The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 24, 1!60.

He remarked that there were no less than nine vacancies
in Parliament at present, and complained that by the
rules of the house he was not able to move
for this writ on a previous occasion, because he
could not bring it forward before half-past four o'clock.
A. constitutional principle was involved in the question,
for it was most important that the representation in Parlia-
ment should be complete. (Hear.)
Mr. GRIFFITH opposed the motion in consequence
of the corruption tacit had been proved against
the constituency of Norwich. He denied in Coto
what might be called the jargon of Parliament,
as to the corrupting influence exercised by candidates, and
considered that the corruption originated with the feelings
and sentiments of constituencies tuemselves. He believed
that-a majority would vote with him if they were actually
sincere in the sentiments they expressed in favour of purity
of election. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said that he had presented a petition from
the corporation of the city of Norwich, numerously signed,
stating that extensive bribery had been committed in the
city of Norwich, and praying for a commission to inquire
into the subject. It was a fact that when an election peti-
tion was decided, no person appeared to have any interest
in the question of the commission of bribery, and no inquiry
was made into the matter. With respect to the petition
of the Corporation of Norwich, it was presented too late
according to the rules of the house, to be entertained. There
had been more corruption at Norwichthan in Gloucesterand
Wakefield together, and, therefore, it was to be regretted
that an inquiry couldnot be proceeded with. Thepetitioners
stated that they had done all in their power to prevent
the screening of the great electoral iniquity that had taken
place in the city of Norwich. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said it would serve Norwich light if
no writ for that city were issued for ten years. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) He believed the bribery complained of did
not take place without the sanction of the authorities of
Norwich, and he believed that those who accepted bribes at
the last general election would do the same again when they
had the opportunity. He called on the house to pass such a
vote on the present occasion as would mark their sense of

the corruption that pervaded certain constituencies of the
country.
_(l.-lear, hear.)

Mr. BOUVERIE explained that the petitions against
the late members had reference to the corruption practised
at the last general election, and not at the last election of
these members. Bribery had been proved in the case of
the Clare election, and he did net see that there were any
grounds for not adopting the course puriued in regard to
issuing a writ for that place, so far as related to the city of
Norwich.
After a few words from Mr. COLLINS,
Sir G. GREY said he did not rest the question of issu-
ing this writ on the ground that another writ under similar
circumstances had been ordered, but he contended
that on general grounds they could refuse this writ. As
the hon. member for Birmingham has stated the petition
from the Corporation of Norwich was presented too late to
be acted on by the house. The election committee in this
report did not state any circumstances to justify the
appointment of a select committee to inquire into the alleged
corruption at Norwich, and it was to be regretted that the
inuiry could not be instituted.
After some observations from Captain JERVIS and Mr.
VANSITTART,
The SPEAKER said that the motion for the writ in the
case of Mr. Schneider had been formally put by him and
agreed to ; and the question before the house related to the
writ with reference to the voidance of Lord Bury's election.
This statement created considerable astonishment, hon.
members not being aware of the position in which the ques •
tion then stood, as some irregularity prevailed when the
Speaker put the motion.
After some further discussion, the motion'for a new writ
for the election of a burgess, in the roomof Lord But y, was
put and carried without a division.
PATENTS.

Captain JERVIS moved an addreess for all sums paid for
patents annually, from the Ist day of January, 1855 to the
Ist day of January, 1860, and of the manner in which the
same have been disposed of during' that pertod.—Ordered.
CHINA AND JAPAN.

Sir DE LACY EVANS moved an eldress for a return
showing the salaries or allowances of the plenipotentiaries,
secretaries, and interpreters, or other officers of the missions
to China and Japan, of the Earl of Elgin, the Hon. Mr.
Bruce, and Mr. Alcock.—Ordered.
SAVOY AND NICE.

