The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-16 00:00:00

armies—a war which is not for posterity is no fitting war for
us. (Cheers.) But, surely, if ever there was a war waged on
behalf of posterity, it is the war which would check the
ambition of Russia and preserve Europe from the outlet of
barbarian tribes, that require but the haven of the Bospho-
rus to menace the liberty and the civilisation of races as
yet unborn. (Cheers.) It is not our generation that need
fear if the flag of Russia waved to-morrow over the ruins
of Constantinop!e. The encroachments of Russia are
proverbially slow. ; it would require a quarter of a century
before she could recover the exhaustion of her own vic-
tories and tame into convenient serfs the brave population
she had conquered. It is for all time that we wage the
battle. It is that the liberties of our children may be
secured from some future Attila, and civilisation guarded
from the irruptions of Scythian hordes. On this ground,
then, we might fairly demand the next generation to aid
us in the conflict we endure for their sake. (Cheers.) Into
that question in all its bearings I will not at present enter ;
it is complicated and difficult ; but, at least, my plain
common sense makes me sure of this—that if you desired
to make the people as reluctant to proceed with the war
as you were slow and blind to prepare for it, you could
not could take more effective means than by such speeches
as the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered at Man-
chester, and such taxes, derived, at the very first com-
mencement of military operations, from sources the most
direct, palpable—odious in themselves, and unfair in their
assessment—as you propose by this budget to create.
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. DRUMMOND had quite approved of the bold and
manly budget of Mr. Disraeli, which was intended to
carry out the principles which the present Government
had falsely inculcated. (Great Opposition shouting.) Bet
this was not the question. All sides had cheered on this
war, and now it would be said that they shrunk as soon as
its realities were felt. Could a tax be proposed that the
stupidest man in the house could not object to ? Were
they going to raise money or not ? If they were, the only
question was, whose pocket should be picked ? He thought
that the terms Mr. Gladstone used towards Mr. Pitt were
an indecent sneer, and if the former intended to live to the
termination of the war, he had better be tender of Mr.
' Pitt's reputation. In the course of a sarcastic address, he
expressed a wish that we had a Foreign Minister who
could write as good despatches as M. Drouyn de Lhuys,
and he intimatd that the Emperor of France was begin-
ning to believe that we should not support this war and
there was an enormous camp forming at Boulogne, which
some people were good enough to believe was to watch
Prussia. He advised that we should form three great
militia camps, and, so far from thinking of getting off the
malt tax, be thankful if we escaped with a doubled malt
tax, income tax, and house tax, and so saved England
from being the battle-field of Eurc.e.
Sir J. PAKINGTON, who rose amid loud cries of " Oh,
oh," and "Divide," from the Ministerial side of the house,
mingled with cheers from the Opposition, said that he
begged to assure those hon. gentlemen who not only then,
but during the last few hours, had endeavoured to stifle
the discussion and to interrupt the debate by more inde-
corous and unseemly conduct than he believed he had ever
seen in that house, that he should not stand for many mi-
nutes between them an I the division for which they pro-
fessed to be so anxious. He had risen principally to express
his astonishment that a Government which had asked for
2,500,000/. of taxes had not condescended to rise to vindi-
cate their proposition. (Oh, oh.) The objections to this
tax had been stated at the beginning of the evening in a
most able and elaborate speech by his hon. friend the mem-
ber for the Ndrth Riding. It was true that his hon. friend
had been answered by the noble lord the member for Ports-
mouth and the hon. member for Norwich, but he did not
think that the house had heard from either of those hon.
members any very forcible reply to the speech of his hon.
friend; and he thought that even the arguments of the
hon. gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, such as they
were, had been more than disposed of by the able and
powerful speech of his hon. friend the member for Hert-
fordshire. (Hear, hear.) He contended that they had a
right to call upon the Government to answer those powerful
arguments which had not' been met, and that they were
justified in expecting some explanation of the reasons why
they had selected this tax, which had been shown to be
most unjust in its operation, as one of the modes by which
they intended to defray the expenses of carrying on the
war. Were they deterred from entering into that expla-
nation by the speech which had just been made by his hon.
