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

THE BUDGET.-1-ADJOVRNEp pET)ATE,

The adjourned debate on the !midget was s'rainieci ley
Mr. NEWDEGAig, who went into the details of the
treaty, contending that while it stipulated on the part of
Franca only for the admission of I)ritish produce, on the
part of England it was agreed to allow the admission of
the produce of On whole world. Thus the Einperor of

.
Were they to throw over the immense advantages
• of the commercial treaty on the presuined ground that
the income tax was a little too high.
Mr. WALPOLE said that the opponents. of the budget
' were stigmatised as stationary. lie admitted that they
did wish the present enormous deficit to be stationary.
He admitted the excellence of the preTisioes of the
budget, but objected both to the time mid mode of
proposing them. If ho thought the resolution
would defeat the treaty he would not vote for
it. He supported the treaty, but felt alarmed at
the prospect of the income tax. He could not
understand the policy of two great nations keeping
themselves at arm's length, when they might, with
much mutual advantage, interchange their commodities.
But, as to the budget, he strongly condemned the policy
of repealing customs and paper duties at the price of an
increased income-tax.
The OffAxenl,oh of the EXCHEQUER said that Mr.
Walpole professed himself favourable to the budget,
favourable to the treaty, and favourable to the ministry,
and yet intended to vote for the resolution, Piths° who
felt so many apprehensions as to the measure now proposed
had felt them before as to measures which had funda,
mentally reformed our commercial system, and of which
all now admitted the advantage. For the budget it
laid no claim to originality ; it followed in the footsteps
of those who had laid down those precedents which had
proved the salvation of the country. The resolution lie
contended was aimed at the life and spirit of the treaty,
and pademned in the mass the commercial policy
of the last eigh:.poh years® The doctrine it laid
down ' was fatal to every Tip of the important
financial reforms of that period. lie took the great
crises of 1842, 1845, and 1853, and showed by them that
the arrangements then adopted with success were iden-
tical in principle to those now proposed by himself. He
then stated the issuebetween them to be the abandonment
or the adopting of the prjyciples in which they had
acted hitherto. He vindicated in detail the policy of
the several remissions of taxation propounded in the
Budget. In reference to the expenditure, he admitted
that it was to be carefully watched, it was not only bad in
itself hut caused great social evils, and yet they were con-
demned for leaving the lever of the power of taxation
in the hands of the Parliament of next year by the
allotting to it the contract of a large amount of taxa-
tion. Perhaps the next would be a reformed Parlia-
ment. Were they to tie up its hands and lay the
foundation, perhaps. of disloyalty by an unworthy
jealousy of an assembly to be elected by a large
number of tbe citizens
,elf pile country ? In defence
of the income-tax, he argued ilhit it Va§ paid by
the represented and the wealthier Pluses of the com-
munity, while the indirect taxes fell upon the poorer
and the unrepresented. Reviewing the taxation of
years past he declared that the consumer and the trade
of the country were entitled to relief, as they had been
but little considered in late financial schemes, and that
they had not laid on the due proportion of direct
taxation. He repeated that the terms of the
resolution stigmatised and renounced the policy ;
9f the ppt, and entreated them to leave a measure of
instace Q ;al plasm ia on example to the reformed
Parliament Vhic„i siKeeest
Mr. Dlsii#ELl denied tl'iat, in ad(ipting the resolu-
tion, they renounced the policy of the pas and
that thP prinPiple nf the income-tax nov proposed I
was identical with that. if the proposition of Sir
Robert Peel. Mr,• Gladstone had found a defiat,
made a deficit., and had not proposed any plan
by which that deficit can be permanently supplied.
He would say of the budget that it aimed at too much,
and provided too little. The provisions were improvi-
dent, and, therefore, dangerous. The House must con-
template what would be the position of the country in
1-go, Tipp plupstiq was not one of direct or indirect
taxation, 4i}t f 4Uect tbR ildlotis shape of
the income-tax, It was hot Localise he opiected' to 4
commercial treaty with France that he Unposed the
present treaty. On the contrary, he was himself, in
1-852, engaged in negotiating a French commercial
treaty. But he thought the present treaty a bad one,
calculated to create dissensions between the two coun- ,

tries, and because it added to an existing deficiency of
Veyetme. ecnrring to the promises of Mr. Gladstone
in' ,1862 iri%ome-taT, and to their fulfil-
ment, fie asked whether they were st- as to irtance
ththen to puilriisf in Present iiilcl .4 .
&Id 'imktiiiO4
proposals. Denouncing the'rnanagdment of 'the 'Whig
gpyprdinbp.ts *lbaclgets, since '1 852, he declared t fifth ey
shrivel. I!94,4atigei-ous it vas to carry on by pdlitical
economy tbo goyeriimenit nglig4s, lor!.i so many
perilous questions were haraiming over them. 7.94 wore
told to simplify their tnriffat the funiiletit Vhdri of
others they Flu till hashati4 their reaehrees. Ife felt
bound, utterly and absolutely, to prete4 agailist the"
budget as the most improvident over yet presented to
Parliament. Declaring that neither he nor his frionfis
• - -- • -

were anxious to resume office, he asserted that they
could not, on that account, forget their public duties.

