The Sun. — London, England, 1861-05-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY. RAGGED SCHOOLS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved for the evidence nu which that part of the report of the Education Commission which related to ragged schools was founded. The Duke of NEWCASTLE eulogised the report as one of the most impartial and fair reports that had ever been laid before the house. The investigation had been most laborious, and would lead to considerable good as regarded he education of the country. So far as ragged schools were concerned, the report only went to this, that it could not look upon those schools as part of the permanent educa tional institutions, and therefore could not recommend that they should share in grants of the public money. Lord PORTMAN bore testimony to the value of these schools in preparing children for other schools forming part of the educational system of the country, but he did not think they were of that permanent character which entitled them to share in the grants voted by the State. Earl GRANVILLE having expressed himself to the same r.lect, The Earl of SHAFTESBURY replied, and The motion was withdrawn. The Passengers (Australian Colonies) Bill and the Mar riages Validity Bill were passed through committee. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, Mr. MACDuNOGH complained tbat the bill for the repeal of the paper duties, which the House of Lords re jected last year, was now annexed to a +bill of supply, and contended that that was a course contrary to the spirit M the constitution. There was only one precedent for this proceeding, and that was unsuccessful. He called upon the house to strike out the objectionable clauses, and in clude them in a separate bill. Sir J. GRABAm—The hon. and learned gen tl eman h as received the co ngratulations of his friends, and I also will congratulate him upon the argument which he has used. Both sides of the house have listened with great pleasure and satisfaction to the hon. and learned gentleman's speech. I should not have risen so soon, but I am afraid if I wait until a later hour in the evening I should have missed the opportunity of offering some observations to the house. The question raised by the hon. and learned gentleman seems to me to be of such importance that I cannot remain altoge thersilent upon it. (Hear.) If the question of the second reading of this bill had assumed a wider range I should have been content to leave the arguments upon it where they rest, after the full discussion which the budget has a;ready undergone. We have cleared the ground as to a surplus, for a surplus has been admitted ; and it is admitted, also, that the remission of taxes is desirable, and the amount of remission is unquestionable. The proposal of remission on the other side was larger than that of the Government, and the question as between tea and paper has been decided by a majority of the house, and therefore I will not wander into that subject. Indeed, in my present state I should not be able to do so ; therefore I shall confine my few remarks to the constitutional question which the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman has raised. Before my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer avails himself of that locus penitentite which the hon. and learned gentleman so generously affords him as to this mode of legislation, and before the house adopts the argument of the learned gentle man, and regrets the form which this bill has assumed, em bracing both the remission and the imposition of taxes, I wish to say a few words upon the question. In the last session of Parliament I incurred the displeasure of many of my hon. friends sitting below the gangway for the part I took in cemmittee upstairs on the vote which the House of Lords adopted for rejecting the Paper Duties Bill sent up to that house. The hon. and learned gentleman talked of the repeal of the paper duties as a measure of doubtful policy, but he was not a member of that house last session when the bill was fought in all its stages, and then went up to the other house by a majority which I will admit was not a large one. (Conservative cheers.) The question was now fully debated and a division taken upon it in the course of the last 10 days, and the house preferred the abolition of that duty to a diminution of the duty upon tea. (Hear, hear.) In the last session I differed from many among those with whom I sit as to the right of the House of Lords to exercise the power of rejecting the Paper Duties Bill; and in the com mittee upstairs, as the printed proceedinge will show, I dif fered from my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, and from my noble friend with whom I have so long acted on great constitutional questions I differed from them with great regret ; but still my opinion was, on looking at the precedents impartially, that the House of Lords had exercised a power inherent in them, and which could not be denied, in their rejection of the Paper Duties Bill. (Hear, hear.) I say it was the exercise of a right, but at the same time the policy of exercising that right was doubtful, and it was the exercise of an extreme right. Ido not think the hon. and learned gentleman can produce a pre cedent in which the House of Lords ever before rejected a sup ply bill on purely financial grounds. I believe the act of the House of Lords last session, whatever their right might be, was the exercise of an extreme right unprecedented in our constitutional history. (Cheers.) But, entertaining this opinion, I am bound to add my own =elusions on the course adopted by the Government, and I think that course is sustained by usage, and under circumstances quite right in policy, and one which the house ought to adopt, by the second reading of this bill, the repeal of the duties proposed by the Government in one bill. (Cheers.) The learned gentleman said ho should be astonished if an instance could be produced where the imposition and remission of tax, s were placed in one bill. Mr. MACDONOGII explained that what he meant was, he should be astonished if a precedent could be found of a bill rejected by the House of Lords, and then repassed by this house in a combined bill, and sent up again to the ether house. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM—My answer to that is that since the Revolution the Lords have never rejected a bill of this nature. (Cheers.) It was a novel eourse which the House of Lords pursued ; and it shows me that the time has ar rived when the Commons ought to pursue one course, viz., to refer to ancient practice, to be traced from the earliest times and followed up almost to the present period. (Hear, hear.) I will not go at length into the precedents, still, as to the right and usage of the Commons to combine in one bill the larger portion of the budget for the year, and to combine in it the imposition and remission of taxes, there can be no doubt that it has existed from the Revolution downwards, and has been sustained by usage and consti tutional authority. (Cheers.) I will only instance the case of 1787, consequent upon the French treaty. In that year a resolution was adopted by the house, and subses quently an act was passed for repealing several duties of customs and excise, and for granting other duties in lieu thereof. (Hear, hear.) That act combined both the re pealing of duties and the granting of other duties in lieu thereof. There were schedules of 60 quarto pages, based upon 2,537 resolutions, the work of Mr. Pitt, recom mended by Mr. Pitt, carried by Mr. Pitt, and a motion was made in the Commons to divide the bill into two parts, but that motion was, after full debate, rejected. (Hear, hear.) In the House of Lords an objection was taken that their independence was invaded by such a com bination of multifarious matter in one bill, but the argu ments against the bill were resisted, and it was carried by the Lords upon a division. This was a bill which enacted and repealed taxes. (Cheers.) Well, then, what was the course adopted at the time of the union, in 1800, and again on the authority of Mr. Pitt. In the article , of the Act of Union there were two schedules, extending to seven quarto pages, and they combined both remission of taxes and coun tervailing duties, which were as extensive and important as those which I have described. To come to a later period the hon. and learned gentleman will find that in 1808—he dwelt, I th ink , very much upon the precedent of 1807—but in 1808, by the 48th Geo. 111 , c. 2, there was an enactment repeal ing duties, continuing duties, and re-enacting duties • not, therefore, the do u bl e enactment of this session, sion, but the triple enactment of repealing, con e• • mixing, and re-enacting (Cheers.) The bill included sugar, malt, tobacco, and snub, and the duties upon offices and pensions, and it went on to and after Is. respectively on offices, repeal 6d and g and continuing other duties, it re-enacted 6d and ls. respectively on certain other offices for the year 1808. That course was in strict accordance with precedent and the course now adopted by Government, and thatbill, Be various in its operations for one year, was continued from year to year till 1822. In that year a most importa n t change took place, viz , the duty up on malt was made perpetual, but the duties upon sugar , t obacco, and snuff, and other things, from 1822-25, were annually renewed i n one bill, and he wished the house to mark that it was by making a tax perpetual that the house had lost a constitutional check upon the House of Lords, but which the House of Commons ought never to have surrendered. (Hear, hear.) In 1826 the duties on tobacco and snuff were transferred from the excise to the customs, and then they were made perpetual. From 1827 to 1834 the duties upon auger, and offices, and personal estates were annually renewed in one bill. From 1834 to 1836 they were continued in separate acts, but only for two years, and then in 1836 the duties upon offices and pensions were wade perpetual. There remained only the sugar duties, and from 13'-3'5 to 1846 those duties were con tinued from year to year in one bill. Just