Mr. KINGLAKE asked the Se3retary of State for Fo-
reign Affairs whether there would be any objection to lay
upon the table of the hour e the following papers relating to
the proposed annexation to France of Savoy and Nice, viz, :
—M. Thouvenel's last despatch on that subject, the answer
of her Majesty's Government thereto, and the note recently
addressed to her Majesty's Government by the Government
of Switzerland; and also (if they have been commrnicated)
the protest addressed by the SCss Government to the Go-
vernment of France, and the answer of M. Thouvenel
thereto ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—I think it would be injurious to the
public service to lay these papers on the table; but I mill
state on mother day when they may be prcduced.
In reply to a number of other questions,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would reply to the seve-
ral questions that had been put to him, as distinctly as pos-
sible. The hon. and gallant member for Westminster had
asked a question in reference to the mission to China, and
stated that his wish was that there should only be one mis-
sion to that country, and that Mr. Bruce should be recalled
on Lord Elgin going to China. In the first place, he would
say that it was always understood that in the case of special
mission, the actual expenses should be paid in addition to
any salary that might be allowed. It was impossible, how-
ever, to form any accurate estimate of the cost of such mis-
sion until it was concluded. With regard to the recall of
Mr. Bruce, he (Lord J. Russell) never could have gone to
Lord Elgin, and have proposed that a mark of degradation
should have been placed upon his brother at the time that
he was asking him to go to China. (Hear, hear.)
Lord Elgin would remain there only so long as
his services would be required, and the regular mission
would be retained as usual. He had had several inte4iews
with the Emperor of the French, the French Minister for
Foreign Affairs, end Baron Gros. He informed him (Lord
J. Russell) that there was a general agreement on the sub-
ject of the instructions to be given; and he hoped that be-
fore long Lord Elgin would be able to set out on his mis-
sion. Baron Gros, he believed, would depart about the
same time. (Hear, hear.) The next question referred to
Morocco, but the gallant officer who asked that question
might have seen, some months ago, in the Gazette, and
afterwards in the papers before the house, an account of
the security we proposed to take against the permanent
occupation of Tangiers. We represented to the Spanish
Government that Tangiers was of great importance to the
victualling of Gibraltar. Taking no part in the war, they
did not, of course, interfere with the military operations of
Spain, but we asked in the most friendly way that Spain
should agree, if Tangiers were occupied, that it should not
be permanently annexed to Spain. To that proposition
Spain agreed. The correspondence was before PArliament,
and he had no doubt that the Spa nish Government would
faithfully pei:orm its promise. The Morocco Government
had proposed, he understood, an indemnity to Spain, and if
that should be accepted, the war may be shortly concluded.
If not, it was impossible for him to say how long the occu-
pation of Tangiers, or Tetuan, or any other place, may be
continued. The next question was with regard to the
memo& e from the Swiss Government sent to this country
some months ago. The hon. member for Pontefract had
before asked him for a copy of that memoire, and it was
ordered that an address should be presented for it. He be-
lieved that it was now in the hands of the printer. It was
of considerable length, but ho hoped that it would soon be
laid on the table of the house. The map which accompa-
nied it was one of great detail, and it would be impossible,
without considerable expense And delay, to procure a fac
simile of it. But they were endeavouring to make an out-
line of the frontiers proposed ; and if the boundary stated
on the map was that of 1814, he trusted that that map
would liken ise soon be placed before the house. (Hear.)
The hon. member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) then asked
him if he (Lord J. Russell) would lay upon the table ex-
tracts from his private correspondence. He did not mean
to lay on the table any part of his private letters. (Hear.)
But irthe hon. gentleman had looked at all the papers he
would have found the substance of all that he asked to
have. When Lord Cowley reported on the 4th of July
his conversation with Count Walewski, ho said that his
Excellency's language was not over satisfactory. His
Excellency stated that there was no understanding what-
ever between France and Sardinia. He did not deny that
the question had been more than once discussed, and that
the Emperor entertained the idea that if Sardiria be-
came a large Italian kingdom it was not unreasonable
to expect that she should make territorial concessions
elsewhere. That was the language of the, despatch,
and at various times when Lord Cowley spoke
to Count Walewski, his Excellency repeated that if Sar-
dinia were to become a large kingdom, which he did not
allow to be possible, she ought to make some territorial
concessions. Lord Cowley, in speaking of M. Thouvenel
on the 27th January, said that as CounrWalewski had in-
formed him months ago that the idea of the annexation of
Savoy, if ever entertained, had been abandoned at the time
of the signature of the peace of Villafranca, said he could
not help asking his Excellency if he had any information
on the subject ? This did not arise as an immediate ques-
tion of diplomatic discussion; but Count Walewski always
maintained that the peace of Villafranca, and afterwards
the treaty of Zurich, obliged the Emperor to use every
means short of actual force to restore the Archdukes in
Tuscany and Modena. Thus he repeated what he had
already said in reference to an increase of territory by Sar-
dinia, and that France in that event would expect territo-
rial.the part oferFraanCcoen,grtheas
concessions. But this had nothing to do with what
was going to be done. What was going to be done was to
ncaolldtoth
that,
h eßeforeGrand
dthe u Congresske should
bteh
restoredy r e was
letters proposition
o f
Lordto thec o
wloy vvou
u that Count Walewski would have proposed, on
in Tuscany, because he told Lord Cowley that if he made a
Congress,ldthaadtdwtooulthdabteinthfoeromnaetih.oenw. would
this—That so sooloovnegrnamsenCtounwntuilVdalewsk
make. He did not see that the production of any private
gosffiwcea,stthhie
consi-
der themselves bound to restore the Grand Duke in Tus-
rsetamtaeinofedthiinn
eany ; and if he had been restored in Tuscany, and if the
Duke of Modena had been restored in Modena, there
would have been no question whatever of the annexation
of Savoy to France. The honourable gentleman expressed
his regret that he (Lord John. Russell) had said I
that night that he could not
,produce at present the an-
swer of the Government to M. 'Thouvenel's despatch. He
certainly stated some nights ago that ho. hoped shortly to
now oblige by a
be able to produce it, but he. was sense of
duty to act inconsistently with that declaration. Since ho
made that promise negotiations had intervened. Switzer.
land had made an appeal to her Majesty's Government,
which appeal had only reached the Government that morn
ing, and toproduce that dispatch would be to do so in the
midst of negotiations, and to invite the house to dictate _ the
answer which he should give to that dispatch before the
Government had time to consider it. It would be contrary
to precedent and to the principle of our constitutionto lay
the despatch on the table of the house. The question was
still a matter of negotiation, and it would be requisite
for
the Government to communicate with the different Powers
of Europe on the subject of this annexation, In the miclpt

