The Sun. — London, England, 1861-04-30 00:00:00

, IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT• HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY. The LORD CUANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at tve o'clock. THE TRAMWAY. The Earl of HARRINGTON gave notice that on Fri. day he should as k a ques ti o n relative to the iron railways t hat are at present being laid down in the streets of the THE CRISIS IN AMERICA. ist The Earl of MALMESBURY rose to ask the question Which he had given private notice to the noble lord Their relative to the state of affairs in America. lordships had no doubt seen the account of what 1 4 ) 84 taken place, and it was deplorable that such an out break should have occurred. That war would no doubt vltend over the whole country, and none would be greater staerers than England. It was most fortunate that no blood ha d yet b een s h e d, an d h e c ould not but believe that her Majesty's Government had done their utmost to obviate the Peat calamity that had befallen America. He therefore caked what steps had been taken by the British Government prevent war, and what hopes were entertained that such ' t ort would be successful ? Lord WODEHOITSE could not but agree with the noble earl in his expressions of regret at the civil war that had broken out in America. Her Majesty's Government, after much consideration, determined that it was not advisable for this country to obtrude advice upon the Government of the u nited States. (Cheers.) The instructions that had been evert to Lord Lyons, therefore, was to express on every suit able occasion the wish of her Majesty's Government that l g° 0 (1 understanding could be brought about between the Northern and Southern States, but at the same time care -4alll' to avoid giving, either officially or non-officially, any a dvice that might wound the just susceptibilities of the uierican Government. With respect to the latter part of e noble lord's question, he could state that her Majesty's vernraent had net been in correspondence with any r 0 reign government on the subject. RAGGED SCHOOLS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said in consequence of t he report of the Education Commissioners containing a I tlong condemnation of ragged schools—a condemnation * llich, he believed, quite unfounded—he should bring the Ittbject under the consideration of their lordships on Mon day next. QUEEN'S PRISON BILL, This bill was read a second time. _ POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS. On the motion for the third reading of this bill, Lord MONTEAGLE wished for the production of a re -I)4rt of the calculations on which the government had based their bill. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the production of such a document as that referred to by the noble lord Was quite unusual, but he should feel great pleasure in giving the noble lord any information he might require on the subject. Lord REDESDALE inquired what would be the ex- Dense of carrying out the provisions of the bill. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said it was estimated th at £3,000 would be quite sufficient to carry the bill into active operation. If the experiment succeeded and the ° Perations were enlarged, then, of course, there would be a e4 / I 'reeponding increase of expense. Lord MONTEAGLE thought the bill most objection !lle, as it would interfere in a very unwise manner with these institutions which had been established for the benefit al the industrious classes. The result of the measure would ha the breaking up of many of the existing savings banks. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY could not agree with the noble lord that the bill would not eater into competition 'with existing savings bomb , because the interest offered in the font-office Savings Banks was but £2 10s., while the existing savings banks gave £3. The measure was one that removed many of the restrictions that now existed in the savings banks system, and one which he was sure the taajority of their lordships would approve. The bill was read a third and passed. The Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland) Bill passed through Committee. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-YESTERDAY. The SpEAKER. took the chair at four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Air. lionvoN, who was introduced by Sir M. White Ridley and Col. Taylor, took the oaths and his seat on his eeetion for Tyneinouth. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Baggymoor Drainage Bill, the Ludlow and Clee „.. Railway Bill, and the Whitehaven, Cleator, and Egre triont Railway Bill were read a third time. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Barnsley Coal Railway ; Birmingham Canal I ttligations ; Kingston-up)n-Hull Docks ; Lancashire 41 4 Yorkshire (New Line, &c.) ; Liverpool Improvement ; kiddleton and Tonge Improvement ; Monmouthshire Rail !ay and Canal (Lease, &c.), changed from Monmouthshire railway and Canal (Purchase, &c.) ; Monmouthshire Rail- Way and Canal (New Lines, &c.) ; Oswestry, Ellesmere, 741 c1 Whitchurch Railway; Parsonatown and Portumns ridge Railway, South Yorkshire Railway (Keadby Exten *lon), Sowerby Bridge Gas, Thorne Moor Drainage, &c., and Westminster Improvements. The following bills from the Lords were read a second time :—Dewsbury and Batley Gas, Isle of Wight Water, B Wansea Gas, Uxbridge Gas, and West Cornwall Railway. LEEDS AND EALAND ROAD BILL. Mr. WRIGHTSON moved that this bill be recommitted ta the former committee, with leave to sit and proceed on Wednesday, the Ist day of May next, at 12 o'clock. Colonel PENNANT and Mr. BAINES opposed the motion, and the further consideration of the bill was postponed till to-morrow. PETITIONS. Several peAitions were presented praying for Par liamen till, reform, in favour of tip budget, and reduction in the national expenditure ; for the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in workhouses, and for improved educa tion of Roman Catholics in Ireland ; for the sale of a single bottle of spirits or wine by wholesale dealers. THE CONFEDERATED S PATES OF AMERICA. Mr. W. E. FORSTER asked the hon. member for Gal- Vajr (Mr. Gregory) whether, after the news which had been received in this country from America, he intended to persist in the motion of which he had given notice for a recognition of the confederated States. Air. GREGORY said that he had received a letter from the noble lord the Foreign Secretary stating that it would be inconvenient to the public service if he brought forward his motion as he proposed to do to-morrow. He begged to say that he would postpone it fora fortnight. (Hear.) NEW WRIT. On the motion of C.l. TAYLOR, a new writ was ordered for Montgomery, vacant by the decease of the late member, kr. Pugh. THE BRIBERY AT BERWICK-PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS. Mr. HODGSON asked the Attorney-General if the Go vernment had formed ajudgment on the report of the com.- Mission appointed to inquire into the alleged corrupt prac ices at Berwick-on-Tweed election. He had been reported guilty of bribery at that election, because he had subscribed £6O to enable those sitting members to collect evidence to defend their seats. The hon. member entered into some further explanation, and concluded by repeating his question. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that this morning he had received a letter and a pamphlet from the hon. Member (Mr. Hodgson), and if the hon. member wished him to read these before he answered him he would repeat Ilia question to-morrow. (Laughter.) The Government gives no direction on these subjects, and it would be on his own responsibility that any prosecution would be instituted, find if he did not prosecute it would be his (the Attorney- General's) fault. (Laughter.) Ho referred to the report, Which he had carefully analysed, and he found that the alleged bribery of the hon. member rested upon the evi dence of a witness who had absconded, and who, if he could be found, he (the Attorney-General) could not make him speak. (Laughter.) The next ground of accusation against the hon. member was the statements made by him self to the commissioners ; but he could assure the hon. member that as he had no expectation of obtaining a con viction against him, he should abstain from any prosecu tion. (Renewed Laughter ) " THE WARRIOR." Sir F. SMITH asked the Secretary to the Admiralty When he would lay upon the table of the house a copy of the correspondence that may have taken place between the Admiralty and the contractors who built the Warrior, in reference to the non-fulfilment of the contract within the stipulated time, such copy having been ordered by the house on the 18th of March ? Lord C. PAGET said that her Majesty's Government proposed to lay the correspondence on the table that evening. WAYS AND MEANS.