The Sun. — London, England, 1860-02-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, PEBRIJARY 24, 1860. increase the wealth of England. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the treaty was not one which would materially advance the trade of this country. It might be of political value, but upon that point he would not dwell. After referring to the financial statement of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. member said he wanted to know how the year 1861-2 was to be provided for ? (Hear.) He confessed that he should like to take from the budget all the objectionable imposts, and further he should like to reduce the income-tax by 3d in the pound, making it 7d. for the next year. Making it more than e ffect at present would be a cruel disappointment to the just x ptions of the country. (Hear, hear.) He would only add that as re garded the treaty he believed it would be nugatory in opera tion and the reductions in the budget would be most unwise while they were to be replaced by taxes which were so ob noxious, As regarded the future he was not sufficiently imbued with parliamentary conflicts td feel anything but pain at being obliged to offer some opposition to the right hon. gentleman's measures, which he had brought forward for the welfare of the community at large. But he (Mr. Hub bard) would not have felt himself justified in not stating to the house the feeling which he entertained against the most mischievous part of these measures. The aggravated form of the income-tax and other obnoxious imposts would fetter and injure trade and embarrass traders, and would obstru.ct that enterprise which had extended the influence of this country over the world. Mr. E. BAINES said that as a representative of one of the laigest towns in the country he would ask permission to state his views of the budget, but he regretted to find that he had to follows gentleman so high in financial authority as the hon. member for Buckingham. He, however, was comforted by the assurance that there was a still greather authority in the mercantile world than the hon. member, and that was the public funds, and they had experience d a rise after the debate of Monday last; the opinion prevailing being that the budget would be carried by a large majority of the house. The funds had not only advanced, but all chambers of com merce and public meetings in large manfacturing and com mercial towns had expressed themselves favourable to the great measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and upon the whole they had received the decided support of the press. (Hear, hear.) He believed that a considerable majority of the house would pronounce that the measures would be as safe as they were comprehensive, and that they were as wise as they were bold. (Hear, hear.) He could not help ob serving that it was not the fact that duties on English ma nufactures which were now below would be raised to 30 per cent. ad valorem in France. The duties would not, in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be beyond what they now were, and instead of English yarns and English goods being admitted at a duty of 30 per cent., several articles were admitted at 10 per cent., and even at six per cent. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Bucking ham had also stated that the cost of the French treaty would be 2d. in the pound income tax, but that was a mistake, it would not be more than ld., because although relief would be granted approaching to £2,000,000 a-year, the loss would be only £1,000,000, and that sum repre sented one penny in the pound, and not twopence. The hon. gentleman had said that the effect of the repeal of the cornllaws was not merely that it affected the price of bread in this country, but that it raised the price of bread abroad. If he applied that argument to the future competition be tween England and France, he would find that it would regulate the price of labour in the two countries, and that would prevent any disadvantage operating against the Eng lish manufacturers. (Hear,hear.) The hon. gentleman's speech was a minute and microscopical view of the great plan of She Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not upon a small ground, but upon a great one, that he (Mr. Baines) gave it his warm assent, first, because it would complete the system of free trade which was begun by earlier and distinguished statesmen ; this plan would consolidate that system; secondly, because it was a plan which regarded the interests of the consumers and the great bulk of the popu lation of the country. (Hear.) The third consideration which recommended it to him was that it established new bonds of friendship between England and her nearest neigh bour, that country with which it would be most disas trous for us to be at war, and most profitable to maintain friendly relations with. With these observations heshould conclude, merely adding that as a whole he was ready to give both treaty and budget his warmest approbation. Mr. P. BLACKBURN did not mean to deny the advan tages that had resulted from free trade, but thought it ra ther hard that membersopposite should claim all Sir Robert Peel's measures as belonging to their side of the house. In his opinion wo should derive no benefit under the French treaty by the reiuction of the duty upon wine and brandy. The treaty was supposed to be for the benefit of the manu facturers and iron and coal masters of this country, but was it fair to call upon the people to pay a large sum of moneyin order to procure a certain advantage for a particular class ? It was very hard that we should be called upon to pay a large amount to introdtce those gentlemen into a new mar ket. He certainly thought that was contrary to the rules of free trade, and under all the circumstances he should sup port the amendment of the hon. member for Essex. Mr. MARSH would give his support to the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and only regretted that it did not go further in allowing certain continental fruits into this country. He was glad to see that we had entered into a treaty of commerce with France, and believed that the effect would be most advantageous to both countries. France was not necessarily fond of war. Frenchmen disliked the sea, and, as a proof that they were not fond of soldier ing, a substitute could not be got for a conscript under £BO, while in this country a recruit could be had for a shilling. (Hear, hear.) The people of England had heard of cheap wine and cheap silk, and they might depend upon it ttie men would have the former and the women the latter. (Hear, Near.) Mr. HORSFALL said he never felt a greater difficulty than he should have in saying aye or no to the motion of the hon. member for Essex. He was sorry that he had brought it forward. An hen. member said he adopted free trade in deference to public opinion, but it was the duty of this country not only to cultivate free trade with France, but with every other country in the civilised world. It had been said that they ought to prohibit the exportation of coal in time of war, but he was not of that opinion, as in case of war, coal could be obtained from Belgium and Prussia, and even in France itself. Still he regretted that there had been no reference in the treaty to the shipping trade of this country, and particularly as re garded the coasting trade. The house had little idea of the amount of foreign trade which was carried on be tween France and the United States. From a return which had been made up to September last of the exports of cotton from the United States into France, for the years 185 C-57 to 1859, he found that there were in 1856-57 no less than 415,000 bales taken from the United States into France; in 1858, 388,000 bales; in 1859, 440,000 bales; while in the present year it promised to amount to half a million bales. France now showed a great increase in shipping over what it was last year. In an official French document, published within the last few days, it was stated that nine-tenths of the trade between France and the United States was carried on in American vessels. He should have been glad to have seen in the official papers some evidence of the exertions of their plenipotentiaries in Paris for obtaining greater advan tages in favour of British vessels. The hon. member here read an extract to show the difficulties which beset British shipping in the Mauritius. It was stated that the plenipo tentiaries had instructions to fix the duty on brandy at 10s., and if they got adequate advantages to reduce it to Bs. 2d. The reduction in the duty on brandy made a gross loss of • £756,000, and the amount of duties which were paid upon home and colonial spirits were so much as £26,640,000 in the year 1858. He had been an advocate for the abolition of the paper duty; but had that been deferred for the present it would have been a saving of a million, and that would have enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have re duced the income tax to sevenpence, instead of increasing it from ninepence to tenpence. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member stated that he had received letters from several of his consti tuents stating that the penny tax on packages would involve a serious item of expense to those largely engaged in trade— in some cases to the amounted £6OO, and in one case the tax would amount to no less than £2,000. He could, in conclusion, bear testimony to the urbanity shown by the Chancellor of the Excheque r t o d e p u t a tions on the subject of the budg et. Had the h on member (Mr. Du Cane) confined his m otion to t he income tax, he (Mr. Horsfall) would have supporte d it , but as he thought the reduction of the number of duties proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a great stimulus to trade, he should feel bound to vote against the motion. (l l l v e a a a r a , f hear from the Ministerial side.) Mr. BYNG the Chancellor of th opinion that the budget submitted by Exchequer was one of the best and most comprehensive th at was ever submitted to the House of Commons. (Hear, He believed that the treaty with France would prove t o roost beneficial in rimy re spects, and he had little d ou bt th at t h e example .would be followed by other countries. He thou; ht the treaty would conduce to the material advanta ge o f ee r ouy. It would g tend to consolidate and carry out the under standing p rinciples of free trade : It would also tend to eemen e t a a g ood with France, and materially advance the best in terests of both countries. He should, therefore, oppose the amendment. Mr. BEACH said he thought the propositions of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were founded upon a basis more specious than solid. The finan cial statement was founded upon the treaty, and he rejoiced to see the Emperor of the French a party to this treaty, which would give him more solid and permanent glory than any to be obtained by territ orial aggrandisement and con quest. He would confer by these deeds the most signal benefit on his country. But were the advantages to be gained by England equal to those obtained by France ? h He thought not. The wine introduced would be of that th in, sour kind which was not suited to the climate of this coun try. The articles to be introduced would not promote sae e r comforts of the humble traders. He hoped that y next yea a permanent reduction would be made in the estimates for the advantage of the country at large. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. BARING said that, accustomed as he was to speak on financial questions, it would be hardly fair or hardly courageous in him to shrink from expressing opi nions which he knew were not very popular. They had to discuss the scheme as a financial whole, of wb;ch the treaty only formed a small part. He was not one of those free traders who objected to a commercial treaty. Our later policy had made such treaties extremely difficult ; but there were two roads to the same end. They might either say, " We quite admit that it is most consonant with the princi ples of free trade that there should exist a system of liberal duties on both sides; but we will not wait until the foreign country adopts a liberal policy—we will not punish our selves for the sake of punishing them—half a loaf is better than no bread, and we will have free trade on our side, though France or any other country declines to adopt it." Tear, hear.) But the object of that was, by our example, induce the f ore i gn c o u ntry ultimately to come Onto our policy, and, to obtain freotrado or liberalduties on both sides. There was another course perfectly consistent with the anxiety to obtain '”ee trade--to say, "rt is quite true we punishing ou rse lves, but we may besh all sooner gain our legitimate object—fre e trade ' on both aides—if we hang off for a certain time and negotiate." That course had been adopted in many cases. But therewas considerable difficulty in taking half one course and half the other. (Hear, hear , f rpm the Opposition.) He hal no objection to making a bargain wit h France, and obt a i ning certain privileges on condition of the reduction of certain duties. But if Govern anent thought that a NN Ls e cor•-se with regard to France, w hy did they exclude any possibility of taking that course with regard to Spain ? Had they gone to Spain, and said, " We are prepared to reduce the tbe duty on Frenc h rt i n c wines, and are going to do it b y treaty, y giving us e privi leges ; if you don't do the same your w , nrs will buffer," there never was a moment when we should have been more likely to succeed in obtaining our end. Unfortunately, while making a commercial treaty with France, at the very same moment the Government had sacrificed every poss i b ility of making a commercial treaty with Spain. (Hear, hear.) "Whether the advantages to be obtained by England or by France were the greater, gentlemen would entertain dif ferent opinions; undoubtedly, his impression was that France had the best of the bargain. (Hear.) What did we obtain? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated the question of wine as an important question, as it undoubt • edly was ; but in the letter of Lord J. Russell, written, no doubt, in communication with the Chancellor of the Exche • quer, he stated that the reductions proposed were not upon those articles which he should have thought so necessary as to call for his immediate consideration. But what was the objection to the reduction proposed ? He apprehended that it was to enable the people to obtain cheap wine, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described as a blessing ; also to produce a considerable increase of trade; and ulti mately to yield an improved revenue. He must say hehad found no great appreciation by the working classes of the advantage held out to them by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer ; for of the petitions which had been presented in connection with the proposals of the budget, those most numerously signed were from persons who prayed the house not to make the sale of this "blessing" too common—not to open it to general competition. Who ever heard of persons petitioning that the sale of tea and sugar might not be made too common ? (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated a very large increase in the consumption of wine, but he doubted whether that expectation was well founded. As regarded Cape wine, the consumption of which the right hon. gentleman thought would be got rid of, he (Sir F. Baring) could not help remarking that that wine, at all events, had the recommendation of being paid for with British manufactures, and if it were replaced by the same quantity of French or Spanish wine, it did not follow that British manufactures would be benefited by the exchange. (Hear.) As to the predicted increase in the consumption, ho would observe that he had heard that prophecy twice before, and in both instances it turned out untrue. Tesan guine Lord Ripon made a considerable reduction in the wine duties, but unfortunately the revenue did not recover. Lord Althorp also made a large reduction, and the result was not very satisfactory. A very remarkable return had recently been made with regard to reductions of duties on tea, coffee, sugar, spirits, wine, and malt—showing with respect to each what the duties were in 1820 and in 1860, and what was the consumption per head in each of those years. On sugar there was a very considerable reduction. But what was the result? Why, the revenue more than righted itself, and the amount of duty increased from £3,900,000 in 1820, to £5,936,000 in 1860. This showed that the article of sugar answered the helm, and that a reduction of duty was followed by a cor responding increase of consumption. (Hear, hear.) On tea , also there was a very large seduction of duty ; but the re venue increased from £3,600,000 to £5,406,000. The case of coffee was similar. The reducrions of the duty on spirits was not followed by a similar result. There was a fall in the re venue on French spirits, 'a larger fall in the revenue on colo nial spirits, and, on the whole, the consumption of spirits in the 40 years had not repaid them for the reductions. It was remarkable how stationary wine had been, as regarded both revenue and consumption. (Hear, hear.) There was, indeed, a small increase in the revenue derived from French wine— the duty having been reduced from 13s. 9d. to ss. 9d. On Rhenish, Madeira, and other wines there had been a loss ; on Cape wine, a 'small increase. Speaking generally, he might say that the reductions of the wine duties bad not been followed by a recovery of the revenue. On malt there had, during the same period, been a reduction of duty, which was not very large compared with the reduction on the other articles which he had mentioned ; and a very large increase in the amount of revenue was derived from that source. These facts showed in what direction the tastes of the people lay, and they showed at the same time where reductions might be made with a probability of increased instead of diminished revenue. (Hear,. hear.) But he was told there were political reasons for enter ing into the treaty with France. Now, on that point he must first remark, that if such great political blessings were derived from a treaty with France, similar blessings might be derived from a commercial treaty with other countries. If they were to make friends with France at the expense of £l,ooo,ooo,why should they not spend a small sum in dealing with some other Power ? They had not too many friends on the Continent. (Hear, hear.) Now, view ing this question neither as a member of the present Govern ment nor as one who looked forward to the formation of a Government on the other side of the house, he was in a position to express an opinion without any hesitation, and he must say that the political aspect of the treaty was no recommendation to him. (Cheers from the Opposition.) He had never joined in the attacks which had been made on the Emperor of the French ; he had never concurred in the opinion that he intended to invade this country ; but, nevertheless, he would ask on what ground they were to make such great sacrifices for the sake of the French alli ancencein? hy was the income-tax to be so largo ? Not ac cordg t o the Chancellor of the Exchequer, b e cause of , any falling-off in the revenue, but because the Government were obliged to propose such enormous naval and military esti mates. (Hear, hear.) He wished to see our relatio ns with France of the most friendly character but at the present moment he was certainly not anxious that there should be any intimate alliance with France as far as her conduct in Italy was concerned. (Opposition cheers.) His noble friend (Lord J. Russell) was, he hoped, satisfied with regard to the views of the French Government. The policy of England, however,was that Italyshould be free—that Italy should be powerful—that Italy should be independent of foreign countries, whereas the policy of France, so far as he could understand it, was that if a powerful Central State were formed in Italy, France would be bound to obtain some equivalent to protect her. (Hear. hear.) That was not the policy of England, and he hoped the treaty would not have the effect of making her a party to transactions which seemed likely to take place before long with regard to the acquisition of territory in Italy. (Hear, hear.) So much with respect to the treaty. He would not enter into the details of the tariff ; simply remarking that, while the present Chancellor of the Exchequer entertained the opinion that it was desirable to get rid of the duty on small articles, his colleague, who formerly filled the same office (Sir G. C. Lewis), had expressed a contrary opinion. He would leave them to settle the difference be tween themselves. The question to be determined, how ever, was not merely whether they should remit the duty on small articles, but whether they should transfer the taxation on those articles to mercantile transactions con nected with them. (Hear, hear.) Alter the clear and able speech of the hon. member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) he would not waste the time of the house by entering into that subject; he would only express a hope that they would not, under the notion that they were carrying out free trade, commit the great mistake of interfering with the frerelom of the movements of trade. (Hear, hear,) The remission of the paper duty would be a very great benefit to trade—that was the best point in the budget. (Hear.) The only question was whether the remission could be made with safety to the revenue. (Hear, hear.) He thought there would be a vast spread of the paper mite ufacture provided sufficient materials could be obtained. The right hon. gen tleman talked in his budget speech about coaches made of paper. From a recent work on Japan it appeared that the people of that eountry walked about in great-coats made of paper. (Laughter.) Now, his main difficulty with regard to the budget was the state in which it would leave the finances of the country. (Hear.) On that point he would recal the attention of the house to the principal objection mule to the income tax when it was first proposed by Sir R. Peel. No objection was made to his tariff, except the ordinary ones against ,free trade; but the income tax was objected to especially, on the ground that it would be im possible to make it permanent—that, some time or other, such a feeling would be raised against it that the Govern ment would be compelled either to impair its efficiency or to abandon it. The question for the house now to consider was whether the revenue would be safe with £10,000,000 de pending on an income tax imposed for cne year. (Hear.) Since it was first levied there had been several narrow escapes from losing it. It was first imposed in 1842 for a period of three years. In 1845—the honeymoon of free trade—it was renewed for three years longer without much objection. In 1848 the Government of the day were com pelled to relinquish the additional twopence, and it was very doubtful whether, if it hai not been for the disturbances which broke out that year in France, public feeling would have allowed it to be continued at all. (Hear.) In 1851 it was proposed that it should be renewed for three years, but Parliament would only renew it