The Sun. — London, England, 1857-02-24 00:00:00

ki4 4 114,,L.1 t 4 i,t L a 4,4 t. 1.6 we hewed oil Fri th/4 night from illy right hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone.) I was one of the col'eagues of my right hon. friend when he brought for ward his budget of 1353, alai I W 35 nog of ly perfectly quiescent, but I was warm, and I may say, au ardent s u pporter of the pl in whi c h h e then laid „ down. My right hon. friend says that the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer has totally departed from the principles on which that budget was founded—that he wishes as far as in him lies to destroy those principles, and that he wishes to falsify the promise then hEld out in the most solemn manner that in the year 1,360 the income tax should cease. These are grave charges—affecting not only the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, but affecting every one of the members of that Cabinet of which my right bon. friend was then the organ. None of the members of that Cabi- net who now remain in office having risen to defend the budget, with the knowledge which they have of its details and its purpose, it is incumbent upon me to dis prove 149 far as I am able the charges which have been advanced by my right hon. friend. In doing so I only go so far as to say that I think it right to go at once into committee of ways and means without assenting to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli.) I concur generally in the principles on which the Chancellor of the Excb.equer has founded his budget. Into all the details of hir, proposition I am not bound to enter. lam still leas bound to enter into a particular vote of supply, beer.use the question which the Chancel lor of the Excbr,qucr has brought forward, I believe in conformity ',lth the opinions of this house, is this, that we eballF.rst take into consideration the ways and means; that vre shall endeavour to decide what is the prospect at leP' ,t of our revenue and expenditure, and what are th '. taxes with which we are to meet that expenditure. ..Now, sir, it appears to me, and I think the house gene ra ly will concur in this opinion, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the present year, had no ordinary dif- ficulties to contend with. He had upon him, in the first place, the obligation of checking, as far as ho was able, that inclination to extravagant expenditure, which, under 'the name of efficient establishments, is so strongly re- commended by the militaty and naval department-. In the next place he had to consider the genera desire of the country, fOunded upon what wag, I think, a fair and equitable interpretation of the act which passed at the commencement of the war, that what is called " the war 9J." shoul I cease, not at the time at which the technical terms of the act had fixed, but on the sth of April altar the termination or actual conclusion of the war. In the next place there rested upon him the obligation of endea voUrinq, as far as possible, not to place any obstacle in the way of the total abolition of the income tax in 1860. (Hear.) Besides all these oLligations, there was another, which, 1 believe, notwithstanding all that has been said, he was quite willing to perform as far as the condition of the finances would allow —the obligation not to press hardly upon the great articles of consumption, and thus cramp the industry and fetter the means of the in- • dustrious &uses. Now this was the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not think he has done ill in proposing that "the war ninepence" should be at once abolished—that instead of fivepence, seven pence should be for a certain period the limit of the income tax, and that arrangements should be made for paying off the debts which the country and Parliament are bound to discharge. But what says my right hon. . . friend the member for the university of Oxford ? I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in this situa tion—that if he had proposed a very considerable remis sion of taxation, such remissions as have been proposed in former years—ft might have been said, "You are parting h the ways and means which furnish the re venue, and you will thereby make it impossible to pro vide for the cessation of the income tax at the end of three years." If, on the other hand, he had provided for the due supply of the revenue, so tl,at after the three years by retaining in the hands of the Government those taxes which must furnish that revenue, he woul f then obvi ously have been open to the charge that he had not fol lowed in the track of his predecessors, which since 1842 has so greatly relieved the trade and industry of the country. Bat what I should not have expected is, that these two charges, so opposite and so inconsistent, should have come from the same person, have been uttered by the same voice and in the same speech in the course of one discussion. With regard to the remission of duties, it is obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly make any great remission c ussistently with keep ing up the revenue, so as to be able to remit the income tax in the year 1860. (Hear, hear.) It was proclaimed in 1853, after a great deal of discussion had taken place, that two alternatives were then open to the house—tbe one, that of endeavouring to reconstruct the income tax, and maks it more equal and more just ; the other, that of not pretending to amend the tax which nr. Pitt and Lord Lansdowne, and many others, had declared them selves urable to amend, and that without attempting to amend the tax, you should consider it as a Viz for an ex traordinary emergency, and provide for its cessation at a c , trtain fixed period. Of these two alternatives the Par liament, at the request of the Government, and I believe, entirely concurring with the Government, adopted th last. But then if you adopted this al - ernative, you must take care to supply the revenue—you must take care that if you arrive at the year 18110, these sources of revenue may not have been so injured that you will find it a matter of positive necessity t ) keep up that tax. (Hear.) In the Sear 1845, when Sir 11. Peel ' , laced his alternative before us, he said, " The tlx has now lasted for three years, and you may reduce it or allow the tex to expire ; the halt-year which is still due will furnish means by which you may provide fir the requirements of the year, but that is not the course which I would re. commend ; the c curse which I recommend is, that you should take off many of our duties, that you should lower many others which I think are injurious to the people of this country. Bat if you do so, you must preserve the income tax." Tite house chose to maintain the income tax. Well, sir, that is very much our al ternative at the present moment. It would have been utterly inconsistent in my right hen. friend the Chancel -1 it of the Exchequer—there would hare been some ground for the accusation of an insidious purpose on his part of breaking that promise which has been given for the abo lition of the income tax —if he had come forward and said, "Here are the tea and sugar duties, which I can part with at once—here are many other taxes of a most it jnrious kind, and I will make a great remission." That would not have been consistent with keeping faith with the public on the subject of the income tax. The ground r.ow taken is, that there is a departure from the policy adopted 15 years ago—that of abolishing and reducing a vast number of small duties, thus simplifying the revenue and collecting that revenue by means of fewer hands. Now, I think my right hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford, when he made that statement, gave a very imperfect account of the policy adopted 15 years ago. It was a statement likely to be agreeable to the hon. gentlemen opposite, whose cheers he appears to be somewhat desirous of obtaining. No doubt there were proposals to simplify the revenue—either to ab dish or to reduce to a very small amount a great number of small dilate". But that was not the principal merit of the budget of Sir R. Peel—that was not its chief feature — anti I think some part of that policy with . regard to many small articles was of a questionable character. What I and others approved of in that budget—and I may count my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer . amongst them, because he has always admired the prin ciple of the great philosophers who have laid down the doctrines of free trade—what we approved of in that budget was the principle laid do mn that th, re was to be a great diminution of protective duties—(hear)---that differential duties were to a considerable degree abolished —that protection would thils in a great degree be taken away, and that the road would be open for a much larger and greater change. (Cheers) At that time many of my constituents came to me o n th e su bj ect. The ope makers complained that protection was taken from them; the boot and shoe makers said they would h ave no protection for their industry ; persons engaged in the manufacture of straw plait in the midland counties said that their protection would be removed ; the fisher men in the north who were engaged in the herring fishery made a similar complaint ; and numerons complaints of he like nature were made by a number of n - leer it t :rests. My answer to them was—and it was the answer which Sir R. Peel himself in 1847 considered a just one—" All these things must be taken together ; if protection is bmken in upon with regard to a number of articles ma nufactured by artisans, other protected interests must finally be forced to yield. It might be a natural policy in the eyes of many, although I think a mistaken one, to protect all interests—to protect the shuttle as well as the plough—to protect the fisherman al nig with the Rugar planter. But if you apply the principles of free trade, and t a ke awa y p ro t ec ti on f rom a n umber of smaller interests, you will bring down the destruction of the " Le ' , Paella. " (Hear, le-ar.) I said to those who ap lled to me, " Don't complain that while you cannot sell your boots and shoes, or your ropes, at protection prices, you are obliged to pay an increased price for par corn ; beca use you may depend upon it that before long the d ay will arrive w h en t h ese protecte d i n t eres t s must give w ay too, abolished the syeteruaonfdf these small monopolies being win in time visit trade, the groat principle of competition, and in sugar." e T i, . 