friend the member for West Surrey? (A laugh.) What
the vote of his hon. friend would be he found it difficult
to collect from his speech. He confessed he did not know;
but a more severe censure of a tax than he had passed
upon that now proposed by the Government he had never
heard. (Hear.) When his hon. friend, however, went on
to say, after passing a most just censure upon that propo-
sition, that he felt in the present condition of the house
that whatever tax might be proposed, whether it were A,
B, C, or D, objections would be raised to it, as they were
now raising objections to their proposal for increasing the
malt tax, he must say, that he thought his hon. frisod
had not fairly met the question before the house, or done
justice to the motive by which the Opposition were ani-
mated in the objections which they now made. He felt
the painful position in which he and his friends were
placed in having to oppose a means of carrying on the war,
but the fault was with the Government that had made such
a selection. The Opposition had' met Government in the
fairest spirit throughout the session, had concurred with
them in the justice of the war, and in the doctrine that
its expense should be met, as far as possible, from the ex-
penses of the year; but they had a right to a fair taxation
and one from which there was a reasonable hope that the
expected amount would be realised, and the malt tax was
deficient on both points. He denounced the proposed im-
position as most impolitic at a crisis when unanimity was
so desirable. He again called on the Government to an-
swer to the powerful arguments which had been advanced
that night.
Lord J. RUSSELL--I cannot let this debate close with
out declaring that I think the question now before the
house is a much wider one than the right hon. gentleman
opposite, and those who preceded him on the same side of
the house have been willing to admit. They have said,
and I admit the justice of the allegation, that, with regard
to measures calculated to carry on the war which they
think and we think just, they have given their support to
the present Government, although differing with them on
many points of public policy. lam ready to acknowledge
that support and generally to thank them for it. But
really the question upon which the Government were
likely to m3et with difficulty, and upon which they
were to call on the patriotism of this house and to
appeal to the spirit and feeling of the country to support
them, was in reference to the taxation necessary to carry
on that war. (Cheers.) I cannot believe that it is a con-
sideration of the nature of this particular tax which really
induces honourable gentlemen opposite to reject it. (Dis-
approbation from the Opposition.) Will they tell me,
when we are engaged in a just war with a mighty
power, which now threatens to swallow up the dominions
of our allies, and which is moving mighty armaments
over the face of Europe in contemplation of the impend-
ing conflict, and when, therefore, we are in readiness to
make an effort to preserve to this country its character
and its station, and to render great service to Europe, that
they are ready to incur an immense sacrifice, but that
ls. 3d. a bushel upon malt is really too great. (Cheers and
laucshter.) Why, sir, the right honourable gentleman (Sir
J. Pakington) and the honourable baronet the member for
Hertfordshire (Sir Bulwer Lytton) really speak as if the
whole of this taxation was to be laid on the land. (Hear,
hear.) But the right hon. gentleman and the hon. baronet
reminded us of what the question was when we had to
consider the income tax last year, and the consideration
we ought to bear in mind this year. What the right hon.
gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
when in office, and what the honourable baronet the mem-
ber for Hertfordshire said when out of office, was, that we
should make a discrimination with respect to incomes, and
that a discrimination in favour of trade, in favour of great
incomes derived front commerce and professions, adverse to
the land. (Hear, hear.) So that fortunes of 20,000/. or
30,0001. a year derived from commerce were to pay at a
less rate than persons having an income of 2001. or 2501.
derived from land. That was the proposition which came
from the opposition side of the house, and against which
we protested. And my right honourable friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, who is represented as so hostile
to the laud, said if you made this distinction, although
it was adverse to you in a time of peace, it would be-
come far more adverse to you in a time of war to
increase your income tax, and that the difference of 7d.
or sd. would become a difference of 14d. or 103., and so
on as you proceeded; and I venture to say that if yen once
begin- with such a distinction, that it must be carried fur-
ther, and that to the prejudice of the land of the country.