of such negotiations it would be impossible for him to pro-
duce the papers. As soon as he could consistently with his
duty he would do so. lie had no inclination to conceal any-
thing from the house in this matter; but when an hon.
gentleman said that the French Government did not hesi-
tate to publish despatches, he thought ho must be aware
that their position was different from oars. It was true that
a despatch was printed in the Moniteur, but there was not
in France an assembly to discuss that despatch, or news-
papers which commented freely on its contents. There it
certainly remains for the consideration of the French people,
but it is free from all hostile criticism. (Hear, hear.) In
this country the case was wholly different, and he was glad
that it was so, but still it rendered it prudent that the Eng-
lish Government should display some reserve.
Mr. DISRAELI said he was sure that the plea urged by
the noble lord for not laying the despatch in reference to
the annexation of Savoy on the table, on the ground that
it would be inconsistent with his public duty to do so then,
because negotiations were about to take place with respect
to them with foreign Powers, would have its due weight
with the house, and he would not then further allude to
the subject. Bat the noble lord had that evening, when
speaking on the subject, referred to the negotiations which
had taken place between tb;s Government and the French
Government between July and December last. The noble
lord had not abided by the statement which he had made
originally on the subject, but had adopted the opinions of
the First Minister, who said that they could take no step
in the matter, as they were expecting a Congress to meet to
take the whole matter into consideration. But the House of