before Sir R. Peel left office it 114 d been decided by his administration that, for the sake of those interested in raising sugar, the uncer tainty which existed should cease, and the duties were then made perpetual. That was the intention of Sir R. Peel when he resigned office, and it became the duty of the noble lord the Secretary for Poreiam Affairs (Lord I. Rn'so ll ), who succeeded him, te give effect to that intention. The effect of not leaeing the large duties at the disposal of the House of Commons wan not •nforeseen by Sir B. Feel, and lir. Goulburn declared having been made perPetiid tetal h — o thatother large necessary—the e duties sugar duties l in amount shoo.] be ri voted yearly ; but from that time to this the pre:;aution trey nntbeen taken. I should not desire an y interference with t'ae rights of the H ouse of Lords. I should earnestly deprecate it; and if a course were taken by the Government to coerce the other house, I should not support it ; 1; - at I believe the noble lord at the head of the Government onlyde3ires to determine the diesenion which ?as °slated, and I believe that course to be correct sad juice (Cheers.) My right hon. friend the member for the Uni versity of Cambridge, who presided over the labours of the committee with so much impartiality,, in his report refers particularly to the weakening of the power of s house over matters of taxation ; and in the two last paragraphs of the report he shows that there has been a tendency to make the large duties perpetual in general statutes, which consequently keeps back a large amount of annual taxa tion till the close of the session, and for the purpose of pro viding for the interest on the national debt and other charges of a permanent character. (Hear, hear.) Will you allow me to point out the conclusions which were ar rived at by the right hon. member for Cambridge. In the last of the resolutions the right hon. member says, "It must always be remembered that the power of the house over matters of supply, and all matters relating thereto, are very much weakened by dealing with them in separate bills, instead of uniting them as much as possible in one mea sure, so as to form the financial arrangement of the year." And to those conclusions, to which the right hon. member came, I now invite your concurrence. I entirely approve of them, but for reasons which I shall now state I was, by a very odd coincidence, the person who in committee moved the omission of those paragraphs. Why ? Because I thought that the duty confided to us by the house was to search for precedents, and that it was our duty to present to the house indisputable facts and precedents, and not to accompany them with observations, because if observations wer e permitted unanimity in a committee so constituted would be wholly impossible, and the report would not have been what it is, and which I trust will receive the approba tion of the house. But does the matter rest there ? The last resolution moved by my noble friend at the head of the Government was in strict conformity with the resolutions, and was, I believe, unanimously agreed to. The hon. and learned member would, I am afraid, have dissented from it ; but he would have stood almost alone. The house re solved that "In order to guard for the future against any undue exercise of power by the House of Lords, and to se cure to the Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply, this house has in its own hands power so to im pose and remit taxes and to frame bills of supply, that the right of the Corsn.ons as to matter, manner, measure, and time may be preserved inviolate." (Hear, hear.) With respect to matter, measure, and time, I cordially support the frame of the bill which has been proposed by the Go vernment. From very remote times the distinction as to the rights of the Commons has been clearly defined. In Henry IV.'s time, in the Bill of Indemnity the great prin ciple is laid down from which we must not depart, namely, that the Commons has the right to grant, and that it is the duty of the Lords to assent. The framework of the present bill expressly lays down and recognises this principle. " We, your Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, have, towards raising the necessary supplies for the year, fairly and fully resolved to give and to grant the several rates of duty hereinafter mentioned." The Commons here exclu sively grant, and having laid down the fundamental princi ple, they go on to say, " We pray that, with the consent of of the lords spiritual and temporal, these grants may become law." In 1691 occurred what directly bears upon this sub ject. The managers of the Commons then not only con tended for the exclusive right of giving and granting, but they gave their reasons. They said that the Lords had many reasons to recommend themselves to the favour of theirprince, and to support a figure in the country—they were the final court of judicature ; whilst the Commons had little besides this one of giving money and granting aid. ( - Mar, hear.) Therefore, they added, anything that en trenched on this power had to be watched with a jealous eye. Now that declaration of the managers of 1691 was in exact accordance with the course now pursued by the Govern ment. I do not say that our rights were invaded last year, but I say that the Lords went to the very verge of their pri vileges, and in my judgment the time has arrived when the House of Commons must prevent such a practice extend ing any further. The hon. and learned member alluded to the framework of the bill. I agree with the hon. and learned member that unless the addenda to El supply bill be in peri inateria a "tack" of that nature is a violation of the princi ple of the law. We have so decided from the earliest period. But the right hon. member for the University of Dublin will allow me to refer to a splendid passage in a speech he I made on a former occasion in which he alluded to the " tack" of 1700. The right hon. member quoted Lord Macaulay, but I have read the passage since, and I find that Macaulay lays down very sound principles as to the rights of the Commons. Lord Macaulay lays it down that the Lords must either accept ot reject the whole bill, and remarks that the measure of 1700 was in the nature of a tick, but so jealous were the Commons that they insisted on its being passed. Lord Macaulay graphically describes the scene. All the passages leading to the house were closed, and the sergeant had orders to stand at the door and see that no member left the house. The house called over the list of the privy council in order that they might know who counselled the King to veto the act ; and so this bill of 1700, although being in the nature of a tack, yet stands in the statute book, and was carried immediately after the resolution. Now, sir, as to the invasion of the powers of the Lords, the right hon. gen tlemen opposite have contended that the best way of dis cussing this budget was as a whole, and before the Speaker haves the chair. To-night the budget is being discussed as a whole, and there is no invasion of the privileges of the House of Lords in so discussing the measure. It is open to the Lords to reject the bill as a whole or a part, but if they alter a part it will be equivalent to the rejection of the whole measure. We do not fetter the power of the Lords in assent ing or rejecting, but we do say you must not alter. I do not wish on this occasion to enter into party topics, tut I must say that if hon. gentlemenopposite, strong as they are in this house and perhaps stronger in the other, think that the time has come for withdrawing the confluence of this house from the present Government, they could seize no fitter time for deposing the Government than by procuring the rejection of the bill; but if they are not prepared to in cur that responsibility, then I say that as good subjects they are bound to allow the executive to deal with the finances of the country on their responsibility, and in the manner which appears to them to be the best suited to the exigencies of the year. (Hear, hear,) I have heard some thing about a hustings cry, "Down with the paper-duty repeal ; up with tea-duty reduction." I don't want to raise invidious hustings cries ; but if I were asked my opinion, 1 should say that a cry of " Up with the Lords, and down with the Commons" would be one which could meet with only one response on all the hustings in the country. (Hear, hear.) I should not be afraid to go to the country against such a cry, which I fully believe would be repudi ated by a tremendous majority. (Cheers.) Lord J. MANNERS was not of opinion that the house would follow the advice ot the right hon. baronet. The right hon. baronet had been challenged by his hon. and learned friend the member for Sligo, and he had not re• sponded to the challenge; he had not shown a single pre cedent for sending back again a bill that had been rejected by the Lords. The right hon. baronet had quoted Lord Macaulay, but he (Lord J. Manners) would, with the per mission of the house, refer to Mr. Hallam, who might be supposed to have token a dispassionate view of their pri vileges. The noble lord proceeded to quote at length from Hallam's " Constitutional History" to show that the Lords had not exceeded their privileges in altering a money bill, and that such acts on their parts had frequently been sub mitted to by the Commons. Turning to the bill itself, he contended that they were entitled to discuss a budget with out any political or party accusations. This year they could take the budget on financial considerations alone, whereas last year they had one which was complicated with political questions and a 0n..