I believe no more dangerous proposition to the land was
ever made than that which was made by those who de-
clared themselves to be the friends of the land and of the
farmer at that time. We have preserved the income tax
such as Mr. Pitt framed it, and such as it was continued
throughout the war; but my right hon. friend said, after
all, an income tax cannot be carried to the lowest incomes;
there must be a point at which you must stop; but are
those who have a less income than 1001. a year to be free
from taxes which are to be borne for the honour and cha-
racter of the country? He said he thought that was un-
wise, and he proposed to tax consumption. And when
once you come to articles of consumption, which are at
the same time articles of necessity, you inflict great injus-
tice and hardship on the community at largo. Therefore
the rule, if possible, should be to impose such taxes on
articles of general consumption, but, at the same time,
which are not articles of necessity. ; and I know no articles
to which that description more applies than the articles of
spirits and malt. (Cheers.) They are both of them articles
which are of very general consumption, upon which you
are sure to raise a very considerable revenue, and upon
which there is not likely to be any very great diminu-
tion of consumption—(hear, hear),—and yet which no
man can say are such articles of necessity as salt,
candles, soap, and the like, the duty upon which we
removed last year. If this is the case—if you are to add
to your income tax, there can bo no better argument on
which you can impose some additional taxation on the
article of malt, and that addition to your taxation is only
to raise that taxation to one-half what it was during
nearly all the latter part of the last war, and is not much
greater than it was in 1775, when Adam Smith pointed
out the policy of taxing beer and malt. There was another
point which the hon. baronet the member for Hertford-
shire quoted, and to which also my hon. friend the member
for Surrey referred, and which, having now reason to ad-
dress the house, I cannot omit to notice, namely, the ob-
servations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon
the policy of Mr. Pitt during the first year of the war.
Nothing could be snore unjust than to say that those ob-
servations were without necessity, or without intending
to have a most important bearing upon this debate. (Hear,
hear.) My right hon. friend pointed out that a large Shin
was collected in loans during the first year of the great
revolutionary war, and not more than 480,0001. was im-
posed in taxes. He said that course was pursued till you-
had added very greatly to your debt, which then amounted
to 200,000,0001. ; and that in the course of Mr. Pitt's
proceedings you raised no money for the support -of the
war, and that the cost was inscribed on the debt,
and that that was the stuu for which we were now
paying. He pointed out that that was a most im-
politic course. Can anything be more true than that the
loans which Mr. Pitt contracted wore at 4,5, and in some
instances 6 per cent.; and that that six per cent, was to
be payable for over? My right hon. friend pointed out
that that course was ruinous to the country, and he hoped
that this house would not repeat it Not that my right
hon. friend attempted to pledge this house, or pledged the
Government,r ; bu t
Siler ot rtt o
rf
atilisee
w
to ctoonmtraackte
loaangs nreiat e
10,000,000/ , and to add that sum to the revenue of the
never
that
year, was not too great an effort for a country about to
be engaged in a great war, and that such an effort might
nave you from a debt like that which was so improvidently
contracted by Mr. Pitt. lam not a very great admirer of
Mr. Pitt, but I think, after the efforts he made in 1777
and 1778, that his conduct is worthy of admiration, and
that if you are to make the war, you ought to snake an
effort in order to sustain that war by taxes to be paid
during
the year in which it is being waged, and thatit,is.,
not fit to leave to posterity the Wholo burden of the ix,

pense incurred in carrying it on. This is, in fact, the
question now before us. Do not tell me that the malt
tax is a tax so objectionable that you would be ready to
vote all other taxes if you could get rid of this. Do not
tell me that the landed interest in this country cannot
bear fifteen pence additional duty on malt. Tell us rather
that which I should be sorry to hear, but which would
be more fair, manly, and candid —tell us that
though you are in favour of the war—that though
you are ready to vote army and navy in support of
it, you are not ready to vote the necessary taxes—[" Oh,
oh," from the Oppositionj—that you shrink from the
unpopularity which belongs to the proposal of considerable
burdens upon the country, and that you would wish to
escape that obligation by means of loans, or any other
means by which you can avoid those burdens ; but do not
tell me that this small addition to the malt tax is really
the obstacle which prevents you supporting the Govern.
ment on this occasion. Only imagine what would be now
your position if, when on are asked to make a great effort
to raise, not 2,500,000 L, but 7.000,0001. for the purpose of
the war, your first vote should be to reject that proposal.
