between what was direct and what was in direct taxation. I put out of view now—what if not put out of view would make for my own side—the additional taxes laid on spirits, because I conceive they were permanent additions to the revenue which we gladly adopted. irre spective of the question of what class they favoured, and I look only to the temporary additions which the House of Commons made to the taxation for the purposes of the war. They were these :—ln 1854 and 1855 we laid on for the pur poses of the war £8,557,000 of direct taxes ; and in the same years, also for the purposes of the war, putting aside the spirit duties, £5,450,000 of indirect taxes. The House will see that this is in the proportion very nearly of 8 to 5 ; 8 representing the direct, and 5 the indirect taxes. That was the measure and the mode of the deviation which we made at that period from our old system of taxation, and I think the house will go with me when I say that it was desirable when peace returned, and we began to remit those taxes, that we should not have remitted exclusively or mainly the taxes paid by the classes that, returned us to Parliament, but that we should have observed the same proportion, or at least a proportion equally favourable to the classes not directly represented here. What have we done ? Have we conformed to that law—does the plan of her Majesty's Go vernment conform to it—d oes th e plan of right hon. gentle men opposite conform to it or reverse it ? Here are the figures, and I must say they are more curious than satis factory. In 1557-8 we retained of direct taxes—above the standard provided for peace, viz. id.-12,000,000. We retained of i n di rect taxes /3,ooo,ooo—those on tea and sugar. In 1858-9, when the right hon. gentleman oppo site was in office, we retained of direct taxes of the war —none at all of indirect taxes-13,900,000. In 1859-60 we put on of income tax £4,000,000, not done by the right hon. gentleman opposite, but done by the present Government, in order to meet the charge of the esti mates in the main prepared by their predecessors, and we still retained £3,000,000 indirect taxes on tea and sugar. (Hear.) In point of fact, if we take the totals of 1857 and 1858, we levied of the direct taxes of the war £2,000,000 and of the indirect taxes of the war £6,000,000, and whereas they have been laid on in the proportion of 8 to 5, not much short of double, they were retained in the proportion of 1 to 3. The proceedings of last year somewhat rectified this, because then we should have paid up to April £6,000,000 of the direct taxes of the war, and £9,000,000 of indirect t ax es—the proportion still standing at 2to 3, instead of, as ought, at 3to 2. If the house has followed me in these figures, I think it is clearly demonstrable that, if this house really wishes to show the reformed Parliament which is to follow us that we have done justice as between class and class, something i s due from us to the consumers of the great commodities in which the people take aninterest, and to the relief which is afforded to those classes by the remis sion of duties affecting trade. (Cheers.) If any hon. gentle man opposite says we have made a great mistake in select ing the paper duty instead of the tea and sugar duties— though I may differ from him, though I may enter into an argument to show that it would be bettor for the masses that the paper duty should be repealed, still we stand, at any rate, upon common gr ound ; and I am ready to admit that, as far as principle is concerned, the reduction of the duties on tea and sugar would be as just in intention to wards the masses of the people as the repeal of the duty on paper. But this is not the fac t. Every proposal that has proceeded from the opposite side of the house goes on the principle of maintaining not only every farthin duties in which the masses of the people are directly con cerned as 'consumers. (Cheers.) If I were to take it as a sum in arithmetic, the real state of the case is this :—ln proportion to the nine millions that we have levied of indirect war taxation since th e war, if we had observed the same rule which we observed in laying it on, we should have levied £14,000,000 of direct taxation. In stead of that we have levied £6,000,000, and the balance of £8,000,000 would still be due from those classes. It is under these circumstances, when we have kept up heavy charges on articles consumed by the people, in which the labouring man takes a great interest, that we are again asked to ad minister relief; for I admit that a penny in the pound is a great relief to the classes which have so long been subject to the burden of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) lam qite satisfied with.the issues which haN e been raised. Ido net think it ie necessary longer to detain the House. When hon. gentlemen opposite regret that an unnecessarily high in come tax should be levied, I certainly agree with them. I am sorry that any high income tax should be levied, whe ther necessary or unnecessary. We will debate on the mean ing of theso terms when the proper time conies. For the present, I have endeavoured to direct your attention to this I fact, that the main - proposition of the Um. gemtlmail _th9 ~; ' ' member for North Essex is a proposal which attacks the whole of the past course of legislation since 1842, and which stigmatises it for the past, and which renounces it for the future. (Cheers, and cries of " No.") I have also shown that, if Parliament is to be reformed, the best security we can take for the institutions of the country, for the loyalty of the people under the action of the new system, is to show that we have done justice to all classes while the old one was in existence. (Cheers.) Upon these two issues the house has now to decide, and I am convinced both that their decision will be favourable to the scheme of the Go vernment, and likewise that in delivering it the House of Commons will do no more than echo back the voice which has sounded throughout the nation from one extremity to the other. (Loud cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI then addressed the house as follows: I rise to answer the challenge of the right hon. gentleman, and to interpret the indignant negative which he heard from my friends behind me, and which hosaid I was bound to translate. (Hear, hear.) The right hen. gentleman says the motion of my hon. friend the member for Essex is one which impugns the whole policy of our commercial legisla tion for the last 18 years—that the measures which he in troduced and the policy which he recommended are pre cisely the same as those which on preceding occasions have received the sanction of Parliament and the approbation of the nation ; and that if the house accedes to the motion of my hon. friend, weare doing all we can to reverse the spirit and principle of our commercial code for the last 18 years. But I deny the position assumed by the right hon. gentle man, and deny that there is any similarity between this and the measures of 1812, 1845, and 1853, when he himself in troduced that budget to the house. Sir R. Peel in 1842 and 1845, and the right hon. gentleman in 1853, found or made a deficit ; but when they proposed a tax it was for a period which cevered the period during which the experiment was to apply, and during which the revenue might be rallied. But the right hon. gentleman now finds a deficit—he makes a deficit, and does not propose any experiment by which that deficit can be supplied. (Hear, hear.) The whole of the speech of the right hon. gentleman depends upon this position; for if he be not warranted in the assumption he has made the whole of his arguments and calculations fall to the ground. I hope I shall succeed in showing this to the house. The house, lam sure, will generously remember that the hour is late (20 minutes to one), that this is not an occasion on which I should shrink from representing the opinions of the party which I have the honour to represent. I will therefore consider as briefly as I can, and for the mo ment in a merely financial point of view, tho plan of the right hon. gentleman, and see how. it agrees with the position he has laid down, and how he can reconcile it with the character he has given of the motion of my right hon. friend. Of this budget of the right hon. gentleman, I would say that it aims at too much and provides too little. The right hon. gentleman finds a deficit, he increases it, and he eloses his proposition with introducing a tax of a very extensive cha racter, to exist only for a very short term. The right hon. gentleman has estimated the deficiency at £9,500,000. When he made his financial statement, however, the army estimates werenot on the table, and I think it will turn out that the expenditure for the army will be one million more than appears in the estimates. We heard to-night of an armament sent to China from the India establishment, and when they arrive in China from India they will be im mediately on our own establishment ; in the same way, when regiments arrive here from India, they, too, will be on our own establishmenr. In the same manner I find that only £500,000 is taken for China, an amount ludicrously small. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--You are not to suppose that the vote of credit represents the whole charge of the Chinese war, it only represents certain extra ordinary charges which could not be stated in the ordinary estimates. Mr. DlSRAELl—Certainly £500,000 appears on the irst blush very inadequate to the occasion; the estimate has already assumed the form of £350,008. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated dissent. Mr. DISRAELI proceeded. Without dwelling at this moment too much on the estimates, there should not be a very sanguine anticipation on the part of the house to sup pose that the estimate could not be exceeded. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the enormous deficit already existing, will next year have a fur ther deficit in tho malt and hop credit of L 140,000, and the appropriation of which I protest against as a measure nu - ipund in finance, and of which I am quite surprised the right hon. gentleman should have proposed to avail him self. In 1852 I proposed as a measure of reform the ex- tinction of a small office connected with the Treasury which had a comparatively small sum of public money entrusted to its administration ; I believe not more than £350,000. I proposed that it should be taken, in the revenue for the year, to have a surplus which would be ultimately found in the balances of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentle man denounced the project, but the right hon. gentleman is in effect doing the same thing, but on a much greater scale and under circumstances far less justifiable. We have now that million of Exchequer bonds. Well, sir, I under stand from the right hon. gentleman that we are now in a condition of unexampled prosperity. Well, if we can't pay them now that we are in a condition of unexampled pros perity, when are we to pay them ? (Hear.) The Secre tary to the Treasury, the other night, courteously reminded me that in 1858 I postponed the payment of £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds. Surely the house will recollect the difference of circumstances. The country was still staggering under a great commercial panic. A month before Parliament met the minimum rate of interest was I 0 per cent., and it was felt by everybody that it would be totally impossible under such dream stances to propose taxes which would especially press upon the commercial classes, then suffering under events of so startling and fatal a character. (Cheers.) The proposition I made was unanimously adopted by the house, and no one rose to make the slightest protest against it. I see no similarity whatever between the circumstances of that time and the unrivalled prosperity with which we are now blessed. (Hear, hear.) What we object to in the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it does not resemble the transactions of 1842 or of 1845. It does not resemble the operations of Sir It. Peel, or the operations which the right hon. gentleman himself conducted in 1853. It is be cause the right hon. gentleman has neglected to take the same security—because his plan is improvident, and because imprOvidence under such circumstances is extremely dan gerous—that 1 ask the house to interpose, and express its opinion upon his propositions. (Hear, hear.) What will be our situation next year ? It may not, under ordinary circumstances, be discreet to indulge in very prospective finance ; but it appears to me that it would be perfect mad ness not to contemplate a little what may be our position in 1861. The member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), who has some experience, has calculated the amount of the de ficit ; and I shall confess myself surprised—l can hardly say pleased—if it does not exceed that amount ; but if the probable . deficit in 1851 be £12,000,000, surely the house should pause before it sanctions the propositions of the right hon. gentleman, and should hesitate, with such a prospect before it, before it accedes to a measure which unnecessarily increases that deficit, and of which, if it be not persisted in, the modification would mitigate the pressure of 1861. (Hear, hear.) ,The right hon. gentleman seems to be dis pleased that more than one speaker in this debate should have contemplated the dangerous and inevitable conse quence of such a state of affairs, and should have suggested that there will probably be a very considerable attempt to fasten the expenditure of the country upon direct taxation. The right hon. gentleman has brought forward a paper— and it is nut the first time that he has done so—and he has tried to show the house that in the recent impositions of taxes there has not been that fair proportion between direct and indirect taxation which we believe just and politic. But there is this fallacy in all those papers which the right hon. gentleman read and in the inference which he draws from them. We do not object to a fair proportion be tween direct and indirect taxation in our financial system. What we do object to, and what we are objecting to, is that the direct taxation should take the form of an income tax on this large scale (Cheers.) It is not fair in the right bon. gentleman always to state the question as if it were a competition between direct and indirect taxation, and to describe this side of the house as advocates of indirect taxation as against direct, when the question is not what system is the superior (for I suppose there are very few even now in this house who contemplate a time when a considerable, portion of indirect taxation will not be an ingredient in our financial system)—when the real question, I say, is as to the form of the direct taxation --a form which no one has denounced in stronger terms than the right hon. gentleman himself. (Cheers.) The question is whether that form, the national evils of which he has proclaimed, and the demoralising influences of which upon the people ho has described in such glowing terms, should still exist, and not only exist, but shall under his own administration be increased, without his holding out the slightest prospect er hope that that increase will not go on in a ratio which no one can contemplate without appre hension. (Cheers.) From more than one gentleman who has addressed us in this debate we have heard a great deal about the people, and those who have objected to the income tax in this form and to this degree—to this excess, I will say—have been told that they do not advocate the interests of the masses, who are not sufficiently represen ted, but by whom we now learn the house is to be elected in the next Parliament. (Hear, hear) Well, sir, I pro• test against the justice of those observations. (Cheers.) There is a class of political philosophers who are repre sented in this house, and who think that they elevate a nation by degrading it into a mob. (Cries of "Oh," and cheers.) Sir, Ido not share in that opinion. (Cheers.) The contributors to the income tax consist of various classes in the State. They are very numerous, of very different degrees of wealth, and of very different degrees of cultiva tion and position ; but it is no doubt true that those who pay the income tax are, generally speaking, the " flower of the nation." With them are to be found the traditions, the domestic integrity, and the moral qualities of the nation; and it is in the high spirit of those classes, from the highest to the humblest, that the State must look in the time of its exigency. (Cheers.) It is not true that the payers of the income tax are a class apart from the great body of the people. They form a great portion of that body, and they are themselves divided into classes very numerous and very different in their respective posi tions. lam not sure if you go into the question of the pressure of taxation, Whethei there are not several of those classes who, under the imposition of the income tax, suffer more severely from it than any of the work ing classe s o f thi s coun t r y su ffe r under their peculiar bur dens. lam perfectly ready at all times as freely as any other member of this house to acknowledge how important it is that we should consider the condition of the labouring classes in this country—l know as well as any other gen tleman how much depends upon the ample and remunera tive employment which they may command, and what vi gorous action it gives to the wealth of the country—l know that upon the whole how to accomplish such a result we should extend our commercial intercourse between this country and other countries — (hear)—and I feel, too, that those burdens which remain ought to be judiciously re moved. All these are high objects of policy, and objects which I take for granted the present House of Commons are prepared to accomplish--(hear, hear)—but to accom plish these results only upon the condition that they are practieable and consistent with the financial position of the country ; and we cannot decide upon our financial position without considering it.), some degree the future. (Hear.) Well, sir s let pie say one word upon the point raised in re ' formic° to the commercial treaty with France. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I entirely approve of any means which may increase . our intercourse with Fran je. That has been for many years—at least, a quarter ela century—the object of the constant solicitude with n.may of the Governments of this country. (Hear, hear.) in 1840 we were informed—. not publicly, but it was well I,;nown at the time—that a commercial treaty with Fran „le was in fact, in negotiation, and I ant not aware what ',vas the real reason why it was not ratified, except it wati •in consequence of difficulties which arose with the French Government. I should not have alluded to this circumstance had not a member of the Cabinet risen and referred to it, said had it not been an nounced by a servant of the Crown. When I was Chan cellor of the Exchequer, not a . month elapsed after the Government was in (MICA but they thought of seeing what they could do with Fi ance ; an d a !Ler the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had opened thq more formal part of the business, the Earl of Malmesbury requested, me to place myself in communication with Lotd Cowley. I corre sponded with that noble lord, find I do not say that it would not have taken the form of a treaty but perhaps not the one which I ins been contemplated by the present Government. If 4 .t had been arranged, there would have been mutual alta - mtions in the tariff. (Hear, hear.) What prevented, unfortunately, those changes not tukin g place ? Why, towards the end:of the autumn circum stances arose which rendered it to be our duty when Par liament assembled to call upon Parliament for a great increase-in our armaments, and we found it impossible to have to pass the budget for Sk war expenditure. I was the victim. and my budget never recovered that fatal blow. (Hear, hear.) But we had none of those prejudices which the right hon. gentlemnn imputes to us—(hear, hear) — against the French Gravernment. On the contrary, if the position of affairs had permitted, nothing would be more desirable than that cur commercial relations with France should be considerably enlarged, and they might take the form of a treaty. (Hear, hear.) But my objection to this treaty of the Government is irrespective of the financial one, and which in a moment I will refer to. I think it a very bad treaty which was drawn with less care and with less knowledge of the circumstances with which the nego • tiators had to deal, and I think that altogether, consider ing the many arrangements it refers to, that it will be not only injurious to the interests of this country, but inferen tially. Ultimately it will ha injurious to France, and it will sow the seeds of distrust between the two nations. (Hear, hear.) It is not a time now, at one o'clock to enter into the details. But take the previous clause in reference to coal. I think it is a great mistake, and if acceded to at all, it should only have been upon a reciprocal arrangement on the part of France to let her coal come into this country free of duty. (Hear, hear.) Take the arrangement in reference to the silk trade. That is extremely imperfect. There are articles of our silk manufacture which now enter France at a duty of 16 per cent., and many of them will bo charged a duty of 30 per cent. (Hear, hear.) It is a very great error that France should be permitted to enter i n t o a t rea ty which leaves an export duty upon raw silk and our manu factures subject to a duty of 30 per cent. import duty. There are many other details of great importance ; but I will not now weary the house with them. I object to the treaty as an ill drawn instrument, and under the the cir cumstances I could Rot allow the discussion upon it to pass without criticism and some opposition. (Hear, hear.) But what I object to particularly in regard to the treaty is this, that we have entered into it, and have thereby in creased that deficiency in our revenue, under which the right hon. gentleman is suffering. (Hear, hear.) I will say this of the treaty, that it will add to the deficit at least £1,200,000 immediately; and it is so drawn that, when the right hon. gentleman brings it into full operation, I feel persuaded of this result, that ho will not put it into order without a further sacrifice of £500,000 to the revenue; and that, I think will be a more considerable sum than that con- templated by the right hon. gentleman in his statement when he brought his budget under the consideration of the house. I say, then, as to commereial intercourse with France, there is no abstract objection to such a course. On the con trary, there is the greatest readiness to enter into any ar rangements which have that object; but we object to this treaty, not skilfully negotiated—a treaty entered into at a time which creates a considerable deficiency in our revenue, and probably a much more considerable one thaw is calcu lated by the Chancellor of Exchequer; and we object to the time at which it is brought forward, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer hiinself confessed that the French Go. vernment is bound to postpone the carrying into operation of a portion of it till the year 1861. As there was a secret negotiation, there was not the slightest reason why it should not have been a secret treaty till it was all brought into operation, But I must consider the proposition of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer this year in combination with the budget of 1853. It is a complement to that budget. They are, in fact, inseparably united. Now, what has been the fate of the financial propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 1853 ? and . can we not draw some warnings from their fate as to the probable result of the financial rangements of 1860 ? Tfiere were four great features of the financial scheme of 1853, that famous financisl scheme whose praises have been so celebrated, and on the credit of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has flourished until he made the statement of 1860. fneed hardly take up much time with the first. It was not attempted, I will not say, to pay off the national debt, but t o reduce the interest. But it appeared that when he endeavoured to enter on that enter prise, he found it necessary to give anotice of some months to the owners of some 500 millions of stock, which rendered it impossible to carry out the project. The right hon. gen tleman acknowledged thatthe scheme was an abortion. But I will say in passing, what is perhaps not known, that it WAS an abortion that cost us the whole of the balances in the Exchequer, and that we entered into the great Russian war with a balance in the Exchequer of little more than a million. The second portion of the scheme was a reduction on the tea duties to Is. in the pound. Well, I may venture to say that that was a measure adopted from his predeces sors. I had the honour, when in Lord Derby's Government, to bring forward a proposition by which the duty on tea should be eventually reduced to Is. a-pound, and if that plan had been carried into a law the duty on tea would at this time have been ls. The right hon. gentleman was deter mined to do it quicker than I anticipated, and what is the result ? The duty on tea is now much more than ls. in the pound, and I was quite surprised to find that from the de putation from the tea trade the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer received with some complacency a sugges tion from a gentleman interested, that that duty should be increased Id._apound,_ _ The C II ANCE LLOR of the EXC HEQUER here made an observation across the table which did not reach the gallery. Mr. DISRAELI—One great advantage of the freedom of debate is that we are favoured with a running commentary by the right hon. gentleman. I never object myself to be interrupted, and 1 hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not object in future. Well, that was the fate of his second great proposition. The third great feature of the financial scheme was the succession tax. Let me recal to the house the mode in which that scheme was recommended to us, and the estimate of its produce. Here was a taxdirectly against the landed interest, which recommended itself very much to the hon. member for Birmingham, and which was to produce £2,000,000 a-year, and with these £2,000,000 and £2,000,000 of terminable annuities the Chancellor of the Ex chequer said, " I shall have a pretty good sum of money to assist me in putting an end to the income tax." But the succession tax, instead of producing £2,000,000 per annum, has produced about a third of that sum. The fourth great measure, much larger in proportion, is now before the house, and the income tax, the promised remission of which gained the right hon. gentleman the applause of all parties, and the gratitude of a grateful country, ss hich in 1860 was to termi nate, is now to be reimposed in an aggravated form. (Opposi tion cheers.) The income tax of 1853 is unfortunately still alive, and is a child that has grown wonderfully. The income tax of 1853, which year after year was to diminish, and this year to cease altogether, is now 4 per cent. or 10d. in the pound, was the fourth great measure and the fourth great failure of the right hon. gentleman. And it is in conse quence of this successful measure that we are to put great confidence in the wild and improvident proposition now be fore us. But I shall not state the case unfairly against the right hon. gentleman. He had reminded the house that circumstances intervened which he could not control, and to which he