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. HORSMAN, in resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for going into committee of ways and means, said that the budget of the present year had a feature simi lar to that of last year, as it contained a proposition that Was agreeable only to a small section of the house, but which was not acceptable to the majority, or in accordance with the feeling of the community. Besides, in reference to that proposition for the remission of the duty on paper, they had the decision of the House of Lords against it, and there was no urgency in regard to the repeal of this tax that would justify the government in supposing that the House of Lords would be induced to come so sud denly to the adpption of what they had rejected in so marked a manner last year. He objected to the conclusions as to the surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he recollected the unfortunate surplus promised last year. They were promised the latter by the reduction of the ex- Pease in respect to China, and the surplus for the present Year was to be obtained by means of an indemnity of £750,000 from China, which he believed they would never receive. (Hear, hear.) In considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been guilty of a fatal error in re peating an experiment that hail been admitted last year to be a mistake, in which the feelings of the country had not been consulted, and another opposition with the House of Lords was to be apprehended. (Hear, hear.) described the proposed repeal of the paper duty as a Mere link counectin Dirizipg l l4l;tl ?d1 Tivatton, die alto' luoineas dons SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRILI 30, 1861. objected to the mode in which the resolution for the repeal of the duty on paper, was to be sub mitted to the House of Lords, which would throw upon that house the responsibility of rejecting the budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed' to remit ld. on the income tax ; but suppose, instead of taking off the duty on paper, he reduced that tax by another ld., or by removing the duty from tea and sugar, would he not be acting more in conformity with the sentiments of 99 out of every 100 in the whole community. (Hear, hear.) He denied that the conclusions as to a continuance of peace on the continent were justified by events, and described all Europe as a vast camp, and referred to the statement of the Prime Minister at the venture to tell the right hon. gentleman that if he ventures to look for precedents he will find that, no longer ago than 1801, 1802, and 1803, the House of Commons repeatedly— nay, almost constantly—took that course; and in Februat y, 1801, the House of Commons ordered a bill to be prepared and brought in pursuant to resolutions of the house—no fewer than 143 in number—resolutions referring to the duties on Irzta, on paper, upon stained paper, upon books and maps, the drawbacks on books imported, the Excise upon linen stuffs, the drawback on the exportation, and other matters; so that the house is now only asked to do what, at one time in its history, it was in the constant habit of doing. (Hear.) If, however, the right hon. gentleman is alarmed, let me refer him to the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge, who was chairman of the com mittee on precedent last year. That right hon. gentleman certainly showed no disposition to be hostile to the House of Lords, but he prepared the draft of a report for the commit tee in which occurred the paragraph. He said in one of those paragraphs that the power of the House of Commons in matters of supply was very much weakened by the man ner in which the bill was founded upon resolutions of the house. Now I will undertake to say that although those paragraphs were not printed in the report of the committee, the members of that committee, I believe, unanimously con curred in the spirit of them. That is my answer to the right hon. gentleman, so far as I am concerned, to discuss the question at present, I must say, with all respect for the right hon. gentleman, that he is not a man I would like to take advice from on a matter of that sort, Listen to his speech to-night. Has he not crowded into it every possible horror over the affairs of Europe, commencement of the session to show that that noble lord did not partake in the feeling of security in the maintenance of peace throughout Europe, of which some honourable members were so very sanguine. He contended that in the - present stat 3 of Europe no one was desirous of removing the Government at present; anti that their defeat on a single resolution of this budget did not necessitate their resignation. He did not wish un- necessarily to draw the attention of the gwernment to their misfortunes, but he could not help reminding them that they had already sustained a defeat. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) There never was an occasion when it was more necessary to follow the prolific principle of Sir R.Peel, and to try by a reduction of duties so to stimulate consump tion as to derive a greater revenue from lower duties, and when they got into committee he should require a better reason than any which had yet been given to induce him to agree to a course which did not recognise the interests of the poorer classes. (Hear, hear.) There was ono class of gentlemen whose attention would be devoted to this task. Those who had for years I een employers of labour, many of whom have given noble instances of benevolence and patriotism by their practical efforts to improve the condi tion of the working classes, and he would ask them if, con sidering the additional comfort which would be given to the people by the reduction of the tea duties, they would support the repeal •f a tax which could in no way be to the advantage of the poor—(hear, hear)—and to continue those duties which infringed specially on the comfort of the ope rative classes. (Hear, hear.) To talk in figures, which would be more comprehensible to the working classes than to talk of millions a year, and thanks to the energies of a cheap press the working men of England would be able to see those figures, he could inform the house that the pressure of lie duties on tea and sugar amounted to about £4,567 a day, and therefore he could not but rejoice that the House of Lords had last year prevented a boon being given to the paper-makers which should be especially given to the poorer classes. (Hear, hear.) He was aware that to the middle class the sum he mentioned appeared inconsiderable, but taken off tea and sugar, it would add enormously to the comfort of the people. (Hear, hear.) Last year, when the House of Lords'rejected the bill for the repeal of the paper duty, the operative classes did not know the boon it would be to them if the duties were taken off tea and sugar, or of he wrong which would be done them by the repeal of the paper duty ; but he believed that they had grown in know ledge since then, and perhaps it would he found that at the next general election their knowledge would be complete. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) As regarded the paper dutyper se, everybody, he believed, was quite ready to repeal it, if It could be done safely and justly, and if it could be vindi cated on sound principles of finance. (Hear, hear.) He had come down to the house 10 years before, when the repeal of the paper duty was proposed, and he had always been anxious to support it since, but he had always been induced to vote against it by the speeches of the re spective Chancellors of the Exchequer. In the present in stance he believed that the proposal arose more from a poli tical than a financial motive, and he wished to point out to he house the various classes of objections which had been or could be urged against the measure. The hon. member for Huntingdon pointed out one class of objections. He re ferred to the state of India, the condition of affairs in the Levant, and the general unsettled state of Europe, as rea sons for tearing a diminution of trade, and he asked if under these circumstances the Government were so sure of their revenue that they could afford to giie up a most prolific source of revenue. As regarded anticipation of a continental war, they had received great confirmation in what fell from the noble lord at the head of the Government on Friday night, for ho said that, looking to the state of Europe, Prussia might soon require the support of England. (Hear.) _ _ With regard to the second class of objections they had been gone into in detail by the hon. member for Stamford. He pointed out the non-fulfilment of various calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and remarked that the ba lances in the Exchequer had been reduced -C1,500,000 added to the debt, and £1,000,000 of Exchequer bonds issued to perpetuate a debt which we were pledged to pay last year— (hear) —and the repudiation of which went to reduce the deficit of last year, and to assist in making this surplus for the coming year. It appeared also that last year there had been an excess of expenditure of £2,558,384, and with re- gard to that item the right hon. gentleman informed the house that he did not intend to offer any information on the subject. He did not complain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done anything wrong, but he contended that our whole system of finance had been unsound in principle. Th 3 hon. member for Huntingdon added his t0m.;,..... 7 to tho ao. -eaciat-onoo of a *surplus, and the hon. member for Horsham had requested some explanation with regard to the £750,000 expected from China, and presented the alternative either that that sum would not come into the hands of the Government at all, or, if it did, that it would be swallowed np in the indemnity to British mer chants. Now he was not quite sure that that cir cumstance was nnsusceptible of explanation, but there was no doubt that the merchants should, as soon as possible, be paid their indemnity—(hear, hear)—the President of the Board of Trade had volunteered some ex planation on the subject, and the lightness with which he promised it could only be equalled by the adroitness with which he evaded it ; for, after some explanation on another point, he said that on second thoughts he should leave the matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which n• doubt was a very prudent course. (A laugh.) He should re commend the right hon. gentleman to held in his hand while giving his explanation the paper of figures of £1,900,000 of Exchequer bonds, £1,500,000 added to the debt, and the reduction of the balances in the Exchequer; and if at the conclusion of his address those figures remained the same, he would ask hon. gentlemen to believe their eyes and not their ears. (Hear.) He believed that any one regulating his private affairs, or any mercantile establish ment its business, on the financial principles on which the affairs of this country were conducted, would, in a very short time, if the former, find himself in a prison, while the latter would be in the Gazette. (Hear, hear.) A nation could not go to prison or into the Gazette; but that was no rea son why they should not place their financial position on a sound and secure basis, and he must say that although every one looked up to the high and brilliant qualities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect and admiration, there were many who did not think him safe in matters of finance. (Hear, hear.) They were told that this year the resolutions were to be embodied in one bill, in order the more easily to arrive at a settlement, but it appeared to him to be a blow at the independence of the House of Lords. If two friends fell out, and one