Would not the effect be throughout Europe, that you did
not mean to engage heart and soil in the project—
(cheers)—that you meant only to give it your temporary
support —that you shrunk and escaped from it the first
opportunity you had—(shouts of "oh, oh," from the Op-
position)—that you were ready to forego the declarations
you had made, to abandon the opinions you entertained,
and to involve your country in the necessity of a disho-
nourable peace ? (Cheers and disapprobation.) lam not
telling you that that is your intention ; but I am asking
you whether such would not be the effect of such a vote
as I have supposed. I would venture to say that no pro-
position could be more clear or more indisputable—that
no person would believe that it was merely on account of
raising the malt tax from 2s. 9d. to 4s. that you refused
this bill. They would say you refused the taxes necessary
for the support of the war ; and nobody would think
this war would be carried on with vigour and perseve-
rance. That certainly is my impression. With regard
to the malt tax, we have debated it for the last ten
years. Its merits and its demerits have been canvassed over
and over again; and Mr. M'Culloch says, even in times of
peace, the malt tax should be imposed, as being a tax pe-
culiarly adapted to a good system of finance ; but whether
it be the malt tax, or be it anything else, I say if the
House of Commons mean to support the war—if they
mean to support us in endeavouring to maintain the dignity
of the Crown and the welfare of the country, they will
support the second reading of this bill. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I have listened to the remarks which
have fallen from the noble lord who has last addressed the
house with great regret and with some surprise. The noble
lord has just laid down one of the most extraordinary doc-
trines of finance ever expressed in this house—that an Op-
position, if it approve a war in which her Majesty's Go-
vernment is engaged, is bound to vote every proposition
for new taxes which that Government may propound, with-
out criticising and without cavilling, at the expense of its
patriotism if it objects. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
I myself am a supporter of the policy, so far as the war is
concerned, of the Government. I do not want to go into the
causes or the merits of that war at present; it isenough that
we are involved in that war, and it is our duty to support her
Majesty in its prosecution ; but Ido reserve to myself, and
I should hope that gentlemen who are members of this
house, and not merely sitting on the benches behind me,
always reserve to themselves the means of criticising the
mode in which you are proposing to carry on that war, even
if we be unanimous in thinking that that war ought to be
prosecuted with vigour and effect. But the noble lord
says this is a course which is no longer open to you ; you
have given in your adhesion to the warlike policy of the
Government, and therefore you are bound to give an un-
compromising adhesion to every financial proposal that
they bring forward in order that that war may be prose-
cuted. " What is 15d. a bushel upon malt ?" asks the
noble lord. (A. laugh_) Does the noble lord forget that
in considering the incidence of taxation there is something
more than the amount of the burden that a statesman
ought to think of ? That the justice of the principle upon
which a tax is devised is a consideration which must enter
into the contemplation of the House of Commons, and that
it is one which, if neglected by the House of Commons,
will certainly not escape the reflection of the people. It
is, in my opinion, an unjust claim which is made by the
Government, and it is for that reason that I venture to
oppose it. The noble lord has, for a moment, attempted
to withdraw the consideration of the house from the
subject before it by referring to the question of the in-
come tax. That question must come before the house
shortly, and I think it a much more convenient time to
discuss it when the resolutions of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer with respect to the assessment of the income
tax are on the table than on the present occasion. I
could not see what was the point of the noble lord when
he referred to the proposition of the late Government
with respect to the income tax ; but since he has
introduced the subject, he will pardon me for briefly refer-
ring to it. The noble lord has said that the late Govern-
ment, in their scheme for the assessment under the income
tax, acted unjustly towards the land, and that it is the
present Government who are devoted to the interests of
the agricultural class. The late Government, in the scheme
for the assessment of the income tax, which they never had
an opportunity of proposing to the house, but which they
indicated in the general exposition of their policy, did not
attempt to devise a plan which would be favourable to one
class or another. They attempted as far as lay in their power
to make an arrangement which would on the whole be just
to all with reference to the whole scheme of our taxation.
They were not called upon to decide, and they did not ask
themselves, what would be to the advantage of the land or
of trade. They were called upon to decide whether in the
assessment of this tax the difference between permanent
and temporary income should be recognised, and resolved
that, so far they were concerned, it should bo recognised.
But in introducing their scheme with reference to the in-
come tax—(on which I wish now scarcely to dwell, because
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present, and it is
painful to me to enter into a controversy in which he is con-
cerned in his absence, and therefore I refrain almost entirely
from the subject)—they stated that they brought it forward
with reference to the whole system of our finance. The
measures they brought forward were avowedlyonly a portion,
and a small 'portion, of the changes they thought should
take place in the whole system of our finance ; awl it was
as much a matter of policy as of justice that in asking the
trading classes to join with us in a comprehensive revision
of our system of taxation, they should declare that they
thought the time had arrived, was ripe and opportune,
when a difference in the assessment of temporary and per-
manent income should be recognised by the Legislature.
