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

IMPERIAL PARLIA.ENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY•) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. CHURCH RATES. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE presented petitions against the abolition of church rates. THE NEW TREATY. Lord EBURY presen ted a petition from SP italfields .against any alteration in the duty on silk. SPAIN AND MOROCCO. The Earl of CARNARVON drew the attention of their lordships to statements that had appeared inthe ape newspapers this day, relative to t he terms of p e ace stated to have been offered by Marshal O'D onnell to the Moors of The . (The de ) - s patch will be f oun d in another part Sun. The noble earl quoted from a correspondence between the noble lord at the head of the Foreign-effice and the ecl ßri ationtish am b as sador at Madrid, in which a distinct dar was said to have been rece ived from the Spanish Government to the effect that it This declaration was had no intention of increasing its territory in Africa. prec i se ly in opposition to the proposed arrang Power preponde rating on the coast of Africa could not be overrated. He should very much like to know whether any intelligence had been received by the Government ; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to its production ? Lord WODEHOUSE said the Government had received information similar to that which had appeared in the pa pers ; but as the noble lord had given no intimation that he intended to ask the question, he was unable at that time to go into the details. DIVINE SERVICE IN THEATRES. Viscount DUNGANNON called attention to the per formance of Divine Service at Sadler's Wells and other theatres by clergymen of the Church of England on Sun day evenings ; and moved a resolution to the effect that such services, being irregular and inconsistent with order, are calculated to injure rather than advance the progress of sound religious principles throughout the count' y. The noble lord took the opportunity of entering at length into the question, and said that there was not a peer in the house would point to a case of a clergyman ever preaching the word of God on the boards of a thea tre. He thought that a place where comedy, farce, and pantomime had been a few hours before performed was not a plate fitted for the public worship of the Almighty At Sadler's Wells, it was said the curtain rose and the clergyman was discovered in a pulpit sur rounded by a garden scene , and many of the au dience in the front boxes wore their white kid gloves, and, instead of divine worship, any one would have imagined before the curtain rose a pantomime was to be performed, rather than the Word of God preached. He could not understand how it was thought desirable to secure the public theatres for such a purpose when there were other places quite as commodious and as easy of ac cess. Under all the circumstances he thought the effect of such religious services would detract from, rather than benefit the Church of England. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was understood to say that had he been consulted in the first instance he would have advised against holding religious services in theatres ; but as the matter now stood, he thought the best course was to leave the people who followed the movement to them • selves. After some conversation,.the motion was withdra. The Indictable Offences (Metropolis) Bill and the En dowed Schools Bill were read a third time and passed. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPE.ks.zu took the chair at four o'clock. NEWRY. The SPEAKER announced that he had received a com munication to the effect, that the petition against the ft return of the member for Newry would not be proceeded w. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Blyth Harbour Dock Bill was read a second time. • PETITIONS. _ _ The early part of the evening was occupied with the pre sentation of petitions relating chiefly to the Budget; against the abolition of church rates; marriage wit's a deceased wife's sister, &c. DIOCESE OF DURHAM. Mr. HOWARD moved for a copy of any memorial or letter addressed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, in respect of local claims from the diocese of Durham on the fends of the commissioners, and of any answer thereto.—Ordered. TREATY WITH FRANCE. Lord J. RUSSELL laid on the table the negotiations re lating to the treaty with France. PAPER. Sir. W. MILES moved for a return of the quantities of paper charged with duty, and the amount of duty received from the year 183 i annually up to the end of 1859: similar return of the quantities exported annually during the like period : similar return of the quantities of foreign paper imported annually into the United Kingdom during the like period, and also during the month of Jan., 1860, and of the quantities retained for home consumption : and, return of the quantity of paper of all sorts charged with duties of excise in the United Kingdom, from 1834 to 1859 inclusive, and quantity thereof exported on drawback and retained for home consumption.—Ordered. CEMETERY AT CLAPHAM. Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice of his intention to ask a question on this subject. EXPORTS (FRANCE). Mr. SALOMONS moved for a return of the articles of home, colonial, and foreign merchandise, and thei r values, exported from the United Kingdom to France, during the y e ars 1854-1859, respectively ; distinguishing the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom from those of the East Indies and her Majesty's colonial possessions, and of foreign countries.—Ordered. ELECTIONS, &c. Sir C. DOUGLAS moved an address for return, in tabu lar form, of the names of all candidates, at each of the two last general elections, for each bOrough and county in Eng land and Wales ; total cost to each elected member ; total cost to each rejected candidate; the number of electors on the register; the number of electors polled ; and total cost of the election.—Ordered. BRITISH PRODUCE, &c. Sir S. NORTH C OTE moved an addiess for return show ing in parallel columns the rates of duty to be levied in France upon articles of British produce or manufacture under the provisions of the commercial treaty of this year, and the rates of duty proposed to be levied upon the like articles under the commercial treaty of 1787 —Ordered. BENEFICES UNDER SEQUESTRATION. Mr. LOCK E KING moved an address for return of all the benefices in England and Wales which are now under sequestration for the purpose of discharging the debts of any incumbent, stating the names of such benefieee, the length of time that each has been under sequestration, the gross amount of debts for the payment of which each benefice was sequestered ; the population and annual value of each, and the county and diocese in whiclia is situated ; the number of churches to each of the said benefices ; and the annual amount paid to the curate or curates to perform the ecclesiastical duties of each benefice. THE EDITOR OF "THE FRIEND OF CHINA." Mr. E. JAMES gave notice that he would draw the attention of the Government to the imprisonment of the editor of the Friend of Cina. WIhNE. Sir S. NORTHCOTE moved an address for copies or extracts of all Treasury minutes on the subject of draw backs to be granted to the holders of stocks of wine in the event of an alteration of duties : And, of all corrospondence which has taken place on the subject between any depart ment of the Government and the committee of the wine trade, or other persons interested therein, in the year 1843 and any subsequent years. Ordered. MARSHAL O'DONNELL. Mr. WYLD asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if her Majesty's Government had received any in formation of the decree of her most Catholic Majesty the Queen of Spain, by which the title of Duke of Tetuan has been conferred upon Marshal O'Donnell, together with the territory of Morocco upon which the victory of Tetuan was gained ? - Lord J. RUSSELL said that her Majesty's Government had received information to the effect that the title in question had been conferred on General O'Donnell, but there was no communication respecting the latter part of the question. ENCAMPMENT OF VOLUNTEERS. _ . _ _ _ _ Mr. E. JAMES asked the Secretary of State — for War t whether her Majesty's Government intended o order any battalions or regiments of the Volunteer Iriflec" f or med and in course of formation, during ensuingthe Corps nnw su mmer, to the camp at Aldershott, or any other encamp ment, in the same manne r and for the s ame purposesas r giments of the line and militia re g i ments have been en camped. Sir IL PEEL drew attention to a statement made by the Secretary of Slate for War to the effect that if the volunteer corps were to become a permanent institution of the coun try, they would, with batteries, be a substitute for the Royal. Artillery. He wished to know whether this force would be amenable to the articles of war and to military discipline? Mr. S. HERBERT denied that ho had made any such statement as the hon. baronet attributed to him. The force in question would not be placed under military discipline unless it was found necessary to call them out. With re gard to the question of the hon. and learned member for Marylebone, he must answer in the negative, as he had no such power as the hon. member supposed. MEDICAL OFFICERS IN THE NAVY. Sir E. GROGAN asked the Secretary of the Admiralty if he intended to carry into effect the spirit of the late naval war rant as regards medical officers in the navy by granting to those officers, when serving afloat, naval rank and uni form, with the distinctive badges of rank corresponding to the rnilitpry rank granted to them by the warrant, both afloat and when serving with her Majesty's forces ? Lord C. PAGET said that the question of the pay had been settled, and that the subject of the uniform would shortly be arranged. TAXATION FOR THE RELIEF OF THE POOR. Mr. WHALLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whetber it was his intention to introduce a bill for renewal of the Act 3 and 4 Vic. c. 89, exempting the profits of stock in trade, and other property liable by law to be taxed for relief of the poor, from being so taxed ; and, if so, w hether such bill would be introdu ced at such a p eriod of session as to admit of inquiry by a select committee as to the grounds for such exemption, either in connection with any inquiry which may be ordered as t o the assess ment of - the income tax under schedule D, or otherwise. Sir G. C. LEWIS said it was not his intention to intro duce abill to continue the acts in question. DUTY ON BARLEY. Lord 11. THYNNE asked, the Chancellor of the Exche quer whether he was prepared to remit the duty on barley malted for agrieult The CHANCELLOR purposes? Olt of the EXCHEQUER said this subject had veryoften no )een discussed with the budget, but up to the present time arrangement had been made for the remission of the maltdut3 s r lil adi e d et her Majesty's Govern ment could not entertain the DUTY ON PAPER. Baron ROTHSCHILD asked the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, if he was prepared to state whether, at the time of t h e abolition of the paper duty , he woul d back upon all stocks of paper in the hau grant the draw s of the stationers bearing an uncancelled Excise label. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQuER said the propos al of Gover nment was that the duty should be re p e aled from the Ist July; and on the Ist July a drawback wo uld be allowed on p aper found in the hands of deale w hich had been made since the Ist April. As re laced l a ted to the ot her p art of the question, it was matter of considerable difficulty, and one he could o 4 then answer. lle might however, state that the Govern ment would Meet every reasonable wish, and without caus ing any sensible inconvenience to the trade of the country. The absolute absolute repeal of the paper duty would take place within a month or two after the Ist July. COLONIAL CHAPLAINS. Sir J. PASINGTON asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether her Majesty's Government had decided to advise the Queen to v Itahold the royal assent from the bill lately salaries of the Leg:slature of Tasmanir, , for reducing the salaries of the colonial chap lains. Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that the Crown would take the steps necessary in reference to the matter. PRISONS' ACT (SCOTLAND). Mr. E. CRAUFURD asked the Lord Advocate what course he intends to pursue with regard to the Prisons' Act (Scotland) Continuance Bill ; and whether he would under take to introduce a general bill to abolish the Prison Board, and to amend the present system of prison auessmcnts in Scotland, at a period sufficiently early to ensure its being dealt with during the present session ? The LORD ADVOCATE said that he intended to pro ceed with the Prisons Act (Scotland) Continuance Bill, and also with the Prisons Assessments Bill at an early period. WINE AND SPIRIT DUTIES. In answer to a question by Mr. DUNCOMBE, The CHANCELLOR of the EHCHEQUER said it was his intention to propose the duties on wine in the terms of the resolution he had laid on the table. He would take the duties on spirits immediately after; and these would be, on foreign spirits, exclusive of rum, Bs. 3d. ; on rum, whe ther foreign or colonial, Bs. 3d. ; and the duty upon British spirits of all descriptions would be at the rate of Bs. ld., and that would be ma i n t a ining the same difference which at present existed. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE POPE. Mr. M'EVOY asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government had proposed to the French Government, that in the event of the revolted provinces of the Pope declaring their wish to be annexed to Sardinia, the two Governments in concert should bind themselves to offer no objection to the entrance of Sardinian troops, by which the Holy Father might be despoiled of those portions of his dominions• PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. C. BRUCE entered into a personal explanation of the conduct of Lord Elgin when in China, and deplored the misunderstanding which unhappily took place between him and Admiral Sir Michael Seymour. Lord J. RUSSELL said further discussion was not de • sizable until all the papers were before the house. He could only say that the Government had the fullest confidence in the honour of the noble earl, and that at such a distance of time the different impressions on the minds of Lord Elgin and Sir M. Seymour implied no discredit to either. As to the recent proposals with regard to the settlement of Italy, he did not regret having made them, and would be happy if he could contribute to that object. It was his intender' to introduce the Reform Bill next Thursday. THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE. In reply to Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, Lord PALMERSTON—The course which the Govern ment proposes to follow is that which I had the honour of explaining to the house on a former occasion. It is our in tention to propose in committee of Customs, resolutions bearing on all the articles enumerated in the treaty which relate to changes in the Customs' laws, and as soon as the house shall have adopted, or disposed of those resolutions, which by referring to the laws of Customs have a direct bearing upon some of the engagements of the treaty, it is our . intention, without going further into the financial arrange ments which we intend, to propose to the consideration of the house an address to the Crown, approving of the treaty in its aggregate; and, of course, the address will be com municated to the House of Lords for the purpose of obtain ing a joint address from the two branches of the Legisla ture on the subject of the treaty. THE CHAMPIONSHIP OF ENGLAND. In reply to Mr. HADFIELD, Sir G. C. LEWIS said his attention had been celled some time ago to the intended belligerent encounter be tween the two mentioned redoubted champions. (Laughter.) Sir Richard Mayne would no doubt take care to obtain in formation on the subject, and he dared say, be able to pre vent the encounter within the limits of the metropolitan police. (Cheers and laughter.) ILLEGAL MARRIAGE. Mr. COLLINS asked if the attention of the Home Sec retary had been called to a marriage which had taken place in the month of December last, at Registrar's Office at Shrewsbury, between a woman and her deceased husband's brother—(laughter)—and whether it was the intention of the Government to advise a prosecution against the man for perjury, which he had committed in making the usual declaration ' that no impediment existed to the mar ria g e, on the ground of affinity or other relationship ? Sir G. C. LEWIS said his attention had been called to the marriage, but he had come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground why the Government should make it the subject of a prosecution, or take it out of the hands of the local authorities. EXPORTATION OF COAL TO FRANCE. Mr. HORSM AN gave notice that, on Monday, he should move that an address be presented to her Majesty, praying that a communication might be made to the Emperor of the French, requesting his assent to the omis sion of the 11th article of the treaty. Ho should, at the same time, ask whether her Majesty's Mininsters had lately been, as was currently reported, communicating with the Empe ror of the French for the purpose of obtaining a modifica tion of that article of the treaty. It would be satisfactory to learn whether there was any truth in that rumour. The motion for the adjournment of the house at its rising to Monday was then agreed to. THE BUDGET.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate having been read, Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the point to which he meant in the first instance to address himself was one well' worthy the attention of the house. The house would find in the 11th article of the treaty that it did not coincide with the noble lord's instructions to Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden. Their instructions were to the effect that on the side of France there was to be a transition from prohibition and high duties to duties of a moderate amount, and on that of England the total abolition of all fiscal charges on French productions. Those instructions were clear enough ; the Emperor of the French removed the prohibition on 43 heads leaving a duty of 30 per cent. ; but it should be observed, that he limited his indulgence exclusively to English pro duce, whilst we bound ourselves to admit on similar terms the productions of every country. The Emperor could thus go to continental countries and say, " Don't trouble your selves to enter into any negotiations with England ; I have obtained conditions in this treaty under which all your pro duce will enter the ports of England, whilst you will not be saddled with the engagements into which I have entered." He (Mr. Newdegate) contended that instead of this they should have limited their concessions to the produce of France. It was ti se that France made great concessions and was following in the footsteps of the late Sir Robert Peel ; but we made deficiencies, and relieved luxuries, by increasing the burdens of the great body of the people. What France gave up was the concession of the rich man ; while we parted with the widow's mite. It was a jealous, a bigoted, and an insane hatred of protection which had dic tated the terms of the treaty. Some of the remissions would operate with great injury on the employment of women, for whom it was extremely difficult to find occupation in this country. This blind adherence to a system that would have such results, reminded him of the poet— " Man, to man so oft unjust, Is always so to woman." In answer to the appeal of Mr. Bright, he admitted that his opinions on free trade were modified—(hear, hear) — but he would never consent to a measure which tended to narrow the field of female employment in this country. He would not now re-impose the corn laws if he could—(hear)--- because he had seen the evil use that might be made of du ties imposed on articles of necessity. It was proposed to re tain the duties on tea, sugar, malt, and hops. Was not the speech of Mr. Bright a clear indication that unless the de fences of the country were neglected, an agitation would be set on foot against the remaining excise duties ? This was but the commencement of a danger to the revenue, which former experience taught that it would be difficult to avert. It was all very well for Mr. Cardwell to quote Adam Smith; but Adam Smith upheld the navigation laws ; and where were they? (A laugh.) Some members who were loudest in their advocacy of free trade in that house, out of that house condemned the members as a parcel of tax-eaters, who lived on the sweat of the people. To hear these men speak of the benefits of free trode, one would suppose that they thought it made the sun to shine and the rain to fall. From M. Magne's report to the Emperor it appeared that while our imports from France in five years had amounted to fifty-five millions, our exports to that country had only been twenty-six millions. What was the reason of this ? That France was drawing the bullion from this country ; and the result was to render the revenue of France elastic, and ours the reverse. Much had been said about the in crease of our trade with America; but that was greatly due to Californian gold. The years prior to 1850 were highly prosperous ; but the country then began to feel the pinch of free trade, which was, however, mitigated by the disco very of gold in California and Australia. In 1853 the pro duction of gold in California had risen to seven and three quarter millions, and in Australia to nearly ten millions. It was this influx of gold that had prevented the free-trade measures from operating more injuriously than they had done. And yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted all notice of this fact, and attributed our increasea prosperity solely to free trade. The hon. member for Bir mingham had plainly declared that he would have twelve millions off the estimates and would dolall in his power to s a co i e a the measures sfeudal which system. This abolish indirect taxation,and levy all taxes on real property. wouldo n n be tore-establish not ntn uinvolved S th ur e e se lythe house w con sequences, and the early results of hw ic were deprecated by all, as injurious to the revenue • , and as depriving us of the sinews of war. (Hear, hear.) When the lion. gentleman sat down about 20 members simultaneously rose, chiefly on the Government side, and their anxiety to catch the attention of the Speaker caused considerable merriment. Mr. BRIGHT, who claimed to be heard in explanation, was called on, and said—l beg to explain for one moment. I u nderstood the hon. gentleman to say that I wish t o o . s o much taxation as ho h as de scribed upon real property, plaee that is, upon the land and buildin g s of th e country. That never was my intention. I never made any such proposi tion. I never proposed to lay any taxes upon that descrip tion of property which I did not propose to lay upon all other property or wealth, whether in connection with land or trade.the lion. Mr. NEWDEGATE— assure . gentleman that I would Pot willingly have misrepresented him, Mr. B. OSBORNE said that if Mr. Newdegate had not solemnly assured the house that ho had modified his opinion difficulty in discovering the they would have had some • fact. (Hear, hear.) He had raised the self • same objec tions against free trade in 1847 as he had done Nis's. H e even recollected that the hon. member then came forward particularly as the Protectionist f rien I of the ladies. He warned the house in those solemn tones which the house had heard again that evening, as to the effect of what they were going to do upon the ladies. - Me had not forgotten the women of England that night ; he had not modified his opinion with ressird to them. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Newdegate, followed b by a laugh.) He also spoke in 1847 of the effect of the import of gold from Australia upon free trade, and in. that respect also there had been no modifica tion of his opinions. In fact, he might congratulate the hon. member on being the only consistent Protectionist in that hous^ and he would add that, however th e y mi g ht differ from ' him, they had no right to be surprised at his opinions, and must all honour him for his consistency and straightforwardness. (Cheers, from both sides of the house.) They had however aright to express surprise at the sentiments enunciated by a right lion. gentleman who was one of the first converts to, and apostles of, free trade—he referred to the speech of the right hen. member for Portsmouth (SirF. Baring) on the previous night. (Hear, hear.) That right hon. gentleman bad indeed somewhat modified life opinions, as appeared from his criticisms on the commercial treaty with France. Now, with reference to that treaty he must say that the more it was scrutinised the less objection could be made on the part of free traders to its provisions. (Cheers.) lie could understand objections to the old com- i nv iiE S h rie t ti he ve ti - e b a u ty t was elates! ed into with France, would not this country be at mweargetihalistrte:ja.otiaet; r ys eo h t iga cti w v were ( n H t o h n e r i. r .) n i t ur t h e r o g e s t liberty to deal on the same terms with every nation in En os if all tb .e silks were to proceed and all the era yons, • field of competi rope ? (ID ear, hear.) Hon. gsutlem,, en argued , this question wides fror a Bordeaux, whereas in fact tne _ s tion was .to be open to all the wo rld. (Hear, dear.; The r i g ht hen.. gentleman (Sir F. Baring), a former Chancellor of the Es:chequer, influenced perhaps, by that feeling which prompted osch a person to criticise the budgets of succeed ing Chanceh'‘ers of the Exchequer in an envious spirit— (laughter)—std, " Whatever may be the merits of this treaty France at all events has got the best of the bargain." Why he (Mr. Osborne) denied that there had been any bargain in the case. If Mr. Cobden were liable to the sus picion of having wade a bargain in this treaty, his conduct ought to be condemsned on that aceount. There was, how ever, in fact no bargssin with France. But were they to be so fanatical in their love of free trade as to refuse to assist France in taking off prohibitory duties, from a pedantic ad miration of the doctnnas of free trade. (Hear, hear.) Adam Smith had been somewhat sneered at by the hon. member for NorthWarwickshire. [Mr. ISTEWDEGATE : "I did not sneer at him. "1 Well, at all events the hon. gentleman had rather patronised Adam Smith. (Laughter.) He would quote a passage of that author which showed that the right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth understood rather imperfectly the doctrines of free trade whenhe talked about " the best bargain!' Writing about commercial treaties and especially about commercial treaties with France, Adam Smith said—" The disinclination of foreign governments to enter into commercial treaties on a footing of reciprocity has been urged as a reason why we should not admit their commodities into our markets. It is true that the French Government have by au unwise regulation prohibited the introduction of English cottons and hardware into France, thus forcing their own subjects to purchase inferior articles at a higher price. This is aline of conduct that ought to be carefully avoided and not followed. Because the French Government makes its subjects pay an artificially (miaowed price for cottons and hardware. there is no reason why the English Government should injure its subjects by making them pay an enhanced price for their wines, brandies, and silks. To act thus is not to retaliate on the French, but on ourselves ; it is erecting the blind and brutal impulses of revenge into maxims of state policy." (Hear, hear.) He admired this treai,y because, in conformity with.the doctrines of f"ee trade, it was a step towards the removal of the pro hibitory system of France, and because he hoped the result of Mr. Cobden's exertions wonldbe that that system would ultimately be removed altogether. Now he was very sorry to hear the hon. member for Warwickshire the other night endeavouring to get upon anti-Gallican feeling on this sub ject by talking of the treaty as a submission to France. The hon. member had indeed in that respect been rather imitated by the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), who had come out this session as a whig of the year 1787. (Laughter .) If they turned to the debates of that period they would nd a speech of a Whig of the same kidney, if he might use that expression, as the right hon. gentleman; he referred t o t h e speech of suspected author of " Junius," Sir Philip Francis, who was a re markably good-natured man. That gentleman drew a fearful picture of whatwas to happen if Mr. Pitts proposal to adopt the French treaty were carried. He conjured up all sorts of evils ; he talked about submission to France being such as the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Herman) had done; and he concluded by saying that if the treaty were adopted the people of this country would be "civilised out of their virtues and polished out of their capital." (Laughter.) Now he (Mr. B. Osborne) deplored this new attempt to work upon the prejudices of the eountry. He might say of this treaty— " It is twice blessed, It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." (Cheers.)' He felt satisfied that if the provisions of the treaty were carried out there would spring up a good understand ing between the people of this country and the people of France, which would eventually enable Parliament to cut down the present monstrous expenditure in the army and navy, which was creditable neither to the house nor to the country. (Hear.) The answer to all this rhodomontade -- for such it really was—about submission to France was very forcibly pointed out on the previous night by the hon. mem ber for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). That hon. gentleman observed that, while the value of their exports to America was £22,000,000, the value of those sent to France—their next neighbour, nearer than Ireland herself—was only £5,000,000; and yet her Majesty's Government were blamed for entering into a treaty the carrying out of which would tend to do away with that anomaly. (Hear.) He wanted to know why their trade with Fr ance should not be as great as their trade with America. Mr. Pitt and Adam Smith both thought there was no valid reason why it should not be so. Now great exception had been taken, particularly by the right hon. member for Stroud, to the 11th article of the treaty, relating to coal. The right hon. gentleman had in voked the sympathy of the country by remarking that the supply of coal was not likely to last more than 300 years. Ho (Mr. B. Osborne) would not enter into that question at length, but he believed the right hon. gentleman was geolo gically wrong. (Hear.) Ho had only taken into account the Newcastle coalfield; he had left out South Wales altogether. (Hear, hear.) He knew that many persons had shared in the alarm felt on this subject. The late Mr. Warburton, for example, who was a member of this house, had quite a monomania on the subject—his opinion that the supply of coal would not last long being so strong that he even denied himself a fire. (Laughter.) B e hoped the right hon. gen tleman (Mr. Horsman) would not allow his apprehension to carry him so far as t at. (Renewed laughter.) But the right hon. gentleman went further. He tried to make out that the one object of the French government in entering into the treaty was to lay up enormouse stores of coal for its steam fleet. Was he not aware that it would be almost impossible to do so, because—to say nothing of waste—there would be great danger of spontaneous combustion ? (Hear, hear.) After all, this was a mere bugbear. (Hear, hear.) The letter of M. Chevalier must have carried conviction to the mind of every one who had read it, and shown that this objection was not well founded. Without this treaty the Emperor of the French could obtain as much coal as he wished for. But now, what would be the effect of striking this article about coal out of the treaty ? The point was very ably put by a coalowner, who remarked that the effect of the change would be to render the French Government dependent to such an extent on English coal that any in terruption of the supply must be attended with the most disastrous results to the navy and commercial marine of France. The truth was that coal was now made to serve much the same purpose that corn did during the free-trade I struggle. He now came to the wine duties. The right hon. member for Portsmouth scoffed at the notion of re ducing those duties, observing that nobody cared about a reduction, and that the only petitions on the subject were petitions against a new class of persons being allowed to sell wine. Why, the right hon. gentleman ought to have reflected that that was a licensed victu:ller's cry, and that when Parliament was interfering with a large interest like that it was natural that they should not care about the introduction of the general use of wine, but desire the people to stick to the old black strap and adulterated beer. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman said the re duction of the wine duties had never led to any sensible in crease: of the revenue—instancing, especially, Lord Al thorp's reduction in 1831. Did' the instance thus given bear out the argument of the right hon. gentleman r In 1831 Lord Althorp lowered the duty on French wine from 7s. 3d. to ss. 9d. What was the result of that change? Before the reduction the duty produced £77,000 in a cycle of ten years, afterwards it produced £110,500. Reductions of duty had, he believed, in every instance led to a corre sponding increase in the consumption. He maintained that the wine duties were, to use the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion, "a scandal to our tariff." They kept our products out of nine tenths of the markets of Europe, and they ought to be re duced not merely on financial but also on sanitary and at T io h n a . t was because theyon low-classedhad moral grounds. Hon. gentlemen opposite said that wine wexascesasie luxury.as(made t t one w wines b e s y amounted to 250 per cent., while that on high-classed wines was only 25 per cent. on the value. Thus, having made it impossible for the poorer classes of this country to purchase wine, hon. members turned round upon them, and said they did not want it because it was a luxury. (Hear, hear.) This objection was very well answered in the report of Lord Chelsea—a report which he may say did that noble lord great honour, and fully justified the late Chancellor of the Exchequer for having platted him in the position that he did. (A Member—" He was recalled.") He (Mr. B. Osborne) thought the noble lord was very ill-treated in that respect, and had a motion been brought forward to that effect he would have supported it. Lord Chelsea pointed out in his elaborate report that in the seventh century wheaten bread was a luxury, and gave convincing proofs that it was by a system of excessive taxation that wine had had been made one. (Hear, hear.) In the year 1689 so great was the taste for French wines that an act of Parlia ment was passed to prohibit any commerce with France for three years, it being declared in the act that the demand fur French wines was so great that it had injured the revenue of the country. In M'Culloch's "Commercial Dictionary" there was a very curious account . of the effect of the Methuen treaty in 1703 in changing the tastes of the people. He be lieved that if the wine duties were reduced to the extent proposed there would be an enormouss trade in French wines. No one could rise from