took the other unknowingly and gave him a knockdown blow, that he could not con sider a satisfactory settlement. (A. laugh.) There were some settlements which might be more precarious than auy contest, and more losing than any defeat. (Hear.) He trusted that the House of Commons would resolve to resist any motion which should make a victory of one of the Houses of Parliament the means of destroying the indepen dence of the other. (Loud Conservative cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT then said the house will not, I am sure, be astonished if I say at the beginning of my speech that I do not intend to follow the right hon. gentleman into all the details of his somewhat discursive speech. (Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.) I could not help thinking of the right hon. gentleman, as I have had occasion to think of him before, that he indulged in many remarks alarming to persons of weak nerves and gives utterance to prognostications calcu lated to alarm us all. Did he not also feel that it is his wont occasionally to wander from the realms of fact, and in a manner that I think hardly compatible with the usefulness of debate, to the regions of imagination ? (Hear, hear.) It is only two years since the right hon. gentleman alarmed the house by a most fearful statement with regard to the chances of war breaking out. He spoke of the probability of the occurrence of one of the greatest calamities that could occur, namely, a war between England and France, and indulged in such forebodings that everybody must have expected an immediate descent upon our shores, whereas they were in point of fact followed by the conclusion of a most important commercial treaty which itself was fol lowed almost immediately afterwards by a measure on the part of the French Government which indicated the greatest anxiety that the people of the two countries should comprehend each other, and that the interests of both—l mean the abolition of the passport system as regarded English visitors to France. (Derisive cheers and hear, hear). The right hon. gentleman also, not thinking it sufficient to chill the souls of some of us who were present, went further, and attempted to chill the bodies of a not very remote posterity by telling us that our coals were about speedily to be exhausted. (A laugh.) An hon. member, however, on this side of the house fortu nately was able to demonstrate, so far as science could de monstrate such a position, that if the country could endure for the future as long as it has since the dove returned no more to the ark, the supply of coals under this island will, in all probability, not be exhausted. (Hear, hear.) Last year again, the right hon. gentleman drew a picture of a very fearful character. He wished to persuade this house that they were not to be trusted with the regulation of the finances of the country, and that it had been absolutely ne cessary for the House of Lords to do that which for 400 years they had never done, namely, to step in and correct what they deemed an error in the calculation of the House of Commons with regard to supplying the means for the service of the year. He has now presented his Budget in a very imperfect aspect, and one in which it ought not to be regarded, and has introduced topics which he could have wished would not have been imported into the present discussion. He complains as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were about to do some thing of a very fearful character in proposing that the reso lutions of this house should go to the other House of Par • liament in one bill instead of in separate bills. Now, I sha 1 not go into any discussion on the subject, because it may 'it ND, up a aiu, gi iutwre Ntas ci prmetlipgs, but 10 " worse (Hear, hear.) For the last eighteen years the Budgets have been mine, inasmuch as I have given them my support. What reason have I, or the majority of Parliament, to be ashamed of the course we to ak. One of the most respected of ate county members who bad resolutely opposed free trade,. 'said to me, " How much good you have done us, but we did not know it " (Laughter.) The hon. member for Huntingdon referred to the state of Turkey,'Austria, and Italy, as warning us how we shall proceed. It is true that political convulsions rend the air, and that political earth quakes shake the ground. But in this country you are in secure enjoyment of your estates. If the Queen can wield her sceptre over a peaceful realm—if Great Britain can hold its course with all the majesty it ever did—l ask you if all this is not to be attributed to the Budgets of the last few years--Budge is which 1 have always supported, and which you, unfortunately for your reputation, have always op posed. (Loud cheers.) I have no objection io party con tests, when for a public good. If I look to be remembered hereafter, it is for having had my name associated with measures which I conscientiously felt it was just for Par liament to pass, and beneficial for the country to receive. (Cheers.) I have looked at the Budget with, I believe, an impartial and honest eye, and it is one which it will be bene ficial for Parliament to pass and for the people to accept, I shall give it my hearty support. (Loud cheers.) Sir J. FERGITSSON said that the hon. member for Birmingham had hardly done justice to the motives of those who opposed the Budget. He would call their attention to some observations of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Glad stone) in 1857, on the Budget of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Home Secretary (Sir G. Cornewall Lewis), who did not propose the remission of the paper Than fable yet hath feigned or fear conceived, duty, contending that to call it a tax upon knowledge was (iorgons and hydras and chimeras dire," illusory, inasmuch as it pressed more heavily on other that presented itt , elf to his imagination ? According to the articles than on paper used for printing, and that it would general tenor of the statement of the right hon. gentleman, not afford any advantage to the ordinary purchaser of he should, I think, not complain that £70,000,000 was not newspapers and books. For those reasons the right hon. a sufficiently large expenditure, or indeed that £30,000,000 baronet (Sir G. C. Lewis) postponed the repeal of the paper was not sufficient ; but he should, under the state of affairs duty to a more convenient season, and similarly rejected which he describes, refuse to consider in any way the the proposal to remit the duty on fire insurance. He (Sir remission of any tax whatever. (Hear, hear.) Let me ask G. C. Lewis) quoted a declaration which, though laughed the house to go back to that memorable night, a fortnight at at the ;time by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer ago, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer fascinated the (Mr. Gladstone), had certainly not been shown to be erro house by his brilliancy. (Hear, hear.) I have sat opposite neous, that taxation was less oppressive when spread over to gentlemen on the other side of the House for more than a number of articles, than when by the process calla sins eighteen years, and I have not done so without taking Plicity it was made to press on a particular interest. (Cheers notice of their mode of thought, of their opinions and of the from the Opposition.) He proposed reductions to the effect produced on them by statements which they may extent of nearly £12,000,000, including a reduction both of hear. (Hear, hear.) I recognise their cheers when some- the income •tax and also of the tea duty. The hon.member for thing occurs to gratify or surprise them. I will leave out Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) took exception to this on the ground the gentlemen who sometimes expect to return back to that it would, in subsequent years, leave the Treasury in office, but I will take the main bulk of their followers. want of funds, and it remained for the house to consider As the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded with his whether that prediction was sound or not. But the right speech, the faces of those hon. gentlemen betrayed a species hon. gentleman, Mr. Gladstone, took a different and much of relief. They did not expect, although it had been hin- more violent view. While it had been the fashion very ted aloud, that further taxation would not be required, that much to quote the past convictions of the right hon. gen so large a surplus would be clearly made out (hear, hear), tleman, he thought somewhat vainly, he still believed there and I appeal to the consciences of hon. gentlemen would be some advantage in considering the grounds on opposite, when the right hon. gentleman came to the red ue- which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had op tion of income-tax, to show whether they had not reached posed that Budget. He first of all objected to its general a perfect state of enthusiasm. jlear, bean) When he features, and denounced the surplus as illusory, and the came to that portion of his scheme you, th e country gentle- entire measure as showing a tendency to depart from sound men possessing incomes of from £5,000 to £20,000 a year, principles of taxation. Ile denied the reality of the remis displayed mote satisfaction than would, I believed, have sions, and laid down the remarkable doctrine, that as ac been shown by an equal number of London clerks with cording to past plans, of which he was the author, in 1853, salaries of an average of £2OO. (Oh, oh.) I have no doubt these taxes would have partially expired in that year, the that it was on account of your constituents (a laugh), and so-called deduction was, in point of fact, a re. imposition. Ido not at all wish to give an improper interpretation to The hon. gentleman proceeded to quote at considerable your feelings ; but it was obvious that there existed great length from Mr. Gladstone's speech of 1857, laying especial excitement and pleasure on that side of the house. When weight on the declaration that the change of circumstances the right hon. gentleman came to the paper duties, there was since 1853 did not release the house from the promises then an expression, not quite the reverse of pleasure, which seemed made, and the expectations then raised, to which he (Mr. to pass through both sides of the house, as it was felt to be Gladstone) was especially pledged ; and on the prediction desirable that a settlement should be arrivad at. I ask that in 1861-2 the deficiency would amount to above eight hon. members opposite whether they ever had a doubt of a millions. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was surplus ? Was it not their impression that the budget was a now carrying to the extreme the policy which he then de successful one, and that the house might reasonably adopt flounced. As these taxes would expire in the present year, it. (Hear.) Ido not include in these observations the right their continuance was not a remission, but a reimposition ; hon. member for Bucks and his friends, because they only and even what was called the "unnecessary penny" was saw the prospect of an opposition without anything to imposed in order to relieve a wealthy interest. The right oppose, and were, in fact, like the frozen-out gardeners who hon. gentleman had had the face to lay on the table last had "no work to do." (A laugh, and o oh.") Just in the year an estimate for the China war of £500,000, the same nick of time, and by lucky accident, an independent mem- sum which Sir R. Peel had given for a war of less than one ber on the ether side—the hon. member for Huntingdon— fifth its magnitude, and he now counted on a sum of be turns up to attack the surplus. Now, Ido not regard the tween £400,000 and £500,000, contingent on the payment hon. memler as an authority on those matters. (" Oh" from of an indemnity which by all prospects would not be paid Opposition.) For the 18 years I have been in the house I this year. He asked the house whether it was not their have always found him to be wrong, and an authority duty to adjust rightly the balance of taxation for the year, which is always in the wrong can be no authority. Moore's and whether they were not wilfully falling into error if, almanack was sometimes right, but the hon. member never with the experience of last year before them, they aban was. (Oh.) I know that those who disagree with me will doned sources of revenue which might be absolutely not agree in these observations. The hon. member having needed hereafter. The President of the Board of Trade been so conspicuous in his failures was the last man to had spoken of prospective finance, but the Chancellor of attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) I the Exchequer had dealt more than any other man ix pro dare say on the other side there are 50 members, who as- phecies which had been more unfulfilled than was ever pire to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in ease the right prophecy before, and was now most singularly turning hon. gentleman vacates his office. Now as to a surplus I his back on his policy of former years. The give him credit for it, and I here state that I shall always Chancellor of the Exchequer was not responsible for the bad believe in a surplus when a Chancellor of the Exchequer harvest, but be was responsible for the excess in the ex declares one. (Hear, hear.) I shall have nothing to do with penditure in the Chinese war, which, with his experience of those who are opposed to a surplus but refuse a remission of 1854, he ought more than any other man to have foreseen. taxation which a Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to To make up the deficiencies of last year he had anticipated make. (Hear, hear.) Assuming a surplus, I ask are the future years, by taking more than £4,000,000 from the ca p...swed remissions fair to the various interests of the coun- pital of the country. The President of the Board of Trade try ? (Hear, hear.) Last year the house granted an addi- had not answered the question put to him by an hon. mem tional penny of income tax for the purpose of having the her with respect to that curious item, repayment and ad paper duty repealed. Now we are to get back that penny— vances, which looked very nue u further encroachment on the paper duty is to be repealed—and what can be more un- capital. A very slight difference on the price of tea and grateful or indefensible than to reject the proposal ? The sugar pressed heavily on the poor, an assertion he was pre- Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that one-half of the pared to stand by at the risk of imputation of motives. If surplus shall go towards the repeal of certain indirect taxes, it were not that, it was beneath contempt to attribute to and the other half to the repeal of certain direct taxes. I g entlemen advocating the interests of a large class of the want some hon. gentleman opposite to state on what ground community motives by which he could not conceive it pos it is that his party bear their hostility to the repeal of the sible they could be influenced, the imputation might be re paper duty. (Hear, hear.) There is nothing in the trade to torted by the observation that there might be newspapers justify such hostility. Paper was a great article of manu- which did not pay their expenses set up in the interest of a facture--much used for books, and for the transmission of certain party, and that except such an interest, he did not news. If there be cheaper paper—no stamp and a free press, see who would be benefitted by the repeal of the paper power will be given to the weak, and light will be given to duties. If the question were submitted to a jury of working those who sit in darkness. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) When men, ho was sure they would laugh at the proposition that I see you pursue your opposition almost to vindictiveness, they could be benefitted by the repeal of the paper duty at I have a right to suspect that there is something more in the cost of continuing the tea and sugar duties at their pre your opposition to the repeal of the paper duty than there sent rate. The hon. gentleman might, if he chose, have is to your repeal of any other tax. (Hear.) In 1858 the right reduced the duty on tea by 4d. per lb., and no fairer issue hon. gentleman the member for Bucks did not simply allow could be raised than the question which of the two taxes it the resolution of the President of the Board of Trade for was better for the poor to remit ? He wished to call atten the repeal of the duty to pass, but he stated that it would be tion to a pamphlet recently issued by Mr. Bohn, the pub impolitic to maintain it as a permanent source of revenue. fisher, who would be generally admitted to be an authority (Hear.) One great journal of the metropolis did not on the subject. The hon. member proceeded to quote ar wish the paper duty repealed until other taxes were abo- guments from the pamphlet alluded to, and a statement of lished. If that be your project, you will make it a perma- the amount of the paper duty on several works. There was nent tax. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman also said no doubt that the paper trade, so far from being crippled that many Customs duties were not worth collecting, and by taxation, was being greatly extended, and Mr. Glad that that must be considered in making remissions. Now, stone contended last year that English paper makers could these Customs duties are all swept away. I have, therefore,. compete successfully in foreign markets, even when at a a right to expect the vote of the right hon. gentleman on disadvantage in taxation. The wholesale price of the cheap this occasion. The right hon. gentleman went even fur- papers was id., and the amount of paper duty on each ther, and said that he was not prepared to say that the tax copy was about half a farthing; so it was not likely the on paper was not one which required, if not i mmediate, at p ublic would g et an y advantage from the reduction, besides least early consideration. (Hear.) That was three years which, it was well known that they were not supported by ago. (Hear.) "PPeal to the right hon. gentleman. With any profit on sale, but by the advertisements. The whole powers to occupy the throne lit‘rature, the right hon. advantage would fall into the hands of the printer and pub gentleman had abdicated it for what Zee thought a more use Daher. Considering the budget as a whole, he did not won ful sphere, and for a wider field in which se aisway his der that the right hoes gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had taken genius. Was it worth while, for a party triumph, that an artful means of preventing the Lords from exercising books, and tracts, and the all-knowing and all-teaching the-signs Of eopervision—not that he thought the Lords newspaper, should be subjected to the burden of this tax. would think of rejecting it if sent up a second time by the (Hear.) The hon. member for Lincoln and others gave the Commons—the insult was gratuitous—but there never was preference to the tea and sugar duties ever paper. (Hear.) a budget more unfit for supervision. It looked as if it had When I recollect that the five best years of nip life were been prepared by two different authors—one of whom had spent in trying to get for the poor man's breakfast table— p re p are d the estimates, the other the ways and means. The in opposition to bon. gentlemen opposite—untaxed bread estimates for the army and navy certainly bore the con and butter, lam slow to believe that their sympathy for s t ru ction put upon them by the hon. member for Stroud. the poor man is greater than what I myself feel. (Hear.) They were prepared with a view to the safety of the coun- I can understand the anxiety of those who have large stocks try in case of war, while the revenue seemed calculated in of tea and sugar in bond, to have some modification of those the expectation of the most piping times of peace. The re duties. , But I cannot understand how their sympathy for peal of the paper tax, and the falling off of other sources of the poor man's breakfast tab le is greater than mine. In the revenue, would leave nothing but the income-tax to fall present case, I think I shall be giving the greatest relief to back upon for any emergency of war ; and this tax, unwill the working classes, in repealing the paper duties. (No, and ingly granted in time of war, was being made the main cheers.) It is obvious, that if you remit a million of the source of revenue in times of peace. He approved of the tea and sugar duties, it may