It has been said in the course of the debate that the malt
tax is not an unjust tax, as we on this side of the house
complain that it is. We contend that it is unjust towards
those who pay it, and that it is impolitic on the part of the
state unnecessarily to have recourse to it. Let the house
calmly consider the character of our finances. Our ordi-
nary revenue is at this moment supplied to the extent of
one-fourth part by what is virtually a tax upon a single
crop of the British farmer, and it is to increase that enor-
mous tax..tion that at this moment supplies one-fourth of
your revenue, that you have now a bill upon the table
which is greatly to aggravate—in fact, to the extent of 50
per cent.—the amount of that taxation. Well, never for-
get, when you are asked to discuss the question of the duties
upon spirits and upon malt, that these duties furnish one
quarter of the ordinary revenue of this country. But then it
seems that you may raise from a single article, and that not
the principal crop of the British farmers, a sum as large asthe
revenues of important empires, and yet not produce the slight-
est ill effect upon theirfortunes, upon theirprofits, upon their
employment, upon their industry, upon their property.
(Hear, hear.) .But this is the-greatest reaction from po-
litical economy that I have ever heard of. I have seen
many symptoms and numerous evidences of late that there
is a considerable reactiou from those stern opinions that
have been so long prevalent and predominant in this house.
But I did hardly believe I should live to hear that an in-
crease of 50 per cent. of a tax that now produces one-
fourth part of the richest empire in the world, would be
no aggravation of the burthens and no increase of the im-
post, that could diminish profit or embarrass the farmer.
(Cheers.) A little while ago, if any gentleman on these
benches ventured to refer to the burthen of taxation that
pressed upon the productive classes of the country, he was
treated with jeers. Then we were told that the consumer
—the great consumer, as he was described by a distinguished
member opposite—was the person who should alone be
considered ; that the consuming power was the basis of
modern finance; that that was the consideration that
should alone influence the Treasury, and that no tax was
now to be considered but with reference to his interests.
And now we are told with a nonchalance that is admirable,
and with a sang froid that is sublime, that this immense
• t is not for a moment to be considered because it is
manes
only a consumers' question. Well, I think it is something
to have brought them to that. I think that after all the
panegyrics we have heard for years upon the consuming
power—that after those who uttered them have succeeded
in abrogating the laws that protected the industry of Eng-
land too successfully—that we should now have it ac-
knowledged that the plea upon which they advanced their
doctrines was fallacious—that the object they wished to
cherish was in fact an unworthy one—that the great point
which they wished to enhance was not worthy of being ac-
complished ; that I think is a result which we may look to
not without gratification. But then, when hon. gentlemen
on this side of the house demand for the British producer
the benefits of that unrestricted competition which both
sides of the house have now accepted as the principle of
our commercial code, we are told that the question of un-
restricted competition cannot affect the fortunes of the cul-
tivator of barley, or the manufacturer of malt, and for what
reason forsooth ? Because he meets with no competition.