6,, ls t t a the great dealers in corn ~e atue to pass, and the great merit of the y policy of 184tthewaes establishment it firmly dealt to we all, s with the question, and led o abliehment of free trace, the principles of which e o ri t n he early all, of us acknowledged at the commencement of resent a free-'mdse I'arliament. Now a'lc , has my right hon. friend de parted from these principles I Having been I all his life, has he in any _wee' • noredthis . Polley, or in augurated a new policy ? Far from it ;he has done nothing of the kind. I certainly should have been willing to spare a good part of his s p eech. I do not concur with him in the observations wh ich he made with respect to fire insurance, the tcx on which is most excessive an d oppressive. (H e ar.) I do not agre e with his observations on the paper duty. I consider these duties of Excise to be iu th emselves of a most i n jurious nature. (Cheers.)They atop, an d prevent, and decrease manu factures —they en. haute p ri ces ; and it is no consolation to be told, when a page of Shakepere or of Milton has a lex upon the paper before it is printed, that the old woman in the cot tage is affected, and injurioa-ly affected, by the s ame im post, inasmuch as the wrapper which contains he r ounce of tea is taxed also. (Hear.) With respect to insur ance and paper, I should be glad to see the duties reduced to avt ry small amount. I quite concur in the policy, al most the eeceesity, of not touching upon these large sub jects of revenue, when the mind of the house and the mind of the country is fixed upon the income tax. (Hear.) But I am sorry to find that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer pronounced a kind of panegyric on those tax3s, as it they were meritorious ones. Ido not think it was necessary to disinter Arthur Young to give evidence on tit ig Which flea ilet, bitten to 016 Favpoila rvmiont o and I concur with the right hon. gentleman oppisite (Mr. Disraeli), when he said we need not eropl,;y - our selves in disquisitions on direct and indirect taxes, because, unhappily, we know that both to a great extent must be imposed upon and paid by the people. (hear.) My right hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford says that the Clianeell'm of the Exchequer ds really endeavour- ing to de!eat that understanding which ',ls come to in I 1853, that in the year 1860 we should see an end of the income tax. I hold it to be a very great point of public po licy to adhere to the expectation which was then held out. (Cheers.) I recollect how many gentlemen thei e were who thought it would be possible to make a distinction between permanent and precarious income; I remember how many there were who objected to the succession tax; and I think, unless some overpowering necessity should arise, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1860 would not be justified in continuing in operation a tax which ought to cease at the end of that year. (Cheers.) lam of opinion that it is a great weapon—the most powerful financial weapon yen possess for a time of war. (Hear.) The experience of the last war has shown us this fact as strongly as did the experience of the French war. You collect an immense revenue by this means. It is perhaps a species of confiscation, because yon take away from a man that which he has at the moment, without inquiry from what source he derived it, or how long he is likely to enjoy it. But you take it as the means of obtaining national security in time of peril and of war, and you are justified in so doing. You must either abandon the tax after a certain time, or attempt its reconstruction, which I do not believe any financial abilities could ac complish in a satisfactory manner. lam therefore most desirous that the tax should come to an end in the year 1860. (Cheers.) I confess I cannot see how the Chan cell)r of the Exchequer has interposed any obstacle in the way of the termination of the tax at thattime. (Hear ) Not only has he not done so, but in my opinion his ad dition of twopence in the present year and in the two following years—and his proposal that further sums should be levied on tea and sugar than are imposed in the budget of 1853—seem to me to be specially intended to carry that budget into effect. (Cheers. We have be fore us a return showing the amount of liabilities incurred in respect of the war ; and according to that statement we shall have to pay in the years 1857-8-9 no less than 6,000,0001. Exchequer bonds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is parbuing that course because he has asked us to assent to the payment of 2,000,0001 . of these Ex _ chequer bills falling due in the present year—a proposi tion to which we gave our unanimous assent. Besides these Exchequer bills we shell have to pay in respect to the principal of the debt no less than 9,250,000/, Al together we shall have to pay in these three years the sum of 13,202,0001. Now, if we are to effect that ob ject, I ask lo what means could the Chancellor of the Exchequer resort except keeping up taxes somewhat higher than the act of Parliament would justify, and thus obtaining means to do that which has never been done before—that which my right hon. friend, the mem bar for the University of Oxford, particularly recom mends—namely, the paying off of a considerable portion of the debt of a war within a very short time atter the commencement of that war. Therefore the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far from being in opposition to the plan of my right hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford, is in direct conformity with it. A part of the charge of my right hon. friend was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown an indifference upon the subject ; that he was taxing those great articles of consumption, tea and sugar, without necessity, Now, I wholly deny that there was anything tending to show such an indication on the part of the Chancel'or of the Exchequer. It was said, be sides, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really misrepresented the whole case, and that while he re tained that to which he had a right, and which belonged to the Exchequer, he talked of the taxes which were to be remitted as if they were the gift of the Government, and that the Government were about to remit the sum of 11,900,0001. Now, it is obvious that the only fair course which tee Chancellor of the Exchequer can take is to lay before the house and before committees of ways and means and supply, the state of the country, to show them what would be the operation of an act of Parliament, and to propose to them the scheme which he thought best for the country. It is not for him to say, "I grant to the ciluntry 11,000,0001. of taxes. But I ask the house, was there anything of that kind of boasting in my right hon. friend's statement ? (Cheers.) You may make ob jection to his statement—you may say there will be a deficiency in future years—you may dissent from hie policy altogether ; but I defy any man to say that he was guilty of boasting, or of any undue assumption. I come n , -xt to those duties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to keep up—the taxes on tea and sugar—which he intends to keep up at too great an ex cess. From representations which have been made to me by persons who are largely engaged in the tea trade, whose petition I presented the other day, I am of opinion that he will gain in the present year more than 1,000,0,0/. beyond what the act of Parliament gives him. The amount which he will obtain in the present year, ac oording to the act Pof arliament, is 4,000,0001., but by his proposition he will receive 5,066,0001. In the year 1858-9, under the act of parliament he would receive 3,200,0001., but by his arrangement the amount will be 4,550,0001. In the three years, instead if receiving 10, 400,0001 , he will take 13,616,0001 , being an increase in the duties on tea alone in the course of three years of 3,216,0001.. Now I think that is too much to impose upon an article so generally useful as tea, in the course of three years, f it the purpose of defraying the expenses of the war, I should wish, therefore, that either by adeptin,g the proposal of the persons engaged in trade, of having ls. 4d. duty for each of the three years, or by some similar scale, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should somewhat mitigate the pressure of that tax. And on this subject I have to say that a statement has gone forth, apparently on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for the Treasury, which is altogether erroneous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is supposed to have stated that the stocks of sugar were unusually low, and that the same in effect was tree a, regarded tea. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob served that what he had stated was that difficulties at Canton rendered it probable that the future supply of tea might be short. Ile did not state that there was a low stock of tea. Lord J. RUSSELL—There was an ambiguity in the phrase which has led to some mistake on that point. Them e is an unusually large stock of tea in London at the present time—l believe not loss than 87,000,00)tbs.—of which it is probable that 10,030,0301b5. will pay duty within a mouth after the Ist April. That being the case, the statement with regard to the small quantity of tea is not correct. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to re duce the duty from ls. 9,1. to is. 76. The law says that the reduction shall be 6d. per lb. Tho Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes a reduction of only 26. Now Ido not think the benefit of that 26. will go to the consumer. I be lieve it will go to the wholesale and retail dealers, and that, such a small reduction will be of no advantage to the con sumer. (Hear.) I therefore hope that when we come to that part of the budget in ways and means, my right hon. friend will endeavour to render that proposal more palatable and beneficial. (Cheers.) Now, sir, having pointed out the exaggerated and somewhat erroneous charges of my right hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford, I will allude for a moment to his allegation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was treating us like child ren. My right hoe. friend seems somewhat like au anxious mother, who, having a favourite child in the cradle, dreams that the child is fallinc , over a precipice, and screams out• in affright for fear her beloved child should be lost. (Laugh ter.) There was really so much pathos in my right hon. friend's statement, that nothing but a feeling of that kind —some, not maternal, but paternal feeling, with respect to the budget of 1853---could have induced him to take what I conceive to be so discoloured and passionate a view of this subject of bit ince and figures. (Laughter.) But as the mother would find her child in the cradle safe, ant would go back to bed in comfort, so I trust the division to-night, whatever it may be, though it may be entirely against my right hon. friend's views, will find him d elivered from that delusion, and that his child is in safety and is not in that danger which his fears represented. (Laughter.) I come now, having dealt with the allegation of my right lion. friend, to a very serious part of this question, which I do not think we can decide according to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, and by the motion to-night, but upon which I confess I feel serious apprehensions and hook to the future with much anxiety—l mean that part which regards not the ways and means, but the committee of supply, and the votes to be taken in it. I think we cannot ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce the esti mates for 1858 and 1859—it would be utterly unreasonable to do so ; but at the same time there is a question asked by the right hon. gentleman opposite which was fairly raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the first night of the budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us what he proposed, and what would be the consequenc m of adopt ing his propositions for the present year. We were to have about 65 millions of expenditure, and 66 millions of re venue, leaving about 900 0001. of surplus • but when my 6 i 2 n . c 3 o co rl o w o i p ll b l e v w e i r l y l m n o u t ch m l a e k s s e i y g n o f n u a t unr eestimatecameday ho ; of t the expenditure of thoseyears, but if you will compare it with the estimate and expenditnreof 1853, you will see that you can have a margin of 3,000,000/., if you can provide for the service according to the