Commons knew well enough that a Congress was not a de
liberative assembly, and that all matters to be submitted to
it were to be previously considered, and settled by the
Powers to be represented at that Congress. He therefore
could not accept the explanation given upon this subject
by the noble lord the Foreign Minister, or by the First
Minister himself. Then the noble lord objects to extracts
from his private letters being laid before the house on this
question. They did not ask for extracts from the noble
lord's private letters, but what the house did expect was,
that such extracts should be made from his letters and the
ambassador's letters as should place in the Foreign Office
a complete diplomatic record of all the transactions con-
nected with this question of the annexation of Savoy. (Hear.)
The noble lord seemed to think it was wrong to make ex-
tracts from private letters ; but what was the case w:th re •
spect to Naples ? Why, there an extract was made from a
letter which was a menace to the Kin°. of Naples. More on
that another time, and he only rose to protest against the
statement that because a Congress was expected we ought
not to be in a position to meet the intentions of France in
reference to the annexation of Savoy.
Lord PALMERSTON said the right hon. gentleman
had stated that everybody knew that a Congress was not a
deliberative assembly, and that it met simply to record
decisions &ready taken. With all submission to the right
hon. gentleman, he bogged leave to say that the functions
which he ascribes to a Congress were precisely those which
it was not assembled to peil'orm. A Congress was espe-
cially called together to deliberate. It was for this purpose
that all the representatives of the different Powers meet—
to discuss, consider, and determine—sitting round a table—
matters which by correspondence world never be brought
to a satisfactory conclusion. Indeed, the very invitation
sent to the Powers to meet in Congress implied delibera-
tion. The right hon. gentleman said that it was the duty
of the Government to have settled this question of Savoy
beforehand with France, in order that, having settled it,
the Congress might ratify the arrangement come to between
them. Our object in the Congress must have been to have
enlisted on (.ur side the influence and opinions of other
Powers represented in that Congress. It was obvious that
it was more likely that the Government of France would
be induced to give way on a point on which we might differ
in tb's manner, rather than to expect that by England and
France discussing the matter together it would be settled
as we could wish. It was quite plain, therefore, that the
best method of inducing a foreign Power to yield its
opinions was to wait till four or five Powers could meet
together, when it would be much more likely that a foreign
Power would yield in deference( to the wishes of a Congress
than to give way to a single Power which desired a change.
The right hon. gentleman was misleading the house, both
as to the nature of the Congress and as to the policy pur-
sued by the Government. As to private letters, the hon.
gentleman seemed to think they ought to be converted into
public despatches.
Mr..D ISR AE LI—No, no.
Lord PALMERSTON—I say yes. The right hon. gen-
tleman says that every private letter that contains anything
en public matters—
Mr. DISRAELI—No, no.
Lord PALMERSTON—I appeal to the speech, and re-
peat my assertion. The right hon. gentleman must know
that every messenger or packet that brings public despatches
brings also a private and confidential letter in which various
circumstances are mentioned which are often not of suffi-
cient importance to be placed in the form of a despatch, and
in which communications are made of matters received in
conversation which it would be impossible to lay on the
table of the house—as all despatches are liable to be laid—
without placing the agent by whom the letters are written
in a situation in which he would lose all information so
essential to the public service. The right hon. gentleman,
therefore, has not established his case that my noble friend
has departed from the usual course in drawing a marked
line between private letters and public despatches. The
right hon. gentleman talked of these despatches as letters,
whereas they were not letters but despatches, and the right
hon. gentleman should remember to apply the proper word
to the proper thing. That which ray noble friend produced
were despatches sent to the Foreign Office; that which he
declines to produce are private letters.
Mr. DISRAELI—What I said was this, that no Minis-
ter should lay on the table of the house despatches refer-
ring to private letters unless those private letters could be
produced. If, as in this case, the papers do refer to private
letters, they must be of an important public nature or they
wonid not be referred to, then they ought to be produced.
Mr. HORSMAN said ho was glad to hear what the noble
lord had said at the conclusion of his speech. He agreed
that on occasions like this the House of Commons could not
be too careful ; but there were occasions when it became
the duty of Parliament to interfere. He apprehended that
this was one of those cases. They knew that the Emperor
of the French was peculiarly amenable to public opinion,
especially to the public opinion. of England, which carried
greater weight upon the Continent than the despatches of
Ministers. Therefore, if they had discussed this question
at an earlier period, and if the house had expressed a broad
opinion upon the policy of her Majesty's Ministers, he be-
lieved that it would have had a great effect in averting
some of those events which they had now to de-
plore. His hon. friend the member for Bridgwater had
come forward weeks ago to forewarn them, and on all
occasions he was told that it would be impolitic to enter into
the discussion. They were told that it would be better if
they left it to the Government to deal with the Emperor of
the French—(hear, hear)—and yet, now that which they
had feared had come to a head ; and the fact that the Go-
vernment were now in communication, and very properly so,
with the Great Powers of Europe, showed that we were
approaching something similar to a crisis which he' thought
an early discussion might have averted. • He had heard the
speech of the noble lord at the head of the Government last
week with reg get, for the noble lord went out of his way to
apologise for and eulogise the Emperor of the French.
The SPEAKER called the hon. gentleman to order,
informig him that he could not refer to past debates.
Mr. HORSMAN said he thought he could refer to past
debates on the same subject.
The SPEAKER said the hon, gentleraan•was wrong.
This was a discussion on the motion for the adjournment.
Mr. HORSMAN said he was addressing himself to the
affairs of Italy, and last week the noble lord said he had
received a despatch from M. Thouvenel—(loud cries of
Order, order)—in which it was announced that the annexa-
tion of Savoy was about to take place without consultation
with the other great Powers of Europe; and yet they had
received shortly before from the head of the Government
an explicit declaration to the contrary effect.
The SPEAKER again called the right hon. gentleman
to order for his-continued references to a past debate.
Mr. HORSMAN said thathe would not further allude to