-sided French treaty. Aseurn ing, for the sake of argument, that in the budget the Go vernment held out a fair prospect of a surplus, what, he would ask, would be the financial position of the country at the end of the year under the budget as now proposed to them ? The right hon. gentleman proposed a surpltv of about £400,0A, but by what mode was that arrived at? In order to repeal the duty on paper, the toiling millions of the country were to be called upon to pay an additional fivepence per pound on tea, and the class removed only one degree from them were to pay one penny in the pound on the income tax. That was the sum total of the budget, admitting all the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be correct. What were the cir cumstances under which this improvident reaeal of taxation was proposed to them ? They had heard from the noble lord at the head of the Government that there was nothing in the aspect of foreign powers which should deter them from making this large and permanent re • dueion in their financial resources. He thought, how ever, there was great ground for nervous apprehension when we looked around us, as to what the future would bring forth—(hear, hear)—and he was afraid as a necessary con sequence of this budget we should eventually be burdened with a ls. income tax. The speech of the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Macdonogh) went so fully and ably into the constitutional question that he did not think it neces sary to criticise particularly the form and framew or k o f th e f b r u a d m g e e d t . wiltht wasobject a considering this on e e l emen with so little favour i n the count condemned in that houqe. Il e h o ptreov en the House of Lords e y budget which had met a r d. i isten and withedhad ' een ne .d ar . ly able interest to the very animated speech i. which l ;11 ' e Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to or rather anticipated the arguments of his hon. friend t he member fo r Liverpool. The right hon. gentleman, following a precedent which seemed to him (Lord J. Manners) a very inconvenient one, introduced to their a ttention some s p ecimen s of new mann. facture which he wished them to understand would be brought into beneficial use if the paper duty were repealed. There was nothing too extravagant for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say in favour of this particular manufac• tars which had for the moment attracted his attention. s'he material was said to be stronger than iron, cheaper than lead, and imp erv i ous t o th e w eather. It was to combine every exce ll ence of iron and lead, end in short, the conclo sicn left o n hi s mind was that the right hon. gen tleman intended, provid e d only the legislature woul d conse nt to abolish th e duty nn Paper, to introduce this now materia l in all our ars ena l s and counting-houses, and that we were about to deck o ur s hi ps in garments of this imperishable stuff. But he must say this system of advertising par ticular inventions of particular inventors was not con sistent with the dignity of the house nor with the great ness of the subjects which they were now discussing. If the House of Commons had this year the courage and goo d eLit a u to do for themselves that which the House of I nar d, 4 did for theta last year, they should take a course which would not jeopardise any great manufacture likely to spring out of the remission of the paper duty. It was a matter also for the consideration of the house whether, if paper was to be turned to the manufacture of the multi farious articles mentioned by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, there would not be so much the less for the more important purposes to which it was at present devoted. They were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the paper duty was a retrograde duty, and the right hon. gentleman had also told them that, whatever the circum stances, the paper duty must go on increasing. Which of these statements was the house to take ? Was it to be deemed a progressive duty, or was it to be denounced as cam thy of condemnation on the ground of its retrograde qualities ? He c ould understand this argument as applied to some excise duties, which, if not retrograde, were sta tionary. Mal', for instance, in 1831 produced £5,036,667, and in 1858, in spite of the improvements that had taken place in the manufacture, and in spite of the increase of the population, the amount was only £5,592,624. But the paper duty, which produced in 1831 £730,000, produced in 1858 £1,281,023. Again, malt in 1836 produced £.5,699,878, as compared with £5,592,624 in 1858; but paper increased in every one of the subsequent years, with one exception only, and the result was as follows :—in 1836 it produced £841,131; in 1858, £1,282,023; in 1859, £1,281,023; in 1860, £1,451,258; and in 1861 it reached the hitherto unapproachable point of £1,462,825. This was the tax that was about to be repealed as a comparatively unproductive source of revenue, and let the house obse►ve what would be the effect of the repeal. It had been the policy of the house during the last few years to abolish innumerable duties of customs and excise, and the result had been that the taxation of the country was now placed upon compara tively very few articles. And let it be remembered that every fresh duty they altogether repealed must have the effect of rivetting still more firmly the duty on the re maining taxable articles. Therefore the effect of repeal ing this duty on paper must and would be to prevent those remissions in the other excise duties, or indeea in any other duties, which might in the opinion of the house have a better claim for repeal than the excise duty on paper. He thought there were few in that house who would, from the extraneous political considerations to which he had ad verted, and which ought not to be regarded in discussing financial questions in the house, support the repeal of this tax. Who was there that would maintain, that in itself and by itself the duty on paper was so much more obnoxious than any other of the duties left upon the statute book that ought to have priority in remission ? That was not the ge neral view in the house—it was not the general view enter tained by the country at large ; and with regard to the opi nions of foreigners, who might be regarded as impartial judges, a well-known writer in the Journal des Debate de scribed the application of the surplus by Mr. Gladstone as a measure of conciliation to the radical press, which had given rise to universal discontent in the country. The right hon. gentleman had on a former occasion referred in contemptu ous terms to the expression of opinion the country had given in regard to the budget through the authorised means of petitions ; but he (Lord J. Manners) did not know how they could better arrive at a knowledge of the views of the country than from the petitions presented to the house. Now, if any one referred to the papers sent round that morning he would see that the number of petitions in favour of the financial scheme of the Government fell infinitely short of those which condemned it. The right hon. gentle man the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) seemed anxious that this question should be made a party struggle, but he for one should very much regret any such result. The Opposition side of the house had shown during the pig sent session every disposition to support her Majesty's Government, and to maintain them in office. The noble lord at the head of the Government, he was certain, would not have forgotten a certain memorable evening when, attacked from behind with a vigour seldom excelled in that house, he owed his safety to the mediation and de fence that came from the Opposition benches. He did not then share in the desire of the right hon. gentle man ; but, at the same time, he believed that never had an occasion during the session been presented more important than this, and never had there been an occasion when it more behoved the House of Commons to refuse its consent to the attempt which was now being made to sacrifice to the contingency of party alike financial safety and constitu tional rights. (Hear.) They had given the budget the care ful, minute, and impartial consideration which the import ance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals deserved, and they found in them the unmistakeable signs of a poli tical origin and a fatal disregard to the best interests of the nation. (Hear.) In sorrow, then, rather than in anger, they said to the right hon. gentleman, " Take back your budget, and reserving to times of more undoubted surplus your glowing visions of theoretical finance, submit to us a pro position which may at once satisfy the best requirements of the people and maintain unimpaired the financial re sources and credit of the country." (Cheers.) Sir F. GOLDSMID supported the second reading of the bill. Mr. BOLT thought the course adopted by the Govern • ment novel, and calculated to nullify the action of the other branch of the Legislature, which he deprecated, be cause, although he admitted that the House of Commons had the fullest right of taxation, it was with the qualification that it had the assent of the other branches of the Legis lature. Mr. COLLIER said that there was no case in which the House of Lords had rejected taxing bills on purely finan cial grounds, and therefoi e he thought the course proposed of placing all the resolutions on the Budget in one bill was legal and constitutional. Mr. WHITESIDE expressed his surprise at the bold tone of the hon. and learned gentleman in his denial of the right of the Peers to act as they di 1 last session, remembering that On very high constitutional autho rity the Nestor of the 11011s3 of Lords had declared that history and precedent alike justified the course which they took. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet (Sir J., Graham) was not prepared to assert that the House of Lords had exceeded their privileges, but while he admitted they had not acted in an unconstitutional manner, he still called upon the house to adopt measures to prevent their doing the same thing again. The right hon. baronet had quoted Mr. Pitt's conduct in connection with the French treaty, when it was said that the Lords had attempted to sever two bills—the Consolidation of the Customs and the consideration of the treaty. Now, Mr. Fox on that occasion was of opinion that the two measures ought to have been divided, and Mr. Grenville objected to the severance of the bills. The right hon. gentleman turned to another subject and said the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had done a very wise thing in providing for a permanent duty, but the right hon. gentleman said there was still a drawback in that arrange ment. Lord Mansfield said in his judicial capacity that a resolution of the Howe of' Commons he would not regard the result of making a tax a permanent one. What he (Mr. Whiteside) wished them to observe was this, that the House of Commons could not deal with it annually. Where was there a bill, he would ask, within 50 years past, drawn up in the present form ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. ba ronet, with his logical mind, would say, why did the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) do the matter right last year and wrong on the present occasion ? (Hear.) The noble lord who had been twice Lord Chan cellor (Lord Lyndhurst), and whose judgment was looked up to by half the civilised world, showed unmistakably that the Lords had the right to take the course which they wisely pursued in the last session. Was it just —was it constitutional—was it wise to compel the Lords to adopt the bill so framed as the present bill was, and to give their assent to a measure which in their consciences they felt bound to reject in the last session of Parliament ? (Hear.) Now, was not the bill upon the table one of a moat objectionable description? Why should such a bill be brought in in a committee of ways and means for the supplies c f the year, instead of being introduced and considered in the ordinary way of any bill for the repeal of a particular duty? (Hear, hear.) He firmly believed that nothing but an overwhelming sense of duty could have induced the House of Lords to throw out the bill which the right hon. gentleman had sent up to them last session. When the right hon. baronet held out a threat as to what they might expect by an appeal to the country, he (Mr. 'Whiteside) would answer that taunt by saying, " Wee be to the present Government if they went to the country with a cry of paper against tea and sugar. (Opposition cheers.) Believing the present bill to be intro duced with the view of insulting the Upper Chamber, and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking his revenge for the defeat he sustained last session, he felt bound to give every opposition to the course which the Government had determined upon pursuing. (Opposition cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL—The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down has argued the case with groat ingenuity. But even the ingenuity of the right hon. gentleman can never argue away the constitutional privileges of this house. (Hear.) I have heard in the course of this debate many arguments against the course the Government intend to pursue ; but many of those arguments were far wide of the subject under consideration, and were directed evidently to some other than the measure before the house. (Hear.) Now the hon. and learned gentleman who opened the de • bate this evening in a very able speech argued most con clusively against a tack. He referred to the case of 1807 ; but there the case occurred in which the passing of the malt tax was joined with the question of the legality of cer tain acts of the Auditor of the Exchequer, and it was quite certain that was a question by itself and not a question of money or supply, and therefore the Lords were perfectly right in rejecting the bill. (Hear.) I quite admit that while on the one hand it is our bounden duty to assert our ancient privileges—(hear)--on the other hand, the Lords should have a right of asserting theirs ; but forcing the Lords by means of money bills has been abandoned for nearly a century and a half. (Hear.) But all the argu ments against tacking fell to the ground, and have no ap plication. (Hear.) I take it that the question before the house is whether we are justified by the law of Parliament in introducing into a bill several measures of finance bear -ing on the financial arrangements of the year, and whether it is right and expedient to exercise - that power. (Hear.) Now, hon. gentlemen who agreed last year almost unani mously to the resolutions Proposed by my noble friend at the head of the Government seem now to have forgotten what those resolutions were. (Hear.) The first of those resolutions wes that it was the right of the Hialae of Com mons to grant aid auci supplies to the Crowu, and that that right is in, the Commons alone , (Hear.) 'Well, if you agree THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY hYtNING, MAY 14, 1861. to that resolution you cannot doubt that it is the right of the House of Commons to propose the manner, amount, and nature of taxes. (Hear.) As was explained very clearly by my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle, on the subject of precedents, in the eat ly part of the year 1787 such an instance occurred. But, as happened to Mr. Pitt, he had the year before shown his sense of the privileges of the Commons when it was said in the Lords there was a deficit, and he refused to send up the accounts of the Commons to be examined by the Lords. Then Mr. Pitt accomplished a memorable act—a commercial treaty with France, which was of great benefit to both countries. After a most delica'e and careful investigation into the customs and excise Mr. Pitt passed 3,700 resolutions and the excise duties were re duced. Well, he likewise imposed taxes in the same bill, and when that bill went up to the House of Lords, Lord Carlisle objected that the bill contained three principal ob jects—a commercial treaty of which they approved; con solidation, which they did not approve ; and, above all, taxes, to which they might be disposed to cbject. Let the bill then, he contended, be divided into three separate parts, and let the house go into committee on each object. That speech was answered by Lord Sydney, who was at that time a Secretary of State, and he said that all three mat ters belonged to one arrangement, and tended to one end, and that was the fact, and the question then raised was ap plicable to the present bill, because all these things formed parts of one arrangement, and tended to one end, viz., the settlement of the finances for the year. The opponents of that bill divi led the house, and were beaten by 29 to 7,and therefore the Lords themselves, taking a full and distinct view of all their privileges, decided by more than three to one that they ought to consider the bill as a whole. Was that all? Was there no other precedent? It was that the house ought not to repeal and lay on taxes in the same hill. Another great measure of Mr. Pitt's was the introduction of the income tax. He hadvery much increased the assessed taxes, but his measure had failed, being evaded in various ways, and he conceived the idea of obtaining the necessary supplies for carryiogon thearduous war in which the coun try was then engaged in a totally different manner, and in troduced a measure, the 39 Geo. 111., c. 13, which began with the total repeal of the act of the preceding year, which levied the additional assessed taxes, and then proceeded to impose an incometax to provide for the revenue of the year. (Hear, hear.) In 1807 there was a bill in respect of certain duties of excise in Ireland, altering various duties, increas ing some and diminishing others. One of the clauses was a simple provision abolishing altogether the duties on ale and beer in Ireland. This was an act in conformity with the one now proposed. The income tax was increased, and the duties on tea and sugar retained, and the duty on paper totally repealed. It is plain, therefore that we are proceed ing according to pra cedent, but we are met by the observa tion that it is not a convenient mode of doing it. It limits the power of the House of Lords, said the right hon. gen tleman who spoke last, and he even went so far as to say it was an insult to them. I cannot see how it can be an insult to send them up a bill similar to two bills which Mr. Pitt has sent up. Nobody can deny that the House of Lords has a perfect right to reject a bill sent up by the Commons. They have always asserted that right, and it has never been questioned. My right hon. friend near me (Sir J. Graham) said it was an extreme right which ought not to be resorted to in ordinary cases. The real question before us is, whether the house has used that discretion wisely or not, and whether it is an extreme case. My opinion is the other way; but I am not going to complain either of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons on this occasion. lam quite satisfied that they considered the revenue derivable from the tax on paper to be necessary for the service of the country, and on that ground rejected the bill. The question for the house now is, what will be the case for the future. Admitting that the House of Lords have an extreme right, is it desirable that, having been successful in doing that for which they have no pre cedent whatever in rejecting a bill for removing a tax which they thought necessary for the purpose of raising sufficient revenue for are year, is it desirable to admit the House of Lords to the possession of equal functions with the Com mons in respect to the imposition or remission of taxes? (Hear, hear.) That is the extent to which the right hon. member for Stroud went last year, and the hon. gentlemen on the ether side of the house do not speak quite so plainly as the right hon gentleman the member for Stroud. It is plain that they consider the House of Commons so ill advised and inconsiderate in financial matters that it is ne cessary to send their financial schemes to the House of Lords to be settled by an arrangement between the two houses. That is what I deny. My belief is, that the great privilege which was maintained by our ancestors, and as serted by the acts which establish their privileges, it is our duty to maintain for the good of the trade and commerce of the country, which are so much affected by our financial arrangements. If, when we have determined certain taxes shall be altered or remitted, the House of Lords is to say they shall be retained, nothing but confusion can result. That must be the inevitable result of taking the proceedings of