remain in the pockets of the foreign policy of the Government, who had rightly inter consumers, but it will do nothing in the opening up of any preted the feelings of the country in that policy, and espe new trade. (Hear.) The speeches of the hon. member for cially in the Syrian question, in which they had acted on a Edinburgh, and of the hon. member for Dungarvan, were bold and manly policy, which became them as English conclusive as to the grievance of the tax and of the injury Ministers—(cheers)—but in fiscal matters they were taking —it might be ruin—which it would inflict on paper menu- a course opposed to the tradition of their own party, and to facturers, if allowed to remain another year. The right their policy in former times. He regretted that the Chan hon. gentleman who spoke to-night assumed that the mil- cellor of the Exchequer should use the great talents which lion remitted by the paper duties would go to the manufac- had raised him to a position, perhaps unknown in the case turers, but that a million remitted of tea and sugar duties of any man of his generation, to carry out a policy opposed would relieve the poorest classes. to his former pledges and conviction, (Hear, hear, from Mr. HORSMAN—I said it would go into the pockets of the Opposition.) paper dealers—namely, booksellers, paper makers, and Mr. GREGSON was ready to take the Chancellor of the cheap newspaper proprietors. Exchequer at his word that there was a surplus, and had Mr. BRIGHT—I think the benefit in that case will be no desire to force on him money which he said he did not as widely spread as the benefit from a redaction of the require. (A. laugh.) . He would rath e r keep the hon. sugar and tea duty. I find, between 1838 and 1856, the gentleman " short," in order that he might be more number of paper mills sunk from 416 to 314 in this country, anxious to carry out the economy which he had declared to and in Ireland from 60 to 28. In Scotland there was no be necessary. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) At the same material change. True, the manufacture of paper has in- time be thought the reduction of the tea duty would creased, but it is one great evil of this excise duty that it have been preferable to that of the duty on paper. strangles all the thriving little men, gives the monopoly of He would have preferred to have seen a reduction on tea the trade to a few great manufacturers, and destroys that and sugar, but when he considered what would be the con free competition which would otherwise exist. (Hear, hear.) sequence of a refusal to adopt the present proposals of the Ido not think the right hon. baronet the member fo r H e rt- Government, he felt it his dut y to give a rel uctant su pp ort f o rd likes to appear on the other side when the paper duty t o the p ro p osals of the C hancello r of the Excheq uer. is before us. In 1855, the right hon. baronet objected to Mr. B. COCHRANE regarded the present as an impor the tax, and said that it placed an important manufacture leant epoch in finance, and declining to discuss in detail in the hands of a wealthy and irresponsible oligarchy. the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proceeded (Hear.) I should not have spoken of the House of Lords if at some length to compare the revenue and expenditure the hon. member had not referred to it. lam sure th a t h e i s d ur i ng th e l as t 30 years, pointing out the enormous in the best friend of the House of Lords and to the Constitu• crease which had taken ph co during that period, and more tion, who seeks to have this question speedily and without especially since the year 1837, It was to meet the great irritation settled. (Loud cheers.) The right lion. member for deficiency of revenue which Sir R. Peel had inherited as a Horsham called this a political and not a financial Budget. legacy from the Government of Lord Melbourne, that the The right hon. gentleman said it was intended to conciliate income tax was proposed, and if ever such an impost was justifiable it was upon that occ as i on , an d f o r such a pur me. (Hear, hear.) When the right hon. gentleman was in j office I found him as anxious as any one, consistently with pose. But at that time the noble lord was at the head of his duty, to conciliate me. (Cheers.) The right hon. gen- the Government, and several of his colleagues were to be tlemen talked of a noisy section—l will not say an influen- found among the strongest opponents of that tax. The tial or non-influential section—on this side t o w h o se hon. member proceeded to quote from the speeches of Lord clamour concessions were made. One thing I may say, we Palmerston, Lord J. Russell, Sir George Grey, and others, never clamoured for office. (Cheers.) If we clamoured at passages condemnatory of the policy and justice of impos all it was for a public benefit. I admit that it is my Budget. ing the income tax. If, he said, those members of the (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) I adopt it, and there- G over nment then entertained suc h o pinions, how coul d fore it is mine. (Hear, hear.) In a few days it will be the the y reconcile them with the fact of their now supporting 13gd4et of tbio house, because it will In adopted by 101 14covie tax at go Algli it rats at 9d, iA tin P 9444 r The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated in his financial matters a desire to diminish the amount of indi rect taxation and increase the direct taxes, and the carry ing out of that policy he proposed to hand over to a new reformed Pat liament, which would more completely re present the wishes and opinions of the people, and there was no doubt that the expression of such wish had tended very much t• prevent the passing of the Re form Bill last year. On the present occasion the same prin ciple had been expressed, and direct taxation was about to be imposed for the purpose of taking off indirect taxes. An income tax of Bd. in the pound, according to the Chancel lor of the Exchequer's own statement, would give a surplus of £lBO,OOO, and he could not understand on what prin ciple the tax was to be levied at 9d., merely for the pur pose of abolishing an indirect tax on paper, which could not be reimposed, while an income tax of Sd. would produce an adequate surplus for the financial year. (Hear.) r furnished him with a most decisive ground of attack, actu ally charged our deficiency twice over upon our backs. (Laughter.) " First of all," he said, " you have taken so much out of the balances of the Exchequer, and secondly you have a deficiency of 21 millions," evidently adding the two sums together. My hon. friend did not fall into that error, but 1 e dwelt. on the point with needless detail, He was very anxious about the state of the balances, and he con tended they had fallen more than we expected them to fall towards September. Of course they did. But I should like to knew how I was to tell what drafts would be made upon the Exchequer for China by the officers there, who desired to make themselves very strong in funds in order to prepare themselves against the contemplated expedition in that coun try P To my hon. friend's inquiries as to the health of the balances, I have a very short answer to give. They are not only as well as can be expected, but they are in a state very satisfactory to their friends. (A laugh.) I cannot give a better description of them during the past financial year than by stating that, during the whole four quarters, the entire sum paid as interest upon deficiency bills amounted to no more than £1,850, and in the quarter which is now passing not one shilling has been paid for that purpose. (Hear, heir.) My hon. friend seems to think that some strange trick has been performed in applying the repay ment of advances to meet the deficiency of the past year's revenue. This is neither the place nor the time to enter upon a consideration of the provisions of our law, but surely my hen. friend ought to have known that when advances are repaid, they become part and parcel of the consolidated fund; and that it would not have been in the power of the Government, even if they had wished to do anything so absurd, to draw any distinction between those repayments and any other money paid into the Exchequer. (Hear.) Then my hon. friend said he was sorry that I omitted the fortification loan from my consideration. I omitted it n o t because my responsibility was one whit less than that of the gentlemen who sit near me, for it was a common responsi bility of the Government, but simply because the sum which had been required was so exceedingly small that it was not worth while in my opinion to call the attention of the house to it in any great detail, when I was dealing with sums on the one side or the other of £70,000.000. My hon. friend was also very much alarmed at the idea of there being another drop under the French treaty, or, at all events, if not my hon. friend, one who spoke near him both in time and place. But there is to be no further drop. The lowest wine duty is already in operation, and it has turned out apparently to be no drop at all. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend wanted to know how I provided for the army excess of 1859-60—for everything, you see, is pressed into the service. I did not provide for it at all—(hear, hear)—and the reason I did not is because it has already been paid. (Cheers). What we have to do is simply to apply to this house to obtain its recognition, and to give form and regularity to transactions which require to be watched, because they interfere with the regu larity of our finance, but which have no bearing whenever upon the budget, for they will not make the Exchequer one sixpence poorer. (Hear.) My hon. friend next said that the effects of the bad harvest were not exhausted. Cer tainly they are not exhausted. If they were, 1 should have had to present you with a better estimate of revenue. (Cheers.) A great part of the deficiency of the malt revenue goes into the estimate which is before the house; but all that has been fully considered. lam the last person to de preciate the effects of the bad harvest, for I consider it would be a moderate statement to say that it has made a deduction from the revenue equal to two millions of money. That I think is a statement susceptible of reasonable de monstration, but at the same time I believe two things con cerning it. First, 1 believe that had it not been for the Powerful stimulus which freedom of trade has given to the agriculture of the country, the harvest would have been far worse than it was. I believe it also a fact that, though the exceedingly bad weather, both during the harvest and in the months which succeeded, and the early months of this year, has made us dependent in a very unusual manner upon foreign corn, the quantity of English corn in the country is much more considerable than it would under or dinary circumstances be ; and that will form a better fund on which to draw than under ordinary circumstances we should have at this season of the year. (Hear.) Then with reference to the financial state of the year 1862-3, on what does my hon. friend depend to prove the improvidence of our arrangements ? If it be true that we shall lose three quarters of a million on account of the repeal of the paper duty and the remission of a penny income tax, it must be remembered that by that time we hope the extra charges for China will be altogether cleared off, and they at present amount to a much larger sum. The whole case of my hon. friend depends upon the fact that there are a million Ex chequer-bonds which will fall due in the year 1862-3. But if he thinks that that is any reason why we should ask for a million extra taxes in the year 1861-2, he has yet to master the principles by which the finances of the country ought to be guided. Not only is the doctrine strange, but I am astonished at the source from whence it comes; for if Ex • chequer-bonds are put by, from whom did we learn that lesson? From the right hon. gentleman opposite. In 18,18, when the right hon. gentleman had to provide non for £70,000,000 but for £63,500,000, he presented to the house an estimate in which he made no provision whatever for the two million Exchequer bonds which were falling due. On that occasion, though I should have been very glad if the right hon. gentleman had made an effort to pay them off, I did not think myself ealled upon to pronounce any censure upon the course which he pursued. My opinion le that whatever might have been the case at the beginning, these Exchequer bonds stand now as part of the public debt, to be paid off if you have a surplus, and it is not more favour able to the public service to renew them, but otherwise they have no claims to preference. They ought to be dealt with simply with reference to what is the best arrangement for the public service. I won't go into the history of their issue—(opposition cheers)—or to expectations which were formed concerning them. It is a very simple matter. They were issued in anticipation of *erne tax ; and I expressel an opinion that that tax at the end of the war would be liable to redeem them. The House of Commons, however, did not adopt that opinion, and the matter was at an end. It is the greatest of all errors to suppose that the good faith of Parliament is in any way pledged to redeem them. They are not in the hands of the public : they are simply a finan cial instrument passing between the Bank of England and the Commissioners of the Natianal Debt; but if they were, that would be no reason for saying that, because they ought to be redeemed in the year 1862-3, the government have a right to ask for an additional million of taxes in the year 1861-2. (Hear, hear.) lam glad the hon. member for Honiton (Mr. Moffatt) is in his place, for I am going to pay him the compliment of making him the hero of the first question which I will now discuss—namely, have we a surplus ? (Hear.) It is said that we have an interest in making out that we have. That may be true. I admit that it is satisfactory to e very Chancellor of the Ex chequer to be able to dispense with imposing fresh taxes, and to be able even to propose a partial remission of taxa tion, I will admit, toe, that I have a special interest in the existence of the surplus this year. But if we have an interest in showing that there is a surplus, there are others who have unequal interest in showing that there is none. (Hear.) There are the prophets of last year, and the friends of the prophets, who are as much committed to prove the negative as I can be to prove the affirmative; and if the opposition will assume the duty of the Government, by all means let them bear some of its responsibilities. (Hear.) My hon. friend the member for Stamford endeavoured to get rid of the matter very glibly, for he said that the whole of hi• prophecies would have held good if the paper duty had not been retained and the spirit duty raised. But when I re ferred to the " dismal crash" I flew at higher game than my hon. friend. I had the great authorities of his party in my mind. Thus the language of Lord Monteagle was that there would have been a clear deficit of 11 or 12 millions, which he sought to cure'by retaining L 700,000 or £BOO,OOO of paper duty. (Hear.) Lord Derby was much more cautious. He only said that therm would be a deficiency of at least £2,700,000, and very probably much more. But that £2,700,000 was entirely independent of any increase in the China expenditure. The China expenditure was, however, increased by above £3,000,000 ; but our deficit last year was only two millions and something more, and this year there is a surplus of two millions. (Hear.) Sir S. NORTHCOTE made a remark. Mr. O'BRIEN said that if there was one feature more than another which he admired in the progress of the de bate, it was the freedom and ability with which some hon. gentlemen, who seldom ventured upon public attention, came forward and expressed their opinions on the present occasion. Into the question of the paper duty he should not enter at length, because it had been frequently discussed with ability. There was no doubt that that duty seriously interfered with the due dissemination of knowledge. Lord Brougham, when examined before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1834, said that a sound system of government required that the people should inform them selves of the system of legislation ; that they could only be well informed by having recourse to useful publications; and that the danger lay, not in the people learning too much, but in knowing too little. (Hear.) He (Mr. O'Brien) thought that the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well, while repealing the paper duty and reducing the income tax, to bear in mind that his anticipations regarding the spirit duties in Ireland had not been realised, that illicit distillation was on the increase in many parts of that country, and that in some.of the large towns great quantities of spirits were being sold at prices 1 ess than the actual revenue derived by the Exchequer. if that were so—and he believed his information upon the subject was substantially correct—then was it high time for his right hon. friend to retrace his steps on the subject of the sph it duties. -Still he believed that the right hon. gen tleman was carrying out in every way the principles of Sir Robert Peel, because, while in the first place he had as sisted in repealing the duty on corn,' he was now leading the way to liberate paper from taxation ; and upon that ac count, he for one would give the budget his cordial support. Mr. LIDDELL said grave doubts had been thrown on the accuracy of the surplus ; but with regard to that he could not say anything, but he wished to refer to the pro mise of the harvest during the present year. It was beyond the wildest speculation to look forward, however favourable the season might be, to a large crop of wheat. The result would, therefore, be a large importation of wheat, the gene ral effect of which was to interfere with trade. Then as re garded America, war was declared, and the Americans had never conceded the right of privateering, and that might lead to various difficulties. It seemed impossible that our ships should escape collision with American privateers, and that was a subject worthy of the highest consideration. He believed that if for ene night the • ballot-box could be intro duced into the house, a large majority would vote in favour of the retention of the tax. (Hear.) He trusted that an op portunity would be afforded to those who shared his opinion to record them on this subject. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I rise at the close of rather a long debate, not very much concen trated, but rather diffused in its purpose, to address, I am afraid, an exhausted house—(" No, ne")—and what is worse than all, to address them—bad under any circumstances— in a defensive speech. I think it my duty, in the remarks I shall have to make, to deal principally with those state ments which appear to me to be, of all portions of the pre sent discussion, the most deserving of detailed notice—l mean those statements which impugn the particulars of the figures which I have laid before the house. There are many matters that have been imported into this debate which I will venture to pass over. All that relates to myself per • sonally, all that relates to the danger which may arise from a conflict between a British merchant ship and an American or other privateer, all-that relates to mere general and vague political aspects in which the question has been re garded—all that I will pretermit, not because I presume to say they are insignificant, but because I feel it my duty to address myself to those points of the debate which touch most directly and most practically on the matter in hand. (Hear, hear.) At the same time I cannot help observing for a moment on the strange constitutional novelty in the duty which has been assumed by the Op position on this occasion. The Government having com puted the expenditure and revenue of the year ask the re presentatives of the people for £70,000,000 of taxes, and they show that if all the laws which were enacted during the last financial year should be re-enacted, the produce of those taxes would probably amount to 72 millions, and they pro posed to surrender out of the surplus what in round numbers amounts to 2 millions—they propose to surrender 11 million in the repeal of taxes ; and strange to say, it is against this proposal a large number of the representatives rise up in arms. Now, sir, I must say that,' according to the doctrine