for one year—the amend ment to that effect being proposed, riot by a Conservative, but by Joseph Hume, the honest apostle of free trade. (Ch ee rs.) In 1852 there was a committee on the income tax, and it was ultimately renewed only for one year. In 1853, on the motion of the present Chancellor of the Ex chequer, it was imposed for seven years. But did any one believe that would have been done if expectations had not been held out by the right bon. gentleman that measures would be adopted which would have the effect of getting rid of the tax at the end of that period ? (Hear, hear.) He had refreshed his memory by referring to the right hon. gentleman's speech on that occasion. It was one of the ablest histoi ical and financial speeches to be found in the records of the Parliamentary debates. The budget was not like the present one, it was not formed in the same mould. crlear, hear.) The two budgets differed—the eloquence was the same. (Laughter.) The present proposal was to renew the tax for one year. Did that proposal leave the finances of the country in a safe condition ? (Hear, hear.) He said nothing about the pledge given by the right hon. gentleman in 1853, as pledges could not always be redeemed, but he must say that he should have expected the right hon. gentleman to tread in the path which he himself 7 f . ( hli2e,auou,,n9r.),Woo;ofheoer a b o u t f e Wrightu n b d e they ztlo2l a 5 to 11 7 :1 : 0 ; 0 , po a i s nted out. (Hear, hear.) •Taking the expenditure as it i the ng t a xesf o r a surplus.ta do it; that the Government had nothing to do but to clap on an income tax of 10d. in the pound, and keep up the war duties on tea and sugar. But, supposi ng they did that, they would still have a deficiency of nearly £2 , 000,000 , and that must hOld,adelhlgeaowyte a deficiency of be made up by additional taxation. letr, hear.) That seemed to be a formidable positio n—not lightly to be dealt with—and one which he earnestly the house to consider, and not to be led away y eloq uent talk about the blessings of free trade. (Hear.) lie q uite e agreed t about the o t T e nsider what bl es sings of free trade; bat he asked might happen supposing that at the end ul of should have a deficiency of £ 12 , 000 ,000 to meet. If they ey f t s h ou ld have a new Parliament it would be not unwise for them to have been for a y ear or two. (Hear , hear.) But they would have a new constitution. (Hear, hear.) This, however, he would say, it would not be wise or statesman like to leave to them a deficiency of £12,000,000 in the revenue. (Hear, hear.) He would entreat the house to deal i 1 this question seriously, and not leave such a legacy to ' a new Parliament, for by such a course they might incur 'le loss of their credit —they might sacrifice their character ar 'I position in the face of Europe, and, finally, risk their power of obtaining money when they wanted it. (Hear.) Mr, BRIGHT—I have listened with more thanusual in terest, and not less than usual pleasure, to the speech of the right hon. baronet the member fo : Portsmouth. It has reminded me forcibly of the sort of budget speeches which those who wei a in this house 20 years ago were accustomed to listen to, and such as some of us who were not then in the house were accustomed to read. It seems to be the speech of a mind clinging very much to the past, and filled nith excess of doubt with respect to the future. Every part of it held up some hobgoblin to alarm the house as to a policy which the expei:ence of the house since 18 1 1 has proved to be most wier. We were told what dreadful things would happen, and how much we should disappo'nt many ( it of doors ; but, unf o r innately for the right hor . gentle man's at gument, there is but one voice I •om one end of the country to the other w;th regard to the propositions which the Chanc tor of the Exchequer has laid before us—(hear, hear)—and if this debate goes on—as I presume it will not— into any of the of next week, we shall have that ap parition of dissohing views which the right hen. gentleman aiu:ees d q uestio n. to i un t m. h re en the ft (civ itself mov er a hoe (Hear, , is o r hear.) e oa a if rn. v) thise very It once in a debate described in connection with an Indian de spatch ; an d, l as t o f a ll, th ere w ill be scarcely any one to vote amendment."That(Hear, heei sts hear.) the e a r house,. ) whole Tthee n. y states fair o lt cognising the ne cess it y o f prov idi ng f or th e i ncrease d ex -Ifnancial year, is of opinion it is not expedient to add t o t g he existing deficiency by din:apish ing the ordinary revenue, and t e i it is n country e pr epa red by yr e eg fiam tfatal reimposing n i onl y et the incomepoin t h e taxjust a t allow, expectations'of h unnecessarily hi g h rate ." that amendment is carried, it must of necess i ty b coming to the commercial treaty with France, but to the whole scheme of the Government, (Hear, hear.) It insists upon that which is the great blot of the scheme of the Govern ment—the income tax—at the, amount proposed ;it opposes all reduction of duties whether of customs or of excise, and it refuses to give effect to the treaty with France. It is, in fact, against everything but expenditure. (Hear, hear.) I do not complain of this at all. I thank the hon. member for Essex for bringing the matter before the house and the country in a form in which it cannot be mistaken. (Hear.) He wishes to throw out the budget, to reject the treaty, and to overthrow the Government. (Hear.) The result of the success of this amendment, if not a dissolution, and will be at least a new Government, a new Parliament, a new bud get, increased taxes, indirect taxes, and a tax, I presume, upon imports, and at the same time estrangement with France, which, I think, would be very unfortunate. (Hear, hear.) But on this subject there is extraordinary unani mity in the country, and I believe Parliament will decide in accordance with the opinion of the country. (Hear.) I have reasons for liking this treaty with France. It has been the object of my most ardent wishes—it is now the object of my most cherished affections. (Hear.) Not longer ago than July last year we had a discussion in this house on the financial policy of Lord Derby, which was introduced in a very remarkable speech by the righthon. gentleman the mem ber for Buckinghamshire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke after him, and I was permitted to address the house after both. On that occasion I claimed the right hon. gentleman as a convert to the opinions of my honourable friend the member for Rochdale. On that occasion I took the liberty of urging on the noble lord at the head of the Government and the noble lord the Foreign Secretary to attempt some arrangement with France, so that those two great countries might be united in one common bond of friendship by the exchange of the productions of each. I should like, with the permission of the house, to read as extract from that speech. I was advising the Foreign Sec retary, or rather telling him what I should like to do if it should happen that I was in his position. I told him I should say to the French Government—" We are but 20 miles apart ; the trade between us is nothing like what it should be, considering the population and products of the two countries. We have certain things on this side of the Channel, which, owing to the duties upon them, bar the intercourse between the two nations. We will reconsider these duties and remove them. We have also an extraor dinarily heavy duty on the greatest of the products of the soil of France—the light wines of your country—by re moving which we might lose about £1,500,000 a-year, more I or less. The only persona the Emperor of the French can not cope with are the monopolists of his own country. If he could offer them the prospect of 30,000,000 of customers from this country would not that be an advantage to them as well as tons ? I believe, if that was done honestly, and withoutfinesse, it would be bringing about a state of things which history will pronounce to be glorious." (Hear.) This is apart of the observations which I ventured to address to the house in July of last year. Not more than a week after I made these observations a communication was entered into between a distinguished person in France and my hon. friend the member for Rochdale, with a view to discuss the probability of carrying out this treaty. (Hear, hear.) That being so, the house will excuse me it I say I fee l the g reatest satisfaction that her Majesty's Government are enabled, by the liberality of the French Government, to come to an ar rangement the good of which to both countries it is impos sible to calculate. (Hear.) Many strange objections to the treaty have been taken, but the real objection has beenkept in the background. I have been told, by persons who seem to have a prodigious affection for free trade, that these treaties are most inimical to the principles of free trade. But if any one had offered in 1840, or in 1846, to make a com mercial treaty with this country, under which we were to abandon any protection, with the exception, I believe, of that protection which was supported by the Anti-Corn-Law League, would any person then have been in favour of what lam now told is in such great danger ?—would they have accepted, with the greatest enthusiasm, a treaty made for such a purpose, at such a time ? No doubt they would. And the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) put the proposition in the shortest and most concise form possible when ho said the other day, " I support commercial treaties when they are in favour of free trade ; but not when they are opposed to it." (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for North Warwickshire, who spoke the other night, said that he regretted this treaty as an act of submission to France; and he gave ut terance to that sentiment in tones almost tragic—so deeply did he feel the humiliation we were undergoing. Now, I have understood that there is a party in France which says just the same thing—but throwing the degrada tion upon France, not upon us. I offered the other day to read a letter from a statesman, formerly connected with the Orleans party; and he regretted that the Government of his country had entered into a treaty with England so hu miliating to France—(hear. hear)—and which showed how vast were the sacrifices to Europe which France was willing to make in order to obtain a strict alliance with England. (Hear, hear.) Other persons say we are giving so much mere than we get. This is an objection difficult to answer from the free trade point of vie - v. But if we are standing on the ground which the hon. member for North War wickshire occupies, the objection could be easily answered. And I think the hon. member for Leeds to-night very ably met that argument. (Hear, hear.) He showed that to a considerable extent not only that it was not true from the hon. gentleman's point of view, but that the very reverse of it is true if that he assumed, which protectionists must assume—that whoever makes the greatest reductions makes the greatest sacrifices. Upon the face of the treaty nothing; is more clear than this, that so far as concessions go—l wish I had another word to use, but I have no other—the French concede five times as much to us as we do to them. But it has been argued that the articles upon which we make the concessions—let it always be supposed that I am speaking as a protectionist —(laughter)—and if I do not speak with common fluency in that character I may be for given—(hear, hear)—it is admitted by every one that the only articles upon which we are making any present sur• render of revenue of any importance are the