expenditure of 1853." " But then," says the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks, " if that rule is so valuable, if the establishments in 1853 were sufficient to support the honour and security of thocountry, why is it that we cannot have them for 1857? (Hear, hear.) Why are we to postpone our wisdom till 1858 ? How is it that we are to say we will be lavish in 1557, but InlBsB we shall be so wise, so prurient and economical, that everybody will admit we shall balan ce the income and e xpenditures" I will not revert to the estimates of 1853, but I cannot help, as the right hon. gentleman referred to them, referring to my Own extravagant estimates of 1818. Several gentlemen high in office complained of the extravagance of those esti mates. I have boon looking at those estimates, and I dad that they amounted, for the army, navy, and ordnance, to 17,842,0001., and for the militia to 151,0001., makine 17,996,030/. ; and, taking the whole estimates—the debt, the civil service, and contingencies—the whole amount was 53,496,5111. If I add to that the estimatd for the collection of the revenue and the civil service superannuation 4,710,000/., there was a total of 58,206,5 W. I find that those extravagant estimates, which I was unable to perse vere in, which I was obliged to confess, not being of abso lute necessity, I would not attempt to go on with in the face of the feeling of the house, were 5,018,010/. below the estimates of the present year. If that is the case, I can not help thinking there may be some reduction in the esti mates of the the present year. (Hear, hear.) Ido not blame Chancellor of the Exchequer.know I the tr üble every Chancellor of the Exchequer has to enforce economy upon other the Chancellor f departments ; but I say, not blandeg when we come to o flie Exchequer, that I cannot bat think, meeite,hat to the th e question, not of committee of ways and to look sharply an y v e i ste of committee of supply, we ought ytar. The ministerstfol r att i ly into the estimates for the next to give for those estimates other than may have reasons c:Ilor of the Exchequer has than those which the Chan that may justify some that sege in ven a . t There may be details but I submit to the house that I tract Ulli LlSti fi ; o f peace. I trust that we are going to make that this is a p e riod Per sia, I trust that those foolish hostiliti es with (cheers) — wi ll rot be continued ; a nd that bein g vi with theCilina— case, seeing that we h ave an alliance w ith France, which, i n 1848, when I pro duced those est imates, was a matter of considerable doubt —seeing that we have made pea" with I that great power which was lately our enemy, arta tiiit the ti . 14) t) - ,Al . 11 ON t i i tY Mra AY igficHibiti treaty of pevahas fulfilled all the elejeete of the war, think that we ace entitled to ask for peace estimates, and that those estimates should he the found ttion of what in future years will be our establishment. (Freer.) Evely one has said, ever since the question of peace was under discus sion, ever since t was known that the conferences at Paris were going to begin, that a considerable time must elap-e, and that a year would not be too much for Government to reduce those establishments which were necessary iu war, to reduce the number of men in the army and navy. But, the war being over, the prospect of peace being before us, I gay I know not why we should not say what is good for 185 S-9 is good for 1857, why we should not come to a con clusion as to what our peace estimates should be. I shall listen with great interest to the statements which may be made by the Minister of the Crown as to the necessity for these estimates. A 9 they stand at present, if we are to fol low the estimates, I believe as to the arithmetical conse quences there is no difference, some 203,000/. or 300,0001. may be in dispute, but we shall be nearly 5,000,0001. short in the course of the next two (.r three years. Well, Ido not think it is a very reasonable thing to ask for the estimates for the next two years--I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to give them ; and, indeed, if be had been disposed to act an ambiguous part, nothing would have boon more easy than to say, " I mean to cut down two millions in the army, one million in the navy, and half a million in the civil service estimates, and there you have it." Why, every one knows that such a statement would not be worth the piece of paper on which it was written, in ig norance of what would be the circumstances of the future years to which it would apply. Before we go into these es timates we are bound to have an account laid before us by the Minister of the Crown, with a statement of what is our situation, foreign and domestic. Parliament has a right to know what are the prospects of the country with regard to foreign powers—how we stand with regard to those two powers with whom we are at present in hostilities. They have a right to know those circumstances before they vote away the money of the people. I cannot accept the expla nation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to ocal burdens, that they have to a great extent been placed on the estimates of late years, because by far the greater part of those sums were placed in the estimates before 1853, and the estimates of 1853 included the sums to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer objects. I have therefore only to say, that now, with regard to the question imme diately before the house, I shall be ready to go into com mittee of ways and means with the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, keeping in view the policy, the justice, the good faith, looking to the cessation of the income tax in 1860. I will not require larger concessions in respect to deities, to customs, or excise, or other taxes in the year 1857 ; but it is not for that reason that I would give up the prospect for the future. When in the course of last century some emi nent scientific mon were sent from Paris in order to mea sure a degree, when they had traversed Lapland and reach ed an inhospitable sea, they put up a stone with the lines: Sistimushic tandem nobis Uoi defuit orbis, That sir, cannot be our position. I trust that the extension of commerce, the adoption aright principles of finance, will make a continued progress; I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be forced to confine his wishes for the moment to the present budget; I trust that the country will see that that which has already produced such glorious fruits may in future have still greater results. I rejoice to hear from him, and I think whatever party hon. gentlemen may belong to, we must all rejoice to hear from him such prosperous accounts, especially of British shipping, at the present time. I trust that further measures of the same wise and liberal kind, measures founded on no selfish ad vantage, upon no restrictive policy, upon no envious jea lousy of foreign nations, but upon a policy which begin ning with wisdom from yourselves ends with liberality, justice, and bounty to all)mankind, I trust that that policy which my right hon. friend says was inaugurated 15 years ago—l care not about the date, but I should put it further back, and should not forgettho illustrious name of Huskis son—l trust that that policy thus inaugurated has still greater triumphs to achieve, and that its success will induce the nations of the earth to follow our example, and thus unite us all in the bonds of peace, of commerce, and of amity. (Cheers.) Mr. BENTINCK, in a speech condemning the income tax, said he was not prep a red to vo t e e ith er f or th e mo ti on of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or that of the right hon. gentleman the member fur Buckinghamshire. As re gar-led the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, he (Mr. Bentiuck) thought he had suggested a thousand difficulties with reference to the budget without sug g esting a remedy. After consider ing the course adopt e d this year, of asking the house to affirm the proposition of the Chancellor of the exchequer before they had had an opportunity of examining the esti mates, he moved the adjournment of the debate until after the house bad agreed in a committee of supply to the army, navy, and ordnance estimates. Mr. M. MILNES condemned the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, whose policy of 1853 was the cause of the present difficul ties that had been raised to the Chancellor of the Exche quer's statement. It therefore showed that it was better for Chancellors of the Exchequer to confine their policy to the current year rather than deal in the prospective. He trusted that the reduction would not be carried too far, and again impair the resources of the country, should circumstances again render it necessary for her to take up arms. Sir. J. T. TYIIELL had never seen so strange a state of things as regarded political parties since he entered the house in the year 1830. It was a most extreordinary spectacle to see so many right hon. gentlemen sitting on so many dif ferent benches. (Laughter.) In the first place there wasthe noble lord the member for the City perched up behind the noble leader of the house. (Laughter.) Then there were right hon. gentlemen sitting below the gangway, of great ability and official habits. There was on that (the opposi tion) side the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks with his brilliant talents ; and there were about him many hon. gentlemen of groat assiduity, perseverance and deter mination. All these hon. and right hon. gentlemenseemed rea ly to fall upon the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) the moment they fancied he had made a mistake, but he (Sir J. Tyroll) had the misfortune—misfortune, that was, sitting where he did—to think that the noble viscount as yet had made no mistake at all. Theright hon. gentleman the mem bar for Oxford University had entered the house this ses sion in a most gladiatorial spirit.. He would hardly permit the Speaker to take the chair before he showed himself in clined, by the power of his eloquence, " to make the worse appear thebetter cause." He(Sir J. Tyrell) was oneof those who thought there had been a gigautio fraud--of course, he meant in a Parliamentary sense— (laughter and cheers) —attempted upon gentlemen who sat in that house. He (the hon. baronet) ha I read with surprise— and he certainly disagreed with almost every word of it—the Conservative article in the Quarterly Review, headed "The Prospects of the Country." The publication of that article had been for a month; and there were marks about it which were con clusive in his mini as to its parentage. It lauded the light hon. gentlemen below the gangway for their great ability in their official capacity. No doubt those gentlemen formed a powerful section in the house, but fortunately—or un fortunately for them—they had no following in the coun try. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman—if ho was the author of the article—of course hugged his pet budget of 1853. Now that house had in it a great number of Chan cellors of the Exchequer. (Laughter.) He did not know whether the noble lord the member for the City had filled that office, but he had filled almost every other. (Laugh ter) Well. on the first night there was a debate, in which many of these eminent members took a part; and he (Sir J. Tyrell) must say that rdeen he heard the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks, he felt, as a humble Conservative, considerable alarm. (Laughter.) The noble lord the leader of the house had been accused of being fond of war, and of getting this country into scrapes ; but he would remind the house of the reception the noble lord met with at Manchester. (Hear.) With the exception of the hon. member for that city, and one or two other gen tlemen, the Peace Society seemed to have disappeared. (Hear.) That party had also been silent on the present oc casion, but he trusted the house would hear their views before the debate closed. He supposed their silence was oc casioned by a feeling that they were opposed to the opinion of the whole country. He (the hon. baronet) completely , agreed with the sentiments expressed by the late Mr. Bro therton, who he regretted no longer to see amongst them— (hear)—and who on the noble lord's visit to Manchester, ex pressed an opinion that he (Lord Palmerston) deserved well of his country forcoming forward whenhe had been deserted by his former colleagues. (Cheers.) He (SirJ. Tyrell) hoped that before the house went into these nip-cheese estimates with which they were threatened, they would be favoured with the views of the gallant defender of Kara, and the gallant gentleman who sat beside him (Sir W. Codrington.) The late Duke of Wellington when told that certain parties had deserted him, replied, " Theet.all do that at some time, and some of them never come back again." Now, it would appear that there were right hon. and hon. gentlemen who were now very anxious to come back. (Loud laughter and cheers.) Not only their appetite for debate, but. their appetite for the good things of office, was waxing w; rn. (Laughter.) The incomprehensible speech of the right hon gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had left. him (Sir J. iTyrel) in a perfotly incomprehensible position. (Loud laughter.) He confessed that pro hac vice, his na tural leader would be the noble lord the member for the City; but clouds, heavily charged with the electricity of electoral influences, lowered so darkly over every part of the house, that he scarcely knew what course to pursue. Ile should therefore vote for the amendment. (Cheers.) Mr. WILKINSON also supported the amendment, re marking that it was not very clear how the house had come to he engaged in this anticipatory finaecial discussion. The right hon. gentleman ll(Nfr Gladstone) had gone it to the subject of the estimates ; but that was not the ques tion before the house. (Hear, hear.) Nor was his argu ment at all conclusive. It did not follow that the expen diture next year would be as groat as was now found to be necessary ; and the revenue might con , i lerably recovtr itself, by its natural elasticity, before the period arrived when the right bon, gentleman said there would be a deficit. (Hear, hear.) For his own part he (Mr. Wilkinson) would have preferred the retention of another Li. or 2d. of the income tax, so as to allow the reduction of the duties on ar ticles of ordinary consumption. He would also have pre ferred to see the duties on paper and insurances removed, oven at the expense of retaining a portion of the tax on incomes. At the same time he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been made the subject of a great deal of unnecessary objurgation; for with the exceptions he had named the budget met with his approval. (Hear.) Mr. LIDDELL has listened with great p'easure to the memberapprehension whens; buts ee h c h e c o o f n t f h e s e s e right d to feeling hon. the right bon. gentleman spoke of reductions. As to the speech of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), wonderful as it was for ability, he must acknowledge that ho was not at times able clearly to unlerstand the right I hon. gentleman's arguments. When the right bon. gentle man talked of the budget of 1853 ho would remind the house of the position in which we stood at the breaking out of the war. We sent out an army, but that army perished because we bail not sufficient stores accumulated beforehand ; and when at last, by dint of reckless extra vagance, we provided stores, the mischief was done. He therefore solemnly protested against falling back on the estimate of 1853. If the bitter experience of the "sate war taught us nothing else it ought to have taught us the folly of keeping up an insufficient military and naval establish ment. He did not think that he should hamper the Go vernment or impede the services of the country by affirm ing the resolution. Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE criticised the resolutionof Mr. Disraeli, and contended that a surplus could not be spread over future years. At the close of Mr. Gladstone's speech he could not but ask what the right hen. gentleman really wanted ? In the course of nearly four hours he had raised objection after objection, difficulty after difficulty, but it led to no practical result, beyond, perhaps, exercising some of his younger constituents in dialectics. He could not imagine that Mr. Gladstone really believed the serious charge which he brought against the Government of aban doning the principles of free trade. Nothing could be more contrary to the course pursued by the present Chan cellor of the Exchequer. It was a strange argument from a right hon. gentleman who got the country into a war when he was in the Government, had then left the Government, and had thou done all in his power to lower the lofty cour age and generou s f e elin g o f th e coun t r y. (Ch eers , and"No, no.") He was in the house at the time, and must assert that ette h wjs the tenaettGy of Mti, eils,datords iipti6oii, Though his arguments wei e inconsistent, his object was ohm) enoti4h; it was to induce the house to throw themselves into the hauls of himself and his flaw associates. But it must he a fearful panic which would lead the house to do that. It would require tenfold his talent an 1 argureenta;,icr skill to induce the country to lose sight of the obliquity of his political principles. (Cheers.) On that side of the house he was regarded by many as an nucandid enemy-- on the other as a treacherous friend, and in spite of hic appeal to humanity, first for unnecessarily keeping up the duty on sugar, and then in favour of its reduction, he would find that the people of this country considered lin2 as an unsafoguide and a most unscrupulouspartisan. (Cheers.) ' Mr. WHITESIDE was opposed to the retardation of the reduction of duty on tea and sugar, awl considered such a proposal a broach of common honesty. The income tax in Ireland was odious and revolting to every m:in in the country. The amendment proposed to pledge the house that it should be got rid of in 1660 ; but this the Chancel lor of the Exchequer refused to accept. He thought that Ar. Gladstone's speech on Friday night was perfectly con sistent with his financial statement in 1853. It was said he had pointed out objections, but, bad not shown how they were to be removed ; nor was he called upon to do this un less "called in." (Laughter.) He (Mr. Whiteside) adopted most of the statements of Lord John Russell, but these "acts would load him toanopposito conclusioO. Sir F. BARING said he had no doubt that if the right hon. gentlemen were called into office they would soon show the house how to cure the finance difficulty. All these difficulties would then disappear, and the finances of the country would then become iu a much more prosper ous condition than those hon. gentlemen now seemed to think possible. He gave his cordial assent to the propo sals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he understood them. There was a singular omission in the amendment of the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckingham shire—that was his intention with reference to the war income tax. But that was a most important point with regard to the budget. Did he intend that that should be taken off or not taken off? Unless they told the Chan cellor of the Exchequer what was the ' decision of the I house on that question, it was impossible for any man to trams a financial arrangement. How came it thrt the right hon. gentleman had not stated his intention in regard to that matter? The same remark applied to the speech of the right bon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford. He had not heard that hon. gentleman on any occasion give an opinion as to whether or not he was pre pared to take off the war income tax. (Hear) His im pression was that it was the intention of the right hon. gentleman to continue the war tax for at least another year. If that were not the intention of the right hon. gentleman opposite, why did he not state it in his resolution? Was there was some little difficulty in the two right hon. gen tlemen—the two stools between whom the war income tax was to fall to the ground—coming to an understanding in respect to each other's views on that point? If the house did not intend to affirm the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the war income-tax was a subject on which at any rate it ought to be frank and explicit—if they did not intend to take of the tax let the country clearly under stand what it was they did intend to do. He thought be fore considering the resolution of the right hon. gentleman it would be as well to ascertain what was the real position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in what state their finances were. Ho thought the figures ho would lay before the house would not bo very far wrong. Now let them consider the reduction which the budget involved. The first item was that of malt, on which thorn would be a loss of 2,200,0001. Then if the pledges were carried out in relation to the war income-tax they would take off 2,000,0001. more in reducing that tax from 7d. to sd. On tea there would be a reduction to the extent of 1,500,000/. ; on coffee, of 135,0001. ;on sugar, of 7 50,0001 . He con ceived that all the reductions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pledged to make amounted to 15,500,000/. The income of last year had amounted to 72,000,0001. — taking from that 15,000,000/. it would bring down the in come for the ensuing year to 57,500,000/. Their expendi ' ture, as stated, for 1857-8 was 65,000,000/. —there was thus a deficiency staring them in the face of 8,0030,00b1. of reve nue ; but that was not all, because if they proceeded on to the next year without any proposition being made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would then have a deficiency of 9,0)0,0001. That was no common case, and he thought the Minister who had those difficulties to meet was entitled to the greatest c onsideration, especially when they reflected that many of the engagements which he would have to fulfil were not of his own contracting. But what was he to do if he had to meet those engagements, and he was not allowed to raise revenue on some articles, such as teas. The right hon. gentleman had, in his was surrounded. But they were told th at in doin g so he opi nion, fairly and manfully mot the difficulties by which ho had abandoned the principles of free trade. Now, coming accurately to figures, was it true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad abandoned his opinions of free trade. (Hear, hear) ? Had he not adhered to direct taxation with a view.to remit the duties on such articles as tea, coffee, and sugar, ae far as the finances of the country would al low him? He (Sir F. Baring) was told the prospect of getting rid of the income tax in 1860 was by the financial scheme very remote. Now he was prepared to admit, both for political reasons as well as on account of good faith, that