It may, indeed, bo true that foreign malt may not compete
with English malt, but the question is whether the bever-
age he manufactures is not met in competition in the mar-
ket by other beverages, which may please the palate and
claim the attention and patronage of the people. Why, the
competition to which the minuficturer'of beer is exposed
is that which he receives from the import of tea. You know
very well that there is no article that comes more in com-
petition with beer than tea • then it is that you find the
immense tax that you are placing upon the manufacture of
malt, and of course of beer; then it is that you find that fo-
reign competition from which you say the home manufac-
turer is entirely free. You must, therefore, look to the
amount of the tax on malt, in comparison with the taxes
on beverages with which it comes in competition. Why, it
was always a most difficult thing to deal with the tea duties
because it was impossible justly to deal with them unlessyou
dealt with the malt tax; and that difficulty had always pre-
vented the minister of finance from dealing with the tea
duties. The late Government undertook, however, to deal
with both the malt duty and the tea duty. The present
...overutnent_dealt with the tea, duty, but neglected that
upon malt. Of course that increased the severity of the
competition between tea and malt, and now you increase
greatly:the duty upon- malt at-the very time when you are
carrying on a system which every year greatly decreases
the duty upon tea. Why, is that justice? (Cheers.) And
it is at this very moment that you come forward and say—
" Great as may be the impost upon malt, it is not a ques-
tion of free trade or of unrestricted competition, because
malt competes with no similar article • and great as is the
tax upon it, it can bear it, because it no rivals in the
market." It has rivals in the market, and you are dimi-
nishing the taxes upon them at the very moment you aro
aggravating the impost that crushes the manufacturer of
malt. Well, there is another point which the house
should consider with reference to this question, and that is
the local taxation of the country. Every one knows the
effect of that local taxation which has recently been re-
ferred to. It has been acknowledged by the highest au-
thorities on both sides of the house. I can point out Mi-
nisters of State ; I can even refer to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer as having acknowledged the peculiar burden of
that speciesof taxation. Well, there was an attempt to coin-
promise the question by diminishing the duties upon malt ;
and now how are you tending to revive that controversy—a
controversy which must at all times be embarrassing and
Tqinful, and especially so when you are increasing the
general taxation of the country ? (Hear, hear.) There is
another remark which the noble lord made, which is so sin-
gular, that,,as.ranimose hesis still the reader of the Whig
Party, I cannot pasolf over on this occaoion entirely ?fa,

out notice. I shall advert to the subject as lightly as I
can, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absent,
and in his absence, so far as he is concerned, my lips are
closed. The house has not forgotten an .l the country will
long remember the manner in which the right Eon. gentle-
man referred to Mr. Pitt. It has been alluded to to-night,
and the noble lord, with unhappy chivalry, came forward
to vindicate the right hon. gentleman. What did the noble
lord, of all men in the world, say? The noble lord quite
consistently disapproved of the policy and, of course, of
the financial policy of Mr. Pitt. The noble lord approves
only of that financial policy which doubled the income
tax, to which he referred with so much pride, and upon
the memory of which glory reposes my Lord Lansdowne.
(Laughter.) The noble lord says, "Mr. Pitt may have had
his errors, but he was still a great man. In 1797 Mr. Pitt
had a twinge of remorse, a salutary repentance," and, fol-
lowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble lord
absolutely recalled the attention to the important fact
that, in 1797, there was a salutary change in the policy of
Mr. Pitt. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
who was bred and educated a Tory, and who, in moments
of rhetorical emotion, may still fancy himself a Tory—
(laughter)—should criticise, but still, as he informed the
house, with a feeling of veneration for Mr. Pitt ; and that
by an adroit arrangement of periods he should endeavour
to harmonise his criticisms of Mr. Pitt's finance with
his appreciation of Mr. Pitt's policy and patriotism,
is very intelligible. But what are the facts ? What
was this year 1797, which the noble, (as I should think
to the astonishment of the Fox Club to-morrow) has chosen
for the subject of his ealogium ? What, I say, was this
period, when, as the noble lord has told us to-night, Mr.
Pitt's eyes were at length opened to the sin of his previous
ways? (Laughter.) Why, I suppose the house has heard
that this was the time when, in patriotic disgust at the
conduct of Mr. Pitt in raising those terrible loans which
we have recently heard so much deplored from the Trea-
sury benches, Mr. Fox, followed by Charles Grey, after-
wards the great Earl Grey, and the principal leaders of the
Whig party, left the House of Commons in hopelessness to
save the country, and for a long time remained absent from
it. But it so happened that when in 1797, on the very
night referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Pitt's eyes being at last opened to the error of his ways,
he came down to the House of Commons, where he ex-
pected only to meet his followers and his creatures, with
a large proposition for a measure of direct taxation ; such
was the indignation of Mr. Fox, such was the indignation
of Cherie% Grey, such was the indignation of those sixty
brilliant and eloquent men who had for a long time seceded
from their places in Parliament, that —awful apparition !
they suddenly re-appeared in their places before the asto-
nished Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. Fox felt that, painful as was his re-appearance on the
scene he had relinquished, it was his duty to the great his-
toric and traditionary party of which he was the recognised
leader, even in its adversity, to come forward in the house
and to denounce the new principle of financial policy
brought forward by Mr. Pitt. And it wa ; upon that oc-
casion that he delivered one of the most eloquent, most
thoughtful, and most memorable speeches, in which he laid
down what ho called the sure and permanent principles of
Whig finance—principles utterly opposed to the repentant
policy of Mr. Pitt—(cheers and laughter)—principles which
Mr. Fox never deserted nor relinquished, and which, not-
withstanding the comparative degradation of the post
which the noble lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) now fills,
I did not believe that, in deference to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, or to my lord Aberdeen—(cries of "Oh,
oh," and cheers)—he would have relinquished in this house.