articles of wine, brandy, and silk; but if the hon. gentleman were a French • man he would be positively appalled at the list of articles ; not articles of less importance than wine and silk, but of more importance, upon which France is making concessions to us. Surely metals of all kinds, of which we export £17,500,000 a-year, machinery of which we export X 4,000,000 a-year ; cutlery, of which we export nearly £4,000,000 a-year ; cotton yarn, of which we export £9,500,000 ; cot ton cloths, of which we export £37,000,000 ,• linen yarn, of which we export £1,600,000; linen cloth, of which we ex port £4,300,000; earthenware, of which we export more than X 1,250,000 ; woollen yarn, to the extent of £3,000,000; woollen cloths, to the extent of more than £12,000,000; and leather, to the extent of more than £1,250,000 a year— sums making together more than £95,00,000 sterling per annum. Surely, if France, who has absolutely prohibited all these articles, has reduced their duties to a point at which in all probability a very large trade will be opened up with this country, even the honourable gentleman him- self is far too honest and intelligent to insist that the wine, brandy, and silk which will be imported will exceed in value those articles which I have named. But it has been argued What sacurity have you that you will have an importation of these articles into France ? Why, because it is said in the treaty thatthe maximum duty upon our manufactures is to be 30 per cent. to be reduced in three years' time to 2.5 per cent., it does not follow that the duty is to be maintained at 30 or at 26 per cent. (Hear, hear.) And at present, as I believe is stated in the treaty—and as I know the fact to be—it was provided that the duties were to range from 10 to 30 per cent. Some new bills with regard to some 30 of these articles have been introduced, and there is no fixed determination on the part of the French Government to exercise their right of keep ing them up to 30 or 25 per cent. But when that conviction is forced upon the nation, which must take place immedi ately after this treaty has received the sanction of Parlia ment, specific duties will be arranged ; and with regard to those trades which are opened under it, I am assure upon the best authority that if the results of the treaty are good now, they will then be better still. (Hear, hear.) As a proof of what we may do in trade when this treaty comes into operation, I may say that the tariff of Franco as regards this treaty will be fully as liberal as the tariff of the Uited States—(cheers)—and yet your trade and navigation re turns just furnished show that to the United States we ex port not less than £22,600,000 worth of the manufactures of this country. France may not consume so much of our manufactures man for man, but taking into consideration the facts that I have now told the house, and which no one can call in question we are permitted to come to the conclu sion that our present trade with France, which is almost nil, will swell up to an amount which will end in making them our very best customers on the other side of the Chan nel. If I were to refer to any particular article in this list, I might take that of machinery. An hon. gentleman on the other side of the house, who generally votes with the Oppo sition, has voted with us on this question. Is there any mis take then, as to the opinion of his constituents on this sub ject ? (Hear, hear.) It is no use attempting to blind that hon. gentleman with arguments of party warfare. He knows what his constituency think of this treaty, and I ven ture to say his constituents are better judges than many hon. gentlemen who have not considered the question. (Hear, hear.) I will now come to the late Chancellor of the xchequer. There was a time when the right hon. gentle man was not the leader of a great party. He was a giant then in another field. He vacated a lofty position then to assume ono which is more laborious. I know not whether the line which he has now taken is to any extent more use ful than the line he abandoned. But in those very valuable books, published partly for the education, and partly—and perhaps rather more for the amusement of his countrymen, he has described the mode of living of an English nobleman of great wealth at Paris. He says :" " Lord Monmouth's dinners at Paris were celebrated. And after de scribing the luxury of these entertainments, he proceeds : —" But the effect was destroyed by the mere circumstance that every one of these French dinners was served upon cold plates. The reason of this custom, or the necessity which a nation so celebrated for its gastronomic tastes; would gladly remove, is that originally French porcelain i s so britt.'!, that it cannot endure the proper amour t of heat." (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman, with an instinct which I cannot too much admire, brought Fs political saga city to bear on this subject. "Now, if," he said, awe only had that treaty of commerce with France—(cheers and ae , n laughter)—such as has so often been on the point of com adaothhveeetd french, *l com pletion, to give our unrivalled porcelain in exchange for the wines of France—(laughter)—the dinners of both nations w thefegrlisthhewfioruslt time dga in th gain ightftil beverage, lives, would p e l r a t r e a s t ' h ' — er ( a l a n u e g x h p t r e e r e ) s — i e a n n , w d h h i e eco l n r c e l ce ud m es w e o ivt u rd n g b dineee argument,i va e i . h mend to the hon. gentleman s supporters, "an resistible argument to prove the advantages of a commercial recipro city." (Cheers and laughter.) One other of those horrid phantoms which has been raised to alarm simple traders throughout the country has been based—if a phantom can be based—upon the question of coals; and there is run ning in the minds of some honest peoF'e this notion, that we can do exactly as we like with regard to contraband of w ar ar a ll these subjects, over which England was sup posed to be yarair ount as empress of the se as . B u t on ly last summer, dm ing .'le war in Italy, a discu ss i on was car overnment, of which the right hon. gen tl eman was a dklinguished men bcr, as to the propriety of declaring I coal to be contra band of war. At that time hon. gentlemen car viedthe in t6l sup ported e e English paperF, particularly these wl ieb sup may recolect in the English newspapers statements made that the French G overnment were building a great number of flat-bottomed boats, ss hich were said to be particularly beach. wanted for the conveya nce of coals, but were admirably adapted for landing so ldiers upon a sandy did happen that this discussion was going on, e e nd Well, it to France, papers, su pposed not .o be very favourablt France, were discussing the qu estion. The French Government did orde - .• boats for the convey ing of coals to their arsenals, lest the Engli-h Government should adopt so hosje a step as prohibiting them. 'But there ariived at Marseilles two vessels from the United States laden with coals ; and do you suppose your notion Of what 4 1 contraband of war, and your notion of England being mistress of the sea s, could ver y long prevent the United States from supplying either France or Austria with coals ? (Hear.) But this question of coals, with reference to the revenue of France l is a mere bee- toile. A statement has been made during the last few days in the newspapers on this subject. The whole quan tity of coal imported into France is 160,000 tons. The ex • treme cost, therefore, to the French Government, if you were to prohibit the export of coals, would be not more than an additional 6s. or 10s. a ton; and the extreme cost would be £BO,OOO, not very much to a Government which was in the exigency of war. And, therefore, for any man to raise this question of coals shows how contracted must be his views, and how small his information. But another point which has been raised is, that the benefits to France are immediate, while the concessions to this country from France are prospective. All I can say is, that if I were a Frenchman, I should say it ie a great pity my Government does not follow the example of its English neighbour. Surely if both countries have been greatly in error, that which soonest escapes from its error will gain the most. But it is clear that the Emperor of the French cannot act in this question without some preparation. He does not object to reduce the duty in July of this year, from any doubt of the good sense or the justice of the policy he is proposing. But he knows that great changes cannot be made too rapidly in the face of many prejudices, and some time must be given to reconcile public opinion at large. It has also been said that we were allowing ourselves to act according to the , convenience of the French Emperor, who takes this oppor tunity of escaping a discus sion on this sub j ect with his own subjects. But, Sir, we a r e not res p onsible for the French constitution—we have quite enough to do to repair the breaches in our own. But very likely in France there were difficulties such as we experienced in 1846, when Sir Robt. Peel proposed to repeal the corn laws. This is, in fact, one of the concessions which the French Government is bound to make in any great change of policy. No doubt in France there are now just the same symptoms of op position as prevailed here upon the question of the repeal of the corn laws. They all remembered that Mr. Chowler —(laughter)—who said that the farmers had more horses than any other class of men in the country, and that they knew how to ride them—(laughter)—and he added he be lieved they would much rather ride upon Manchester than upon Paris. I hope Mr. Chowler is now penitent and con verted—(laughter)—but there are men of this class in France; and what do the French Chowlers say ? (Laughter.) Why, that this treaty would have to be rent by cannon shot (Hear, hear.) That is !nuch the same sentiment in shorter for Bucks did not, think, speak with quite the fairness he and severer languat v.l he right hon. gentleman the member should have done when, in discussing this treaty, he spoke of my hon. friend the member for Rochdale as a secret negotia tor, as if there was anything not perfectly honest and credit able in the course my hon. friend has taken. (Cheers.) Sir R. Peel came into office when thane was a deficiency of £2,500,000. I think the right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth was responsible for the finances at that period. I do not say so for the purpose of throwing any slur upon the financial reputation of the right hon. gentleman, because it is a melancholy but curious fact, so far as my ob servation has gone, that the Whig party never yet produced a Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Laughter.) But Sir R. Peel found that deficiency. It was a chasm something like that which the right hon. gentleman would make us believe there was in the floor of the house, but not so wide or so deep as he described. What did Sir R. Peel do ? He did not add 5 or 10 per cent. to the taxes, as the right hon. baronet had added 5 per cent., but without success. No ; and he did not say there would be a deeper chasm next year, and what dreadful thing would happen if we did not fill up that chasm with direct taxation. Bat what he did was—ko made the chasm deeper and wider. He found it 2} millions, and he reduced the customs duties on 750 articles, by which he lost £27o,ooo—by the reduction of the duty on coffee, he lost for the time £170,000. He reduced the duty on timber, by which he lost £600,000, on stage coaches £70,000, and on the smaller export articles £lOO,OOO. The amount of the re duction was precisely that caused by the