attributed the failure of his arrangements. A revolutionary war which was not expected occurred. But let me remind the house that the Russian war was entered into as an excuse, because he repeated his views and opinions 1 in 1857, when he criticiae 1 the budget of: the right hon. member for Radnorshire. So far as a speech could aid him he recommended the same course himself. So far back as 1858, when I occupied his position in the Ministry, and when the income tax lapsed to 5d., the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ever and still faithful to his pledges, main tained the course which I thou g ht it- my d uty to state.: But now for the plea. Instead of witnessing the termination of the income tax, we are called on, not only to sanction an increase, but also an arrangement which will inevitably cause its re-imposition another year in a more odious form. We are told that it is to the Russian war that we are to at tribute the budget of 1853. Let me remind the house that we now know much more of that war and its causes than we did in 1853. He never had placed on the table the se cret correspondence between our Minister at St. Petersburg and the noble lord opposite, and which, in consequence of authentic information which I received, could not be kept back, and in which we find that no sooner was Lord Derby expelled from cffice than the Russian Emperor declared to the new Government his designs on Turkey. 1 could bring the evidence of a man of great commercial, now of great di ploniatiu reputation—the secret negotiator of the 1 - aria Treaty—l can briug forward Mr. Cobden to prove he never gave a vote with greater reluctance than that which expel. led Lord Derby from office, because, as ho stated, he had not the slightest doubt that that fact produced the Sussian war. (Loud Opposition cheers.) On the Ist January he informed our Minister he intended invading Turkey, the Meuschiketf mission followed, and yet it was with all this knowledge that the right hon. gentleman brought forward his budget of 1853 with all these arrangements, which only the certain expectation of peace could justify. Ho held out to the Pat lament which had long repudiated the income tax a plan for settling this long difference when Europe was on the eve of convulsion, and a war was imminent, in which England must be the prime mover. (Heat, hoar.) But, Sir, is that all ? The Emperor of Russia acted with great hesitation and perplexity, watching the course of the English Government ; and at that period, had that Go vernment been energetic, it could have arrested its course. But wo know that our Cabinet was torn with internal dis sensions with two parties,•by theirown confession in it. We know that if the First Prime Minister had remained the war would not have taken place„ but there was a party that exercised a greater influence than the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, and that Iv:Ls the party that pro duced a peace budget when it should have been preparing war armaments. (Opposition cheers.) - And what was the , consequence ? That famous vote of supply in 1854, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, forced to join in a course that would arrest the progress of the Emperor, and show that England would net be trifled with, proposed to send certain battalions of Guards out to Malta, and proposed at the same time the vote that should bring them back again. (A laugh.) Who could be surprised that war took place three months after such feeble conduct on the part of the English Government? And what has been the consequence of that war ? An addition of £40,000,300 to the debt, en tailing an annual charge of £1,180,000, exactly the sum we are going to pay annually for this French treaty of com merce. Yet we are told of that successful financier who proposed the great budget iu 1853, and who has now brought forward the budget of 1860—that great statesman whose policy is to equalise the incidences of taxation upon different classes who shrinks from unnecessary expenditure —whose constant call is for retrenchment, and who re• sorts to every possible means to lighten the bur den of taxation on the people. (Cheers.) Why, had one of those great statesmen shown more force and firmness and prevented the Russian war, which they precipitated by their feebleness, do you not see that the incidences of taxation would have been much lightened ; and do you not see from what has occurred that other qualities than mere political economy are necessary for the government of nations ? (Hear, hear.) I told you that the budget of 1853 was inseparably connected with that of 1860. You have seen how completely the budget of 1853 was founded on all these four features ; you see why it failed —because external circumstances that were not foreseen by those who ought to have been prescient of them interfered with their consummation. What is the state of a fairs now? Is the aspect more serene than in the spring of 1853? No one can supposed that the right hen. gentle man now is ignorant of the state of external polities. The right hon. gentleman takes great interest in the affairs of Italy. He has favoured us in this house with his opinions on that subject, and if the budget of 1860 ends in that confusion which I believe awaits it, as must await all schemes so truly improvident, he will not be able to tell us next year that his plan has been frustrated by external causes he could net foresee. He takes great interest in the affairs of Italy, though he has quarrelled with the Pope, as he has quarrelled with many other of his friends— having, I suppose, learned that Christian charity which the other night he grudged me for the Greek Church. But, sir, it would be well when' the house has a scheme of finance so improvident placed before it —when a deficit exists, a deficiency is created, and a tax is increased, that at the moment of emergency should be the source upon which we can most rely—it would be well to consider what is the state of our foreign relations. They , contain at this moment the greatest causes that can possibly impel men to action, or that can influence the des tinies of empires. Totally irrespective of many causes of comparative insignificance that in olden times have produced wars, we have now in Italy three causes, any one of which is , enough to convulse the world. We have first the question of Papal supremacy—we have the question of the natural boundary of empires, and we have the question of the na • tionality of races. Each of the first two has in its time pro duced the longest and most sanguinary struggles that have taken place in the history of mankind. The question of the Papal supremacy once gave you the SO year.' war. The question of the natural boundary of empires gave you the long war of the French revolution. 13.,th these questions are still at work, and iu addition there is that which cannot be avoided, nor perhaps long delayed—the question of the nationality of races. And we are told fu such circumstances as these that all statesmen should do is to simplify their tariff. (Opposition cheers.) Why, was there ever a mo ment in the history of the country when we ought more to husband our resources ? Is this a time wantonly to put an end to any of the sources of even ordinary revenue ? Is this the time you should fix upon to anticipate the resources of your direct'taxation? There is not a man out of the house who doubts the course that we ought to pursue. I think the course recommenced by the Government is the most improvident—l could use a stronger word, but will not do so—that ever yet was counselled to Parliament. Under ordinary circumstances I should hesitate to adopt it. But in a moment like this I feel it my duty to thoroughly and completely protest against their policy. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman the member for Liskeard spoke with great friend liness to me this evening. He told me aloud, and of course in confidence—(laughter) —that I recommended my friends to a very unwise course in requesting my hon. friend to propose that resolution which he did with so much spirit and promise. (Hear.) The me m b er f or Li s k ear d sa id t o me, " Why did you have a resolution of this kind—why did you not admit the principle of the budget—that is, the principle of the policy—and worry the Government in corn ruittee. (Laughter.) You would have got a great deal of assistance. I would have helped you, and would have beaten the Government on details." (Laughter.) But nothing could be more unwise than the course you have taken in doubting the propriety of the policy, and chal lenging the whole syetem which they recommend to the country. I have no doubt my hon. friend the member for Liskeard would make a much more adroit leader of a party than I can pretend to be; and it is only, indeed, with the assistance and the constant indulgence of my friends that I can fur a moment pretend to fill and carry out the duties of the office which I now occupy ; but the hon. member for Liskeard will allow me to tell him that he has totally mistaken the motives which influence us— (cheers)—and that those motives are quite different from those which would regulate his conduct. (Laughter.