The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-02-25 00:00:00

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1860.

THE DAY'S NEWS.

In the House of Lords last night, it was stated
that the Government had received information
that certain propositions for peace have passed
between Spain and Morocco. On a motion by
Lord Dungannon, condemnatory of certain irre-
gular arid, strictly speaking, disorderly reli-
gious services in the London theatres and at
Enfield, their lordships were of opinion that they
were not at present called upon to take any
active notioc of thin e rather questionable pro-
ceedings, and the motion was withdrawn.
In •the House of Commons last night, the
patience of any one anxious to enter upon the
most important business of the evening must have
been severely tried by the protracted prooess of
question and answer which was preliminarily gone
through with reference to at least a dozen dif-
ferent subjects, such as, the treaty--correspondence
on the subject of it—the course to be pursued in
considering it and the customs acts—and the draw-
back to be allowed on paper should the proposed
abolition be agreed to ; Indian Banking ; National
Education in Ireland; China,—the defences of Sir
M. Seymour and Lord Elgin, and the details of
the expeditionary force ; naval rank and uniform ;
the Scotch prison system; Sardinia and Central
Italy ; and finally the advertised pugilistic
encounter of the Benicia Boy; a pretty long and
tolerably varied list of subjects, it will readily be
conceded=commencing, as it does, with Mr.
Gladstone and his budget, and ending off with
the Benicia Boy and the championship. At last
the adjourned debate on the budget was resumed
by Mr. Newdegate who supported Mr. l)a
Cane's resolution, adverting to the one,Aided
nature of the treaty. Mr. T, Baring also sup-
ported the resolution because he foresaw the
danger of making such. daring alterations with
an empty exchequer, and trusting to chance to
replenish it. Mr. Walpole admitted the excel-
lence of the provisions of the budget, but
objected both to the time and mode of
proposing them. On the Government side
Mr. • Bernal Osborne said the treaty would bind
us more closely .to France, and enable to
hereafter to reduce that enormous expen„
diture which was a disgrace to the House and
the country. Mr. Milner Gibson supported
the treaty and the budget and their corollary, an
increased income-tax, arguing somewhat circularly,
that the treaty was good because it only required a
tenpenny Income-tax—" he urged that there was
nothing alarming in a 'tenpenny Income-tax,"—
and, the Income-tax must be good and moderate
since it was to purchase us such an invaluable
treaty—" were we to threw nyer the immense
advantages of the commercial treaty on the pre-
sumed ground that the Income-tax was a little
too high? " The Chancellor of the Exchequer
advocated hiS own measure oft the ground that
it involved no new principle of commercial
policy, Ana as reourded the details of
his policy in selecting the present time
and mode, and such evils as they might
entail, he thought these might safely be heft
to be rectified by a reformed Parliament next
year! The Income-tax would fall only on those
well able to pay it, while indirect taxes
fell upon the poorer and unrepresented !
Commerce, which had been but little considered
in former financial schemes, was entitled to pot}
cessions such 40 those now propo94d. Air.
Disraeli denied that he renounced the Policy 'or
the past, and that the principle of the "now-
tax now proposed was identical with that
of the proposition of Sir Robert Peel.
The question was not Pile of direct Or indirect
taxation, but of (limit taxation in the odious
shape of the Income-tax. It was not because he
objected to a commercial treaty with France that
he opposed the present treaty. On the contrary,
lie was himself, in 1852, engaged in negotiating
a French commercial treaty. But he thought
the present treaty a bad one, calculated to create
dissensions between the two countries, and be-
. cause it added to an existing deficiency of revenue,
After another protest against the resolution by
Lord. Palmerston, the House divided, when the
resolution was negatived by 319 to 223. The
House adjourned at half-past two this morning.
The Austrian Emperor has imitated his
Imperial brother of France, in prohibiting the
circulation among his people of such
newspapers as are thopght to contain 'maer
of the English
that may be injurious to the cause of order and
loyalty. It argues a consciousness,
thincrs
think, of a very unsatisfactory stcjinteion
Na
thus
when the free expression we coafnnot but
otf.f.lnis apoleon
dreaded, and int di te
er,_c Joseph, Our
does it, so, of course, mll
ay
the former to, the skies, in
and other respects ;
Liberals 4rf: fi7COTrilqg in that
spltc of his de
they must. at slPe:sttis, therefore, be seuleWhat fore-
bearingyesterday,ain one of its
plausible
The Times of Budget, observes
with the 1 tter.
that " so lona.
itidleuties upon articles of universal
consumption w .
pleadings
Universal
consumption we shall never lose the whole of a
gives up finds
e grsetf
reduction, or even of an abolition, of duty. What
the Chancellor of the . Exchequer
its way- back again his •coffers
can, and sq
will still spend pretty nearly
llso of bi{t}able rt
they.far p9oPle
increase the
keeps quite out of view the
,inlicetreesa.s'e'
givesd Buttlanof
am
tax; while,' at the same tiine
lse
representation of the duties retained. They are
" upona
_articles of universal
not so much duties
consumption," aslotohkeeyd'.
tore duties upon- luxuries,
likely to increase,
which are now
and thereby
themoaerrtaitcele a of exten-
if even they arreepenish the as
some
of evenue. And then,
sive use, the Income-tax will
against their consumption. Butpoofwaelrlfuislliyt
most
objectionable that a tax should be inflicted which,