last year as a precedent, and not to take any means by which we can secureour ancient privileges. It is a right which we not only have, but which we ought to exercise, and if we put all these measures into one bill the House of Lords must either accept or reject. The hon. and learned gentleman made some supposed proposition of relieving the country from all imposts, and putting on an Os. income tax. Ido not believe that any House of Commons would do such a thing as that, and to make the attempt would be rash and injurious to the country. Notwithstanding the setting up of direct taxation, which it is said we are doing, I find that the indirect taxation has increased from £33,000,000 to £40,000,000, and certainly that does not look as if we are destroying the revenue. I thing the question of the reduction of the tea as against the paper duties has been discussed en , ,ugh, and I shall leave the matter in the hands of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but at the same time I cannot help being surprised at the rapidity of the change in the opinions of hon. gentlemen opposite re specting the supplies. For some days nothing was heard but inquiries after the surplus, and its existence was denied altogether. It was said that it was an entire delusion. When they had gone on proclaiming that for some days they announced that they should not be surprised if after all there was a surplus, and not only that, but the surplus would afford a million and a quarter more for the reduction of taxation. But now after the division on the very ques tion, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the manner in which the surplus is to be disposed of, we are met again by the old cry of no surplus at all. How can it be said that we propose to diminish the revenue by reducing the paper duties? Let the house look at what took place between 1844 and 1854, There was in that period a total abolition of duty on various articles, includ ing glass, bricks, and soap, and that reduction of taxation amounted to 21 millions. At the same' time, other taxes were put on, amounting to £1,700,000. Does it follow that because of that reduction there was a deficiency of £BOO,OOO ? No ; on the contrary, in consequence of the greater employment of labour and greater consumption of taxable articles, instead of there being a deficiency of £BOO,OOO, there was actually an excess of £500,000, and so when this reduction shall take place, instead of there being a total loss from the abolition of this duty, which so materially interferes with manufactures, we may ex pect from the relief which will be given that the revenue will rise again to a higher amount. (Hear, hear.) Some persons were employed in making bricks and many on soap, and nobody seemed to think that any harm would happen to the country if these branches of industry were relieved, but the moment you come to paper it is imagined that some great calamity is to happen. Paper may be em ployed for purposes different from bricks and glass, but as regards the industry which is employed in its production there is no difference whatever. Men are employed and receive wages the same as in the case of bricks and glass, but there is some hobgoblin which takes the shape of a penny newspaper, which always seems to frighten hon. gentlemen opposite into a continued opposition to the abo lition of the duty, (" Oh," from the Opposition.) It is impossible not to see in the course of these debates a de sire to depreciate the measures and to injure the political reputation of my right hon. friend who sits near me. (Oh, from the Opposition, and cheers from the Liberal benches.) Well, sir, I think it is the duty of every colleague of my right hon. friend to resist that attempt ; and, be lieving that he has always employed his great talents for the benefit of the people of this country—believing that the people will appreciate his exertions on their behalf—l think that their gratitude for these efforts will stifle all the accusations which party has made, and that my right hon. friend will have an enduring reputation amongst those who have admired his splendid abilities and his devotion to the welfare and well-being of the country. (Loud cheers.) Lord It. CECIL, who spoke amid much interruption, condemned the course of proceeding of that house towards the Peers, upon whom, he said, they were now making a most unjust attack. All the main questions of the day were now becoming financial measures, and if the Commons interposed its privileges in all these measures the functions of the House of Loris would be so cramped and limited that it would be excluded from the arena of legislative deli • beration. Mr. DU CANE moved the adjournment of the debate. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I hope the hon. member will reconsider his proposal. It is really time that we should review the proceedings in regard to the financial measures, which have been already unusually pro longed, before we accede to the farther adjournment of a discussion in which no issue has been raised. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, I am not aware that it is intended to make any motion or offer any opposition on this stage of the bill. The financial statement was made on the Sth of April. The Government have put aside all business of every descrip tion in order t) go on with the financial business. The plan contained only two propositions, neither of a very novel or complex character, and yet we are now only at the second reading of the bill, and have consumed a sixth part of the F. e!7sion ; 17 days were occupied before the Si.ealctr was allowed to leave the chair—a fact en ti r ely unprecedentad in our financial history. In 1853, when very extensive propositions were proposed, after seven days we were allowed to proceed to the discussion of them in Ways and Means. In 1845, when. tlye proposals were also extensive, the discussion in Committee of Ways and Means was commenced after three d,:ys. The Government wished to carry ou the financial business from day to day, but hon. members would not give way. Never until to-night have we heard of this constitutional question. (" Oh," and " Hear.") At least it has not been debated ou previoas nights. But no issue is challenged on the question, nor am I aware that any is to be raised. • (Hear.) I need hardly tell the house that great pu Tic in jury and annoyance arises from a discussion which is pro tracted beyond all precedent. The revenue of the Customs is suffering very perceptibly from the uncertainty attendant on proposals involving changes in our financial system. On account also of the arrangements which have to be made for levying the income tax, much inconvenience is caused to the public service by these delays. It must not be for gotten that there are other stages through which the bill must pass, and that this is not the last opportunity for dis cussion. I certainly must, on the part of the Government, objet to the motion of the hon. gentleman, and I trust that if he does not withdraw it, the house will show themselves sensible of the necessity of proceeding with the financial business without further delay. Mr. DISRAELI—I think it is not desirable that there should be any division uron a question of this kind, and therefore I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be well for the house calmly to consider, and not to decide passionately upon, the course which they will now adopt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it be comes us to consider in a comprehensive manner what has occurred during the last month with respect to the measures brought forward by the Government. He tells us that in no other instance that he can recall, and he has referred to the case of 1853 and other years, has so great a delay taken place in the consideration of the financial measures of the Government. He will pardon me for saying that, with re spect to measures of this character, the house has never be fore been placed in the position in which we have been placed this year. (Cheers.) There have, no doubt, been equally important measures of finance brought forward by the Government—l will even admit that there have been more important, larger, and more extensive measures; but they have never been connected with a combination of cir cumstances such as we witness this year, and from which it arises that this house, and this house alone, can decide upon the merits of the policy recommended. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, and considering that the other house is to have no power of revising the measures of the Government, it does become this house—the single house which is to decide upon the policy of the Government—to proceed with caution and delibent tion. (Hear, hear.) There cannot be a situation conceived in which caution and consideration could be more requisite I and more urgently demanded. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer has again mentioned the great inconveniences to the finances and to the trade and commerce of the country which may arise from the., delays—delays. let me remind him, of deliberation. Now, although the right hon. gen tleman has more than once touched upon the subject, I have net been able to realise any clear or precise idea as to what those inconveniences are. First, let us consider the income tax. No doubt inconvenience must arise to the Government from depending on a tax levied under a law which has become extinct ; but that is not the fault of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) The Act under which the income tax is raised had expired before these measures were brought forward, and if it was matter of urgency that it should be immediately renewed, why did not the Chan cellor of the Exchequer introduce a bill on that subject, and ask us to pass it immediately ? (Cheers.) But lam bound to say, speaking upon such a subject with all diffidence, and all deference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, from such slight experience as I have of the consequences of that Act having expired before the financial exposition has been offered to the house, no inconvenience can arise from that circumstance. The action must necessarily be of an ex post facto character, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced to the house that he will take care that no one who has received his last quarter's dividends shall escape its action. Therefore, practically speaking, I may, I think, venture to say that the house may dismiss from their minds the idea that any inconvenience to the public service will result from the expiration of the income tax act. Then I come to the great taxes—the great duties upon tea and sugar. What possible inconvenience can arise from the course which the house is taking in deliberating upon the measures of the Government with regard to those taxes ? We all know that immediately the resolutions with respect to those duties are passed by the Committee of Ways and Means the Govern ment acts upon them. At this moment those duties are levied according to the resolutions passed in Committee of Ways and Means. Is it that the Government are afraid that there will be another attempt to reduce those duties ? Why, a Government in the proud position which they occupy with respect to that subject may defy any attempt of that kind, and I do not suppose that the Chan cellor of the Exchequer will pretend that at this moment the Government and the house are waiting with anxiety to see whether another effort will -be made by the Opposition to reduce those taxes. Although the law under which they will ultimately be levied is not passed, those duties are paid, and I do not doubt that this very day a considerable revenue has been received from them in virtue of the reso lutions which we have passed. But, then, I come to another branch of trade, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell me that very great inconvenience and very great loss will be occasioned, both to the trade and to the Treasury, by the time which we are taking in consider ing what course we ought to adopt—l mean the paper trade. But does the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously and really make that a plea for calling upon the house to come to a resolution ? (An hon. Member—" He has not said a word about it.") The other night the right hon, gentle man particularly referred to it. He did not dwell upon that, but he dwells upon the great inconvenience and injury to trade which will be occasioned by our not passing these measures. Is it that he real]) refers to the tea and sugar duties ? If he does not mean it, there are a great many gentlemen in this house who believe that the paper trade is very much injured by our deliberating upon these measures. But I beg the house clearly to understand that that is not the fact—that neither the trade nor the Exchequer can pos si tly suffer by this suspen- e. It is quite clear that the trade does not believe that it suffers, because of two members of this house who are intimately connected with that trade, and who represent different opinions one more extreme than the other, with respect to the policy pursued by the Go vernment, one made a motion the other night which was to occasion a great delay in the measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, the branch of the trade which he represented, more especially as concerns Ireland, does not apprehend injury from delay ; and the other, who is a warm supporter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. merrile r for Abingdon (Mr. Norris), has for one of those nights devoted to independent members, but of which her Majesty's Government now so much grudge them the enjoyment—(cheers)—for next Tuesday given notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into ihe paper trade. Therefore he does not anticipate that our delay will cause any injury to his trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that from the system of drawbacks it is impossible that the Exchequer can be injured. I beg to remind the In use that the other night, when the hon. member for Honiton (Mr, Moffatt) told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would by October lose £500,000 or £600,000 upon the paper duty, the right hon. gentleman, who knew his business, told him that he was quite mistaken, and that he should not lose a single farthing. Now, T have gone through all the great taxes, the income-t ix, the tea and sugar duties, and the paper 'duty. What other interests are there that any ono can pretend are placed in jeopardy by the House of Com mons performing the greatest duty which can devolve upon it—that of duly considering measures of taxa tion ? Is there, then, any foundation for the statements, the ambiguous and at the same time the menacing state ments, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so fond of indulging ? (Hear, hear.) What reasons are there for asking the house to come to a precipitate con clusion ? I beg the noble lord the First Minister to con sider this. It is his opinion that the other House of Par liament is to exercise no judgment upon these questions. Be it so. I will on this occasion admit the whole case of the Government. I will enter into none of the controversy which has taken place to-night upon what is called the constitutional question. Admit not only that it is the un deniable right of the House of Commons to originate Money Bills, but that the House of Lords must pass them under all circumstances. Take the broadest view of the case and what is the deduction, what is the moral— the inevitable moral—that must be drawn ? That it becomes the Prime Minister, under these circum stances, to bring forward no measures of finance which he does not believe will meet with the undoubted support of those who represent the people in this house. If the will of this house alone is to decide these questions, a wise and politic Minister would not bring forward measures which could only be passed by a very bare majority. (Hear.) Tf the undeniable privilege of our house is that we aro to have sole authority in these matters, our responsibility becomes proportionately greater, and proportionate)y greater becomes the responsibility of the Minister who leads this house, and advises this great council of the nation. But what has taken place to-night ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that there is no issue before us. No issue before us 1 A Minister rises and moves the second read ing of a bill which includes the whole of his financial scheme, and on the first night of the debate says that there is no issue before us. (Cheers.) Is not the second reading of this financial scheme an issue largo enough ? And what right has the Minister to presume that there may be no division challenged upon the merits of his policy ? What right has he t o make any assumption of the kind ? (Cries of " Divide, divide 1" answered by cheers.) Let me remind the house that we come down to-night to discuss the financial policy of the Minister. The hon. and learned gentleman who opened the debate confined himself to the consideration of the constitutional question. He dealt with that question in a clear and vigorous speech, well entitled to the attention of the house, but he sedulously guarded himself against moving an amendment upon that point, and left the large issue open. Upon that large issue not a word has been spoken to-night but by a Minister of the Crown. A Minis ter of the Crown has made a speech upon the financial echeme of the Government, He went into great detail in his examination of the budget, and called upon me to answer his reproaches, and state the policy that I intended to pur e-en With this challenge still ringing i n m y cars, which we have had no opportunity of answering—(cheers)—the Chancellor of the Exchequer rises and expresses his sad sure prise that the House of Commons should discuss his budget. He gave no ground or reason for his objection. The hon. gentleman may be pursuing a policy that is honourable alike to the country and to himself, but he is at the same time taking,if not an unprecedented,at least a very unusual 1 course, and ho ought to be the last wan to grudge us the fullest examination of his measures. I hope most sincerely that we shall n. tbe put to the trouble of a division, and that the noble lord at the head of the Government will feel that it is for his own honour and that of the house that this debate should be adjourned. (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—I must adroit that theright hon. gentleman had made a very convincing speech, but the con• viction that it has brought to mind is the very opposite of the conclusion to which he would have us arrive. (A laugh.) If I understood the right hon. gentleman rightly, he does not intend to dispute the part of the budget connected with the income-tax, nor does he intend to revive the ques tion of the tea duties, nor will ho object to the repeal of the paper duties. (Mr. Disraeli intimated his dissent ) The right hon. gentleman stated that these matters had been decided—("No I")—and that on the resolutions of the house the duties had been levied as a matter of course. The right hon. gentleman has not announced any amendment or any intention of objecting to the second reading, but he has simply stated that he wishes for discussion. The right hon. gentleman criticises the statement that no issue has been raised. But I say that no issue has been raised. (Cheers.) There has been a long debate, but no one has announced any intention of opposing the second reading. The only question is whether those who object in general to the financial arrangements of the Government, or whether those who object to combine the financial measures in one measure, shall have an opportunity of fairly discuss ing the matter. My right hon. friend has correctly stated that there will be many occasions of discussing these points. There will be first the motion, sir, for your leaving the chair to go into committee. On that occasion there will be a full opportunity of discussing all the details of the general financial arrangements of my right hon. friend. On the other hand, those who object to the arrangement by which all the financial proposals are placed in one bill, might make their objections in committee on the bill. Therefore, I must say we have heard no reason for the adjournment of the debate. (Cheers.) If indeed it could be said that the second reading was opposed—if notice of some amendment bad been given, and if it could be alleged that members hadhad f.;o opportunity of stating their reasons, that might be a rea sea for adjourning this debate. But, as we are all agreed that the second reading is to pass without a division—(op position cries of "Oh I")—silence gives consent, and as every one is silent in regard to any oppositien to the second reading, I am entitled to assume that no such intention exists. (Oh, oh I and cheers.) That being the case, I shall certainly object to the adjournment. (Cheers.) Mr. NEWTIEGATE agreed that the house was now in a moat awkward position; but who had caused it? He objected to the form of this Supply Bill as touching the privileges of this house. The house was now suffering the incon venience of having all these proposals consolidated in one Bill. If they had been submitted severally, there would not have been this delay. As it was, the privileges of the house had been invaded. The object of the Govern. ment was to make every financial question a question of confidence in the Government and against such a mode of coercing the House of Commons ho would protest. (Hear.) The house then divided, when the numbers were— For the adjournment .. 