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to deride the speech of my right hon. friend the member for the Univer sity of Cambridge —a speech inspired, I believe, by as true a sense of patriotism as ever actuated any hon. gentleman, and characterised by as pure and noble an eloquence as any speech which has ever been made in this house. (Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to deride the pos sibility that we had any object in the course we have taken but to embarass or subvert the Government. Ho said it is our duty to terminate their Ministerial career if we enter tain the opinion we have expressed. But I differ from him. I remember that the Parliament I am addressing was sum moned by the Queen by the advice of her councillors, of whom I was one, and.fthat Parliament, on its meeting, though by a very narrow majority—still by a majority— expressed that they had no confidence in the then Govern mens of her Majesty—they had no confidence in our foreign policy—they had no confidence in our reform policy. (Ironical cheers.) What confidence the present Parlia ment has in the foreign policy of the present Government I will not at present decide. (Hear, hear.) All I know, as far as I can form an opinion, is that tho affairs of Italy are exactly in the same position in which they were who Parliament was prorogued in August. (No, no.) I think I speak with some knowledge of the circum stances. As far as the reform measure is concerned, I confess that after the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the franchise is to be given to the masses, no bill of reform that we could propose will vie with the coming measure of her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think they have a right to understand that neither I 'or my colleagues after that vote are at all anxious now to attempt to occupy the places whitk they then fired. (Hear.) But I at least ma y sa y f or m y se r that hon. gentlemen for more than two years led this house in a minority. I shrink from the unparalleled anxiety and responsibility of such a post, and I would recommend no gentleman, on whatever benches he may sit in this house, who has any regard for his nervous system—(laughter)— • to aspire to that position. (Laughter.) The important post j which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tills gives an ample opportunity for the exercise of his eager mind and great resources, and ho may perhaps aspire to the proud position of leading this house, which no one could fill more efficiently. (fear, and cheers. But from what I have observed of the temperament of the righthon. gentleman—kcheers)—l think I may tell him that it is as well for him that, however eminent his position, he reposes, at least for a term, beside the multis sapientium of the noble lord the Foreign Se we tary, and the mild patience of the noble viscount—(cheers) —that there is is such a thin.. as fulfilling a noble duty. We are not unconscious of that duty, and we will not enter into combinations and cabals to embarrass the Government. But when a party conies forward with a distinct principle and to advocate a cause which is perfectly intelligible..- which they believe a great portion of the nation sympathise with—to hold that such a party movement is liable to re proach is to confound the nature of things, and not to com prehend the scope and spirit of our constitution. (Hear, hear.) It is the duty, and the noblest duty that can fall to members of this house to fulfil such a task, and such is the course we are now about to take. It is our opinion that the proposal of the Government is one pernicious, impru dent in finance, not to say profligate—one that may lead the country to an extremity of circumstances at this time next year which few can contemplate without the utmost alarm. (Hear, hear) I wish to see such a course arrested. I have no hope that by asserting in this straightforward manner our policy we can accomplish that object at present , but when by this resolution we all declare that to add to a de ficiency is a course in finance to be deprecated, and that we will not disappoint the just expectations of the people by largely increasing the income tax we assert the policy which we believe in, and will maintain. (Opposition cheers.) At least those just expectations I myself will not disappoint, and to the country I ultimately appeal. (Loud cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—Mr. Speaker, I am not going to follow the right hon. gentleman either in discussing the details of the budget of 18,53, or the causes and effects of the Russian war, or the affairs of Italy, or even the nervous system of the right hon. gentleman himself. (Loud laughter.) I beg to say, in passing, that I feel an unfeigned pleasure in finding him in 83 good a condition. I will endeavour in a few short sen tences to recal the house to the subject really now to be decided.; and I will venture to say that a more im portant subject never was confined within six short lines of a resolution, ample enough, however, for the decision of Parliament, without mixing with it those various topics— some personal and others general in their character—with which the right hon. gentleman has indulged in the speech he has just made. The resolution before the house contains a decided opinion upon two great questions, the one relat ing to our commercial arrangements with forei g n countries, the other relating to the developement of our national re soirees at home. Either one or the other is a fit subject for a separate discussion. The hon. member for Essex, how ever, has judged proper to put them both together, and what is the result he proposes to accomplish by obtaining the as sent of the house to his resolution ? Nothing more or less than this, to reject, by anticipation, without any detailed discussion, summari.y the treaty with France, and the budget of my right hon. friend. (Hear.) That intention is sufficiently to be gleaned from the words of the resolution; for if any doubt could have been entertained, that doubt must have been destroyed by the frank avowal of the right hon. gentleman opposite that that is the intention and the spirit and object of the motion now under discussion. I shall not enter into any details as to the treaty or the bud get, because the house knows that we are going to invite it to enter into a discussion of the different provisions of the treaty, and it will have an opportunity of giving its opi niou in detail upon each. We have accomplished that with regard to our commercial relations with France which has been admitted to have been the object of Government after Government in constant succession. We are called upon now, although the right honourable gentleman has not laid the ground for the premature rejection of the treaty by the words of the reso lution to do that which is tantamount to an utter and entire rejection of the treaty. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the budget, by that part of the resolution which deals with the income tax it is palpable that if the house agrees to the re solution they will set aside summarily the whole financial arrangements which my right hon. friend has proposed. The latter part of the resolution disposes of the budget as the former does of the treaty. On what ground is it advo cated P That of the increased expenditure ? Why, if we are obliged to have an increased expenditure, which hon. gentlemen opposite and the country don't find fault with, but which has been in a manner forced upon us, then it is the duty of Parliament to increase Or income of the country by all possible means ; and one great means of doing that is by promoting commercial intercourse with our nearest neighbours. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman talked of a secret treaty, to come into force a year hence. What would have been thought of the Government if they had adopted such a course, so directly injurious to all connnerce? (Hear, hear.) No doubt the example set by Eng land and France will be followed by other countries, and this treat y will lay the foundation not only of increased intercour setiof be tween England and France, but amongst alltheeyna Europe. (Cheers.) So far from incr eas ed t say that it pons enditure being an argument against the tre a ty, While -1- strengthens the reasons for it. (Hoa r, h . pur suing the course of developing ourresoui ces, as exemplified in 1842, 1845, and 185 3 , we are se t ti n g free the springs of industry at home, giving le " me at to our foreign com merce, and increasing oudrevoewenP reso urces. (Hear, hear.) Let gentlemen not bo led away by the fallacious arguments other side. Let th em reflect that, by disa pp rovi ng this o of nthe treaty, they would incur a responsibility for which they would not like to be answerable in the future. (Cheers.) The house divided. The numbers were— For Mr. Du Cane's resolution .. 223 Against it Majority for Ministers The announcement of the numbers was received with great cheering by the Ministerial side. The Attorneys and Solicitors Bill was read a third time and passed. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Sir W. JOLLIFFE, a new writ was ordered to issue for West Surrey, for the election of a mem ber in the room of Mr. 11. Drummond, deceased. The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad journed at half-past two. P.4111 - 41.431ENTARY DI VISION HOUSE OF COMMONS-FED. 24. REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE. Order read, fur resuming adjourned debate on question (21st February), " That this house, recognising the necessity of providing for the increased expenditure wl the coming financial year, is of opinion that it is not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue, , and is not prepared to disappeintbejast expec tations of the country by re-imposing the income tax at an unnecessarily high rate." Question again proposed; debate resumed ; question pat. The house divided— Ayes, 223 ; Noes, 339. supposing there is no gentleman who sits opposite, or at least upon the bench immediately before me, who does not frankly regard this motion as one which, if carried, would render it impossible for the Government to continue to hold office. (Cheers.) I have no doubt my right hon. friend who spoke last is the only member hete who holds that peculiar form of opinion he has expressed. (No, no.) Let us, then, understand what the motion is. Is it aimed at the treaty with France or is it not ? (Cheers.) Is it pos sible to hold that a motionwhich denounces any addition to an existing deficiency by parting with revenue can be thought compatible with a treaty which does add to the deficiency by parting with considerable revenue ? (Cheers,) It is a motion aimed in terms—and I interpret its spirit solely from its terms—it is aimed at the life and substance of the treaty. (Cheers.) But more than that, I will en deavour to point out why I also say the motion repudiates the commercial legislation of the last 18 months. (Cheers, and "No.") Hon. gentlemen say "No." Permit me respectfully to suggest that I am to be followed in the de bate by their leader, and he will have an opportunity of conveying the " No" to which they wish to give utterance in a manner quite es effective for their purpose ; and much more agreeable to the house generally. (Cheers and a laugh.) The doctrine laid down is that it is not expedient to add to existing deficiencies by diminishing - the ordinary revenue. That is the doctrine laid down in the motion, and that doc trine, I say, is fatal to every great and beneficial change that has been made in this country in connexion with the revenue for the last 18 years. I will endeavour to prove that in a short and simple manner, and, without referring to all operations during a number of years, will refer only to three great crises. Putting aside the greatest of those events — the Corn Law and the Navigation Laws, which had no per ceptible connexion with finance—l will refer to those great occasions when we dealt largely with the finances of the country in the sense of propositions of commerciaireform -1842, 1845, and 1853. I was glad to hear, when the hon. member for Birmingham last night said we were treading in the footsteps of Sir R. Peel, that some members opposite cried "No." It showed that we have arrived at last at a time when it is admitted that those principles and that po licy constitute not the decoration of a name or of a party, but a great national inheritance for which contending par ties may honourably strive. (Loud cheers.) That is a great mark of progress, when we recollect what has taken place within the memory of us all, when we remember that the changes of 1842 and those which followed led the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks to denounce a Con servative Government as an "organised hypocrisy." Take that as a starting point, and then realise the fact that the two sides of the house are now contesting who shall be the exponents, who shall be the champions, of theist principles. It is a proof of the great progress that has been made, and the only question remaining now is which of the two sides of this house is endeavouring to continuo that progress, and which is to resist it. (Cheers.) I will refer to each of those three years-1812, 1845, and 1853—in order to show that in every substantial and important financial change you will find the prin ciples to be precisely the same as those upon which the present Government has founded the scheme which is now before the house and the country. (Cheers.) I shall place them iu the sharpest contract with the motion which you are invited to adopt to-night, which my right hon. friend who spoke last is about to support with his vote, and which declares that it is " not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue." In 1812 there was, as there is now, an existing deficiency of £2,570,000. Sir R. Peel added to that existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue. He took from the ordinary revenue by the remissions he made a sum of £1,210,000. He thereby swelled the deficiency to £3,783,000, and he them laid on new taxes, of which the it ma tax was nine -tenths, to the amount of £1,380,000, thus obtaining a surplus of £600,000. I think that is rather like the opera tion which you are now asked to sanction. (Cheers,) In 1845 there was one point of difference, and you will your selves judge whether it is vital, or whether, as I think, it is comparatively unimportant, if it does not make out a stronger case. In that year Sir R. Peel did not add to an existing deficiency, but he created a deficiency by convert ing a surplus into a deficit. He had in 1845 a surplus of £1,420,000. He converted it into a deficit bylarge remissions which involved a loss to the revenue of more than£3,502,000. In that way he created a deficiency of £2,082,000. By re newing the income tax he obtained ways and means to the extent of £2,600,000, and so secured a surplus of £518,000. I think that again was rather like the operation of 1842. In 1853, when substantially, though in less arduous cir cumstances, most of us who are here present heard all these dismal prophecies, there was again an existing deficiency of £1,968,000. We again added to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue to the extent 0f£1,656,000. In that way we increased the deficiency to no less a sum than £3,624,000. We supplied that deficiency by new charges that were estimated to yield—but, in point of fact, they yielded more—£4,o9o,ooo, and so obtained a surplus within a few thousands the same as that which is now proposed—a surplus of £466,000. In each and all of these cases you pursued precisely for every substantial and practical purpose the same course. You either found or you created a deficiency ; you aggravated when you did not create it; you had it to deal with in each case ; you dealt with it after diminishing the ordinary revenue by the im position of new taxes, and that is the essence and founda tion of the scheme now before you, as compared and con trasted with those rival schemes of which some faint glim merings have been obtained from one or two of the less cautious of the speeches which have been delivered in the course of the present debate. (Hear, hear.) I may observe that 18,53 was so far distinguished from the other cases that in that year not only did we add to an existing deficiency and impose new taxes, but the House of Commons, by so strong and so prevalent a feeling both in the house and in the country that no one ventured to raise a general issue, effected the operation by means of some indirect taxes laid upon spirits, but mainly by direct taxation, and in no in considerable degree by an extension of the income tax itself. (Hear.) I contend, therefore, that by demonstration, and net merely by loose assertion, it is clear beyond all doubt or areuments, and in the rigid logic of figures themselves, that the plan we are now proposing, not as we describe it, but as described in a hostile motion, corresponds in every point with the measures of 1842, 1815 , and 1853. (Cheers.) If that be so, the issue is a very short and simple one, be cause the question is, will the house stand by those mea sures,—will it endeavour to develop by further application the principles upon which they were founded, or will it, on the contrary, at this time of day, declare that it sees cause to renounce those doctrines, and to adopt instead of them the opposite principle, that it is "not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue ?" So far I have quoted the words of the motion, but I will add on my own account, " for the purpose of making those investments on the part of the public which a long, a sure, and now an unquestioned ex perience has proved to be almost beyond all other invest ments fruitful, wholesome, and reproductive." (Cheers.) It may be said that that there is one important point of difference between the circumstances of the present year and those of the years to which I have referred, and that is that the deficiency with which we have to deal is much larger than it was upon any of those occasions. That is perfectly true ; but, on the other hand, let the house reflect whether there are not special circumstances of the most co gent character which almost compel Parliament, by the force of equity and justice, to recognize the claims of trade, of industry, and of the population at large to remissions of taxation. I shall mention two. One of them is tho falling in of £2,000,000 and more of annuities, with respect to which I think it will be admitted that some question at least arises whether they are merely to be added to the means of