it would be desirable, if possible, to get rid of the in come tax in 1860. It was not a peace tax, nor was it equi tably levied ; and he was afraid that if it did net come off in 1860, they should not get it off at all. But let them un derstand the position in which they should be placed in 1861. In 1861 they would have sums falling in from the reduction on the interest of the National Debt to the ex tent of 2,100,0001. Then in the same year there would cease payments on account of the war to the amount of 1,128.0001., or, comparing it with the charges for the year 1858-9, they would have 2,500,0001., those sums toge ther amounted to 4,700,0001. The amount which would not be chargeable in 1861. Now, that was a large part of the 7,000,0001., which was the amount of the income tax to be remitted in that year. in addition to that, the tax on succession had not yet reached its maximum. They might reckon on 60 or 70,00 from , that source. If they aided those sums together, they must admit that the task to be performed in 1861 was not qui e so formidable as sacrificing at one stroke 7,000,0001. of re venue. He admitted that there might be a deficit next year, but he was at a If si to see how they were to enter into such an arrangement in voting the estimates of the present year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ha I said that we were not at present on a peace footing, and it was probable that next year the expenditure might be reduced to such an amount as would bring it within the revenue of the next year. Thera was very fair reason for believing that the expenditure might be reduced in future years. (Hear.) He believed that it was very much the best policy to relieve the country as much as possible from the burdens of heavy war estab lishments. (Hear, hear.) Reductions in such establishments ought, however, to be made with considerable care and can tion, lest the probability would be that the saving would be more apparent than real, and would entail ultimate loss on the country. He thought that tfie Government might fairly be credited for the reductions which they had made, and that they must bo received as an earnest of their fu ture intentions on the subject. It might bo asked, why not at once effect these reductions? He was perfectly ready to go into the qu estion, and he trusted th a t as men o f b us i n ess the house would consent to go into the estimates. Abstract resolutions, such as that before the house, did but little good, and ho thought it would be much better if the house wou ld enter practically into the consider at ion of the best means of effecting such economy as would admit of the taking off the burden of the income tax in 1850. (Hear.) Mr. WALPOLE agreed with the noble lord. the member for the city of London ,in the main objects which he had in view, and the means by which he sought to accomplish it, but differed most completely from him in the conclusion at which the noble lord had arr i ve d respecting the propriety of going into committee on the estimates. He thought it would be the reverse of all sound policy for the house to agree to the im position of the income tax of 7d. instead of sd. in the pound for the years 1858, 1859, and 1860, without knowing the expenditure of the country. The expectation of the people of this country was that the war 9d. of the income tax should bo repealed on the conclusion of the war. That ex pectation had been fulfilled by the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his intention to repeal that portion of the obnoxious tax, and he trusted that there would be no necessity for re-imposing that tax for many years to come. The total repeal of the income tax in 1860 p was another expectation in which the public were fairly entitled to indulge. Ho was fully aware of the great diffi culty which attended upon a transition state from war to p 9 with which war establishments could be b and n pl c a e tchethieudifficult conclusion o f th e p eace , a nd the Govern- Peace footing. But 12 months had passed went bad been warned of the necessity for a speedy return to the systems of economy which had existed previous to the war. In our naval and military establishments what was required was a system which would combine efficiency with economy. It was the want of a system combining such qualities which had led to all the disasters which the army had undergone in the Crimea. What was required was a sufficient but not a superfluous force: The increase in the estimates for the army and navy, as compared with those of 1853, was not less than 3,000,000/. In the esti mates of the civil service there ha. been also a most extra ordinary increase. There was no doubt included in the in creased estimates of 10,000,000/. for the present year pro vision for the repayment of 2,000,00 0 1. of Exchequer Bonds, a mode of raising money to which his hon. friends on his side of the house had strongly objected to en the ground that it would entail the necessity of paying off the money at a time whoa it would be most inconvenient— and also the sinking fiend, and the interest of the war loans, but still beyond this there was a very large margin in which considerable reductions might be effected. He thought that there existed a moral and virtual compact between that house and the country that the income tax should be entirely taken off in 1860. The compact then made in 1853 would not have a legal force like that made at the Union of Scotland or of Ireland, but there were circum stances connected with the arrangement then made which made it imperative upon the House of Commons to abide by the terms of the compact then agreed to. The consi derations given on the part of the people in that arrange. ment, were the extension of the income tax to Ireland, its imposition upon all incomes ,between 100/. and 1501. a year, and the consent to the tax upon successions. T he s e bur dens bad been borne by one party to the compact, but now the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood forward to con tend that there was nothing binding in the arrangement then entered into. The right hon. member for Portsmouth and others had contended that there was no legal force in the compact of 1853; bat he (Mr. Walpole) felt strongly that the equities of the case were strongly in favour of the abolition of the tax at the time then fixed upon. This was not merely a pecuniary matter—the honour of Parliament was at stake ; and if there was one thing Which more th an ano th e r gave stability to their proceed ings, it was the confidence which the people reposed iu its decisions. What were the strongest arguments ad duced against repealing the grant to Maynooth ? Was it not that the grant had been formally introduced in an 1857,ment before of 1853 t. e y B But act of Pa r li ament, and t h a t f a ith m ust be k e pt w ith the public. Th e arguments w hi c h wore goo d f or ono s id e were equally suited t o th e o th- r . (Hear.) He agreed that there wore disturbin g causes w hich might interfere with the fulfilment of a compac t. The war was such a disturbing cause, and h a d it con ti nue d un til 1860 it would have been impossible to ha ve com pli e d with the terms of the agree nheew wanted what t h t eo expenditure d w i t h u y r ein was th to the year r , they were to be called upon to continue a tax which by law they were bound to repeal if they could. (Rear.) The im position of the additional twopence in the pound could not by possibility facilitate the departure of the tax in 1860. The abolition of the tax by the proposition of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer was an absolute impossibility. (Hear.) The proposed tax of 7d. in the pound instead of sd. would produce 7,000,0001. instead of 5,000,000/. at the reduced rate, and it would be far more difficult to provide a substitute for seven millions than five millions of re venue at the end of 1850. (Hear, hear.) He thought he could see great practical good that the debate had already produced. He could perceive an altered tone with reference to the estimate, a s origin Illy proposed, and also with reference t o th e taxation about to be placed on the people. It did not require any great sagacity to pre dict the amount of good that would follow this discus sion. First, that the tea duty would not be increased ; secondly, the estimates would not stand as they were ; ~t.. 4 41,_1i *V iISAY - 0 4 and thiViiy, ha htipad that the irobraa tai wouhl mt 1).3 raised to 7d. in the pound until they know that the expen diture of the country indispensably required that such an addition should ha made. Such was the practical good which he believed would arise from that discussion. On Friday I:st the Chancellor of the ExArequer said that it would be impossible for them to bind themselves to the Nssibility or probability even, of Parliament limiting the income tax to 1860. Those were alarming words, and the house ought to take the earliest opportunity of dispersing that alarm by adopting the resolution of his right hon. friend. Unless the compact of 1853 wore adhered to, the confidence of the people of this country in that house would he materially shaken if not destroyed. It was under those circumstances. and feeling strongly that they needed some assurance with reference to the financial arrangements that the engagements entered into in 1853 should he carrie i out, ~ hat he supported the resolution of his right hon. friend. fie supported that resolution because in effect it amounted to an instruction to the committee of ways and means that oo budget would be satisfactory to that house and the country unless it !secured by proper a, ljustment of the revenue and the expenditure, the fulfilment of the pledge so solemnly given, and which could not be departed from without a breach of faith, and a violation of all the prin- ciples of honour. Mr. CARDWELL could not reconcile the speeches which had been delivered by the right hon. gentleman op posite with the conclusions to which they came. This showed that the resolution had not been well considered.as it secured no plain and intelligible result. When they talked about a probable deficiency, or a surplus in a frame year, they must bear in mind that that must depend on the expenditure. The question was, did they mean re trenchment or not? The right hon. gentleman who had just sat down said that their first object was the reduction of the war 93. Why, that would be secured by going into committee ; because, having removed the war tax thereby, they could then proceed advantageously with the expendi ture. Unless they could bring down the military expendi ture of the country to between 17,000,000/. and 18,000,0001., they must be in a deficiency. Had they a fair prospect of accomplishing that object ? Lord Melbourne's esti mates were fourteen millions and a half. Sir Robert Peel's when our relations with France were not satisfac tory, and when the Oregon question caused much anxiety, were 17 millions. Lord Derby's were 16, and the expendi ture under Lord Aberdeen's, the last year of peace, swelled by anticipation of the comit , war, barely exceeded 16 millions. Was it then hopeless at a time of profound peace to reduce the military expenditure. Lot those who thought so vote for an increased tax. If they could as sume a reduction for 1858-9, he could not see why they could not effect such reduction this year, when the expen diture was entirely under their control. It was a true maxim that of all plans the best was to spend little, and the best of all taxes was that which was the smallest. They had the experience of the late war to show that it was not great military establishments which made the strength of a country. We had a small establishment, France and Russia had large ones • yet, in the crisis of the war, Russia was impoverished, and France even suffering, while England :rose with the occasion. What a moral lesson we might learn from this 1 For these reasons he should vote for going into committee of ways and means. Mr. M. GIBSON expressed his concurrence generally in the sentiments of the noble lord the member for the city of London, and supposed his suggestions might be taken in the light of a friendly communication to the Government to in duce them to alter their policy. But the noble lord finished his speech by recommending the house to vote for that policy. And what was the question the house was called upon to decide ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer wished the house to go into committee of ways and means, in order to impose an income tax of 7d. for the next three years — to increase the duties upon tea and sugar—for the purpose ' of providing fends for defraying the expenditure for the public service during the current year. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) objected to follow the course marked out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and submitted a resolution, by way of amendment. Now, Lefore the house consented to go into the matter suggested in that resolution, it must first express an opinion, aye or no, as to the financial scheme of the Government. If the house should decide against that scheme, it might then be fairly called upon to express an opinion upon the substitute proposed by the right hon. gentleman. He would put the matter into the smallest possible compass. He conceived that those gentlemen who were favourable to adding 4,000,000/. to the estimates for the army and navy beyond the amount in the year preceding the war—those gentle men who were in favour of increasing the duties on tea and on sugar—those gentlemen who were in favour of a seven penny income tax for the next three years—would vote for going into committee of ways and means. (Hear, hear.) Those, on the contrary, who considered the estimates too high —who thought the taxes on tea and sugar ought not to be increased, and doubted whether sevenpence should be placed on income—would vote against going into commit tee. That was the obvious parliamentary way of expres sing an opinion on the financial scheme:of a government as a whole. If hon. gentlemen wanted to see a practical re sult, they would not accede to the suggestions thrown out by the noble lord the member for the City of London and the right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring.) He had never seen any successful effort at re ductions except by leaving to the government the respon sibility of proposing such reductions, and informing them generally that their scheme of expenditure and taxation did not meet the approval of parliament. Now came the question, was he so much opposed to the plan of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer as to be justified in recording his vote against it ? On the whole, ho conscientiously be lieved the speech of the right hon. gentleman had a retro grade and reactionary complexion about it. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman talked of the prosperity of the coun try, of the increased exports and imports, in order to show that the burden about to be imposed could be borne with• out much pressure' The right hon. gentleman boasted of the foreign trade, but be said not a word of the condition of the home trade and of the great body of the labouring classes. And that was a remarkable omission, because by his financial scheme he proposed to draw a great portion of his increased revenue from the labouring classes, for tea and. sugar were the two art'sees of consumption next I • the very necessaries of life. Although the resources of the country wore vast, and although it had been able to speed 76,000,000/. in carrying on the war, he believed that at the present mo ment a great body of the agricultural labourers and me hanics had but little means, after purchasing the necessaries of life, of purchasing those articles which were subjected to the customs duties. He had been told of an agricultural labourer with a wife and five children residing in thecounty of Suffolk who was unable to purchase more than an ounce of tea per week, and yet the right hoe. gentleman proposed to add to the price of that poor man's tea. The mechanic earning 11, per week would, under the present scale of duties, have to pay from 3e. to 4s. per week. ( Hear.) These were tho classes on which the right hon. gentleman pro posed to lay additional burdens, and whom in the course of his speech he had omitted altogether to mention. But the right hon. gentleman had introduced other matters wholly irrelevant. Was it necessary for the right hon. gentleman to say anything about the paper duty ? The fire isurance duty—or the duties on wine ? With respect to the paper duty he thought the right hon. gentleman had taken a mere exciseman's view of the question. The right hon. gentleman's opinion was that books at a high price would not be mate rially reduced, referring probably to 3-volume works, or works like R`Culloch's Dictionary. When Sir R. Peel pro posed the repeal of the excise duties on glass, it -was said that decanters and glasses could not be obtained at lower prices. But the mere reduction in the price of particular books was not the only view taken by advocates of the repeal of the ex cise duty on paper any more than it was the view taken with respect to glass. They wished for the repeal of the duties be cause they believed they stood in the way of the extension of important manufactures because,lurpreventedemploymeut and tended to increase pauperism and crime. And al though the right hon. gentleman would sneer at the paper duty being a tax on kuowledge, a duty amounting to 30 per cent. on an ordinary school book or copy book, was in rea!ity a tax -on knowledge, and was inconsistent with the efforts that were made to promote education. (Hear.) Ile now carne to consider the right hon gentleman's resolution. He went some way with him, but he contended that if they sanctioned the scheme proposed they would be laying the foundation of a deficiency in future years. They should remember that they were settling what should be the peace expenditure. It was quite clear the Government did not contemplate any great reduction in the military expenditure of the country. It had always been the prac tice at the conclusion of a war.to endeavour to increase the military establishments beyond what they stood at pre vious to the war, and beyond what the necessities of a peace establishment required. That attempt was made in the present instance; but if the house did its duty, as it had done on former occasions, they would compel the Go vernment to bring down the expenditure to a peace stand ard. They might talk of implied compacts, but, they could not bind future Parliaments ; and if they wore to lay down an y arrangement of that kind, they had so lost their character with the public that their promises for the future would not be believed. (Hear, hear, hear.) But it was quite clear that if they sanctioned the present scale of expenditure, that sanction should b 3 quoted by the Government against them when the attempt was made to enforce reduction. In 1816 the great Whig party did not wait for two or three years after the war before theycallod upon the Minister to bring down the expenditure to the requirements of peace. The noble lord (Palmerston) was then Secretary at War ; and the noble lord" the present member for London, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Brougham, Sir J. Macintosh, and all the leaders of the Whigs urged upon him the very year after the close of the French war to bring down at once the expenditure to the altered cir cumstances of the country. The Government answered, as they did now, " We cannot immediately go back to a peace establishment after a groat war." That reason, how ever, the house refused to accept—nor could he (Mr. M. Gibson) accept it now. He believed, if the Government were pressed, they would find that the sa - no military est ab lishments that were sufficient before theßussian war would be sufficient now that the war was over. (Hoar, hear.) He thought the right hon. gentleman had clearly made out his case, that if they were to acquiesce in the scale of ex penditure now proposed by the Goarernruent, as that which should be adhered to during the ensuing years, it would be necessary in 1858 and 1859 to vote increased taxes ; and, as the right hon. member for Oxford had said, they would then see a gradual reversal of that policy which was com menced in 1842 by the late Sir R. Peel. (" Oh, oh," from the Treasury benches.) The right hon. gentleman said, " place it in the power of the Government in 1860 to carry out the mpact of 1853, and remit the income tax." Ho believed that by no arrangement they could make between this and 1850 calculated to promote the true interests of the Country, could they hope to accomplish that object. (Haar, hear.) They might re-adjust the tax to make it more equal in its application, bat in his view it would be a great financial blunder to abandon that portion of our ho thought, was more than th e a ffl uen t t a xes, which, classes ought to contribute to the requirements of the state. He did not say they should continue an exorbi tant income tax, but he would maintain a mode rate income tax as the very keystone of our commercial prosperity, and as essential to the interests of the pro peered as well as of the labouring classes. He, tlierefore, refused to bind himself by any compact in reference to the removal of the tax in I.Beo, and would much rather, if the amount could be dispensed with, remit an equivalent sum of the indirect taxes than part with the income tax. He objected to holding out to the country expectations which he knew would never be fulfilled, and he still more ob jected to be the advocate of a policy which he believed to be prejudicial to the best interests of the community. Though he should vote with the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire against the Speaker leaving the chair, he could not go with hi m i n the other proposition. (" Oh, oh," and la ug ht er .) Th ere was nothing inconsistent in in this—for there were in fact two distinct propositions involved, and, holding the opinions he did, what other course could he take than to vote against the Speaker leaving the chair, and afterwards, when the right hoe. gentleman's motion was put as a substantive motion, voting against it? (" Oh," and laughter from the Treasury benches.) Hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches might think this somewhat peculiar in him, but it often hap pened, he believed, that even they found themselves sepa rated in the division lobby from their political friends, as was the case the other evening when the noble lord the member for Tiverton found himself with some thirteen or fourteen of his most ardent supporters voting with bon. 04 . lib mayi,bell ea the Wiwi al4 %pivot ht c.va lwaty On the hon. member for East Surrey's motion. (floor, bear, and laughter.) He had great confidence in the pliability of the noble lord. Ho believed he was like those trees that wea thered the gale by bending to the storm, and if the house .vas firm in reference to the present proposal, he had no doubt that the Government