Lord PALMERSTON protested against the resolution
as rejecting summarily and without examination

§ppi the treaty and the budget. Under the present
eit6tMst44o§; t was Op first duty of Parliament to
increase the resources of fliUWnpiql Whith to
be done 1?y Our 'cohluiercutl' 40140
national resources. •

The IXou'se divided, when the resolution was negatived
by .339 to 223.
The House then adjourned at half-past two.

PEEL J ERSUS qL4D§NNE7,

As to Mr. Gladstone's following in. the footsteps of
Sir Robert Peel, (says the Morning Iferitid), the asser-
tion is a mere piece of claptrap. The one was prudence
personified; the other is the embodiment of all that is
rash and visionary. Sir Robert Peel's budget of 1842
doill?tless aimed at the foupdation of a new'coUmercial
pqiiey, a4d ih this respectllr. Gl4d#9.nels FesenAle
t4st of ht master. But the laitter apu94 4 Feße4ißg
deitiesich pressed heavily on our maanfacturing
energips-7-reinoynir, prohibitions on articleS of human
slibsistenee--7-iednerng to taxation Which' prevented the
igdustfio4s PI4UPS Pr tile Gomiiipputy from ohtamitig
foreign articles esse4tlal to pirir curatiqrl; 40 enjoyuient.
Sir Robert Peel had the honesty to 'cTernand th ec ye:irs
for his experiment, and he promised the nation a sur-
plus of £5,000,000 at the end of the term. But he
never concealed his repugnance to an unnecessary use
of the income-tax. A hundred passages might be quoted
from " Hansard," in which he expressed his aversion to
it, except for special and temporary purposes, and his
conviction that he had himself reached the limit beyond
which it ought not to extend. Where is the identity iletween
the two Budgets ? Sir Robert Peel foiltul a deficit,
Ite Vail dated rightly he plight convert
into a
surplus. Mr. Ght4stoue has a 4e4C4 WhiCh"heriyitfillY
increases without holding out the slightest hope, elic9tt
perhaps, by diminished expenditure, of its ulti-
mate reduction ; he imposes an augmented income-tax
for one year, when he must be perfectly aware that he
is virtually -perpetuating it ; and he sacrifices a
large revenue—not, forsooth, arising out of the
tea and sugar duties, which deprive the poor man's
cottage of its chief comforts, but from French wines
and brandies and silks, the absolute:4
bohlitlly not be a national
which .would scarcely be felt as a national loss, and
ljhnis! iln6Pi7rtt4l/ti:‘e s•vfiw I 11449er q44smanlike nteaslre,
nalr:stglaredckt;efis:
founded on the Wants bohutty. Gladstenes
is an unworthy expedient, thd ne6eisities of
the Cabinet. That is the substantial difference b.et.'wen
rens.
condemned by at least one financial authority on his own
_thasestwi; sienbesmiwesii,ceantdhwi:
side of the house, Sir Francis Baring; who fetuses 'to
pass
Pii4Pt•
find Mr.

The Seal Skin Cloaks and Jackets,
Oirielie n.G iiintldulease°acbs 33aY
, at the New Shawl and Mantle Ware.
house, 40, Bold-street.—Shellard and I.lodgson, Pro-
prietors.
Some time ago a professor of legerdemain entertained
an audience in a village, which was principally composed
of colliers. After "astonishing the natives" with various
tricks—metamorphising wine into water, &c.—he asked
the loan of a halfpenny from any of his admirers.
A collier, with a little hesitation, handed out the coin,
high the, juggler speedily exhibit€ 4, as 41) said, rans-
claimed. the polfiei.
~ " PudoubtedlY,7 ahsweted the
b
round'` and round in examination with an ecstasy of
;u1 itii}:dtr'i 1 iliii:it' ‘ol-1
ell
hq4at'4ll si;:l ipeclie::toet'hl i'4eo. fs,.;:ici;t:lh,e.'er' ' i;`;:ii'rt!l:i'e.oahrl:ik T:4 argot' nar
iktlYiann* tdiayrewel is;:ilniel g4eitili'dot'
furet into a haiyhee again?! .: l .
TIE POPE AND HIS PEO/"LE.—A f days _ few ago he
was walking out of 'tie Porta Angelica, preceded and
followed by his Noble GUards, accompanied by two
. "Are you a Christian ? " asked the
mqnsigpori. fie was conversing with these prelates on
the above matteys, When 11° stclPll64 64ert before an qld
aini repeated, with
countryman who was kneeing On the high-toad,
blessing.solicit-
ausesttioien poor 'fellow, all taken abaek,' was
dumb,atinigmtelitsCq?4"lltrY.ing
pope,li i s
at
nhde t
ihqio eageineis. pieue your olineti 1 am
The Pope then walked
whereupon the Pontiff bade si," tell
pur-
suedaill‘g'ani a:ttlithe'el lbaaofpnlois' yous.
wetleilrii,e'danliv!ict salttaa. e;oetl:Siti Istet4n,ll:4:4:nr:enl Santo. Padre was
them one by one. The poor dumbfoundered fellow tried
" Let the
one or two, then jumped over to the fifth or sixth, per-
ceived his mistake, and his confusion became worse con-
90:11.idviett thilstaabro4rtkde dlwidll. tridmphantly,
ents hY heart, anct
as authehtie, and, at any
people learn God's comnifiedni then
they will be fit for ind:ependence." The anecdote is
interesting; it is given to me
rate, si non e vero é ben trOvaio.—Floreno's Letier.