commercial treaty with France, and male the chasm which was represented by £2,500,000 no less than £3,700,000. This was exactly the course taken by the present Chanchellor of the Exche quer. Ho (Sir R. Peel) proposed his budget with such apology and such an amount of fear—apparent at least— which, when now read, seems laughable—l had almost said was astonishing. He knew the materials which sat behind him. (Laughter.) He knew the party he was leading. He travelled on with them at a snail's pace for an hour and a half by the cluck before he took them to his perilous avowal that they were to be asked to endure an income-tax of 7d. in the pound ; and at that time Sir R. Peel knew that an income-tax was so unpalatable to the great owners of pro perty, wheavere our legislators, that he proposed it only for a short period. lam not sure he thought that would be its termination; and he proposed it in a manner, too, that was by no means just, because I believe he felt that a just in come-tax, even with his g reat majority, could hardly have been passed in Parliament. Well, his income-tax instead of £3,700,000, produced £5,000,000. The chasm was filled up, there was no deficiency, and the surplus, of course, en abled him to do other things; and the income tax from that time to this has enabled us to doother things, some of which, I am sorry to say, Sir R. Peel would have much regretted if he had lived,l and some of which, I belie*, had Sir R. Peel been Minister, never would have been done. Now, at that time the hon. gentlemen opposite supported Sir R. Peel. They saw the chasm of £2,500,000, and they allowed him to take off another £1,000,000 to make the chasm deeper ; and yet they supported him in this proposal of a 7d. income tax to fill it up, and they did so although opposed by a very large portion of the members on this side of the house. Why, then, should you quarrel with the po licy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He was then one of your Ministers. (Hear, hear.) Since then our exports are double, indeed almost treble. But, although I have spoken thus far in approbation of the treaty and the other fiscal arrangements—especially the abolition of the duty on paper—l am quite sensible of the blots—especially that one great blot in the statement of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer—a very foul blot, which would tarnish the charac ter of the Government, and which, if something be not done to remedy it, I venture to promise will make their tenure of office not at all a protracted one. (Laughter.) I allude to the frightful and scandalous expenditure. I have a word or two to say to the Government on this matter ; because when giving, as lam anxious to give, a most hearty support to the general scheme, it would be unjust to my own convictions, and to the interests of the country, if I omitted to point out where the conduct of the Government is now partly, and will be by and bye entirely, con demned by the country. We heard some gentlemen say that £30,000,000 after all was a cheap price to pay for the security of the country; but :those who have got the expenditure of the £30,000,000 feel themselves no more secure than when the expenditure was £15.000,000. I heard half-a-dozen of the First Lords of the Admiralty assure the house that the defences of the country were perfect, and that the country was in a state of security ; and I found their successors unsaying all that their predecessors had said, and assuring the house that un less they would pay some more millions the wished-for se curity could not be obtained. And yet there are gentlemen so simple- minded as to say, after all, that the expenditure has no reference to France. Since 1853 the military and naval estimates have been doubled. Let us see what has been our course regarding France since 1853. In the fol lowing year, 1854, there was the Russian war, when the blood and treasure of the country was needlessly wasted in the Crimea. In the same conflict the blood of the subjects of the Emperor of France was also shed, as I believe, need lessly. That war concluded, you negotiated with the Em peror of the French as your friend and ally in 1856. At the end of that year, in concert with the French Emperor, you were acting upon the Governments of Italy, and espe cially upon Naples, from the Court of which you withdrew your Minister. In 1857 you were, by a course which I think most foolish and most criminal, involved in a struggle with China. At that time you received—l don't know whether you solicited, but at any rate you accepted—the cordial assistance of the forces which the Emperor had in the East. In 1859-60 you have, by the unwisdom of ano ther of your representatives, involved yourselves in another war with China; and, contrary to every principle of sound policy, and to the interests of England both here and in the East, you have negotiated with the Emperor to conduct with you operations for which a great English and French force are on their way to the China Seas. So that from 1353 to the present time, for good or for evil—too often, I am afraid, for evil—you have been in close alliance with the French Government. In 1860 yen negotiate a treaty of a most important charketer, more unfortunate, I believe, to the true interests of this country than was ever before ne gotiated ' • and what are the i ns t ru cti ons w hich th e n oble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs addressed to Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden ? Speaking of the commercial treaty, the noble lord says :—" Its general tendency would be to lay a broad and deep foundation in common interests for that fiiendly intercourse, and to confirm that amicable alliance which so happily exists between the two nations." (Hear.) You observe that the phrase is not "which is henceforth to exist," but which now "so happily exists." And what does the treaty itself say in its introductory paragraph? "Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and his Majesty the Emperor of the French being equally animated by a desire to draw closer the tie of friendship which unites the two peoples, and wishing to extend the relations of commerce between their respective dominions, have resolved to conclude a treaty for that purpose. (Hear.) Now, what can be the reason why, with these instructions, with this treaty ratified, with this perfect amity, with this drawing closer of the best bond which can unite, not two Governments only, but two peoples—why, I say, with all these thin g s, have we this gross increase in the estimates ? (Cheers.) It is a wonderful inconsistency—it is altogether illogical—somewhere there must be a great and patent hypo crisy. (Cheers.) Somebody must be guilty of an immorality the darkness of which I am at a loss to find words to de scribe. (Renewed cheers.) If, hon. gentlemen opposite, you had fixed upon this blot—if you could have had, shall I say, the patriotism to do that—if the hon. gentleman the mem -1 bar for Essex had moved a resolution to this effect— " Whereas her Majesty' s Government has recently concluded a treaty of commerce with the Emperor of the French, this house does not see the necessity of increasing. the estimates beyond the £26,0:)0,000 which were voted by Parliament last year"—if the hon. member had proposed a resolution like that, it should have had my support. (Hear, hear.) If £26,000,000 will not give you perfect security, rely upon it £30,000,000 will not—(hear, hear)—for it is not money—it is not large votes of Parliament—it is not increasing the taxation of the people that can give you the security which you wish for. (Irear, hear.) I condemn this expendi ture, and I think it is an insult to the intelligence of Parliament. (Cheers.) Am I, therefore, hostile to any interest in the country when I speak in these terms ? Am I speaking hostilely to the feelings and in terests of the country ? Thera is no reek on which so many dynasties have foundered as the rock of a reckless and need less expenditure. Am I!epeakine, hostr.ely of the aristocracy of this country? Why, what has destroyed aristocracies more than the corruption engendered by a lavish expendi ture of public money, and the diesontent which it must al • ways excite amongst the people. (Cheers, and cries of " Oh.") Am I speaking against the military services of the country ? Those services should be the defenders of the rights and the prosperity of their country, but they should never be allowed to grow to such an extent or be fed with such profusion that " Increase 6: appetite doth grow With what it feeds upon." and they become not a blessing but an evil of the greatest magnitude. (Cheers) It may be that the Cabiaet has had hard work to make up its mind upon this question; for when it holds out this commercial treaty with one hand, and this £30,000,000 of military estimates in tho other, there must be contending in it two principles utterly di verse—(Opposition clieers)—and if that contention goes on fir another year we may promise ourselves another change amongst the ..entlemen who occupy the Ministerial bench. (Cheers.) But public opinion may change, and even hon. gentlemen opposite may change their views. Iha ee heard hon. gentlemen on this side, and especially the right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) refer in the language of apprehension to what the next Par liament TM , ' do. Now, sir, I am not afraid of the next Par liament. I us not think it will make any great changes, but I shall be glad if it is more economical than :the present, and if it adheres to the principle of direct taxation. The £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 which is raised by the income tax is not about to come off, except bi• the reduction of the estimates. (llclr ' hear.) You svD, not go bank to excise or custom-house duties, (Cheers') The principle has been irrevocably laid down that the vast expenditure which you incur, not for the sake of the working people — for they are much the saule it; 41 coitAtries—but tor the 3. defence, as you think, of your own property, that vast ex penditure must be defrayed by the property :And not by the indirect taxation of the country. (Loud cheers.) The pre sent expenditure and an income tax are inseparable, and the sooner the hous_e makes up its mind to that the better. (Hear, hear.) Let it not be supposed, however, that lam speaking in favour of the income tax as it now exists. I be lieve with the hon. member for Buckingham (Mr. Hub bard), whose speech to -night every one has heard with great pleasure—(hear, hear)—that the income tax, as it now ex ists, has become intolerable. I judge that from the number of letters which (I daresay in common with every other member), I receive every day on the subject. I judge it also from what I see in the columns of newspapers, and from what I hear from those among whom Imix. But lam in favour of the income tax thus far ; it is a direct tax, and a tax upon means. I support it now, objectionable as it is, because we have at present a compensation for it. A time will come—it may come next year—l think it probably will come next year— (Opposition cheers)—certainly it will come if the estimates be not largely reduced—when you will be put in this difficulty—you will not be able to dispense with the income tax, and the country will not tolerate it in the shape in which it has hitherto been levied. (Cheers.) But, sir, the question now is not the income tax, for nobody has proposed to abolish it. The question is between the propo sitions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the amend ment of the hon. member for Essex. lam in favour of the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can speak with