meet ing an enormous and constantly growing expenditure, or whether they mark an epoch at which we ought te endea vour to apply afresh the principles which we applied with sneh good effect before. The other relates to the extraordi nary resources which we shall derive during the present year from what may be called casual receipts that cannot recur. Take the single case of tho sums we are going to obtain from the malt and hop credits. I have no difficult y in justifying the application of those sums under the eir stances to the services of the year, partly because they may in some sense be set against the really extraordinary expen diture to which we are liable on account of the military ex pedition to China, but mainly because we intend to make a reproductiive use of the money. (Hear, hear.) Just look how the case stands. We are going.to apply from extra ordinary sources to the services of the year a sum of £1,400,000. That is only £700,000 leas than the whole amount we are to lose by remissions of taxation ; in other words £700,000 is the whole extent for the services of the present year to which the ordinary revenue is really to be a loser on account of the remissions we are making, and that £700,000 represents three-fourths of a penny, or the differ ence between 9d. and 10d. in the income tax. But I must object altogether to the assumptions of those who exclaim against the reduction of indirect taxes as an irretrievable loss to the revenue. The receipts from indirect taxes con stantly increase, and they increase the faster, and mainly because we reduce. (Hear, hear.) The receipts from indirect taxes will be larger in the present year, apart from the ope ration of the treaty with France, than they have been, I believe, in any past year within our recollection—certainly at which they in any year since the imposition of of am th o e u i n n t eom e tax. l'he difference is enormous between stood when the income tax was first imposed, and the amount ' o t d w o ehsi enhotthefoyllhoawvethbeaetn hreaciasuedsebwy e ju p d ro ic p io o us se raehmoitsseiraonton of i s. But this kind in the present year it is therefore to e repeated e l v 8 e 4 r y 2 Youyear. fl l i e l s B e 4 r s e , f i o n rin lB s 4 p 6 r , a w et h ic i a ch lly w i a n s perhaps the greatest year of the wh ole In 1849 you re • went You o c n om in me l n B c 4 e 2 d , In 1803 you made an of taxation, chiefly indirect. u returned to the pealed the navigation laws. In 1850 y o t other large remission of taxation. Be tween 1812 and 1853 were not less than seven or eight y ears in which you made these alterations, and what has happened since ? For seven years, owing to the circumstances, we will suppose, of the time, the application of the principle has been intermit ted altogether ; and then comes a year when you have an extraordinary relief from the public debt, and when you are going to apply extraordinary means to the services of the year. With an interval of seven years since you hive done anything for the further application of your principle, is it strange that you should be asked to recur to a beneficial practice? You may tell me that this is a year of great ex penditure, and that therefore it is an unfit year ; but do you who say that promise me that there will be greater re lief from that expenditure next year? (Hear, hear.) If it were a year of great expenditure, with the prospect of immediate relief, I grant you it might be better to undergo the inconvenience, and forego the benefit, and wait for a year or a couple of years before proposing what we propose to do now. But what is the spirit shown on the other side, not by all gentlemen opposite, but by the mover of this motion, whom I take as an excellent specimen of the dis tinguished class to which he belongs ? What is the spirit which he shows, and what is the spirit of his motion with regard to expenditure? Does this motion recognise it, as I believe it is generally recognised on this side of the house— as far as it is approved—as a necessity, but a painful neces sity, to which we submit because we think high interests require it—(cheers)—but from which we are desirous to escape—(cheers)—from which we hope to escape, and from which we are determined to keep in our own hands the means of escaping? (Loud cheers.) That is the spirit in which the expenditure is supported on this side of the house; but is that the spirit of the hon. mover On the contrary, he pours contempt on times of economy—he fears we shall get back to those times to which he applies the miserable epithet of " cheeseparing"—(cheers)—he seems to give countenance to the discreditable assertion that Ministers and Parliament belong to this cheeseparing economy. Why, who have been the Ministers during whose time economy has been most in vogue? (Hear, hear.) Ido not speak of those who live and sit on this bench, I speak only of the dead. The Duke of Wellington—(cheers)—than. whose Administration none did more for economy—Lord Grey, Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel. Those are the men under whom, by whose countenance, and by whose labour rules of thrift were applied to the expenditure of the State; and those are the men whom the mover of thic motion, partly by its terms, and partly by the lan g ua g e b y which he expounds them, thinks fit to throw a slur as cheese paring economists. (Loud cheers.) I have admitted that it is impossible to expect a rapid return for this benefit ; that we have entered—though I trust that the estimates for the present year are exceptional—on a high level of expen diture. But, being on that high level of expenditure, and having heavy burdens to bear, can we not strengthen our selves for the task by means which in former years were found so efficacious, and again apply the principles which ~~~ jf"~. Ayrs-223. Annealey, H. Goddard, A. L. Naas, Rt. in. Lord Arbuthnott, Gen.H. Goff, Captain Newdegate, C. N. Archdall, Capt.M.E. Gore, J. R. 0. Newport, Visct. Astell, J. H. Gore, W. R. 0. Nicol, William Bailey, C. Graham, Lord Wm. Noel, G. J. BitiMe, IL J. Greaves, Edward North, Col. Ball, E. . Greene, Capt. .f. Northoote, Sir S. H. Baring, A. IL . GreydeWilton Lord O'Donog,hue, D. Baring, Sir F. Grogan, Sir Edward Packe, C. W. Baring, Thomas lialiburton, Justice Pakenhatn, Col. Barrow, W. H. Hamilton, Lord C. Pakington, Sir J. le. Bathurst, A. A. Hamilton, ins. H. Palk, L. Beach, W. W. B. Hamilton, Major Papillon, P. 0. Bective, Earl of Hanbury, Captain Parker, Major W. Beecroft, G. S. Hardy, Gathorne Paull, IL Bentiuck, G. W. P. liartopp, E. B. Peacocke, G. H. Bentlnck, C.C. Hassard, M. D. Peel, Gen. Beresford, W. Henley, J. Pevensey, Viscount Bernard, Thos. T. Hennessy, J. P. Powys, L. P. Blackburn, P. Henniker, Lord Quinn, Peter Bond, J. W. Herbert, Col. P. E. Repten,.G. W. J. Bovill, Win., Heygate, Sir F. Ridley, Sir M. W. Bowyer, W. Hill, Lord E. Rogers, John Boyd, John Hill, Hon. R. Bolt, J. Bridges, Sir 8., Bt. Holford, It. S. Salt, Thomas Brooks, IL . Holmesdale, Lord Selater-Booth, G. Bruce, C. L. C. Hood, Sir A. Selwyn, C. J. Bruen, Henry Howes, Edward Seymer, H. K. Bunbury, Capt. W. Hubbard, J. G. Shirley, E. P. Burghley, Lord Hunt, G. W. • Sibthorp, .Iklajor Murrell, Sir C., Bt. Ingestre, Viscount Smith, M. Cameo, SirJ. R., Bt. Jervis, Captain Smith, S. G. Cartwright, Col. H. Johnstone, Hon; H. Somes, Joseph Cave, S. Jolliffe, Capt. H. Stanhope, J. B. Close, M. C. Jones, D. Stirling, Wm. Cobbold, John C. Kekewich, S. Steuart, A. Cochrane, A. D. Kelly, Sir F. Sturt, H. G. Codrington, Sir W. Kennard, C. Sturt, Capt. C. N. Cole, Hon. H. A. Kerrison, Sir E. Talbot, Hon. W. C. Collins, T., jun. King, J. K. Thynne, Lord E. Cooper, E. J. Knatchbull, W. Thvnne, Lord H. Corry, R. T. Knight, F. Toilemache, J. H. Cross, R. A. Knightley, R. Tomline, G. Curzon, Viscount Knox, Lt.-Col. B.W. Torrens, B. Dalkeith, Earl of Knox, Major W. S Trefusis, Hon. C. H. Darner, L. S. W. D. Lacon, Sir E. Trollope, Sir John Dawson, R. P. Leeke, Sir 11. Upton, General Dickson, Col. Lefroy, A. Valetort, Lord Disraeli, Benjamin Legh, W. Vance, John Drax, J. E. Leighton, Sir B. Vansittart, Wm. Du Cane, Chas. Leslie, C. P. Verner, Sir Wm. Duncombe, A. Lever, John 0. Vernon, L. V. Duncombe, W. E. Lindsay, Colonel Walcott, Adm. J. IL Dunn, John Long, R. P. Walker, James B Dunne, CoL Long, W. Walp)le, S. H. Du Pre, C. G. Longfield, Robert Walsh, Sir J. B. East, Sir J. B. Lopes, Sir U., lit. Watlington, J. R. Edwards, Major H. Lowther, Col. 11. C. Way, Arthur H. Egerton, Sir P. Lowther, Captain Welby, W. E. Egerton, W. Lyall, G. Whiteside, Bt Ha J. Elmley, Viscount Lygon, Hon. F. Whitmore, H. Elphinstone. Sir J. Lytton, Sir E. B. Williams, T. P. Farquhar, Sir M. 3lacaulay, K. Willoughby, Sir H. Ferrer, James McEvoy, E. Woodd, B. T. Fellowes, Edward Malins, R., Wyndham, Sir H. Fergusson, Sir J. Manners, Ld J. ' Wyndham, Hon. H. Filmer, Sir E. March, Earl of Wynn, Col. Fitzgerald W. S. Maxwell Col. . Wynn, Sir W. W. Forester,Col. G. C. Miles, Sir W. • Wynne, C: G. Forster, Sir G. Miller, T. Wynne, W. W. B. Franklyn, G. W. Milford, W. T. ' Yorke, lion. E. Galway, Viscount Montagu, Lord Gard, It. S. Mordaunt, Sir G. George, John Morgan, Major Gilpin, Colonel Mowbray, Rt. Hn. J. Jolliffe, Sir W. Gladstone, Capt. Murray, William Taylor, Colonel NOES-339. Acton, Sir J. Foley, Hon. H. W. 3fostyn, Hon. T. N. Adair, H. E. Foljambe, F. J. S. Napier, Sir C. Adam, W. P. Forster, Charles Newark, Lord Adeans, H. J. Foster, W. 0. Noble, J. Agar-Ellis, Hon. L. Fortescuc, Hon. D. Norris, J.T. Alcock, T. Fortescue, C. S. North, F. Andover, Lord Freeland, 11. W. O'Brien, P. Augerstein, W. Garnett, W. J. O'Ferrall, M. Autrobus, E. Gaskell, J. M. Ogilvy, Sir J. Arnott, Sir J. . .. Gavin, Major • • Onslow, Guildford Ashley, Lord . Gibson, T. IL Osborne, Bernal Atherton, W. ' Gifford, Earl of Owen, Sir J. Ayrton, A. S. Gilpin, C. I'acke, G. H. Bagwell, J. Gladstone, W. E. Paget, C. Baines, E. Glyn, G. C. Paget, Lord A. Baring, 11. B. Glyn, G. G. Paget, Lord C. E. Barin,,, , r, Thos. Geo. Goldsruid, Sir F. Palmerston. Visct. Bass, M. T. Gordon, C. W. I'atten, J. W. Baxter, W. E. Gower, F. L. Paxton, Sir J. Bazley, Thomas Graham, Sir J. R. G. Pease, H. Beale, Samuel Greenall, G. Peel, Sir R. Beamish, F. B. Greenwood, J. Peel, F. Beaumont, W. B. Gregory, W. 11. Peto, Sir M. Bellew, R. M. (lregsou, S. Pigott, Francis Berkeley, H. (Irenfell, C. P. Pi lkington, J ames Berkeley. F. Greville, Col. F. Pinney, Wm. Bethell, Sir R. Gray, William Pollard UrqukartW Biddulph,;Col. R.M. Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir G.l'onstitiby, A. Biggs, John Grosvenor, Earl : ~Portinau W. H. B. Black, Adam _ . Gurdon, B. Prise, Capt. E. L. Blake, J. •A. Gurney,ljohn II: Pritchard, John Blencowe, J. G. Gurney, Samuel. . Proby,,Lord. G. L. Bonham-Carter, J. Hadfield, Geo. Pugh, D.,(Vrmar.) Bottield, Beriah Banbury, R., jun. Puller; C.l .. Bouverie, E. P. Mandley, John Ramsdell, Sir J. W. Bouverie, P. P. - Hankey, Thomson Raynham, Viscount Bramston, T. W. Hamner, Sir J. Ricardo, J. L. Bright, J. ' Harcourt; G. G. V. • Ricardk b. Briscoe, J. 1..., . . Hardcastle, Jos. A. ,Rich,.ll.. , Bristow, A. . ' Haftbigton,Marquiii Ridley, G. Brocklehurst, John Ilayter, Sir Wm. Robartes, T. J. A. Brown, James Ileadlam, Thos. E. Robertson, D. Browne, Lord J. T. Heathcote, G. H. Roebuck, J. A. Bruce, H. A. Heneage, G. Rothschild,Baron L Bulkeley, Sir R., Bt. Henley, Lord Rothschild Baron IL Buller, Sir A. Herbert, H. A. Roupell, W. Buller, J. W. - Herbert, S. Russell, Lord J. Burke, Sir T. J., Bt. Hervey, Lord A Russell, Hastings Butler, C. S. Ilodgkinson, G. Russell, A. J. E. Butt, Isaac Hodgson, K. D. Russell, F. W. Buxton, C. Holland, E. St. Aubyu, J. Byng, lion. G. H. C. Hope, G. W. Salomons,Aldermait Caird, James Hornby, W. If. Salt, Titus Calthorpe, F. H. Iforsthil, T. B. ' Scholetie.d, W. Campbell, W. F. Howard, Hon. C. Scott, Sir W. Cardwell, Rt. Hn. E. Howard, Lord E. G. Scrope, G. P. Carnegie, Hon. C. Humberstons, I'. S. Scully, V. Castlerosse, Vist. Butt, W. Seymour, Sir If. Caveneish, Hou. W. Ingham, R. Seymour, H. D. CavenOish, Lord G. Ingram, H. ' Seymour, Digby Cayley, E. S. Jackson, W. Shafto, R. D. Childers, H. C. F. James, Edwin Shelley, Sir J. V. Cholmeley, Sir M. Jermyn, Earl Sheridan, It. B. Churchill, Lord A. Jervoise, Sir J. Sheridan, H. B. Clay, James Johnstone, Sir J. Smith, J. B. Clifford, C. C. Kendall, N. Smith, M. T. Clinton, Lord R. Kershaw, J. Smith, Augustus Clive, George King, Hon. L. Smith, Sir F. Cogan. W. H. Kinglake, Serj. J. Smith, Abel Colebrooke, Sir T.E. Kingscote, Lt.-Col. Somerville, Sir W. Collier, R. P. Kinnaird, Hon. A. Stafford, Marquis of Coningham, Wm. Laing, S. Staniland, M. Cowper, Hon. W.F. Lang ston, J. H. • Stansfeld. J. Craufurd, E. H. J Langt on, - H. G. Steel, John Crawford, It. W. Lanigan, J. Stewart, Sir M. IL Crook, Joseph Lawson, W. Stuart, Col. Crossley, Frank Leatham, E. Stuart, Major W. Dalglish, Robert Legh, G. C. Sykes, Col. W. It. Dashwood, Sir G. H. Levinge, Sir R.G.A. Talbot, C. R. M. Davey, R. Lewis, Sir G.C.. Bt. Taylor; Hugh Davie, Sir H. R. F. L L i i d n d d e s l a l y , , H iv on . . S H H. G. I T ,h em oin p p et . L so, o i re s A . .T. Davie, Col. F. Deedes, Wm. Locke, Jos. Tite, Wm. 'Penman, G. Locke, J. Tollemache, Hon.F. R. Turner, Trai l G. A. D D i ev t , t J , o E h d n w D . r e d n t L L o o c w k e l: a R r , t t ,. A li . o E n .. Dodson, John G. Lysley , W. Tynte, Col. C. J. K. Douglas, Sir C. M'Cann, J. Vane, Lord H. G. Duff, M. B. Mackie, J. Verney, Sir Harry Duff, 3fajor. Mackinnon, W. A. Villiers, Rt. Hon. IS. Duke, Sir James Mackinnon, W.A.,,jn. Vivian, H. H. Dunbar. Sir Wm. 31q, - uire, J. F. - Warre, J. A. ' Duncombe, T. S. Mainwaring, T. Walter, John Dundas, Frederick Marjoribauks, D. C. Watkins, J. L. V. Dunkcilin, Lord Marsh, M. H. Wemyss, J.- Dunlop, A. Marshall, W. Western, T. S. Dutton, Hon. R. Martin, P. W. Westhead, B. Egerton, A. F. Martin, J. Whalley, G. N. Egerton, E. C. Massey, W. N. Whitbread, S. Ellice, Rt. Hon. E. Matheson, A. White, Col. H. Emlyn ' Viscount Matheson, Sir J. Wickham, H. W. Ennis, John Mellor, John Willcox, B. M. Esmonde, John Merry, James Williams, W. Euston, Earl of Mildruay, H. Winnington, Sir T. Evans, T. W. Miller, William Wise, J. A. Ewart, William Mills, T. Wood, Rt Hn. Sir C. Ewart, J. C. Milnes, R. M. Woods, Henry Ewing,, H. E. C. . Mitchell, T. A. Worsley, Lord Fenwick, Henry Moucrelff, J. Wrightson, W. B. Ferguson, R. Monsen, Rt. lin. W. Wyld, James Fermoy, Lord Monson, W. J. Wyvill, M. Finlay, A. S. Montgomery, Sir G. TELLERS. FitZWilliSM, C. W. Moody, C. A. Brand. H. B. voley, J. H. Morris, D. Kuatchbull-lingess PA For Goverment. Against. Mr 0 Stanley Col. Pennatit Dr Lyons lin J Wynne Col French Mr I.` (' ole Col Coke Col Vandeleur Mr Thornhill Mr Mundy Capt O'ConnellCapt l'almer Col. Clifford Mr Connolly Sir G Peelle!' Col Bernard Mr Waldron Sir It G Booth Sir A Agnew Mr Tottenham Mr Copeland Mr Hums RS. For Government. Against. Col Smy th Mr Davison Sir De L Evans Mr 0 hiorgan Lord E Bruce Ld A Lennox Mr Dillwyn Mr Sullivan Mr Eiliee, jun Mr Potts Sir J Trelawney Mr Cubitt Mr Warre MrS Eateourt Mr Brady Mr Pugh Sir KFerguson Col Fords Mr Lee Sir E Hayes Major-General Buckley wai from voting - against Mr. Du CI ►s prevented by indisposition :awl's resolution. . _ [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Notice.—In consequence of Messrs. Lewes and Morton having just commenced 1860 with opposi tion similar to that which they previouslyadvanoed, and wish• ing to do those gentlemen every justice, Mr. Thorley is induced to enlarge his coming pamphlet , making' it 64 pages instead of 32- showing beyond doubt that their observations on the so-called " Concentrated Cattle Food," and so-called " feeding statistics," are without foun dation ; that the Hothamsted and conse ex periment was not, ma d e with his food , queutly that this complete failure must either be through mismanage ment or from buying the Condiment at the wrong shop. !.Cho first impression of One Hundred Thousand Copies will be ready about the first day of March, and may be had post free Newga t c -street, London ; 21, Broadway, 1. on receipt of Three Stamps, ou application to Joseph ThOlglev the Inventor and sole Proprietor of ‘ so ' T u h t o h rley's Feed for .._ Cattle,"York, United 77. tilted States; Mr. J. W. Thorley, Melbourne . y* i f eW Vie_ a3glennAtsiftrherdoungthirottBthdenUeyniNteclewialr'do Wales; and of Kingdom,-_Feb, 2, Ivo. a fo u l: is ; IA.DVERTISEMENTI—Nothing e au be more interest:jag t han the numerous extraordinary em ,,, of indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, 'without mediti.ne bilious, and liver complaints, y, constipation, nerwns, potion, and debility eff ec t e d 4 cough, asthma, co as ti- Health-restoring Revaie ta by Du Barry's delicie us give a few :—" Winch e ster Arabica Food. IVe Gentlemen,—l am ha to , December 3, 18 , 17. person for whom your% ie be able to inform you Unit Idle very great benefit from v nta was procured has deiri' iod dropsy, dyspepsia , its use ; distressing sympto ins of ing have been and constipation of long E taxa health induced r emoved, and a feeling of retta red effects in. the above maen.tigoneldvit c n a essed l t c he beneficial deuce recommend it, &c., &c. John s S e llorland, lat an etisawrgecanil 96th Regment."—Cure No. 48,314: Miss Elizab, .fth Ye w onlb man, Gateacro, near Liverpool—A cure of ten y ea rs' dys pepsia, and all the horrors of nervous irritabili k i r --Cure No. 46,814—Mr. Saml. Laxton, Leicester, of two 9 ei . srs diar rhcea.—Cure No. 52,612—The Dowager Counte A i, of Castle stuart,of manyye,ars nervousirritability,bile,and ,i n digestion. In tins, at ls. 6d. •, 11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b , 125.; 121 b., 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on r me' ipt of post-- office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-st• . •eet, Laudon.** Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182 Piccadill; i ; Abbi s, 'se, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, an' 1 150, Ox f, 4 .4 3 ' street; 330 and 451, Strand •49 and 6C ~ Bisho "e 4. ' street; . 85, Tottenham-cour t -road. A' ( so at eg -4 N. Rowley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, R ai mes alio 1 iblia i. at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Mane? nester, sis., `Co, Scott ;at York e Raimes, 'Blanchard, an 4 - 'La/7 an d aMptolll Randall lad Eke. Co . ; 8 011 4 . TELLERS. :ide, lav A tory lan ' the luty Lpon and ;atoll e out 'hich lay f the Lmis- Chey ey to ,f the this lions made a not ssary And is are Tres las." at in- 17 of this r 1