the French made himself the representative of the whole
world. After adverting to the danger of the many
innovations introduced by the proposals of the treaty, he
warned the house to pause before it entered upon a
course of which no one could foresee the consequences.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that there were no restrictions
whatever imposed by the treaty. What we (lid with
France we could do with the whole world. It had been
said that we had made a bad bargain; he denied that
there had been any bar-rain in the business. The treaty
was made in strict accordance with the doctrines of free-
trade. France had made one step towards conversion ;
he believed that it would only be the preliminary one to
others. In 1787 the same objection, that we were
making submissions to France, was made to the com-
mercial treaty of Mr. Pitt. The treaty would bind us
more closely to France, and enable us hereafter to
reduce that enormous expenditure which was a
disgrace to the House and the country. Free-trade
with France, our next neighbours, was at present far
below that of America, with the Atlantic between, and
yet the Government were blamed for endeavouring to
improve that trade.
Mr. T. BARING would have approved a treaty made
in a proper spirit, aid at a proper time ; but the present
treaty compelled us to give France an immediate in
return for a deferred advantage, and caused losses to our •
revenue at a time when we could not afford them. The
labourer would still have dear tea and sugar; but then
he might drown his cares in cheap French wine. He
supported the resolution because he foresaw the dangers
of making such daring alterations with an empty
exchequer, and trusting to chance to replenish it.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON remarked upon the incon-
sistency oe Mr. Disraeli's admission, that free-trade
principles were good principles, and his support of the
present resolution, which in effect declared them to be bad.
He gave an historical review of various attempts made
by different governments to conclude a commercial treaty
with France; the object had been earnestly sought for
many years, We bac) now the opportunity of accom-
plishing it. The treaty was ratified; should the House
then refuse to give the Crown power to carry it into
effect ? He urged that there was nothing alarming in
a tenpenny income-tax ; and that the proportion of
direct to indirect taxation was in no way too great.

THE DAILY TIMES, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1860.

COMMERCIAL
TREAT Y WITH FRANCE.

The following petition lies for signature in the
Liverpool Exchange Newsroom, the Underwriters'
Rooms, and the Mercantile Marine Association :
To THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND

IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.
THE HUMBLE PETITION of the undersigned Ship-
owners, Merchants, and Others, in Liverpool,
interested. in British and Colonial Maritime
Commerce, _

Sheweth,—That since the repeal of the naviga-
tion laws British shipping has been exposed to
the unrestricted competition of all foreign nations.
That your petitioners were led to expect that
other nations would have reciprocated the great
advantages conferred on them by the legislation
of this country.
That your petitioners observe with great disap-
pointment that the treaty with France, now before
your Honourable House, while seeking to extend
the principles'of free-trade, overlooks the claims
of the shipowners.of this country to share in the
important advantages secured to other commercial
interests.

That Article 3, which expressly stipulates for
the retention of differential duties on goods in
favour of French shipping, makes the treaty,
which purports to be simply one of commerce
between England and .France, into one of naviga-
tion, also exclusivel..- in favour of France.
As one instance of the disadvantages under
which British shipowners now labour, your
petitioners would in-mtion that British shipping
is virtually excluded from carrying cotton between
America and France; and by a recent French
official communication, it appears that, while the
duties on cotton and cotton wool are to be repealed
when imported into France in French or American
ships, direct or differential duty is to be levied I
on the above produce if imported into France
from any port.in Great • Britain, amounting to a
prohibition of the employment of British shipping
in the importation of cotton and cotton wool into
France.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that
your Honourable House will withhold your assent
to Article 3 in the treaty until British shipowners
are placed as nearly as possible on the same
footing in the ports of France as French ships are
now placed in the ports of this country.
And your petitioners will ever pray, &c.