certainty as to the opinions of my constituents, and as to the universal sentiment of every public assembly, so far as I have observed, which has been gathered together to consider this question during the last 10 days. The right hon. gentleman's scheme is a great scheme. If it had not been for the L 30,000,000 of warlike estimates—(laugh ter)—what a scheme it might have been 1 (Cheers.) I heard the right hon. gentleman tread on that thorny path which led to the £30,000,000, and I thought there must be, somehow or other, a conscience—which is not always a convenient partner for a Chancellor of the Exche quer. (Laughter.) I thought that if the right hon. gentle man had been able to carry out the logical results of his own principles—the principles embodied in that treaty and in that tariff—there would have been a much larger reduc tion of duties and a much greater relief afforded to all classes in the country. (Hear, hear.) He spoke of the patience of taxpayers—don't try that patience too far. (Cheers.) I will not ask you to be afraid of the people. I will ask you only to be just to them and just to yourselves. It is not the poor man alone who suffers from injustice. He suffers now, and heavily ; but there is a suffering that comes hereafter, as all history teaches—the hostility that comes upon the rich if they continue an expenditure and a taxation that are need lessly oppressive to the poor. (Cheers.) I say that this scheme is a great scheme, and therefore I support it It re lieves industry by reducing the customs, and it abolishes one of the worst excises that ever crippled the industry and the enterprise of a people. (Hear, hear.) It extends the hand of friendship not only to a great Government, but to a great nation across the Channel ; and amongst mush darkness in Europe it is a spot of light. It opens to my mind a prospect " Bright as the breaking East, As midday glorious." I think it is a measure of great justice to England, and a mea sure of great friendship to France ; and I am convinced that, acting and working through the means of these two great nations, it will be found hereafter a measure of great mercy to mankind. (Loud cheers.) Mr. WHITESIDE said there was but one sentiment in the speech of the right hon. bart. the member for Portsmouth that he at all regretted to hear. The right hon. baronet ad verted to the possibility of his not sitting in any future Par liament. He believed, notwithstanding the criticism of the hon. member for Birmingham, the character of the right hon. gentleman, his conduct in that house, his good sense, and his moderation, entitled him to the respect both of his friends and of his opponents. To the speech of the right hon. gentleman the hon. member for Birmingham had given no reply. The opinion of a statesman of experience met with no favour from the hon. gentleman, who listened to his arguments, of which he did not approve, rather with a smile of contempt. The " hobgoblm" fears of the right hon. gentleman he dismissed with a word. The whole speech of the hon. gentleman was rather a reflection on the class of politicians to which the right hon. gentleman be longed, but the hon. gentleman kindly excused it, as the Whig benches were never known to produce a Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the hon. gentleman made a mis take ; if he would allow him to correct a slight error of so accurate a speaker. The hon. gentleman said he supported Ithe policy of a section of the Administration. That was a mistake ; they supported him—(cheers and laughter from the Opposition)—and he had not hesitated to announce that whenever they might misbehave, that was to say, whenever they might differ from him, he would dismiss them, as it belonged to his high prerogative. (Cheers.) How complimentary to the noble viscount at the head of the Government and the eminent persons who assisted him! But let the hon. member for Birmingham recollect that the noble viscount had defeated him, and that having had a fair fight with him, he had not found him so feeble an an tagonist. The hon. member said that all England agreed with him, and that Parliament—that was the House of Commons—would agree withhim. Henever heard a stronger argument against Parliament, for surely no Parliament could do his bidding more effectually. The hon. gentleman had informed them that night of the circumstances out of which the negotiations for this treaty sprung. No one had said that the negotiations should be made public, but only that the negotiators should be known. The hon. gentleman told them that the whole thing arose out of a speech which was made by himself. (Cheers and laughter from the Op position.) He read an extract from that speech, and pointed out how Mr. Cobden, travelling with that extract in his head, was employed to negotiate that most glorious treaty. Now, some of the ablest men in the country, and of the soundest minds, and some who loved it as dearly as the hon. member for Birmingham had ventured, not in a spirit of ill will or animosity towards France, but in the performance of their duty, to point out the blemishes and defects, not of a treaty, but of a partial and one-sided instrument. The hon. gentleman said that the treaty was a masterpiece of wisdom and liberalityon the part of the French Government, because the duties upon many articles were reduced to 30 per cent. Was the hon. gentleman, however, authorised to say that the great staples of England would be admitted into:France under thr.t scale of duties? Had he any right to say that the duties would be any less than what the letter of the treaty expressed ? He maintained,, on the best authority, that the linen yarns of the North of Ireland would not find an entrance into France on any such terms. Nay, more ; the finer class of yarns, which were now admitted by weight, would, equally with the coarser kinds, for the future be practically prohibited by the treaty. Ricardo, Maccul loch, and other eminent writers, had condemned the prin ciple of commercial treaties, and this would prove no excep tion to the rule. As regarded the export of coal, it was especially open to objection. The engagement of the treaty respecting it was an engagement o s the part of this Govern ment not to prohibit the export of coal for ten years. If the treaty were good to that extent, similar treaties with Portugal, Spain, and Russia would also be good. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman laughed at the idea of coal being deemed contraband of war; but he (Mr. Whiteside) had looked into the writings of eminent recent French coo nsmists on this subject, and they laid it down distinctly that coal was contraband of war, though at one time it was not so, when coal was less in demand for war purposes. The price of the coal to the French Government was not the question; for it was known that French coal broke into small splinters, and would not move their war ships. Mr. Pitt's treaty of commerce and naviga • tion of 1787 was not one-sided ; for it gave equal com mercial benefits to both the contracting Powers. It was one of the most unfortunate circumstances connected with this question that in France there was no legislative body that had the opportunity of pronouncing upon it. He had ob served that the hon. member for Birmingham was disposed to patronise absolute governments, and to censure those who ventured to control their inordinate ambition. Did the hon. gentleman recollect, however, when he spoke of Rus sia, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the faithful counsellor of that celebrated Cabinet which drifted into war with that Power ? Was he of opinion that those Ministers deserved censure for entering upon that war ? If so, ought ho not to hesitate in his extreme approval of the scheme be fore the house ? He had passed a reflection but little credi table to the Chancellor of the E xchequer when he suggested that there were those in the Cabinet who urged on high. estimates. That was a most sweeping censure, in his opin ion, to pass on the right hon. gentleman. If that were so, and the policy of that faction were not his policy, it was his duty to denounce it. The hon. gentleman had intimated too, to a section of a great political party, that the hour of their doom had come, and that they could not long enjoy the ad vantage of his favour. He could not understand the course taken by the hon. gentleman in regard to the corn laws, nor his observations with respect to the estimates. If he disapproved of the estimates why did he not grapple with the Ministry who proposed them, and censure their extra • vam * ance ? Why did he not attend when those estimates in all their extravagance were before the house, and not leave the laborious and ungrateful duty of examining the expen diture to other hands ? The hon. gentleman had referred to the China war, but did he believe that an army of 30,000 men was the best means of conciliation ? Why did not the hon. gentleman stand up and oppose that war on the ground of its inhumanity and barbarism ? (Hear, hear.) What use was it to tell them that he dis approved of the war, and at the same time sup port the Minister who counselled and sanctioned it ? The hon. gentleman was in favour of peace and peace esti mates, but how could he reconcile it to his views that while in favour of peace he supported a Minister with war esti mates? (Hear.) The two positions were utterly irrecon cileable. The hon. gentleman had told them how the last Reform Bill was carried under threat of force and violence. Might it not also happen that another Reform Bill would again be carried by violence and clamour P The hon. gen tleman over-estimated his own power. When was it that he had become displeased with violence ? The hon. gen tleman had told them that ho was not opposed to the aris tocracy. Well, that was consolatory. The aristocracy of the country would stand notwithstanding the assaults of the hon. gentleman, and not because of the toleration which he accordd to them, but because of their unflinching pa triotism, their usefulness, their exalted wisdom, and their great public services which had endeared them to the coun try that they adorned. (Hear.) Turning from the hon. gen tleman, he would now come to the propositions of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had listened for four hours to the speech of the right hon. gen tleman without once winking, and he could do no more for Cicero. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman had told them that the predictions of 1859 would have been fulfilled if it had not been for the Russian war, but the right hon. gentleman forgot that he himself had been a party to the war. (Hear, hear.) The house would indeed concede to him the talent of filling the Exchequer, but they should likewise concede to hinithe talent of emptying it effectually. (Laughter.) He now proposed to fill it with an income-tax of 10d. in the pound, but it was clear, with the Chinese war foreshadowed, that its vast expenditure already to o cle a rl y that !I, would leave him with a deficit of £12,000,000. Indeed it was manifest that lid would have proposed even at income-tax of ls., if it had not been through fear of the hon. member for Buckinghamshire. It was said that the reduciion of the duty on wine would load to a vastly increased consumption ; that, in a word, like tea and coffee, it would in time even become to the poor man a necessary of life. What did the experience of the Continent prove in this matter ? Au inquiry had been insii . .uted into the subject, both in France and Belgium, and the result ar rivc.l at was that just in proportion to the consumption cf tea, coffee. and cocoa amongst the people was the consump tion of wine in the inverse ratio. In other words, when the consump ion of tea coffee and cocoa waslargo, the consump tion,er of wine was small. ( Hear. hea r , ) How hon me they to expect an increased consetoptien among the people of this country? It would not t4 l tO place; but it was not too late for the righ- hose gentleman to amend his plan and with• draw his propositions in regard to the reduction of the wine duties, (Hear, hear.) But if lie wanted evidence on this oint, he would simply quote against the Chanc e ll or o f t h e E xc hequer the right non. gentleman the memb er f or ford University (Mr, Gladstone). The right hon. gentle man bed, is teenier years, opposed propositions ter the re duction of the duty on wine, and if his arguments were good then for the purpose, he (I\lr. Whiteside) would ask the house whether they should not also be taken as good for the same pnrpso ma this ocoasion P (Hear, hear.) Why t h at was it kr-0141404 to MUM the duty ? Not for the pur- poses of increased consumption ; not for the benefit of the people of this country ; but in deference to the French people and the Emperor of the French, and nothing else. (Hear.) The wine merchants themselves had held a meet- ing, and had declared that the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was impracticable. To apply the alcoholic test would require an analytical chemist ; and whether they had regard to the character of the duty, the habits of the people, or the opinion of all writers who had written on the subject of taxation, all the facts and arguments would be found opposed to a reduction on the existing duty on wines. Again, according to the treaty French paper was to be admitted duty free into this country; - but in the very same document, the export from France of the raw material which made the paper was prohibited. (Hear, hear.) Could there be anything more absurd than that— call it reciprocity ? (Hear, hear.) Nothing could be more one-sided. (Hear, hear.) He should enter into no lengthened debate on the subject of the income tax. He forgave the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the mistakes he had made in his calculations in regard to the tax, but what he could not understand, and what he would never submit to, was to hear a gentleman o f hi s a tt a i nmen t s inform them of character of the income tax, and then call upon them to adopt it. He believed that if the right hon. gentleman held now the independent position which he for merly held in that house when he used the remarks which he was about to refer to, and on which occasion the right hon. gentleman represented much of the wisdom, learning, and piety of the country, he would return to the policy which he then enunciated. He then said—" No doubt the income tax has many recommendations as part of a perma nent revenue of the country, but there are also great objec tions to it— one of those is a moral objection. I believe that it does more to corrupt and demoralise the people than any other—not from the fault of those who levy it, but from the very nature of the tax itself." (Hear, hear.) Yet here, from no necessity of the present position, the right hon. gentle man, who said that this tax demoralised and corrupted the people, having established that this demoralising tax changed the manly 'virtues of the Englishman into the op posite vices, and made a scheming chicane hypocritical and lying characinr—(oh, oh, and cheers)—sometimes exhibiting repentance and remorse, and making restoration—(hear) — now told them that the tax was to be doubled. They were to double the immorality, and to double the corruption. Now, believing the view heretofore taken of this tax by the right hon. gentleman was the right one—that it was most immoral and most mischievous—he - would not consent to double that vicious tax. (Hear.) How the right hon. gentleman could now recommend the house to double the tax passed his comprehension. Being thus opposed to the continu ance of this tax, ho believed that the - wine duties ought not then to be remitted. He believed that the paper duties ought not now to be remitted, though he agreed with the right hpn. member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) that they might very properly be remitted at another time. He also agreed with the hon. member for Carlisle, that when there was a deficiency we ought not to draw bills on futu rity and leave to another year all the confusion in finance which the policy of the Government had created in the pre sent year. He was of opinion that this treaty required to be reconsidered in its most important provisions, and that the budget of the right hon. gentleman was in many im portant points unwise and inexpedient. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CARDWELL said that the lateness of the hour warned him against indulging in fine speeches er ding in nothing, and he should therefore confine himself to the legitimate subject before the house. Nothing could be fairer than the manner in which that question was stated. It demurred to no provision of the treaty, and cavilled with no detail of the budget, but it distinctly laid down a broad and intelligible policy. It said, " You must reject this treaty with France, and you must consent to none of the provisions of the budget." If they did not agree to those propositions, the hon. gentleman did not invite them to vote for his motion. Now the country was called upon this year to provide the largest military estimates that pro bably any country had ever provided in times of peace. (Hear.) This year was also remarkable for another circum stance—the remission of public burdens from the falling in of the Long Annuities so long looked forward to. (Hear) What was the policy for such a year ? The hon. member for Ilasex said, "The policy is this—apply the £2,000,000 you gain by the Long Annuities to a remission of the income tax." Bnt the right hon. and learned gentleman said, " Deal with large estimates by a temporary sacrifice, but reserve the two millions you gain by the falling in of burdens of long standing, to apply it to the carrying out of the great and beneficent policy from which you have seen in former years such great and invaluable results." (Cheers.) He thought that, considering the services conferred upon the Conservative party in former sessions by the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Bi ight), he had not been treated with gratitude by the right hon. and learned gentleman by the remarks which he had made in the lucid oration they had just heard from him. He thought great credit was due to the late Government for having proposed to increase the estimates and place the supremacy of this country beyond dispute. (Cheers.) And this he would say, that all parties in the house were most desirous that, above every other consideration, the safety of the country should be cared for. (Hear, hear.) The burdens of the people had of late y ears been reduced, yet the receipts from the reduced taxes had been vastly increased. The right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Portsmouth had repeated those portions of the his tory of the income tax which suited the purpose of his argument. The ordinary sources of revenue had been diminished since 1848 by various successive stages more than one-third, and yet they produced more than ever. That had been done by the aid of progressive augmentations of the income tax. But hon. members said they (the Go vernment) were not pursuing the same course, inasmuch as Sir R. Peel reduced taxes in order to make them productive, but this was a proposal to remit them altogether. But Sir R. Peel had wholly remitted the duty on glass, cotton, wool, bricks, soap, and on a hundred other articles. (Hear, hear.) Was it the doctrine that those remissions and the proposed remissions on paper afforded no increase to the revenue because they did not do so directly ? If they set free a great manufacture, added to the wages of those employed, stimulated consumption, and increased the comforts of the people, there was no re al distinction be tween the addition they would thus make to the revenue and that which was made directly from the increased pro ceeds of a tax which had been reduced. The right hon. gentleman quoted in support of his views a passage from Adam Smith, who advocated, 100 years ago, the policy we had been pursuing for the last 15 years. He did not think this was an inconvenient time to re-impose the income tax, seeing that the object was to ameliorate the burdens of the people. We had lately trebled our foreign trade, added to the wealth of every class in the community, wonderfully in creased the deposits in the savings banks, and dimi n i s h e d pauperism and crime. (Cheers.) Wo had greatly increased our trade with the United States, and it was this increase in our commerce that prevented the possibility of any out - break taking place between this country and the United states. (Hear, hear.) Now, if this was true as regarded our relations with America, what would be the effect of a simi lar course of policy being adopted between this country and France ? Why was it that we had no trade with France ? David Hume had stated the reason 100 years ago. It was our hatred and jealousy of that country by which we lost our foreign trade in wool in that market, and which obliged us to deal in the dear wines of Spain and Portugal rather than in the cheap wines of France. Hon. gentlemen oppo site were now friends of free trade, but they objected to it because it was carried out by means of a treaty with France. Hon. gentlemen should remember that they had had con siderable difficulty in converting the Freneh nation to the doctrines of free trade, and probably not 20 years will have expired before those who now oppose the treaty with France will, be among the foremost in admitting the benefits and the blessings to be such as accompanied the downfall of protec tion in this country. The right hon. gentleman (Sir F. Baring) had told them that he looked with dismay to the future, as regarded the amount of expenditure i n thi s coun try. The present question turned upon this—how were the two millions falling in from the Long Annuities to be made most useful? The Government said that was best to be done by increasing the comforts of the people, and by pur suing a course which would enable the Government to reduce duties in such a manner as would lead to the extension and the improvement of trade and commerce. (Cheers.) Mr. NEWDEGATE then moved the adjournment of the debate, which was agreed to. The house then proceeded to the orders of the day. VALUATION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRE LAND) BILL. The house went into committee on this bill. The several clauses were agreed to, and the house re sumed. The Attorneys and Solicitors Bill, as amended, was con sidered and agreed to. The Charitable Uses Bill was read a third time. On the motion for considering the Elections on s r Petitions Act (1848) Amendment Bill, adjourned debate the bill to a select committee (Feb. 22), Mr. EDWIN JAMES withdrew the bill. DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES The e s h b o il us l passedadjourned e c o'clock. ELECTION COMMITTEES. CARLISLE. Yesterday the committee appointed to try the merits of a petition presented by John Park Arthur and John Graham, electors, against the return of Sir James Graham and Mr. Lawson, for the borough of Carlisle, assembled for the first time. Mr. Cob bett presided. The petition contained the usual allegation of bribery, treating, and offers of employment in ex change for votes so corruptly obtained, and it prayed that the last return for the borough of Car lisle should be set aside as nu ll and