the perusal of the report of the committee on import duties which sat in 1852 without feeling satisfied that many great benefits would be derived by this country:from a reduction of the duties onwino. Mr. Cyrus Redding, in speaking of the beneficial effect as re garded shipping, gave it as his opinion that the result of a reduction of the duties would be that whereas there were now employed in the wine trade 120 vessels of 250 tons each, there would be employed 600 vessels of 500 tons each. What would be the effect of the proposed reduction on the tastes of the artisan ? They all deplored the excessive use of spirits and other strong drinks. What was the evidence of Mr. Barker, one of the largest licensed victuallers in London? Ile said—" I sell over the counter in glasses a pipe and a half of port per week. I find that there is a growing taste for wine, and I believe that if the duties were reduced the consumption would be doubled." Another witness, Mr. Short, said that he sold two pipes and a half of wine per week on draught—port, sherry, and bucellas. He was, asked whether he drew champagne and claret, and he replied, " Yes, from the bottle." He went on to say that he charged 4d. a glass for port, 7d. for champagne, and 6d. for claret. He added, " The duty is so high on French wines that I cannot sell them as I could wish; if the duty were lower, people would prefer them to port. Artisans of all sorts take their glass of wine; Irish labourers frequently carry home a bottle of port to their families." (Laughter.) " I niay remark," he said, " that the taste for port is de creasing, and its use is most prevalent among Irish labourers." (Great laughter.) He (Mr. li. Osborne) was at first puzzled to discover why the taste for port was de creasing, but he afterwards perceived that it was owing to increased adulteration. It was calculated that not less ihan £400,000 had been lost to the revenue in one year owing to the adulteration arising from high duties. (Hear, hear.) Let the house observe what was the compo sition of the port which Irish labourers took home. In the evidence of Mr. Basquet he found a receipt for making port, showing what an effect high duties had • in poisoning the people. That receipt was as follows : ‘. Take cider, 45 y, 6 gallons; brandy, gallons; port, 8 gallons'—there was a little port in it—(laughter)—" ripe sloes, 2 gallons. Stew the latter in two gall o n s o f water. Press the liquor. If the colour does not tomeout off strong enough add tincture of red sanders: When bottled put in each bottle tincture of catechu, when you will pr o du ce a fi ne crusts, appearance (L a ughter.) Soak the end of the co r k s i n decoction of Brazil wood and alum, which will give it a fine appearance of age." (Renewed laughter.) This was the thing called port—this was the stuff which poor Irish labourers took home in a bottle, and he supposed no one but an Irish la bourer would get over such a decoction (Great laughter.) All this adulteration was encouraged by the excessive:rate of the wine duty. (Hear.) Mr. Pitt complained long ago of the great loss • to the revenue which the high duty on wines caused to this country. He (Mr. Osborne) believed that loss was nearly double now. Something might be said as to the use of wine among the sick poor, and that was a very important consideration. So far from this being an unite.- .porfant matter, as it was represented by the right hon. ba ronet the member for Portsmouth to be, he thought it was of the greatest importance no t only to the health, but to the morals of the people of th is country. (Hear.) He was surprised to hear the hon. member for the King's County say the other night that this was the worst budget for Ire . laud that was ever brought forward. lie - eouldnot see that difference. He believed that what was commercially good for England must be commercially good for Ireland. % ith regard to the paper duty, he thought the right honourable gentleman the member for Buekinghamshire made a great mistake in opposing this budget. He ought to have accepted its principle and then he might have opposed its details in committee. (Hear, hear.) Against some of those details he (Mr. Osborne) was not prepared to say cht not have joined the right honourable that gent ehnoi .11.1 an. l He was not prepared to say that taking off the paper tax at this time was quite prudent, nor because lie liked the budget so muph Was he ready to swallow also the paper duty. With regard ti the income tax hp felt very much in theststo of other hon. gentlemen; he did not like to pay that tax. But it was a little unfair of the roprgbeT for Portsmouth to twit the Chancellor of the g*checser with what he said in 1853. The right hon. gentleman made no promises in 1853, he only indulged in anticipations that if things went right they might be able to take off the income tax in MO. Thu member for Buckinghamshire Said we were paying the 04tra qd, ineeme tax to cuable him to give his imperial pupil a lesson in free trade. But that was not the case, They must remember that since 1853 an addition of 48,000,00 0 had boon added to the army and navy expen diture. He agreed it was necessary to make a large outlay on these services, but he did not anticipate that it would be required of them to keep up that outlay every year, and he felt sure that if they agreed to this treaty they would be s ecuring a capital policy of insurance for the preservation of peaoe. (Hear.) He was of opinion that if the income tax was to fast for ever it would be right and just, for all these things righted themselves at last; but if it was to be shifted from year to year it would turn out a weapon of de struction. (Hear.) He himself liked the budget sufficiently well to take it even at its high price. Hon. gentlemen op posite said they disliked this budget because it was a Man chester budget ; but when Mr. Pitt brought in his budget it was called a French budget. (Hear.) Gentlemen oppo site, if they had any political creed, ought to be free traders. (Hear.) There was not one member on the Trea sury bench who started in life as a free trader. (Hear.) He supported the budget because it was a Manchester bud get derived from the greatest man in finance who ever lived —he meant Mr, Pitt—(hear)—and therefore hon. gentlemen opposite ought to give this budget their most ardent sup- poi t. Mr. BARING was surprised to hear that this treaty was no bargain. Trade was reciprocity, and reciprocity begot commerce. When the hon. gentleman said that the treaty was no bargain, he could not understand him. If it was not a bargain, why did the Government have re course to the treaty? (Hear.) He was anxious to have a free intercourse between countries; and if they could ob tain it in no other way they should ebtain it by treaty. He hoped it would have the effect of soothing the asperity that was growing up between the two countries, and it would have that effect if it was mutually beneficial. It was said that if they altered the treaty they would offend France. But they had not yet lost the right of free discussion,which was the privilege of Englishmen. There were persons in France who said they did not want coal. Then, if not, why was that article introduced at all ? They had a right to discuss commercial treaties upon English grounds and Eng lish considerations. But he said that to make a treaty it ought to be well tined—it ought to be carried into imme diate effect. (Hear, hear.) But France was not to act upon it for 12 or 18 months. Was that perfect reciprocity.] Then, again, he did not think that the correspondence laid before the house showed that the interests of this country had been well guarded. No written paper was laid before them till the 17th January, and on the 23rd of January the treaty was signed. (Hear, hear.) There ought to have been some document to show that the Board of Trade had been consulted. That did not appear to have been the case. Then the differential duties on shipping were never con sidered. He was told it was only a treaty of commerce and amity, and not of shipping. But why was not the shipping ' considered ? Why, that was one of the great grievances of which they had to complain in their commercial relations with France. (Hear.) They had had a negotiator in the person of Mr. Cobden, without any positive in structions. What was Mr. Cobden's principle with regard to trade ? That it was for the interests of this eountry to abolish all indirect taxation. A meeting was held at Liverpool, at which the hon. member for Roch dale was not present, but he wrote a letter of apology in which he expre sse d a hope that the day might conic when no indirect taxation whatever would exist. If, when he was appointed one of the negotiators for the treaty, they approved of that principle, they should also have told Parliament, if they did not, they ought to have told Mr. Cobden. The 'opinions of that hon. gentleman upon indirect taxation were, that the sooner they did away with Customs duties the sooner they obtained the salvation of their country. But was that the feeling of noble lords and right hon. gentlemen opposite who composed the Cabinet? The treaty appeared to him to be very carelessly and very loosely drawn up. As for the reduction of the duties on French wines, he believed the only effect it would have would be the introduction of low Spanish and Portuguese wines. But the whole treaty was a mere speculation, and he believed no one could tell exactly hew it would turn out. His own opinion was, that as soon as markets were open in France for English goods, they would flock there as they did to Australia and other places. He believed, in the first instance, that their exports would be very large—that the foreign markets would be glutted..that much money would be lost in endeavouring to establish a market, but at last the French merchants will get disgusted, and things will again return to their normal state. The French people were very prudent and very frugal; they did not spend much money in trade, and he therefore believed those mar kets in France for English goods will tarn out as he had anticipated. (Hear, hear.) For his own part he should have been quite willing to reduce the duties, es pecially on small articles consumed by the poor, if he could so, or see his way clearly. Let the house look at the condition of their finances, and they would see they had not the means to reduce their taxation. There was no surplus, and if there were, other claims de manded a previous attention. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham brought forward an embryo budget in his speech at Liverpool some time since, when he stated that all former budgets were all for the benefit of the rich, and not of the poor. He was a great advocate for a tax on property, and promised the poor a complete remission of taxes. Well, then, he ap proved of the present budget, and could say to a poor man " Drown all the cares of your labour in cups of cheap claret. (A. laugh.) Your wives can wear an abundance of cheap ilk dresses and ribbons , and he could tell the peasant that ho might have plenty of cheap gloves wherewith to till his field. (A laugh.) But what could he say of a war tax being kept on tea and sugar, which was one of the poor man's necessaries? The hon. gentleman said he had an attachment for the treaty, because, as he supposed, it was his own off spring. But what did he say to the duty of 30 per cm*, or to the case of railway iron, where a duty of 50 per cent. was charged ? He, for one, as he already said, would be glad to see the wine duties repealed, if there was a surplus, and when the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer talks of this being a great financial epoch, and al ludes to the great advantage of tho terminable annuities falling in,. he ought to remember there was no such thing, for they were already spent. (Hear; hear.) It was the wish of the people that great armaments should be prepared, and more than the terminable annuities disappeared in that pro ject. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for Ireland said last night they could utilise these two mil lions. But how could that be done when they were already expended—and expended long before they were received? But to make up for the deficiency the right hon. gentleman puts his hand into the pockets of the poor income tax payer and makes him pay. It was not his intention to allude to the prediction of the right hon. gentleman, and how it turned out. Circumstances do change, and opinions change also ; but he would say that, though he abandoned the idea of putting an end to that tax, he had no right to raise it. In his opinion it would have been much better to keep on a small indirect taxation and a moderate income tax, and the burden now complained of would not be so grievous or so oppressive. (Hear, hear.) Besides, if they depend entirely on the income ax they subject the Government and the credit of the country to any changes that may suddenly arise, and which may have disastrous conse quences. He believed the income tax interfered most in juriously with the wages of labour, because, if the revenue of a gentleman were reduced by being compelled to pay a considerable amount of income tax, he must of necessity employ fewer persons. He agreed with the hon. gentleman the member for Leeds, that many other circumstances con spired of late years to make this country prosperous in ad dition to commercial reforms, such as the discovery of gold and other advantages. He also believed that the great railway system had its effects, because it brought labour to wherever it was required, and reduced the cost of trans porting goods from one county to another. He agreed with hon. gentlemen opposite that an extension of their fo reign trade was a great benefit ; but they were wrong in saying that it was all owing to free trade. Was it not true that the 10d. income tax would tell .on the labour of the country, for those who had to pay that tax, and were stinted in their means, must of necessity diminish labour. That was the opinion of Lord Brougham in 1842, and it was quite clear they could not tax the rich man without injuring the poor man. It was also a dangerous tax to rely on in time of peace, and if he wanted a proof that it would not be per manent, he need only refer to the time of Lord Liverpool, when the country rose en masse and swept it from the statute book. That time may come again. They may have popular budget after populer budget, because the peo ple will imagine so when taxes are remitted, but the income tax was not necessary. There was no necessity for taking oft the paper duty. They did not want a supplemental tariff regulation which diminished their indirect taxation. Had they acted gn. a principle like that they might have concluded the treaty with France, supposing it to be ne cessary, or have paid off the Exchequer Bonds coming due, or else have reduced the income tax to Bd. He be lieved that that system of taxation was improvident and dangerous—unsafe even in time of peace, but doubly un safe in time of war. Supposing war to come, what tax would they impose ? Would they increase the income tax to 25., 35., or 4s. ? They would tell him, perhaps, that, that was their only resource. They hon. member for Bir mingham taunted his opponents with supporthre e Sir it. Peel and a 7d. income tax, and asked why th e y did not now snpport the right hon. gentleman and a 10d. income tax. (Hear, hear.) But that was quite another matter—for the advantages were not so obvious or so apparent. At this time the hems° was called upon to perpetuate the income tax at a high rate, and because they (the Conservatives) opposed it, they were taunted with acting in a spirit of party. The question of taxation ought never to be made a party question, nor was it now, and he for one should not look upon the coming division as evidence of a party con flict. For himself, he could truly say that he should unite with the greatest reluctance in a vote that would have the effect of displacing the Ministry. He should certainly vete against the budget as it then was, but in so supporting the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Essex, he desired_to mark his sense of the displeasure which existed abroad at relying on the system which was now adopted of voting away the public money when there was a deficiency in the Exchequer, and trusting to chance for its rest ora• tion. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. M. GIBSON heard with regret that a gentleman of such high authority in the commercial world as the 1;1 speaker should have entirely condemned the policy of the budget, and should have invited the house altogether to set aside the financial arrangements proposed by her Majesty's Government. He recollected that the hon. gentleman had been the uniform, the persevering, and the consistent opponent of the commercial reforms which had taken place within the last few years ; and he should have preferred to see the lion. gentleman take his old ground rather than rest his objection to the budget on the penny or twopence of additional income tax which it might involve. (Hear.) For the hon. gentleman did not propose to get rid of the tax altogether. It was a mere question of a penny, or at the most twopence ; and to use the figure of the hon. member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), they would purchase a penny reduction of the income tax at a very clear rate if they paid for it by the sacrifice of the French treaty of commerce and , the remissions of duties which had been proposed by her Majesty's Government. He regretted to find that the hon. member for Essex was supported by the leaders of the Op position ; for he had been in hopes that the motion was put upon the paper merely for the purpose of enabling a certain :section of the Conservative party to place on record their hostility to free trade principles, The leader of the Oppo sition bad stated that free trade principles w ere goo d ones; but he believed it cou ld b e shown thatvoting for the reso lution would be understood as announcing that they were bad principles. The hon. member for Norfolk was at direct. issue with his leader, the right hon. member for P-a ck He said openly that free tr a d e was b a d, and he - b fore right in voting for the moti on o f th e as -there. on. m w embez for: Essex; but he (Mr. Gibson) could n . e: understood how the right hon. gentleman whe.pr".-4:essed to think that the prin ciple of free trade was :'';Let could hesitate to carry that prin ciple further, (Yeear, 'hear) The house was asked to take a strong course, Ti was invited to refuse the Queen the means deeming into effect the treaty which had been con eluded with France. "Undoubtedly the house approached the consideration of the question perfectly free and unfet tered. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members were at liberty to take that course which their sense of what was demanded of them by the public interest might make them feel it was duty . to adopt. But before the house deliberately refused to give the legislative power necessary to enable the Queen to carry into effect the treaty which had been concluded, it ought to be satisfied that there were good and sufficient grounds for taking so strong a step. Now, without talking of Mr. Pitt's treaty of 1786, there had been repeated at tempts made within very recent periods, and by different administrations of both parties, to conclude a commercial treaty with France. In the years 1839-40, a joint commis sion, composed of representatives of both countries was en gaged in trying to frame a commercial convention very simi lar in principle to that which has lately been concluded. The whole of the commissioners agreed to such a project, but from one cause or another the attempt failed. He believed that another attempt was made by the administration of Sir Robert Peel ; but at all events he remembered Sir Robert .Peel saying, when he introduced his reform of the tariff in 1842, that he reserved the question of the wine duties because he had hopes of effecting a commercial treaty with France. (Hear, hear.) The administration of Lord Derby, in 1852, also attempted a treaty. (Cheers.) He found the fact stated be fore a committee of that house by a witness who was called to give evidence relating to some difficulties connected with local and differential dues on shipping. That gentleman, who was the registrar of the Board of Trade, said that " Under Lord Derby's administratio n it was proposed again to have renewed the proposal for a commercial treaty with France." (Hear, hear.) Then the witness went on to add, " I think that what took place in Lord Derby's time had more special reference to a commercial treaty as distinguished from the navigation question. The proposal was for a commercial treaty, but the French insisted on combining it with the navigation question." (Cheers.) According to this gentle man' s evidence, whichhe (Mr. Gibson) believed to be strictly true, Lord Derby was engaged in 1852 in negdtiating a treaty resembling very much in its principles that which had now been concluded. (Hear, hear.) Lord Malmesbury, too, had occupied himself very earnestly in endeavouring to further the import of coals into France. (Hear.) Repeated com plaints had been made that the coal trade was injured bythe difficulty experienced in getting an extended import into France, and Lord Malmesbury, very properly alive to the best interests of this country, did what in him lay to induce the French Government to remove duties for the purpose of increasing the import of coal into France. Well, the French Government asked the noble lord what he would give them in return? Theyasked him if he should have any objection to reduce the duties on French brandy ? And what was Lord Malmesbury's answer? He said it would betoolimited an operaton for a commercial treaty to confine it to coals and brandy, and he proposed that they should have a treaty for a revision of the customs duties on both sides. (Loud cheers.) If that were so, what was the reason of this extreme objection on the part of the followers of Lord Derby and Lord Mal mesbury to a commercial treaty which had been ratified and which was founded on precisely the same principles ? And now, when the most enlightened statesmen, -both Conser vative and Liberal, had been trying for years to bring about what they all stated to be so desirable a result, 'VIZ., some thing to increase the commercial communications between the two countries ; and when a treaty had at last been actu ally ratified, objections were urged against empowering the Crown to carry out the arrangement . That was the position in which the house was place. The member for Essex had very fairly said that he objected to a commercial treaty, be cause he was a Protectionist, therefore he most consistently opposed the budget • but he (Mr. Gibson) repeated, that he could not understand how gentlemen opposite, who had adopted, and he believed sincerely adopted. the principles of free trade, could be acting on this occasion with the hon. member. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet the member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) made a statement which, if correct, would be a very serious objection. He said Govern ment had bound themselves in savour of France to reverse the Methuen treaty with Spain. He thought the hon. ba ronet had fallen into an error, for ho imagine I that because he saw a certain scale of duties depending on a certain amount of proof spirit that they were bound to that amount and bound by the treaty to give a supposed protection to France as against Portuguese wines. The effect of the treaty would be nothing of the kind. If the hon. baronet would look at the 6th article of the treaty he would find that her Majesty recommended to Parliament that the duty upon wine of a certain number of degrees of proof spirit should not exceed Is. per gallon, and so that up to 36 deg. it should not exceed ls. 6d. per gallon ; but that was the maximum. If they pleased, they might reduce the duties to as low an amount as they thought fit, or abolish them alto gether. Government had not in any way bound themselves to establish a differential duty in favour of French as against Portuguese wines. France would no doubt be glad to see that all duties were abolished. This was a matter intro duced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to our own internal and domestic legislation. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring did not object to a treaty with France, but would rather not have entered into it, except they had entered in to one with Spain and other countries. That reminded him of the old doctrine of 1842, when it was said " Do not make a commercial treaty with one country until with all." He fMr. Gibson) Said this commercial treaty with France was to be taken on its own merits, and he believed it would con fer great and important commercial and political advan tages upon this country ; and glad as he should be to con clude a commercial treaty with other countries, ho would not be deterred from making one with Franco because we had not been able at the same time to make one with Spain and Portugal. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet also stated that the right articles for I eduction had not been se lected—that instead of selecting spirits and wine, the Go vernment should have taken tea and sugar, because expe rience had proved that by the reduction of duty on tea and sugar they might hope to have an increased consumption, which would make up the loss in revenue, but they could tot hope for such results from a reduction of duties on spirits and wine. It should he observed that when Sir R. Peel reduced the duty on brandy from 22s 6d per gallon to -15 s, what was the immediate consequence. Why, an ex • tension of consumption of about 60 per cent., and during the next three years a complete recovery of the revenue. And the reason why the experiment had not been successful with wine was, in his opinion, that they had never gone low enough. They had never reduced the wine duties to a point at which it could be introduced into a new field for consump tion. It did not go beyond the wealthy classes, who were as ready to give one sum as another. But by an adequate reduction it was to be hoped that they would find con sumers of wine among classes of people who had hitherto net been able to enjoy it. But then, said the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Du Cane), " you will interfere with the consumption of the national beverage." As a Protectionist. the hon. gentleman considered ' that beer should be pro tected as against wine. But when the plan of the Govern ment was adopted—as he believed it would be—it would be found to give a very sufficient protection against wine. A gentleman of his acquaintance had lately made a small pur chase of that wine of which it had been said it would injure the consumption of the national beverage. He bought a cask of wine in France containing 40 gallons for 64f, which which was about 538, and the present duty was 11 guineas; and under the new scale of duties, at is per gall, the 40 gal lons, at a cost of 535, would have to pay a duty of 40s. Now upon 53s worth of beer, according to a careful calculation which he had made of the duty on malt, he would pay a duty of 13s. He had taken the maximum. It therefore ap peared that the national beverage would have an ample protection. Then, as to the 3d article of the treaty, there had been some misapprehension as to the differential duties en shipping. It was supposed by many that this article had given some sanction, or some fresh vitality, to a system of restrictions in France which would be injurious to British shipping. He would call the attention of the house to an other view of the question, viz., that this article merely re lated to the two preceding articles, and it meant merely this—that those duties were not to be interfered with by the rates of duties therein mentioned. (Hear, hear.) And the whole had simply relation to the trade which might grow up between England and France from the effect of the mutual reduction of duties. It only referred to the direct trade between the two countries. (Hear.) There were no differential duties on English ships between England and France. English ships went into French ports from England carrying English produce and manufactures pre cisely on the same footing as French ships; but if a Dutch or. American ship should go to France from England with British goods, it would be subject to differential duties, to which British ships would not be liable. The opponents of the treaty ought to like these duties, because they really were a protection upon British and French in the trade be tween the two countries. He (Mr. Gibson) did not like them, and he wished they were abolished. But what would be the effect of their abolition as regarded the direct trade ? When British manufactures were sent to France, they would be carried by ships of all nations on the same footing as they could now be carried in British and French ships only. (Heat, hear.) He approved of that principle. The two contracting parties did not wish that there should be any future misunderstanding, and therefore .they had inserted the' 3d article. The navigation laws were loft as they were before the conclusion of the treaty. They would, it was hoped,be dealt with by a future arrangement—he trusted he should see a liberal navigation treaty, as well as a liberal commercial treaty. The hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) was mistaken in supposing that the differential duties had reference to anything but that to which he had adverted. But the hon. gentleman would be gratified to hear that the differential duties paid by British ships going from America with cotton to Havre—though not to be abolished, were likely to be reduced. This formed no part of the treaty ; but the announcement to which he referred was in the Moniteur of the 20th February, 1860, and it was stated that the duty on cotton would in future be per lb., instead of per lb. ; and it was an error to suppose that the third article related to the differential duties relating to the diredt trade wir h France. Mr. HORSFALL explained that he had made no refer ence to the 3d article, beyond rrmarking that a considerable difference.of opinion existed as to its operation. Mr. GIBSON said he had merely encLavourecl to explain_ what would be the o p er ati o n of the article, and he believed his " view was the correct one. .He would appeal to the gentlemen connected with the agricultural interest. The budget was called a commercial budget, and was a conces sion made to a section of the Liberal party. (Hear, hear.) It was said that it overlooked the interests of those con nected with land. He believed it to be an agricultural bud get. "(Laughter and cheers.) He knew what the British far mer had always felt in reference to free trade. It was this if the consuming classes were to go to foreign count r i es f or their food, let the farmer and agricultural classes buy their manufactures and their articles in the cheapest market. (Hear, hear.) It was the obvious case of doing justice to the farmer now that they had exposed hire to free importation of corn and flour in this country. (Hear, hear.) There was no reason why ho should have the price of those articles raised by the operation of protective duties. (Hear, hear.) Ho found that the British farmer had a very strong ea se i n favour of this French treaty. According to the returns of wheat imported into this country, itamounted t0X8,718,532 worth of wheat in 1859, and 28 per cent,. or £2,420,324 worth came from France. There was imported from Franco 66 per cent. of wheat and flour into F,ngland in 1850: The latter imports amounted to, from all the world £2,392,295; and out of that Franoe sent £1,954 , 2 47; mak ing a total of wheat and flour from France, in 1859, of £1;347,471. Might not the British farmer say with justice that, if people had their wheat and flour from F rance ought to be allowed to have his brandy and silk itm r ? country—(hear, hear, and lauc,hter)—op, f%° • "t' • ' m • , • • and if they would call t meeting in any county and put the question to the farmers, a resolution to that effect would be carried. (Hear., hear.) He believed the advan tages to the agricultural classes would not be inconsiderable. There were a variety of articles in the treaty which they were in the habit e i consuming. He had been in correspon dence with persons engaged in Essex in raising coriander and cereeeray seeds, and being alive to their own interests theey said if these seeds were admitted duty free they would be injured, and therefore they disapproved of the whole scheme of the Government. (Laughter.) No doubt that was the cause which urged the hon. member for Essex to object to the budget altogether. (Laughter.) Now, what were the agricultural interests more concerned in than in obtaining a diminution of the poor-rate? Land and houses were, as it was well known, heavily taxed to pay local rates for the support of the destitute poor of the country. (Hear, hear.) Now, what could be more adapted to lessen the poor-rates than an increase of employment for the poorer classes of the country, and what had been the effect of the commercial policy since 1812 ? Why, if the poor• rates had gone on increasing in proportion to the population from 1842 to 1860, they would now be upwards of a million more than they were at this moment ; so that though the income tax had been complained of, he contended that the agricul tural classes had saved it in indirect taxation by a diminu tion of the poor-rates. (Hear, hear.) Now, let them take the reduction of the wine duties. Would anything give more . employment to the people ? It was stated before a committee of the house that there was no article of com merce the increase of which would give so much employment to labour as an increased importation of wine. (Hear, hear.) It was a bulky article, and, being brought in casks, would require a great number of them. Then it required a great deal of labour to land it, to place it in the cellars of the wine merchants, to fine it and bottle it, an d, w h en b ottled, to convey it t o thel houses of the respective consumers. It would cause a great increase in the manufacture of bottles. (Laughter.) This was all true. It might appear trivial—. (ironical cheers)—but it was most important for the agri cultural interest. (Oh, oh.) He lived in a parish where the resident population had not increased for a great num ber of years. He supposed nevertheless there had been a natural increase. But where had it gone to ? Why, to other districts to find employment ; and if it had not found employment they would have had an excess of labour in that particular locality, and no doubt the result would have been an increase of the poor-rates. He said there was no class in this country that had so direct an interest in everything that would extend the field of employment as the owners of land and houses had, and tbat it was their best policy to en courage every measure of commercial freedom—every mea sure that would unite the springs of industry—if from no other motive than from their own interest. Well, now, there was a great feeling against the income tax. They called it a war tax. And why was it a war tax? Because it was imposed when they had a large expenditure for mili tary and naval armaments. Well, they had got a large ex penditure for those purposes now. When they had an ex penditure of 30 millions for military and naval purposes it was obviously necessary that they should have an income tax. The total expenditure was 70 millions, and ho asked if a temporary income tax was too large a proportion of di rect taxation towards such an amount ? Hon. gentlemen opposite said 10d. was too much, but that 9d. would be just the thing. The hon. member for Stamford desired aseven penny income tax. He thought the hon. member was a great deal too