There is yet another point to which, notwithstanding the
clamour of some hon. members, I feel it my duty to call
the attention of the house. I bject to this tax which we
are now called upon to vote, not merely because it is
an unjust tax, which I believe restricts industry, cripples
the profits, and in every way injures the agricultural inte-
rest of the country—not merely because it is a grievous
burden on the consumer, for I know that in time of war
the consumer must be prepared to bear his share of the
burdens—but I object to it on account of its grievous im-
policy. (Cheers.) I think there was nothing more impo-
litic than at a time when you were selecting a tax you
should select one which, in my mind, does grievously, and
in their opinion does grievously, press upon the industry
of the cultivators and the interests of the general proprie-
tors of the soil. Though lam ready to give credit to every
class of being ready at a moment like this to do their duty
to their Sovereign, I ask, without fear of successful con-
tradiction, whether it is not a fact that from the nature
of the circumstances--from the character of your constitu-
tion, and other causes, you have been obliged peculiarly
to appeal to the patriotism, to the resources, to the exer-
tions, and to the energies of the landed interest of the
country. We have heard recently many sneers against
the territorial constitution of our country, but I ask you in
what country could you 'have found those means of
self defence which you have recently found in this
country, except under the influence and immediate aid and
agency of the landed interest? In what country in Europe
could you have raised such a militia, or having raised it,
could have entrusted it in such hands as those in which
you have placed the newly-raised force ? But you have so
managed your finances that the only odious tax which you
put forward is- a tax which more or less affects the in-
dusirs.of the soil. I call it impolitic to re-awaken a con-
test which, if not for ever dormant, would never at a time
like the present have been aroused by this side of the
house. You have demanded a great tax to the amount of
two millions and a half, and not a Minister of the Crown,
but by extreme compulsion, has condescended to express a
word in favour of the proposition. What was your motive
for this ? Did you shrink from discussion ? Did you
think, at this moment, a debate upon the ways and means
of the war was impolitic? or that it would create a bad
impression abroad if the House of Commons should have a
discussion and division ',upon the subject of taxation ? If
that be your feeling, do you not think that the credit of
the Government and the resources of the country have been
much more injured in the eyes of other nations by the
way in which you have attempted to raise a loan ?
(Cheers.) Is it not more calculated to injure the credit
of the country, and to diminish the idea of your resources,
that your minister of finance cannot go into the City
and obtain two millions at four per cent. than that
the House of Commons should by natural and frank
deliberatian consider the taxation which you propose
to lay upon the country? It is better even that
our foe should see that a large sum such as this
now sought to be raised—a sum larger than could be fur-
nished by many of the provinces in the kingdom of your
imperial foe, should be frankly discussed than that he
should see the churlish, undignified, and unmanly attempt
of the Government to filch this amount of money. Is it
not better that the foe should see that we are determined
to exercise our functions to-night as the representatives of
the people, and that while we are prepared to support our
Sovereign, and even a Government which a e should other-
wise oppose, in a war which the country approves of, we
will do our utmost, in duty to our constituents, to provide
that the ways and means should be provided according to
the principles of eternal justice? (Cheers.)
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 303
For the amendment
Majority for the second reading —lOB
The announcement was received with loud cheering.
Mr. ELIOT YORKE gave notice that, on goinc, into
committee, ho would move that the additional taxp be
limited to one year.
EMBODIMENT OF THE MILITIA.

The SPEAKER announced that the following message
was sent to the house by her Majesty :—" The operations of
war in which her Majesty is engaged with the Emperor of
Russia having rendered it necessary to send a large part of
her Majesty's regular forces abroad, her Majesty deems it
proper to provide without delay additional means for the
military service of the country ; and in pursuance of the act
of Parliament enabling her Majesty to call out the militia,
her Majesty has thought it right to make this communica-
tion to the House of Commons, in order that her Majesty
►nay cause the said militia, or such part thereof as she shall
think necessary, to be forthwith drawn out, embodied, and
disposed of as occasion may require."