of the constitution, and according, if I may presume so to speak in addressing gentlemen opposite, to the wisdom and the practice of our ancestors, it is the duty of the Govern ment to see that not too little is asked for the public service and it is the duty of those who oppose the Government in particular, and of the entire House of Commons, to see that they do not grant too much. But the fear of granting too much has become a motive singularly operative among a large portion of those who are opposite to me. While, on the other hand, there appeared, by the state of nervous and feverish expression, a fear of possibly granting too little. Now, I must confess, without looking into the details of this matter—without looking into the strictness of this course—a difficulty in finding a precedent to sustain it. I must observe that I think very little good is, under the cir cumstances, to be anticipated to the country from an ec - change of duties between the Government and Opposition. But then, sir, after the debate, I think any impartial spec tator cannot but notice that there is a singular want of unity in the sentiments of those who have entered into this debate on the opposite side of the house. The ground that most have asserted is that there is not a surplus. If there is any one proposition which appears to be agreed on it is that, but there aro many most important dissentients to that proposi tion. The hon. member for Huntingdon has not asserted that there is not a surplus, but he has said, in speaking of the great estimates of the year—l mean the estimates of the customs and excise, of those estimates which are deemed to be the greatest sources of revenue—he said he believed if the circumstances of the year should be ordinary circumstances, those estimates are fair and moderate. The hon. member for Stamford has said the same thing in substance, but he has questioned, and he was justified in questioning, from his position and views, certain accounts, and scrutinising important items which 1 placed to the credit side of the ac count ; but those are two gentlemen, who, without dispa ragement to others, I may call the most considerable financial authorities on that side of the house, and one of whom introduced the discussion adverse to the Government —neither of those gentlemen asserts or insinuates that which all the rest seem to be agreed upon, namely, that there will not be a probable surplus of revenue over ex penditure. But though they are not agreed on the ques tion of whether there will or will not be a surplus, still there is a greater disagreement as to the mode of disposing of it. Undoubtedly amongst a number of rival claims, the tea duty appears to be the favourite. There are some gen tlemen of such large generosity, and unrestrained by the rules of arithmetic, that they propose, in lieu of the paper duty, to bring the tea and sugar duties to a peace levy. (Hear.) That is to say, when it is proposed to dispose of a fund amounting to between £600,000 and £700,000 a year, hieir plan of good husbandry is to lay it out by making a remission which will cost the country 2f millions. (Cries of " No, no.") No doubt gentlemen made that proposal. (Cries of " Name.") The right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Stroud did to-night. (Hear, hear.) He asked that the sugar duty should be placed in the position of the paper duty. Tea, I grant, was the general favourite, but there was a party of gentlemen for a reduction of the income tax ; and the hon. gentleman the member for North Lin colnshire (Mr. B. Stanhope) made a speech which I had great pleasure in listening to, as others, and he spoke strongly for a remission of the income tax. The hon. mem ber for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) spoke as earnestly and energetically for a remission or a diminution of the malt tax ; and a forlorn hope was led on behalf of the distillers of spirits by the hon. and learned member for the Univer sity of Dublin. 'Well, under these circumstances, perhaps it is not wonderful that there has been a certain tardiness, at any rate, on the part of the leaders of the powerful body of gentlemen opposite in putting their views and sentiments in an amendment which might be submitted to the house. But I am bound to say, while I speak of the opinions of those who differ from me, that more than one gentleman on ;the opposite side have recognised the spirit in which the proposal of the Government has been made, and have declared their opinion that this is a fair proposal and that they will support it. (Hear, hear.) Now, it is very difficult for a minister who is principally re sponsible—it is very difficult in a debate of this kind to seem to pay due respect to the speeches and arguments so ad verse as those which have marked the opposition to the financial plan of the Government, and at the same time not to weary the house. If I seem to omit any matter of im portance I trust it will be believed that it is only from my desire not to render absolutely intolerable the trespass which I have to make on the attention of the house. I will confine myself therefore to the two main questions : first, is there a surplus ; and secondly, how it should be used. But there are certain questions to which I must briefly allude in the first instance, because of the largeness and comprehen siveness of their views some gentlemen opposite have referred to the matter as if they thought it of great importance that the transactions of last year of a financial character, and not at the same time immediately connected with the taxation of last year, were an experiment. I refer particularly to my hon. friend the member for Stamford. He referred to the mode in which the deficiency of last year had been met. And sir, I am bound to say he did not fall into the egregious error which characterised the speech of the right hon. gentle man the member for Stroud, who, to the perfect astonishment of all who knew anything of the matter s but without the slightest consciousness of what he was about, and in a simple _ Walk* Witt tiifit ;nag a great ditioyory Which The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon. baronet says there is a deficit of 81 millions, but the noble lord was assuming that the income tax would be renewed. (Cheers.) My hon. friend, therefore, is only flinching, and flying from the question. (Cheers.) Is it not a fact that all the organs of the opposition pro phesied this deficit down to the latest moment ? Is it not a fact that, whenever we have had a financial discussion, if any allusion was made to the possibility of there being a surplus a titter ran through the opposition benches f The right hon. and learned member for Dublin University asked me what was a budget. The simplest explanation would be that it was an estimate of income and expenditure ; but for many reasons it may be a very serious grievance and disappointment. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Honiton has summed up all that would he safe in matters of detail against the surplus, and certainly he has performed his work with zeal. Nothing was too great or too small for his examination, so that he reminded me of a nation which was said to work with the strength of giants, but at the same time with the fine handling of jewellers. Sometimes taunting me on the item of paper, on which he says I shall get no income. Then he goes to China, where he insists I shall receive no indemnity, and then follows me into the smallest nooks and crannies, and.trying to catch me out on such small matters as £15,000. To begin with the small items first, I would remind him that he took all his com parisons from the original statement that was laid before Parliament by mo on the 10th of February, and made no allowances for the deductions that were subsequently made. The fact is, that the yield has been nearly what was to have been expected according to the reduced estimate. I esti mated dock warrants at £lOO,OOO. My hon. friend says they produced only £12,000, and that contract notes and other items estimated at £BO,OOO produced only a few thousands. True, but he should remember that very early objection was taken to the contract notes, and they were abandoned before the discussion was over. I trust that now we are in for the discussion of this question of surplus. I trust that the house will forgive me if I attempt to exhaust it. My hon. friend assailed me on the question of chicory, saying that whereas I anticipated a duty of £90,000, the product was only £22,000. Now the reason of that was that the trade of chicory being iu pry fo hasls, it was quite impossible t 9 wertaia the exact amount of the duty paid stock, and this being really large the consequence was that scarcely any duty was paid for 12 months. In point of fact, we are now start ing afresh. For 12 months tho duty paid was only £2,875, whercas.fer two months this year it has made £9,365, and if it continues at that rate it will make an annual reve ille of £56,000, which would be more than 1 estimated. (Cheers.) But at the same time I must tell my hon. friend that ii would be impossible to get exactitude in minute items ; what I rely upon are the general results. My hon. friend alluded to another subject—namely, the customs duty on paper, and complained that I had debited myself with only £15,000. Now, the duty received the last quarter on paper was £14,000, consequently I took £56,000 for the year, and debited myself with £15,000. I cheered when nay hon. friend approached this subject, but it was a friendly cheer, something like the warning one would give to a friend if he saw him going on very dangerous i ce . (A laug h . ) It is perfectly true that in the last two quart ers we rece i ve d £26,000 customs duty on paper, and in the two first £14,000, the last being open trade and the two first under the old system. I say that what I did was entirely just. I had two quarters open trade which yielded £26,000, and two close giving £14,000, and therefore I was fully justified in making an estimate of between £lO,OOO and £50,000. We are, in fact, now receiving the duty at the rate of £lO,OOO or £50,000. These, however, seem small matters. My hon. friend went also to the great heads of revenue, and attacked my surplus of £1,923,000. My hon. friend boldly grappled with it. In my customs