sanguine, but he would not have his seven penny income tax at the price of rejecting the French alliance. (Cheers.) What was the per centage on a tem porary income tax on the expenditure for naval and mili tary purposes ? That expenditure, excluding the cost of the packet service, was £29,200,000, and the tenpenny income tax was no more than three per cent, on that, and yet the great ConserVative party opposed the income tax which was necessary to maintain their establishments. He hoped that hon. members would consider they had before them not a mere question of a penny in the pound, but a question of a broad and enlightened policy. It was frequently argued in.that house that no consideration actuated a Government but the simple one of how they were to get money. He said there was somtehing more to be considered than the mere question of the amount to be raised. There was the broad question of a fiscal policy, which, with a growing population like that of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to have in view just as much as the raising of a par ticular sum. He should not say a word on the question of the paper duty, because hon. members were well aware of his opinion on the subject. The motion of the • hon. member for Essex said they must not diminish their ordi nary revenue. Now, the house had solemnly voted that the paper duty was no longer to be a part of the ordinary revenue. By ordinary revenue he meant a permanent source of income, and that house had deliberately said that the paper duty should not form a source of permanent in come. Hon. members might talk of a definite resolution meaning nothing. If they meant nothing when the resolu tion passed, he meant something. (Cheers.) He felt that the great body of the members of that house would never consent to the doctrine that a deliberate resolution of Par liament was to be treated as waste paper. If the Govern ment had taken no heed of the resolution, the right hon. member for Bucks, who voted for it and had uniformly sup ported the repeal of the paper duty, might fairly have com plained. Mr. WALPOLE said Ile would not trespass on the at tention of the house long, though the magnitude of the sub jects which had been brought before them would justify him in so doing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would pardon him for saying that they were placed in considerable embarrassment in having brought before them at one time and in one debate upon a financial scheme, so many ques tions, that it was hardly possible to have a distinct and de finite issue upon any of them. His right hon. friend had broken through an old custom twice, in 1853 and again in 1860. In 1853, instead of simply meeting the engagements of the year, he based his arrangements upon future expec tations which no human foresight could fully anticipate, and no human wisdom could provide for. In 1860 he pur sued a similar course, and had mixed up with the financial question the treaty with France, instead of bringing for. ward these questions at distinct times and upon distinct considerations. He thought his hon. friend the memlAr for Essex deserved the thanks of the house for bringing this matter to a definite issue. But that did not seem t., be the opinion of many gentlemen who had spoken in this debate. The hon. member for Birmingham said that mo tion meant increased expenditure ; but he should have re membered that it only related to the expenditure of a single year, and even he did not Venture to say that this year we could have any reduction. The right hon. Secre tary for Ireland treated the motion as a stationary policy in finance ' • but it only meant that, so f ar as th a t w h en you had a great deficit lying before you, it was better to re main stationary than to lay the foundation of a greater deficit hereafter. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. mem ber for Liverpool said that if the motion bore simply on the reimposition of the income tax he should have voted for it, but he objected to it simply on the ground that it was intended to defeat the budget. When he (Mr. Walpole) was asked his opinion as to the budget his answer was that he believed the main provisions to be right —(cheers)—that to part of them exception might be taken, as also to the mode in which they were to be carried out. Since then he had listened to the debate, and now he be lieved the main provisions to be right, and he should be sorry to see them defeated ; but still he thought that excep tion might be taken to the time and to the mode in which it was proposed to bring them into speration. The right hon. gentleman who had just sat down treated his hon. friend's motion as an attack on the French treaty. Were that its ob ject he (Mr. Walpole) would not vote for it. (Loud cheers ) It might then be asked why he was going to support the motion. (Hear, hear.) He asked the house to follow him for a few moments, and, if they treated him as candidly as he had been treating them, he thought they could not resist supporting—in their heart, at least,• however their votes might go—(a laugh)—the motion of his hon. friend. The motion recognised, as every one must recognise, the fact that the expenditure of the year must be taken at S 10,000,000, and it went on to ask whether, with an enormous deficiency staring you in the face, it was wise to ixcrease that defi ciency by trenching on the ordinary revenue of the country, and to meet it by reimposing the income tax in the very year you had proposed to take it off, and also in a time of profound peace. Part of the revenue about to be yielded up would come from the customs duties affected by the treaty, part from duties independent of the treaty, and part from the remission of the excise duty on paper. These were the three sources of revenue which the French treaty would affect. Now, with regard to the duties affected by the treaty, he believed they must remit them ; but to it he thought that an exception might be taken in point of time, because in point of fact a more deliberate negotiation of the treaty would haye led to better provisions in some of its articles, whilst he thought it would have been better to have made it more concurrent in point of time and more liberal with regard to reciprocity as between the two contracting par ties. But a stronger reason h e h a d f or o bjecting to the treaty was that he could no t un d ers t an d the jealous policy t of two great nations like France and England keeping ic each l other at arm's length, when the advantages h exclusively possessed might be made so mutu i a d ll w y o p ts r e o n fit v a h b a le t by afrank and liberalexchange. (Hear.) He d regard to this particular ing down this barrier; but with was to prevent statesmen on any side of the house from break object—namely, the third and the 1 1 _ which, in treaty, there were two articles in whichlth both e th sa o s f v much to i h m is p o o r i i t n in io t n o , t r i e n q u u p ir t e h d e rec crn on w s n id f e r r n a m tio t n r . eat H in e g thought g a h s taitmost muni tion of war, and also to deprive ourselves of the reciprocity clauses. We had seen the mistake, when repealing the na vigation laws, of not allowing the first offer to come from without. The Americans said if we gave all they would give all ; but we had given all, and - they had held back ; and the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had himself said that this was a most unsatisfactory state of things. He ob jected to the second million of customs remitted when he remembered the little obstruction to trade and industry which its collection caused, and he thought it was the last thing they should have done to abolish duties which had caused the slightest possible obstruction to trade and th the increase Yuu kknew industry. But he now came to an objection which he principle could ou thought was unanswerable. On what t li i o n n g o i r . d n u s t t y b when e 0 0 7 . a tlea pe t nn t y he in o y n th ly e (Hear, hear.) The Chancell Exch., or T o h f e. t r h ig e h ' on e . tl e him almost smile when he came to talk of ht i g g e n f f u i v n e en e c r n u h o n p a f dt r a a e mx m m i the remission of the excise duty on paper. gentleman, forgetting all he had said in 1853, said, with the two millions of long annuities falling in, he would with one million effect the commercial t reaty with France, and with the other great ly relieve many b source out of which ha had ranches of trade and indus try. The right hon'gentleman forgot that that was i the in paper t?axH. e l h V a n d at en promised to rid them of the n easons for this remissio on vuemreertahteedrfour—the pledge given yb a the house, the obstruction to skill and invention arising out of of its un the present system, the t the inequality enable character of the tax, and pressure as between the rich and the poor man's literature. He would venture to say that every one of these reasons might be adduced with tenfold force against the income tax. (Opposition cheers.) First, as to the pledge. The President of the Board of Trade had theto hie right hon. friend Mr. Disraeli to support his part of the budget on the ground of that pledge. But the pledge as to the paper duiy was sireply general and conditional upon the state of the exchequer, but the pledge as to the income tax was specific. Nor was that all. The pledge in reference to the excise on paper was contained in a resolution of that house whereas the pledge as to the re duction and ultimate abolition of the income tax was em bodied in an Act of Parliament, to which not only that Imam but the House of Lords and the Queen were parties. (Hear, hear.) Again, the pledge in regard to the paper duty was accompanied by no other obligation of any Dort or kind ; but the pledge as to the revision and progressive abolition of the income tax was accompanied by circumetanees which enabled the Government to impose other taxes on tho people, and he held that they were not Justified—at least he could not as being a party to that pledge —he could not feel justined in laying one penny more of income tax in 1860, or any year afterwards, eq3ecially 'hen the object of doing so was merely to get rid of a pact of the ordinary revenue, which might very well stand over until we were in a better position to deal with it. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had dwelt upon the obstacles to skill and industry in the trade of teap,er-making which the Paper duty occasioned, and the difficulty of collection, as reasons for the removal Ogle tax. Now, h e b a d i n his hands; extracts from the report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but did they speak o f any suc h o b stac l es or diffi culties of collection ? Quite the reverse. They said, " So far, indeed. have our regulations been modified to meet the wishes of the paper-makers, that the duty as now charged is collected without any appreciable restrictions on the trade, and their complaints, which at one time were frequent, have entirely ceased." (Cheers.) Mr. Philips, of the laboratory department, confirmed this statement, and in stronger guage. In another report the commissioners said, "If the objections :that can truly, be urged against the paper duty were such as we are accustomed to hear most insisted upon in the case of excise duties generally—their restriction and oppression, incidences in the tax on paper—the advocates for the abolition might find it not very difficult to make out their case; but the fact is there is scarcely any trade in which interference is so little felt, or in which we are continually adapting our regulations to the wants and wishes of the manufacturers.' But what said the Income Tax Commis sioners as to the oppressive character of that impost ? They said, in 1858, "It would be almost impossible to convey to any person unacquainted with the practical working of the income tax a notion of the labour that it entails upon this office, of the great variety and complexity of the questions brought beforo us, and the painful appeals constantly made to our compassion and forbearance. For persons are not aware of the numerous and troublesome inquiries necessary in each case of application for remission or repayment. And mark this—the fact that upwards of 250,000 such claims are annually disposed of, these will convey a formidable impres sion of the difficulty experienced by the commissioners." (Hear, hear.) Talk of oppressive taxes—of taxes that in terfere with the skill, and enterprise, and hard industry of the people—where had they anything so alarming as this ? Again, was the pressure in this case greatest upon the rich ? If hon. gentlemen would refer to the returns they would find specified the number of persons of the diffe rent classes who contributed to the tax. He would take schedule D. By the last return it appeared that the num ber assessed under that schedule was 258,000, and of that number upwards of 200,000 were assessed upon incomes of under £3OO a-year. These were the people upon whom the tax was weighing heavily. It was not your great landed proprietor, your rich manufacturer, or your potential and powerful merchants, but your hard-worn tradesman and needy prefessional man. (Hear.) And yet he was to be told that this was a tax to be retained in preference to the paper duty. (Cheers.) The third point taken by the right hon. gentleman was, that the paper duty was becoming more and more untenable. Well, what was the best of its untenability ? That it was falling off. (Cheers.) He would make another comparison upon this point. The amount of - paper manufactured had increased from 66,000,0001 b. in 1842, to 187,0000,0001 b. in 1858 ; and the amount of duty paid had risen from £634,000 to £1,281,000. Now, take the income-tax. In 1843 the tot a l amoun t l ev i e d was 5,356,000 —in 1853 the total amount levied was £5,598,000, the in crease during 10 years of prcsperity being only about £200,000. The amount upon which the tax was assessed in 1813 was under schedule D, £52,279,000, and in 1853 it had fallen off, but he had. not the precise figures. In 1857 it was £69,110,000, an d i n 185 8 it had risen to £73,106,000. but this included the augmentation consequent upon bringing in all incomes down to V.OO a-year, the total of which charged in that year being £11,880,000. In 1858 the amount chargeable for incomes under £l5O was £12,843,000. lithe Chancellor would take the amount now charged, de ducting these incomes, he would find that there was actually a falling off in 1858 as compared with 1843, of nearly £2,000,000, But what, during the same time, were our ex ports and imports ? Oar exports had increased threefold; manufacturing prosperity had gone on progressing ; but the incomes chargeable to the tax had not risen. It would well become the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he had not better take off a portion of that tax instead of the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman re ferred to the inequality and pressure of the . paper duty—be tween the rich and the poor—but the inequality of the income-tax was 10 times, aye 20 times, greater as regarded incomes of £lOO and £l5O. (Hear, hear.) That alone would strongly induce him to vote for the motion of his hon. friend ; but if he wanted another reason, he would put it in the fact stated by the hon. baronet the mem ber for Stamford, that by forfeiting the ordinary source of revenue arising from the paper • duty the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would have as great if not a greater deficiency in the next year and that he was only postponing his obligations for another 12 months, leaving either to himself or successor the difficult task of determining whe ther any, and if any, how much, of the property and income tax should continue a permanent part of our system of taxa tion. If in another year they were to deal with the defi ciency which yawned before them, they must do so either by reducing expenditure or by imposing the income tax at a still higher rate. A. reduction of expenditure it would be difficult to accomplish. Though he hoped, much would be done in that direction he did not wish our armaments to be less efficient than they were now ; but he was convinced that we did not get our money's worth for what we ex pended. (Hear, hear.) Only gamblers would meet the defi ciency by reduction of expenditure, because to do so would only increase their embarrassment in the future. If, then, they were not able to reduce the expenditure to any great amount, as sure as he then spoke the identically same ques tion would come before them next year unsettled. (Hear.) They were taunted by members on the other side of the house wall making this a party question; but he denied that they had done so, and he assured her Majesty's Go vernment that he had no intention, in voting for the mo tion, to disturb them in their seats. (Hear, hear.) They were now placed in circumstances of far too grave a charac ter to have Administrations changed year by year by meant of party votes, and if the Government were just and mode. rate, and by listening attentively to the unreasonable ob jections urged on either side of the house, endeavoured to establish our financial arrangements on a better footing than they were at present, they need not fear any party opposi• tion. (Hear, hear.) Party had nothing to do with the ques tion—at least so far as the great bulk of those around them were concerned. (Hear, hear.) They were living in times when the hands of the Executive required to be strengthened rather than weakened, and he for one was thoroughly con vinced that it was for the good of the country that any Ad ministration sitting opposite should, as long as it did not provoke hostility, be fairly and firmly supported in conduct ing the Government of this great kingdom. (Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—Having listened with attention, like the rest of the house, to the speech of my right hon. friend, I am free to confess that I find it perfectly easy to understand his premises apart front his conclusion, not less easy to understand his conclusion — that is, the vote he means to give —apart from his premisses. But what the process is by which my right hon. friend has combined such premisses with such a conclusion, I must say would have been received by me as a riddle more hope less than that of the Sphinx, if it had been proposed to me before the debate to-night. (Laughter.) My right hon. friend is favourable to the main features of the budget in their substance. He is favourable to the treaty with France, and wishes to see it well carried through. He it; favourable to the Government—a most insignificant conic deration in comparison with that I named before, but still • statement which, coming from him, I and every man re. oeive with the most implicit credit. He is favourable to the maintenance of the Government ; and, being favourable to the treaty, to the main features of the financial scheme and to the Government, he is about to vote for the motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Du Cane). (Cheers, and counter cheers.) That is a process which may be perfectly intern gible to some hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) But the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) will, I take it, have a share in this debate ; he, I have no doubt, means to sup' port the motion ; yet I will venture to lay what are termed very long odds that he does not found his support of the motion upon the propositions of my right hon. friend, but upon propositions which are in direct contradiction to thetas (Cheers and laughter.) I won't attempt to follow my right hon. friend through the details of his speech. He says that we are subject—and I admit the charge—to great dd• ficultv, in consequence of the number of questions we have think, is to separate them one from the oth er , an d d i scus s to discuss. The best way of coping with that difficulty, 1 them in their order ; and, as we shall have separate a nd distinct opportunities of examining the treaty with Frances of discussing the paper duty, and of considering the in" come-tax, I cannot enter into the smallest detail on any one of those three questions. (Some laughter.) I am obliged to say one word, however, on what has fallen from p h e i r s duties speech and used the ian ingcouni ge e m y right hon. friend w ith regard to the relation of the pa -tax, which Hwoeuipodsilteiadvelyusinthoneunder stand p of that the alternative before the Government when they came to their conclusion was whether they should retails the paper duty and dispense with the income-tax. (Nov no.) I beg pardon. I distinctly assert, in opposition to the gentleman who says " No"—and, at any rate, I May be al' lowed to state my recollection—that in one part of hie speech my right hon. friend seemed to imply that the el' ternative with us was, whether we should keep the paper duties and get rid of the income-tax or whetfier we should keep the income- tax and part with the paper duties. (N 6/ no.) My right hon. friend was very eloquent upon the dial' culties which attend the collection of the paper duty, and made light of those difficulties. On another occasion I will endeavour to show what those difficulties are, that my right hon. friend has not at all taken them into his view, ana that the report of inland revenue quoted by him, which refers to a prior date, and does not express the present stag of the question or the present views of the Board of Inland Revenue, is perfectly compatible with the proposition that those difficulties are of the most serious kind. (Hear.) l sets forth also the great difficulties which attend the ler," ing of the income-tax ; but when we see before us this 0011 ' elusion, that the difficulties of the paper duties are groa t " and that the difficulties of the income-tax are great, I 60 that it is wiser, if we can, to get one of the two as we pro' pose, than .to keep both, as my right hon. friend propose ! ' (No, no.) It is, then, no question between the p a per dittY: and the income-tax th a t we s h a ll h ave t o di scuss. It is s: the outside only a questi on b e t ween th e paper duty 01'1 one tenth portion of the income-tax. (Hear.) But I post from that subject, because I think we have an issue before w' in a far broader form, and I shall endeavour to come as soon as I can to that issue. I will no t, th ere f ore, f o ll ow t h e righ t hon. and learned gentleman w h o spo k e on a former night into the discussion on the alcoholic test on wines, or to; hon. member for Buckingham into the question of song notes and dock wa rran t s . Th e con t ract note stamp is 1d and that moves his indignation, because it is so small, $ 7,, he says, " Will you obstruct trade by this • paltry t e e „ it But the dock w arran t i s 3d ., an d that moves his indigna t ion because it is so great, and h e says, " Wi ll you oversvil'he trade by this great d u ty ?" (H ear, and laughter.) hon. member has the direst views for the future in c °ll— / o quence of these painful measures, and when I see a ra — , the ability of . my hon. f r i en d t h e member for Hunting d o n in a state of feveri s h appre h ens i on, and fore -telling the direst direst results from th e measures proposed, I natura lly . 7 , for consolation under circumstances so discouraging, sild . t h I find that those gentlemen viewed on former occasions wi ca the same a n d even more painful anxiety public m easur es which afterwards were adopted, approved, an d vindicated to the satisf ac ti on o f th e w h o l e country, then I confess I live in h o p es th a t th at w hi ch has happened before r . happen ag a i n , an d th a t, th e i r g l oomy v i ews o f the t turning out incorrect, I may count on their adm o i tum _f_ hereafter the merits:of the m easures they now den (Cheers.) The hon. memb er f or B u ckingham has tr u y not had the same opportunities as the hon. member T t r,e tingdon has had, but on great occasions we have foula alld km, member for Huntingdon. among the most resolute