161 Against it Majority... . Mr. BENTINCK said they had often heard that a bad cause made a bad advocate, and he was bound to say he did not think it possible that any combination of circumstances could have made the noble lord (Palmerston) so bad an ad vocate as he had shown himself to be in this case. (Hear.) The noble lord's argument amounted to this—that they were to prejudge their decision without discussing it. He seemed to think that, because no public notice had been given of a determination to oppose the second reading, iv, debate ought to take place upon it. He demurred to tha: reasoning, and moved that the house do now adjourn. (Divide, divide.) Lord PALMERSTON was sorry that he was so bad an adv , cate, but was somewhat consoled by the result of the division. (Laughter.) If the hon. member meant to take the sense of the house upon the second reading of the bill he could not have a better opportunity of doing so than the present—(a laugh)—as there was not likely to be so full a house upon any future occasion. If he thought that by op posing the adjournment he was precluding members from the fullest discussion of the bill, he would willingly bow to the wishes of the minority, but ample opportunities would occur hereafter for discussing the measure, and he therefore felt himself bound to oppose the adjournment. (Cries of Divide.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sur prised to hear the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) say that the public interests could not suffer by delay. Labori ous and troublesome processes were to be gone through before the new assessment for the income-tax could be made, and if delay took place it would be difficult to get those processes completed so as to collect the income-tax for the year within the year. (Hear, hear.) It was there fore true that an unusual time had been occupied, and oc cupied for the most part in a discussion in which no issue had been raised—in which no challenge had been given to the house ; and it was true, on the other hand, that an injury was done both to the revenue and the trade of the country by the prolonged uncertainty consequent on the continuance of these debates. (Hear, hear.) A division then took place on the question, " That this House do now adjourn." For the adjournment Against .... " • • Majority Colonel DICKSON had watched this debate with much interest. The subject was a very important one, and one on which they could not too long dwell. (Laughter, and " Hear, hear.") He must protest against the appeal made by the Chancellor of the Chancellor when the right hon. gentleman said that it was for the convenience of the State that they should close this debate. (Hear, hear.) That was an argument which the right hon. gentleman had no right to bring forward; for he should have con sidered all the consequences before he introduced his Budget, which was a most detrimental one to the interests of the country, and especially to the interests of Ireland. He begged leave to move the adjournment of the debate. (" Oh I oh I" and " Hear.") Lord PALMERSTON said—lt is usele.s, I know, to persist (cheers) when gentlemen are determined to prevent measures fi otn being proceeded with at this hour (1 o'clock). As those who t ucceed will be entitled to the glory of the conflict, I beg to second the motion. (Laughter and cheers.) The debate was accordingly adjourned to Thursday next. SUPPLY. The report was brought up and agreed to. SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. In reply to an hon. MEMBER, The LORD-ADVOCATE said, as this was a measur€ which would require discussion, it was proposed to take ii on Thursday week, at a morning sitting. (Loud cries o: (" Oh, oh 1") EDINBURGH ASSESSMENTS BILL. This bill passed through committee. The Landed Property Improvement, &c. (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The Combination of Parishes Dissolution (Scotland) Bill went through committee. The Markets (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a select committee. The house adjourned at halt-past 1 o'clock. Mr. Charles L. Wilson, the newly-appointed United States Secretary of Legation in London, arrived in the steamer Fulton, at Southampton, on Thursday, and is now staying at Morley's Hotel. Mr. Wilson has been for some years the editor of a leading political journal in Illi nois, and is an intimate personal as well as a political friend of President Lincoln. RAILWAY COMMITTEES. —Yesterday the com mittee of the Lords, Viscount de Vesci in the chair, passed the bill of the Lancashire and Yorkshire for their proposed branches to Shawforth and other places. In the case of the Bootle branch, Mr. Rodwell, Q.C., appeared for Lord Derby, who requires tie insertion of some clauses affecting his estates. In the Commons the opposition of Lord Rad nor and Gen. Hankey to the South-Eastern Railway Com pany's Folkestone Harbour Bill occupied the day, and gene ral evidence was adduced on the Devon Central Railways in that committee. The case of the Colne Valley and Hal stead Railway for a lino of 16 miles from Haverill to Cam bridge, and other extensions, was opened, and Sir John M'Neil, C.E., was examined in the committee on the Cork, Blarney, and Macroon Railways. The committee on the Birmingham Improvement Bill closed their inquiry by passing that measure. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Among the numerous extraor dinary cures without me di c i ne e ffected by Du Barry's deli cious Health Restoring R eva l en t a Arabica Food, the following deserve notice:—Cure No. 54,318 —Mr. James Chapman, of Clunbury, Shropshire, Dec. 22, 1856, of many years sufferings of chronic rheumat ism, and complication of nervous diseases. Cure No. 3,906 —Mr. J. Porter, of Athol-street, Perth, May 2, 1848, o f thirteen y ears c ough, indigestion, and general debility. Cure No. 24,814—The Rev. Thomas Minster, cure of five years nervousness, with spasms and daily vomitings. Cure No. 32,836—0 f the Venerable Archdeacon Alex. Stuart, of . Ross, of three y ears excessive nervousness, with pains in his neck and left arm, and general debility, which relidered his life very miserabl e . Avoid Pills and Medicines they invariably aggravate aria perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment, and expense may be avoided b y usin g Du Barry's Food which, at a few pence per day, saves s(' times its cost iu other remedies, removing effectually, vk—thout purging, constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure, MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. C am pell. Let invalids avoid th e fearful dangers of spu rious and injunou• imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. N.eviii's imitations are prohibited by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretence:, that Nevin has a patent for Aratica Food and that 1)u Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrapper. Shopkeep ers w h o a tt em pt imposition in one article must expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b. -2s. 9d.• 21b. 4s. 63, ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 408. The 1214. and 221 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt Ad Co.i c of Post-off ic e order by Barry Du Barry a nd Co., 77, Re gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co . ; n ; bb 60, Gracechurch-street; 4, Cheapside; 63 and 150, Os bard-street ; 330 and 451 , Stran d ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate street ; Batty 16, Finsbury Pavement.; lip tea-dealers ; Petty, Wood, and Co., King reet City ; at 127 Hi g h Hdbx-12; anl all grocere, PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. HOUSE OF COMMONS-MAY 13. • CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. Order for second reading read ; motion made, and question proposed, "That the bill be now read a second time: Debate arising ; motion made, and question put, " That this house do now adjourn." The house divided-- ayes 145, noes 233. ATC£ 4 I —145. Adderley, C. B. Gore, J. R. 0. Mundy, Willia m Aston, J. 11. Go re , W. R. 0. Mure, L'avid Ball, E. Graham, Lord Wm. Naas, Rt. Hn. Lord Barttelot, Major Grey deWilton,Lord Newdegate, C. N. Beach, W. W. Griffith, C D. Noel, G. J. Bective, Earl of Grogan, Sir Edward North, Col. Beecroft, G. S. Hamilton, Lord C. Northeote, Sir S. H. Bentinck, G.C. Hanbury, Captain O'Hara, C. W. Blackburn, P. Hartopp, E. B. Pakenham, Col. Blake, J. A. Hassard, M. D. Paking - ton, Sir J. S. Bridges, Sir 8., Bt. Hennessy, J. P. Palk, L. Brooks, R. Heygate, Sir F. Parker, Major W. Bruce, C. L. C. Heygate, W. U radii, 11. Burghley, Lord Hill, Lord E. Peel, Gen. Calcutt, F. Holford, R. S. Pevensey, 'Viscount Cartwright, Col. H. Holmesdale, Lord Phillips, G. L. Cecil, Lord R. Hood, Sir A. Powys, L. P. Clive, H. G. W. Hopwood, J. T. Quinn, Peter Close, M. C. llornby, W. H. Ridley'', Sir M.. W. Cobbett, J. M. Howes, Edward Salt, Thomas Cobbold, John C. Humberstone, P. S. Somes, Joseph Cochrane, A. D. Hunt, G. W. Spooner, R. Cole, Hon. 11. A. Jervis, Captain Stirling, Wm. Cole, J. L. Johnson, Captain Stuart, Major W. Collins, T., jun. Johnstone, Hon. H. Stracey, Sir H. , Conolly, Thomas Jollifl'e, Sir W. St:lft, Capt. C. I% • Cubitt, George Kekewich, S. Sullivan, M. Dawson, R. P. Kennard, R. Talboi, C. R. M. Dickson, Col. Knatchbull, W Taylor, Colonel Disraeli, Benjamin Knightley, R. Torrens, R. Du Cane, Chas. Knox, Lt.