would re-consider their budget and re-introduce it hereafter in an altered form, with largely decreaied estin ates of expenditure, and omitting alto gether that part of their scheme which contemplated auy addition to the scale of duties already fixed by Parliament on tea and sugar. Mr. NEWDEGATE contended that it was not the duty of Parliament to proceed upon speculation. What they ought to do was to ascertain first what amount of expendi ture the requirements of the State demanded, and then find the means of providing it. (Rear, hear.) The war 9d. must undoubtedly be repealed--(hear, hear)—about that there wag no question—(hear, hear)—but he objected to the Government propositions because, instead of confining themselves simply to the remission of the war portion of the income tax, they attempted to bind the house to an expenditure extending over the next three years. He de nied that, any of the precedents which had been quoted ap plied. Ho was not for cuttini , down expenses beyond what was necessary, and - ho believed that in some instances the old peace standard of our naval and military establish ments must be increased ; but they ought to have the op portunity of examining the estimates of expenditure be fore they were called upon to decide upon the income, and certainly they had no right to be called upon to make pro vision for 1838.9 and 1859-60 before they know what the requirements of those years might be. (Hear, hear.) Sir C. WOOD said it was quite true the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down hal stated the usual Parliamentary practice. It was not of their own free will that Government adopted the course that had been pur sued, but in deference to the general wish of the house. Mr. DISRAE —No. Sir C. WOOD—I bog the right hon. gentleman's par don. Mr. DISRAELI remarked that he never expressed any wish of the kind. He was quite astonished at the course Government bad taken. He was not aware that any gentle man on that side of the house had suggested such a course, and ho entirely disapproved of it. Sir C. WOOD said then of course he must beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon. The right hon. member for the University of Oxford suggested it. [Mr. Gladstone was un derstood to express his dissent from this statement.] There seemed to be,a general concurrence on the subject, and his noble friend (Lord J. Russell) got up and said they would postpone going into committee of supply. That being so he thought they were bound to adhere to the course they had taken. Having listened with some attention to the whole of the debate, he must say he never heard a motion the grounds for which were so feeble. He congratulated his right hon friend on the vote of the right hon. member for Manchester, who plainly told them he disentangled the vote from the merits of the question. If the object of the motion were to bring the hon. member for Bucks and the right hon. member for the University into office together, he could understand it, but if it had any other object it seemed to him to be nothing in the world but a simple hin drance of business. In committee of ways and means the expenditure might be settled, and the taxes a lapted to meet it, but instead of that, the house was wasting time in the discussion of abstract resolutions. It was said that the benefit of the discussion had been shown in the altered tone of the Government upon the subject of the estimates. But he could not see how they could have changed their tone when they had never expressed an opinion on the subject. The member for the University of Oxford bad suggested that the Government bad changed and diminish ed the estimates, since the beginning of the session. That was not the fact, Those estimates as they now appeared on the table were ready a week before the meeting of Par liament, and could have been distributed, if the forms of the house had allowed, two or three days before the meet ing of Parliament. He believed that it would be found that they bad been prepared so as to combine economy with efficiency. He must say that he was astonished at the excitement of manner displayed by the right hon. gentle. man the member for Oxford University on a former occa sion. He had used language to the Chancellor of the Ex chequer that it was hardly decent for one gentleman to use towards another. He had lectured his old colleagues, and he had said that be would not allow the house to go into committee without being fettered by an abstract resolu tion which would prevent them giving a free and Imre stricted consideration of the subject then to be dis cussed. He did trust, however, that the house would re ject both this resolution and that of the right honourable gentleman ; that they would vindicate their inde pendence, and that they would refuse to be fettered in the exercise of their discretion and their judgment. The Government were accused by the right hon. gentleman of deserting the budget of 1853. He fully approved of that budget, and he admitted that at the time it was introduced there was a reasonable ground for the reduction of taxes that it contained, and the hope of abolishing the income tax which it held out. But was it possible that any bind ing compact could exist in such a matter altogether irre spective of circumstances that might intervene between the pledge and the time for its fulfilment ? It was clear that one Parliament could not bind its successors to follow a particular course altogether without regard to the circum stances which might arise. The right hon. gentleman him self, in introducing the budget of 1853, had expressly guarded himself against it being supposed that either Par liament or Government would be bound, irrespective of circumstances, to repeal the income tax in 1860. All that, he proposed to do, he said, was to place Parliament in such a situation that it might in 1560 take off the tax if it thought fit. So he said then, and so he said now ; and so said the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was now doing nothing to render it difficult or impossible to take off the tax in 1860. All the difficulty, if there was any, Was in terposed by the resolution of the right hon. gentleman op posite. The proposal which the Government was abeat to make in committee was to pay off a portion in this year of the Treasury bonds, and every portion they paid off would put them in a better position to put an end to the income tax in 1860. (Hear, hear.) It was therefore incorrect to say that what the Government wore doing was in the slightest degree to perpetuate the income tax. He replied to the statement of the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford as to the economy of Parlia ment during the last 13 years, and said that during that period taxation had increased 31 millions. The right hon. gentleman when in office provided for the war expenses, partly by direct and partly by indirect taxation, viz., income tax, malt, tea, sugar, and coffee, and it was on two of those that an increase was now proposed. It was a wise discre tion on the part of the right hon. gentleman not to place the whole expenses of the war on direct taxation, and it was in pursuance of that policy that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted Arthur Young, on whose principles the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford had acted to a greater extent than the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and yet ho had told the house that the policy of the Government was a retrograde one, an 1 that it was a departure from the budget of 1853! The house was told that on a return to peace the country should come b tek to her income as settled in 1853 ; but then how were they to make up the deficiencies of the war expenses to be paid in this year. In 1853 tbo right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford estimated the succes sion duties at 2 millions, but they had only produced half a million, and the deficiency of 14 million had to be made up on spirit duties, so that so far fl ore the arrangement of 1853 bein g binding, there had been a defici e n c y t o a l arge extent on that one item; besides which there had been a deficiency of 2A millions on the expenditure to be provided. (Hear, hear.) They had now to provide for the repayment of Eechequer bonds, a war charge to the amount of 3i millions; and in order to meet it, it was proposed to de fray it out of those of the war taxes, precisely as the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford on a similar occasion defrayed the war expenditure in November. Could it, therefore, be said that the Govern ment, in the course they had proposed, were departing from the budget of 1853 one jot more than the right hon. gentleman did in 1854 ? The right hon: baronet, at great length, defended the conduct of the Government, and de nied that it was a " quibble" between imposing and taking off taxes, and that if the house went into com mittee the whole of the estimates could be properly considered, and explained, and adjusted to the re quirements of .the country. (Hear, hear.) The right hon ourable baronet also defended his own conduct, as well as the Chancell r of the Exchequer, from the remarks that had been made by the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, in the course of which he charged the right hon. gentleman with having used language to the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative t o his assertions bein g contrary to fact, and likely to mi s l ead the house an d the countrsuc _weaesunb°eemigliennge gentleman to an other—(hear,of acrimony such as was rarely witnessed in that house ( Hear , hear, an I country—such as hear)—and e with a fee cries of divide.) The right hon. baronet, amidst cries of divide, defended his own conduct from the charge that had been made against it by the right hon. gentleman the mem ber fer the University of Oxford, that he (Sir C. Wood) wished to perpetuate the income tax, and he read extracts from his speeches relative to the question made on former occasions. The right hoe. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford had objected to everything, and pro posed nothing - in return, except an increase on fire insur ance duties, on the paper duties, aed on wine. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer by his proposition did not pledge the Government to abolish the income tax in 1860, but to put the finances of the country in such a position as to render it possible. The most painful task for a Government was to reduce the estimates. And the same difficulty at tended reducing the establishments from war to peace as there were to properly and efficiently increase them from peace to war. The estimates for the year depended on the circumstances of the time, and if the house went into com mittee the Government would endeavour to justify them. It was the desire and object of the Government to pro duce the estimates as low as was consistent with economy and a due regard to the efficiency of the service. (Hear, hear, and cries of divide.) He repudiated any contract or agreement on the part of the Government as to the abolition of the income tax in 1860; but the l roposals of the Government, it followed, were likely to render its being e accomplished both probable and easy. (Hear, hear.) Ye called on the house to reject the two pro positions before them, and to enable the house to go into committee on the estimates. Mr. GLADSTONE explained. He had no desire to use language to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which one gentleman ought not to use to another, and if he had, he was very sorry for it. He reiterated his former statement, that the Chancellorof the Exchequer was in error when he said, he proposed to reduce taxation to the amount of 11,970,0001., and quoted the passage in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reported speech in confirmation of hie statement. The statement he said contained very serious errors on matters of fact, and were likely to.sproduce erro neous impressions. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the language used on a former oc casion b y the right hon. gentleman did convey to h is (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer's} wind in direct telm s that he had. in order t o sepport his argumen t and obtain an undue advantageto the reputation of the Government, laid before the house a statement that was incorrect. Oa looking at the report of the words which he used on that occasion he found nothing that was not consiste nt with truth in the m , except the ex pression that he presumed hehad stated i na d vertently that be proposed to remove," instead of stating that " the following taxation would be removed." (Laughter.) From the length at which he addressed the house on the occasion referred to, and his desire not to address them loner than was necessary, he might have erred in not being es'i • su ciently explicit. (Laughter.) What he meant to say was th re mission of taxes to the amountnamed wo u ld b e fur the e en suing year, whereas his right hon. friend had with saying that remission would take place in the year. H e assured the house he had, no desire t o t a k e cre di t for the n=3651411 of tailiatii U kje %Tat 00464, a it . % it false impregsion in the mind of the house anti the publiel The qutstion was then pot that the debate be adjourned. and the house divided. The numbers were : Against the adjournment 477 For the adjournment 25 Majority —452 • The house then divided upon th© original motion. The numbers were—. For the motion For the amendment Majority The house then went into committee The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if the resolutions were likely to demand discussion he would be willing to move that the Chairman report V* o ' gr iv, but if not he should move that they be agreed to, Mr. DISRAELI said he should object to proceed 3 1, that time as the resolutions would lead to something more than discussion. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon.' gen tleman would not then press the resolution upon the house. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assented , and the house resumed. The Commons Inclosure Bill passed through committee. The lonian Subjects Commission Bill was read a third time. The Public Health Supplemental Bill was read a third time and passed. The Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act Amendment Bin was road a second time. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. 235 ... 206 Lord PALMERSTON moved that the following men; hers be on this committee :—Lord John Russell, Mr. War pole, Mr. Solicitor• General, Mr. Cobden, the Lord Aar . ' cate, Mr. Barrow, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Berkeley, MT,' Deedes, Mr. George Butt, Mr. George Alexander Haw"' ton, Mr. Ingham, Mr. Ker Seymour, Sir William Sower ville, and Mr. Tite. Mr. O'BRIEN objected that there was only one Wok man on the committee. Mr. M'CANN said he thought the committee was Tel properly named, for Irishmen had no money to bribe with, and knew nothing about the subject to be inquired into' Ho was only sorry to see an Irishman upon it. at all. The motion was then agreed to, and the hsuse adjourne d at one o'illook. Naval and "Uinta' y intelligence. The Duke of Cambridge, as the General Commanding' in -Chief, attended by his Aide-de-Camp and the Adjutant' General, left town yesterday morning in order to make a n inspection of the whole of the troops in camp at Aldershot• His Royal Highness returned to town in the evening. Yesterday the whole battalion of the Chatham dividon of Royal Marines assembled on the parade-ground at Ch at• ham for the purpose of witnessing the presentation of SI silver medal, with a gratuity of 151., which had been awarded by the Lords of the Admiralty to Coleur-Sergt Frederick J. Mills, Royal Marines, for long service an d meritorious conduct. The battalion having been for Men into close column by Lieut.-Col. Anderson, th e me dal we! presented to Sergeant Mills by Col. Second-Commandan t E. Rea, who said it was always a source of pleasure to pro' sent medals of this character, for although many men were decorated with medals for various services, yet but coo; paratively few had received one for long service and goo' conduct; the medal would therefore be looked upon 0* certificate that the wearer had served his Queen and 0 0 .. .. 1111. try with honour and distinction. Sergeant Mills has Pt upwards of 21 years in the service, 17 of which be , been a non-commissioned officer. He served in Se; under the late Lieut.-General Sir John Owen, IC-T e i: and again in China, for which he is decorated l_r_L e a medal. He also served in the Baltic , which liku" -- entitles him to a medal. The Cumberland, 70, was towed from Chatham to Sheet' near by the African and Adder steamers for th purpose of being - made ready for sea. " A new vessel, the Mersey, 40, has just been cow? at Chatham, and when completed will be one of the lo os, frigates in the navy, her length over all being 33 6 A bl and burden 3,726 tons. This frigate has been designe d Sir Baldwin Walker, K.C.8., Surveyor of the Navl• Aok The Racoon, 21, screw-corvette, of 1,462 tons be n ' ; 10 commenced in May of last year, is being completed M i ., all despatch, and will be launched during the p re seit Yird Mr. John H. Langley, first class engineer of the 2 1 ro July, 1847, late chief of the Agamemnon, has taken 0 his appointment as inspector of machinery to the Poe/ squadron of reserve at Sheerness (holding a commaso raitk). He joins the Edinburgh, 60-gun screw steam . ° The Iris, 26 guns, Captain William Loring, C• 13 " k oo Sheerness yesterday in tow of the steam-vessel 0 1 %4r Lieutenant Commander Augustus G. E. Murray, for r° mouth, there to await her final orders. r 0.6 The Nimrod, 6, screw steam gun-vessel, left She e yesterday for Portsmouth. The Dragon, 6 guns, paddle-wheel steam.fript 4o , r il been placed in the second class steam squadron of at Sheerness, under charge of Captain Edward P. S' s of the Edinburgh. ute d Commander J. S. Keatley w as y es t er d a y appol , s also the Board of Admiralty agen t o f ma il s on the A.ll sl '' station. Country Markets. CHELMSFORD—FEB. 20. bat We had an average supply of wheat on offer tO -0 / 1 011; much of it was in a very damp state, and the trade virile,* the best qualities barely maintaining the last week P o % ei Spring corn of all sorts without alteration, exeeptingbv all kinds, which must be quoted is cheaper. •. t a D B4 ! eV° ll : r t u thi lina.igi Harrow tr i zk nre . a . .gdi.g. . k :: . 1 3 . : 1 14 1 i Ditto, new •••°' Wheat, white, old, per s. s. qr. 34 72 new 37 71 red, old 32 62 Oats, Peas, new 32 62 Barley 3 s 44 Chevalier 38 i;i Grinding 33 44 Malt 73 77 Chevalier 75 79 'COLCHESTER— FEZ. 21. We had a moderate supply of wheat on offer toy, much of it was in a very bad state anti nearly uuss7;lll rie Dry parcels at last week's prices. The supply of balgoi falling off, and the market closed rather dearer. Be a° peas in fair demand for seed at full prices. i n 604 Prices to•day were as follow :—Wheat, white, 62s `j... o n red, 50s to 60s; barley, 44s to 50s ; oats, 22s to 28s ; PvL o og Mazagan, 34s to 363 ; middle and small, 36s to 4O white, 38s to 45a ; grey, 38s to 425. r; 41144 Official Statement of the Quantities of Corn, ke•, frO in the port of London, from the following P°"" Feb. 16 to Feb. 21, both inclusive. ............______---- 6 90 1 680 - 15 41 l r , —1250 10 i s 10 1 ./ ,56 250 -- 900 ___-.,:j Colchostor Harwich Leigh UAW.= KIRKCALDY—FEB. 20. To-day we had small supplies of g ra i n . S a l e s rellWif r generally prices of wheat, barley, an oats were Oci ' qr. higher. • V"? Wheat. I Barley. Oats. • os First 64s Od I 42s 01 r. 32s Od I. di Second Third 32s Od I 32s 01 22s Od 1 Oatmeal, a COAL MARK • Prices of Coal per ton at s. d. Bates's West Hartley l3 Bebside's Hartley 14 3 Bell's Primrose l2 0 Hastings' Hartley l4 3 Davison's West Hartley 14 6 Longridge's Wst Hartley 14 3 North Percy Hartley l3 0 Canfield Moor l3 6 Canfield Moor Bates 13 6 Walker Primrose l3 Wylam Holywell l6 0 Ships at market... 61 to 38e per bag of 2801 bi HT.—FEB. 23. the close of the merlOw w s use nd„„ko• Gosforth 0 : 11 A 0 Russell's Hatt0n......... 3tewart's .................. Riddell .................. % Plummer ............ 4eaham •.• ' l4 [futon ....... ....... ... ' . 16 I araddyll . south Hetton ......... Eden Main liCowpen Hartley ;6 I Sold 54 ADVERTISRMENT.]—HoIIoway's , derful cure of Asthma.—Extract of a letter frollale Ann Jones, Lord-street, Liverpool, to Professor POI! way :—" I was seriously afflicted for five yel l :t o 0 ' asthma, frequently expectorating blood, palpitati"" 10 j the heart, together with faintness and cold .we ltr, this state I continued for several months. lon tit the faculty until all hope of relief vanished, whe i br i prevailed upon to give your pills a trial. Und g/ i f 0 0 ; influence this terrible malady quickly disappea r' my health is now re established.—Sold by all WO vendors throughout the world, at Professor 11011°,00 Establishments, 244, Strand, London ; and 80, A lane, New York ; by A. Stamps,. Constantino? ls ' Guidicy, Smyrna; and E. Muir, Malta. LONDON : Printed and Published by AWED° x" of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 27&e Sun 011itoif O 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy. in .w -of Atiddloaex, Tcloaday,lFebruary 24, 107. oje‘4l°. BIRTH I S, OF A SON. On the 22d inst. at 91, Eaton-squ are, Mrs. 1401 fie haug,h, of Bracklyn'Castle, Ireland, 810 411.1° On the 22d lust., at tapper Tooting, Mrs. John OF A DAUGHTER. On the 21st inst., at Wilton-street, B e l gr ave•Scle'' Hon. Mrs. Rowland Winn, ► On the 21st inst., at 51, Cad ogan-p l aco, t h e w ife f Woodhouse, Esq. L.M ARR IE D. rstet, On the 23d inst., at St. George's, Hanover-stre e Le,._.‘ 4 , Audley Lovell, Esq., of Cole-park, Wilts, to Mary youngest daughter of David Pugh, Esq., M• F '' crchydol, Montgomeryshire On the 21st i nst., at All Souls' Langham-place, „ W. Rich ar d son, M.D , of 12, ' Hinde-street, bf ell A - $0 11 " 4 square, to Ma r y , youngest daughter of the late Edigu• Esq., of Mortlake, Surrey. D I E D. On the 19th January, at the residence of her fatber , e d Ad o Island, in the 26th ear of her age, Laura, the boleLebs' of Francis Ellis, Esq ., Queen's Advocate, and eldest of O n Hon. James Misick, of that island. oi r COOP the 23J in st., at 5, Grosvenor-square, -- D omville, Bart. / /04.11 On the 23d inst. ' at 33, Burton-street, Ile -- W Marrison, Esq., aged 65. Vdith 9°P et On the 22d lust., at 16, Lincoln's-inn-fields, -- a infaut daughter of Captain H. L. Layard. *ldol° On the 22.1 bast in Gracechurch-street, Mr. •1 lister, aged 71, nalcs Cheli i, On tue 21st inst., at 18, Sussex-place, Regon'" . . Bradshaw th Stuttield Esq, aged 62, 11 0-141 ' .- On e 20th inst ., Mr . Lee Devereux, of 9 9 , S t . Je • Smithfield-bars, aged 6 On the 20th inst., at o. 5, Southampton-street, ritZt°l Mr. David Levy, aged 85. tano a pe On the 21st inst., at Bath, the Rev. John Brame of Forest Hall, Ungar, Essex, aged 84.