Viscount PALMERSTON—I shall to-morrow move
that her Majesty's gracious address be taken into conside-
ration.

HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir J. YOUNG moved for leave to bring in a bill for the
extension of hospital accommodation in Ireland.

Colonel DUNNE said that a short time ago a similar bill
was introduced by the right hon. gentleman, but was with-
drawn in consequence of the opposition which the measure
received from the Irish members. The object of the bill was
♦iewed with great suspicion by the people of Ireland.
Mr. BALL hoped the house would allow the bill to be
introduced. He did not know what its details were, but
the object at which it professedly aimed was one which it
was very desirable to carry into effect.
After a few remarks from Lord NAAS, the motion was
agreed to.

-The bill was brought in and read the first time.
Sir W. MOLES WORTH moved for, and obtained, leave
to introduce a bill to enable the trustees of Portland Chapel,
Oxford Chapel, and Welbeck Chapel, in the parish of St.
Marylebune, to augment the salaries of the ministers of tho
said chapels.
The house adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock.

NENV CANNON BALLS.—The Leeds Times believes that
a Government order, for cannon balls of a new shape is
being executed by a local foundry. They are long,
three-sided, and terminate in a three-cornered point. It
is conjectured that they are intended to be used against
fortresses, but nothing positive can be pronounced on
this head, as the casting of them has been kept as secret
as possible.
[AD VERTISEMENT.]- Holl o way's Ointment and Pills
the most effectual remedies for Gout and Rheumatism.
—Extract of a letter from Mr. Thomas Wyborn, drug-
gist, Eton, dated April 26, 1852:—" To Professor Hol-
loway. Sir,—A case has lately come under my notice
which I think should be publicly known. It is that of
a poor man, who suffered so dreadfully from chronic
rheumatism, that he lost the use of one side and en-
dured incessant pain. He was under different medical
treatment, and at Westminster Hospital the faculty
pronounced him incurable. However, this was not the
case, for by the use of your ointment and pills, he has
been restored to health and strength,"—Sold by all
druggists, and at Professor Holloway's Establishment,
244, Strand, London.
[ADVERTISEMENT.)—Her Majesty's Royal Letters
Patent, for valuable and extraordinary improvements in
the most powerful and brilliant Telescopes, Camp, Race-
course, Opera, and Perspective Glasses, to know the
distances of objects viewed through them—of great im-
portance to the army, navy, and others. Messrs. S. and
B. Solomons, opticians, 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly.
Observe—opposite the York Hotel.--These telescopes pos-
sess such extraordinary powers that some, 33. inches, with
an extra eye-piece, will show distinctly Jupiter's moons,
Saturn's ring,. and the double stars ; with the same tele-
scope can be seen a person's countenance three miles
and a half distant, and an object from 12 to 14 miles.
They are of larger and all sizes, with increasing powers
accordingly.— The Royal Exhibition, 1851. - Valuable,
newly invented, very small, powerful waistcoat-pocket
glass the size of a walnut, by which a person can be seen
and known mile distant ; they answer every purpose
on the race-course, at the opera-houses, country sce-
nery, ar.:l ships are clearly seen at 12 to 14 miles. They
are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, to
sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. ()ero,
race-course, camp, and perspective glasses, with wonderful
power; an object can be clearly seen from 10 to 12 miles
distant. Newly-invented Spectacles ; immediately the)
are placed before extremely imperfect vision, every,
object becomes clear and distinct; the most aged, de-
fective sight is brought to its youthful, natural, and ori-
ginal state. Deafness—New Discovery—The Organic Vi-
brator, an extraordinary powerful, small, newly-invented
instrument, for Deafness, entirely different from all others,
to surpass anything of the kind that has been, or pro-
bably ever can be, produced. Being of the same
colour as the skin, is not perceptible ; it enables deaf
persons to hear distinctly at church and at public as-
semblies ; the unpleasant sensation of e:nging noises in
the ears is entirely removed; and it affords all the assist-
ance that possibly could be desired.--39, .Albemarlo-street,
Piccadilly Olvoryos opposito the York llotell