-C01.8.W. Trefusis, Hon. C. 11. Duncombe, W. E. Knox, Major W. S. Upton, General Dunne, Col. Leader, N. Vance, John Do Pre, C. G. Lennox, Lord G. G. Vansitta.rt, Wm. East, Sir J. B. Leslie, C. P. Verner, Sir Wm. Edwards, Major H. Linds a y, C o lonel Walk er , James R Egerton, A. F. Long, R. P. Wallington, J. W. Egerton, W. Lopes, Sir M., Bt. Way, Arthur E. Elmley, Viscount Lovaine, Lord Whiteside,,_Rt Hn J. Elphinstone, Sir J Lygon, Hon. F. Whitmore, H. Farquhar, Sir M. Macaulay, K. Wyndham,. Hon. P. Fellowes, Edward Macdonogh, F. Wynn, Colt. Fitzgerald, W. S. McEvoy, E. Wynn, Sir 'W, W. Forde, Lt.-Col. W. Malins, R., Wynne, C. G. Forester, Col. G. C. Manners, Lord J. Yorke, Holi, E. Forster, Sir G. Maxwell, Col. Gard, R. S. Miller, T. George, John Montagu, Lord R. Getty, S. G. Montgomery, Sir G. Bentinck, G. W. P. Gilpin, Colonel Mowbray, Rt. Hn. J. Hume, W. TELLI S• NOES, 243. Abercromby, R. W Evans, T. W. Monson, W. 3.• Acton, Sir J. Ewart, William Norris, J. T. A dam,W. P. Ewart, J. C. North, F. Adeane, H. J. Ewing, H. E. C. O'Connell, D. Alcock, T. Fenwick, Henry O'Conoi Don, The Andover, Lord Ferguson, R. Ogilvy, Sir J. Anson, Capt. Fermoy, Lord Onslow, Guildl'ord Arnott, Sir J. Finlay, A. S. Osborne, Bernal' Atherton, IV. Foley, J. H. Owen, Sir H. Ayrton, A. S. Foley, Hon. IL W. Packe, G. H. Bagwell, J. Forster, Charles Padmore, R. Barnes, E. Forster, W. K Paget, C. Baring, Sir F. Fortescue, Hon. D. Paget, Lord A. Baring, Thos. Geo. Fortescue, C. S. Paget, Lord C. E. Barnes, Thomas Freeland, H. W. Palmerston, Visct. Bass, M. T. Gavin, Major Pease, H. Baxter, W. E. Gibson, T. M. Peel, F. Bazley, Thomas Gilpin, C. Peto, Sir M. Beaumont, W. B. Gladstone, W. E. Pigott, Francis Beaumont,Somerset Glyn, G. C. Pilkington,james Bellew, R. M. Glyn, G. G. Pollard Urquhart lii Berkeley, H. Goldsmid, Sir F. Ponsonby, A. Berkeley, F. Gordon, C. W. Pritchard, John Bethell, Sir R. Graham, Sir J. R. G. Proby, Lord. G. L. Biddulph, - Col. R.lll' Greene, Capt. J. Pryse, Capt. E. L. Biggs, John Greenwood, J. Puller,C. W. Black, Adam Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir G. Ricardo, 0. Blencowe, J. G. Grosvenor, Earl Roebuck, J. A. Bonham-Carter, J. Gurdon, B. Roth schild,Baron L. Bouverie, E. P. Gurney, Samuel Rothschild,Baron 31 Bouverie, P. P. Hadfield, Geo. Roupell, W. Bright, J. Hanbury, R., jun. Russell, Lord J. Bruce, 11. A. Handley, John Russell, Hastings Buchanan, W. Hankey, Thomson Russell, A. J. E. Buckley, Maj.-Gen. Hartington,Marquis Russell, Sir Wm. Bulkeley, Sir R., Bt. Hayter, Sir Win. St. Aubyn, J. Buller, J. W. Headlong, Thos. E SalomormAlderman Buller, Sir A. Henley, Lord Scholefie.d, W. Bury, Viscount; H ervey, Butler, C. S. Holla n d, E . Lord A Scott, Sir W. Scrope, G. P. Butt, Isaac Howard, Zion. C. Seymour, Sir M. Buxton, C. Hutt, W. Seymour, Digby Caird, James Ingham, R. Shafto, R. D. Calthorpe, F. H. Jermyn, Earl Shelley, Sir J. V. Cardwell, Rt. Hn. E. Jervoise, Sir J. Sheridan, R. B. Carnegie, Hon. C. liefshow, J. Smith, J. B. Castlerosse, Vist. Kinglake, Serj. J. Smith, M. T. Caveneish, Lord G. Kingscote, Lt.-Col. Somerville, Sir W. Childers, H. C. E. Kinnaird, Hon. A. Stacpoolc,. W. Clay, James Langston, J. 11. Staniland, M. Clifford, C. C. Langton, H. G. Stansfeld, J.. ' Clifford, H. M. Lawson, W. Steel, John Clive, George Layard, A. H. Stuart, Col. Cogan. W. H. Leatham, E. Sykes, Col. W.. H. Coke, W. C. Lee, W. Thompson, IL. .S. Colebrooke, Sir T.E. Lewis, Sir G.C., Bt. Thornhill, W. I'. Coningham, Wm. Lewis, J. Harvey Tollemache, Hon.F. Craufurd, E. H. J Lindsay, W. S. Turner, J. A. Crawford, R. W. Locke, John Villiers, Rt. Hon.. C. Crossley, Frank Lowe, Rt. Hon.R. Warner, Edward Dalglish, Robert M'Cann, J. Watkins, J. L. V. Davey, R. Mackie, J. Western, T. S. Denman, G. Mackinnon, W.(Ly.) Westhead, B. Dent, John Dent Marjoribanks, D. C. Whalley, G. H. Dillwyn, Lewis L. Marsh, M. 11. Whitbread, S. Dodson, .John G. Marshall, W. • White, Jas. Douglas, Sir C. Martin, P. W. Wickham, H. W. Duff, M. E. Martin, J. Willcox, B. M. Duke, Sir James Massey, W. N. Williams, W. Dunbar, Sir Wm. Matheson, Sir J. Winning - ton, Sir T. Dundas, Frederick Mellor, John Wood, Rt Hn. Sire. Dundas, Sir David Merry, James Woods, Henry Dunlop, A. Mildmay, H. Wrightson, W. B. Ellice, Rt. Hon. E .Miller, William Wyld, James Ellice, E., jun. Mills, T. Wyvill, M. Enfield, Viscount Milnes, R. M. Ennis, John Mitchell, T. A. TELLERS. Esmonde, John Moffat, George Brand, H. B. Euston, Earl of Moncreiff, J. Knatchbull-Hogess FRENCII ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. At the last sitting a note was received from Father Secchi, the Director of the Roman Observa tory, on the connection between meteorological phenomena and the variations of the magnetic needle. The results at which he arrives may be summed up as follows :-1. When there are no manifest perturbations of the needle, there are, besides the diurnal variations, other variations also of longer duration, and which appear to be large undulations on which the diurnal oscil lations are, so to say, engrafted in the shape of shorter waves. Several irregularities in the indications of two different instruments for measuring intensity may be explained by the su perposition of these two systems of waves, the ffects of which either conspire or destroy each other ;-2. The diurnal variations are often dis turbed by sudden excursions of the needle, which do not last more than three or four hours;-- 3. The great magnetic undulations are not sym metrical in their rise and fall, the latter being much more rapid than the former, so that a rise of several days' duration may be obliterated in one;-4. The great undulations are always coin cident with severe atmospheric storms, there being evident synchronism between the two phenomena ; —6. A strong magnetic perturbation occurring after a long series of fine days, is a symptom of a change of weather for the worse ; and conversely, if it occurs after a long series of days of bad weather, it predicts a return to fine.--M. Mar chand sent in the results of his inquiries into the saccharine richness of the beet -root, from which it appears that it varies according to the period of sowing, that sown earlier being richer than that which has been sown later; that the agricultural yield follows the same rule ; that the nature of the soil seems to exercise no influence over these re sults, aDd that the proportion of sugar seems to stand in no relation whatever to the quantity of carbo nate of lime contained in the soil, as had been stated by M. Leplay. M. Luther, the celebrated amateur astronomer, wrote to announce that he had discovered a new telescopic planet, being the 67th of the group. It has received the name of Leto, and its positions on the 29th and 30th ult. were as follows : Mean T. of Bilk. Right Asc. Declin. 29th...13h 31m 2s 212 deg 23m lls lldeg 6m 15s 1 30th...10h 52m 17s 5 212 deg llm lls 4 lldeg 4m to 2 Dr. MARK IN TROUBLE.—We regret to learn that the celebrated Dr. Mark, who for many years had so indefatigably laboured to promote a taste for music among the rising generation, has fallen into difficulties, occasioned by heavy losses on the concerts he has given, and in esta blishing his Royal College of Music in Manchester; and that he is now confined in Lancaster Castle for debt. We are sure many of our readers will deeply sympathise with that gentleman in his present painful position ;—he always has deserved well of the public for the praiseworthy mos tions he has made in raising the standard of music amongst the youth of this kingdom; and he deserves a better fate, after the many thousands of pounds he has expended in promoting his scheme, than to be confined for the sake of £2,000 liabilities (hot £40,000, ashasbeen erroneously stated in other papers) in a debtors' prison. We hope that brighter days are in store for the worthy doctor, the "children's friend," that we may hear the charming sounds of Dr. Mark and his "little men," and that he may yet be rep warded by all classes of society for the liberality with whieh he has educated in music hundreds of youth throughout the United Kingdom, and helped to raise the musical stan dard in this country.—Preston Guardian. An old four-horse Stage-coach will ere long be less a novelty than premature grey hair, which is fast disappearing under the effects of Herring's magnetic brushes and combs. which recent improvements have rendered almost infallible in restoring the colour to grey hair, and also in removing th• agony of tic doloreux and nervous headache. N.B.—Conn• terleits are being made. Offices, 32, Bashighall-street. London. BIRTHS. :MLLES. —On the 11th inst., at Lees Court, Faversham, the Hon. Mrs. Miles, of a son and heir. WALKER. — On the 13th inst., at Hunsdon House, Hert fordshire, the wife of Wm. Walker, Esq., of a son. M AR RIAUES. COLE—FISIIER.—On the 11th inst., at St. Mary's, Isling ton, Frederick L. Cole, Esq., of Compton-terrace, Isling ton, to Marian Lucy, third daughter of Robert Fisher, Esq., of Highb ur y-p ar k. SEABROOK—HICKMOTT. —on the 11th inst., at Bromley St Leonard's, John Seabrook , to Margaret Sarah, the Duly Bromley, ulydaughr daughter J. J. Hof Wellington road,ickmott, Esq., DEATHS, DICKIN , _( ln :00 f d , Q, G u e. street;nd .e c so h n e ,. E y s s q d . e , a a g g s e d d 6 B 2 3 .. ANDERSON.—On the 11th i nk , at 2, Hamilton-terrace, en s s - q w . the 11th inst:„.in Finsbury-circus, George St. John E ' Dickiu, LONDON : Printed and Published by 31.URDO YOUNG. Of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TriE SuN Office, No. 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, ria the County of ILiddleini Tu,-;, day, May H, 1861.