he questions £300,000 ; inland, £300,000 ; China he strikes out, which is £700,000; the paper duty he says we shall not get, and from the whole he makes £1,950,000, so that instead of a surplus he hands me a defi ciency of £23,000._ Mr. MOFFATT said that what he had stated was £1,200,000 certain to be had, and £700,000 doubtful. The 'CHANCELLOR of the EXCITE QUER—With re spect to the £600,000 excise on paper, the hon. member said that, the trade would stagnate, and that nothing would be received. If my hon. friend had an intimate knowledge of the working of the trade and the working of the drawback on paper, he would not have made this calculation. By the way, is it not odd that last year, when the duty was to be repealed on August 15, there was no alarm, and this year there is none when it does not cease until the 15th Oct.? The truth is that by means of the drawback taken in con. junction with the nature of the trad e , You can scarcely mark, if not completely, the full activity until the very moment of cessation. It is now only April, and £200,000 out of the £600,000 has been received. (Cheers.) The China indemnity is £750,000. My hon. friend says it will be nothing. Now, in my original statement, I took a mil lion for China, besides half a million more on the naval and military estimates. That was a large expenditure for China to be supplied from the taxes of the people, and yet I am told that when asking that sum I ought to have kept back the question of how much we were to receive in the way'of indemnity. My hon. friend says that the merchants must be paid first, but to that I demur—that is not the view ef the Government. If the property of the merchants had been taken for military purposes their claims would have stood in a different position, but if they have suffered losses from the Chinese, whilst the people of England have contributed five or six millions to the war to protect these merchants, the view of the Government is that the people of England should be considered, and that the payment should be made pro rota. The sums were distinguished in the treaty—six millions of taels for the war, two millions for the merchants, which, after the deduction for the families of those who have suffered, would leave £950,000. Even if we gave the merchants £650,000, there would remain £300,000; different, it is true, from what I anticipated, but very different also from my honourable friend's exaggerated statements. This would be about £250,000, leaving to the Government about £750,000. That is the basis of the calculation. With. regard to the £960,000, I am told by the hon. member for Horsham that he has looked into the customs receipts for 1858, and that he finds them not to amount to so much as we have estimated, overlooking the trifling difference that there are new ports to be added to the old ports, and that that was a year of war, whereas those arc times of peace. I can only say that I greatly prefer the reports of the British and French ambassadors, who made their calculations on the spot in the expectation that these payments will be made in the course of four years, Ido not deny it is quite possible that we may fall short of the estimate by £lOO,OOO, but it is just as possible that we may exceed it. All I can say is, that there are plans which have been sug gested, and certainly, if they are feasible, may be advan tageously adopted, of anticipating all these payments by means of an arrangement with the merchants, and thereby shortening the terms of the occupation. I only refer to that. part of the subject because these are matters which do not admit of precise statement, and lam bound to say that I think it possible that on the one hand we may fall short of the sum of £750,000, and I am likewise justified in say ing that it is at least as likely that we shall fall short on the other side in the very large sum of a million. I have asked the House of Commons to provide for meeting the expen diture. Then my hon. friend swept away two items of £1,350,000. lie went to the inland revenue, and he says, " I question £300,000 on account of the probable diminu tion of the income tax." Now, lam a little surprised at that statement of my hon. friend, but I am not at all sorry that he has given me the opportunity of referring to the matter. I only wish I could have placed my hon. friend on the outside of the Glass Bee Hive, and in the inside, that he might have the opportunity of seeing the Chan cellor of the Exchequer and those he had to consult, and nf hearing everything that passed with regard to this matter, because if I have an interest in making a surplus there are others—not my hon. friend—who have an interest in we making them, and I am subject to the advice and expe rience of most experienced servants of the Crown, and never was the Crown better served than in the offices to which I refer ; and great indeed would be the responsibi lity of that Chancellor of the Exchequer who for any poll .. . . tical object, Cor for any object whatever, would place his opinion in opposition to theirs. Never but on one occa sion did I propose:to the house an estimate which had not their sanction, and that was a very peculiar case. It was on the imposition of the income tax on incomes of between £lOO and £l5O a year. They estimated the produce at £210,000. I thought that too low, and I placed it at £250,000. It pro duced between £300,000 and £IOO,OOO. That is the diffe rence between those who make and those who unmake sur pluses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be wild, precipitate, profligate--for that is the word—but he cannot, except in concurrence with those gentlemen, make these estimates, or else if he departs from them he departs from them incurring a responsibility that no finance minister I ever heard of would willingly incur. If I could give my hon. friend information of what takes place in the private rooms of ministers it would be better information than the agreeable gossip retailed by my hon. friend to-night in the House of Commons, as an authentic account of conversa tions and discussions in the Cabinet. (Hear.) With regard to the income tax it is a tax that may be said to be in the course of varying, but still not very irregular and progres sive increase. My hon. friend thinks that last year was a bad year for importers, and that therefore in all probability the income tax for this year will yield less by £300,000 than I calculated upon. Schedules A and B are progressive. Schedule D dose not depend entirely on importers, but on the whole mass of trades, professions, and dealings of every kind in this country ; and so far from admitting that She dule D is likely to present a diminution, I think there is every probability —nay, except in extreme circumstances, I venture to say there is a certainty—it will present a con siderable increase. Schedule D in 1860 was put on the basis of an assessment, beginning with the year commencing April 1855-6, and ending in the year 1857-8. That is to say, it was on the average of three years-1855-6, a year of war ; 1856-7, a year of war expenditure ; and 1157-8, a year of great commercial crisis. This year we shall drop two of these years. We shall take in 1858, a most flourishing year—l beg pardon, we shall drop the whole three. Our old assessment was from April, 1856, to April, 1859. This will be from April 1858 to April, 1861. We shall take in 1859- 60, a most flourishing year for trade, and we shall take in 1860-61, which, although it might have- been a bad year for commerce, was on the whole a year of great trade and business. There is no doubt from the progress of the duty that the assessment of the year will cause a considerable increase in the tax. I asked the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue whether he had allowed for the increase in schedule D that was to take place in the new assessment. He said, "No." I said, "'Why, did you not expect it ?" Tea, he had expected it. " Then, why wa s it not allowed ?" " Oh," said he, " if there was a war in America, and a war in Europe, and tin universal revolution, there might be a fall ing off." Now, that is the extreme of caution with which the estimates have been framed. (Hear.) My hon. friend adverted to the Customs receipts.% He brought under notice a sum of I think £300,000 for revenue from corn. He mis stated it, because the revenue from corn is £360,000. Now, I hope my right hon. friend is right, and that we shall lose the revenue from corn. Why, if we lose the revenue from corn, there is not a pound that we thus lose that we shall not get £2 or £3 for in another shape. But the custom, revenue was questioned by another gentleman. I admit that when we look at the customs revenue we have come through a bad year. The spirit duty is £200,000 or £300,00(1 more than in the past year. The main reason for th e dif ference is the increased duty on foreign spirits was nthone only in year that has just expired, but the increased duty operation for a part of the year, whereas it w ill now bey operation for the whole year. The bon. mem b er for Ii iunn tingdon was facetious even on the subject of the .y l remarks I daan made, perhaps in excess of anxiety, about Good F Easter Sunday, and he said that t axa bl e articles con sumed on Good Friday and Ea s t er Sunday just were Friday as much as on other days. But I tell my honourable friend that he has entirely misunderstood the etatement, he statement was a was this, that the last day s o f the financial l year days on which busin ess was suspended, and the conse quence was not that th ere Was nothinr, consumed on tho3e m days, but that what was brought into the countrY on those days was not t a k en for constion t a h m e on G g I put a'question to .IOY la o s t s he ß re e . e ll the v chairman of cust oms on th e and we pdiscu. Well, I went into discu ssed this question i ) , h o nourable friend might add su bject, and he said we £IOO,OOO to the estiniated revenue on that score. And as a criticism on the remarks of my hon. friend the member for Huntingdon, I may state that I hold in my hand a re t urn showing the receipt from customs for 2S days from th e I s t of Apri l, 1860, and for 27 days froth let of April, 1861, an d the 27 days of 1861 yielded more to re.. Vemie by £114,009 than C ll4 tIN 26 Claye Of 1600. (liet4o NI # ))791