void. Mr. Slade and Mr. Rodwell appeared in support of the petition. Mr. Welsby for the sitting mem bers. Mr. Slade opened the case for the petitioners, and after setting forth the grounds of the petition, said he proposed to prove that the sitting members had retained their el ec ti on by means of bribery, treat ing, and other corrupt practices. He mentioned in support of his case that a Mr. Graham, who had been in the habit of voting for Mr. Hodgson, was visited by the agent of Mr. Lawson, this voter being a beer shopkeeper, and that, underlthe promise of obtain ing for him a spirit licence, he gave his vote for Mr. Lawson. He was told that influence would be used through the instrumentality of Mr. Howe, the ex-mayor, who remained ex-officio a li censing magistrate, and that he would ap pear on the bench and obtain for this voter a spirit license to his house. He voted for Graham and Lawson ; but in consequence of a peti tion having been prevented against the return, the license for the beer-shop was not applied fcr to the bench of licensing magistrates, although all the necessary forms had been gone through, and the regular notices given for that purpose. Another ease was that of Joseph Porter, who was solicited for his vote by the agents of Sir James Graham and Mr. Lawson, and he said he had not made up his mind. He afterwards saw Mr. Lawson, who asked him if he wanted a situation, and he said that be did. He mentioned the Silloth Railway, upon which Mr. Lawson said he could do nothing for him, but advised him to go to the deputy-chairman of that railway company so that there could be no r e a. on to suppose that this voter went to the polt with clean hands. Another case was in respect to a m m named Irving, who in consideration of his voting for Sir J. Graham and Mr, Lawson, was the means of a man named Braham being turned out of his possession of a field, and Irving was put into his place. He should also prove numerous cases of treat ing, which was done principally by non-voters, through whom public-houses were thrown open to voters and non -voters indiscriminately, and the bills were paid by the agents on the part of the sitting members. Mr. Monsey, the solicitor to Sir James Graham, also gave breakfasts ; and he had no doubt that he should be able to prove that such gross bribery and corruption had been carried on by the agents of Sir James Graham and Mr. Lawson as would justify the committee in declaring the last return for the borough of Carlisle to be a void election. The return, and auditor's list of expenses for the last election having been produced by Mr. Naylor, the Clerk of the Crown Office, and Mr. Walter James, _ John Macpherson was called, and stated that he was a voter for Carlisle. He was employed as fore man on the works of the Silloth Raiiway, about 13 miles from Carlisle. He was waited upon by Mr. Anderson, an agent of the sitting members, and solicited for his vote, but he said he could not go to the poll unless his expenses were paid, and also the wages of three men and two boys, who could or would do no work during his absence. Several let ters reached him upon the subject, those letters being without any signature, but they came from Mr. Anderson, and at last he went to Carlisle, and saw Mr. Lawson at his hotel. Before going into the , room, Mr. Anderson said his party would allow all expenses. He voted for Sir Jas. Graham and Mr. Lawson. Another witness gave evidence to a similar effuct, and the committee adjourned. WEYMOUTH. This committee met yesterday to try the merits of a petition presented by Col. Freestun, one of the unsuccessful candidates, against the return of Lord Grey de Wilton and Mr. Brooks for the borough of Weymouth—Mr. Egerton in the chair. The petition set forth that at the last election for the borough of Weymouth there were four candi dates, viz., Col. Freestun and Mr. J. R. Campbell (the late members), and Viscount Grey de Wilton and Mr. Brooks. The result of the poll was—Brooks 341, Viscount Grey de Wilton 340, Col. Frioentun 311, and Mr. J. R. Campbell 296. It was alleged that the result had been arrived at by bribery, by which influence certain electors were induced to re- frain from voting for the petitioner; and, fuxther, that there had been offers to lend, or promises to give, money for voting, or to procure offices, places, and employment in consideration of such voting ; and it prayed that the last election for Weymouth might be declared null and void. One or two witnesses were called in sup port of these allegations, and the committee adjourned. COUIV TRY MARKETS. BIRMINGHAM-FEB. 23. At to-day's market there was a good quantity of wheat offering; the trade closed dull, but we make no alteration in our quotations of last week. Fine barley sold for rather more money. Oats were 6d to is higher. Beans and peas also 6d to is dearer. MANCHESTER—Frs. 23. Wheat in fair request, at the extreme rates of Thursday last. Flour at former rates, and a limited sale. Oats and oatmeal a slow sale. Beans and Indian corn were rather dearer. LOUTH-FEB. 22. There was a dull business done in wheat to-day, and prices were at about last week's quotations, via., wheat, red and mixed, old and new, 41s to 45s per qr. ; white, 50s. Oats, 18s to 22s ; beans, 40s to 44s ; barley, 30s to 335. MARKET HARBOROUGH—FEa. 21. There was a middling supply of wheat, which met a fair demand, at about former rates. White wheat, 41s to 46s ; red, 38a to 42s per 36 stone. Barley, old, 26a to 41a ; new, —s to —s. Oats were a steady sale, from 23a to 30s per 24 stone. Beans (old), at 38s to 41s ; new, 34e to 48. per 38 stone. . . MELTON MOWBRAY-FEB. 21. There was a short supply of wheat to-day, with a:quiet business at the annexed prices :—White wheat, new, 45a Od to 48s Od ; red, 40s Od to 44s per 36 stone ; barley in fair supply, at 35s to 45s for malting, and 28s to 32s per qr. for grinding ; oats, 25s to 353 Od per 24 stone ; beans, 42s to 62s for old ; new, 52s per 38 at. EDINBURGH GRAIN-FEB. 22. Wheat on tho top 3s Od up .... ..... average Os 7d up. Barley on the top is Od up.. average Os 5d down. Oats on tho top 12s Od down average Os 6d down. Beans on the top 5s Od up average Os 4d up. Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.... Barley 1 18 3 9-12ths Oats 1 6 0 0-12ths Beans Total Supply and Sales. Wheat ..1434 qrs Sold 1103 qrs Barley. ..... .. 841 qrs .3403 qrs Sold 743 qrs Oats Sold 2325 qrs Beans 422 qrs.. Sold 279 qrs DERBY SMITHFIELD-FEB. 21. There was a good supply of fat beasts to-day, with a large attendance of buyers ; the best quality in demand, and a clearance was effected. Sheep were in very good supply, and well sold. Fat pigs in average supply. Fat calves more plentiful. Beef 6id to 7d Mutton ... 7d to 8d Lamb Od to Od Hides, 3td to 51d ; Veal 7id to SI Pork Rough fat, 53 9d per stone. alf skins, 6d to 6id. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. In the following, table E signifies that letters are despatohei by evening mails from London, and M by morning mails. Next DESTINATIONS. , Despatch Port of Mail of Mails. Despatch. due. Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton Mar. 12, E Southanip. Mar. 11 Ditto, via Marseilles Bahamas and Havana via New York star. 5, E Liverpool.. Mar. 15 Canada, &c. (by Canadn. pckt ) Feb. —. E Liverpool.. Feb. 22 Cage of Good Hope, Ascen sion, and St. Helena Mar. 5, E Devenport March 3 China, Penang, and Singa pore, via Southampton Mar. 3, Mi Feb. 26 Southamp. overdue Ditto, via Marseilles Gibraltar, via Southampton.. Feb. 27 , M Southamp. ov erdue Honduras and Blewilelds .... Mar. 17, M Southamp. Mar. itl India (Calcutta) and Ceylon, via Southampton Feb. 27, M S outhamp. overdue Ditto. via Marseilles India (Bombay), via South ampton Feb. 27. 31 Southam p, Feb. 25 Ditto, via Marseilles Lisbon, Brazils,BuenosAYres, Mar. 3/ and F. Islands Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto Feb.27, M So u th amp. over d ue Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Feb. 20, 151 Southamp. overdue Ditto, via Marseilles Mexico and Havana Newfoundland Mar, 2,:E Liverpool.. United States and British N America (by British paeket) Feb. 25, E Liverpool.. Mar. 3 Ditto (by U. S. packet) West Coast of Afric a , m a _ deira, and Tenerife ... . West India, California, Vene zuela, Chili, Peru, Grey town, New Granada, &c. [ADVERTISEMENT.] —The greatest happiness of a jour nalist is to introduce to his readers some new discovery calculated to benefit that vast portion of our fellow crea tures, which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies. It is with this feeling that we call the attention of invalids to the following extract from Du Barry's interesting report of cures without medicine of indigestion (dyspepsia), fla tulency, constipation, nervous, bilious and liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption and debility by Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food. Cure No. 180, twenty. five year? nervousness, constipation, indigestion, and debility, from which I had suffered great misery, and which no medicine could remove or relieve, have been effectually cured by Du Barry's food in a very short time.—W. R. Reeves, 181. Fleet-street. Cure No. 54,618, of a lady of 107 years of age.—Wandsbeck, near Hamburgh, 12th May, 1857.-1 hereby certify that my mother-in-law, Mrs. Holze, who has just completed her 107th year, after having suffered for half a century and more, from indigestion (dyspepsia), and consequent disorders, has been perfectly cured by Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, and is now enabled to di gest almost any kind of food with great comfort.—W. Holze. In tins, at is. 6d. ; llb., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 b., 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post' office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London' Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; Abbis, 601 Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, Oxford .. street ; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate• street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin. Bewley 'and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Co. at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew ; at Manchester, Sharp ana Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and Co.; ,at.Soutl l. ampton. Randall and Son. BIRTHS. BERNHARDT.— On the 23d inst., at 26, Bedford•placer Campden-hill, Kensington, the wife of Frederic de Bern hardt, Esq., of a son. DOWNING—On the 23d inst., the wife of H. B. Downing, Esq., of 48, Guildford -street, Itussell-square, and 1 1 , Mark-lane, of a daughter. KAYE.—On the 21st inst., at 'West Huntington, nea r s York, the wife of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Lister Kaye, °' a daughter. MARRIAGES. PIIILLPOTTS—LINE.—At St. Andrew's, Plymouth, Gets vius Phillpotts, Esq., youngest son of the Right BOA the Lord Bishop of Exeter, to Georgians Harriet, secour i daughter of T. V. La ne , an d gran dd aug ht er o f P o wn6 Bastard, second Viscount Exmouth, of Canonteign. DEATHS. FONELANQUE.—On the 11th inst., at Belgrade, Thou iflg de Greni er d e F on bl anquo , K.H., H.B.M. Consu l " General for Servia, aged 67. HAR.P9RD.—On the 21st inst ,at Down-place, Berke, F•P' Harford, Esq., aged 57. HOUSTON.—On the 16th inst., at Nice, Captain Thonl" Blakiston Houston, of the 4th (King's Own) Regime'', SIMPSON.—On the 22d inst., at 9, Sussex-street,Warviiel square, Charles Simpson, Esq., M.D., aged 56. ~„0 , „ WESTLEY.—On the 21st inst. at his residence, O ak tage, Streatham-place, Brixton-hill, Francis West' ! " Esq., aged 82. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the cousa a l Middlesex, Friday, February 24, 1860.