that speech, but he would say that while they
were refraiu-
ing from discussing that question for a whole month, the
annexation was progressing. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE said he deeply regretted
that we had not had a full discussion-on this subject. He
had received letters from a gentleman in Savoy, regretting
that the British Parliament load not taken the matter up,
and stating that nine-tenths of the population were opposed
to the annexation, and that the result of the conduct of the
noble lord at the head of the Government was, that this
country was losing its prestige in Piedmont. He hoped that
a full debate would yet ensue before the annexation was
irrevocably carried out.
Tke CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, on
the part of his noble friend, who, by the forms of the house
could not speak again on the subject, that his noble friend
was not aware of having done more than having stated to
the house what was unquestionably a matter of fact, viz.,
that there was a declaration on the part of the Emperor of
the French of his intention to oonsult the great Powers of
Europe with respect to the annexation of Savoy; and the
construction which the noble lord put upon that de-
claration was something very different from what had
taken place. He thought it was necessary, on the part
of the Government, to say one word with respect to what
had fallen from his right honourable friend, because from
what they had beard they might really have sup-
posed that the name of Savoy had never been men-
tioned during the last six weeks. It was true that there
had been no thorough-going discussion on the subject of a
nature to terminate in a full and satisfactory expression of
opinion. The right hon. gentleman opposite thought it
would have been better if there had been a full discussion—
that might be true ; but there had been repeated partial
discussions. Speeches had been delivered in that house in
which the strongest language had been used in reference to
the whole subject; many judgments had been pronounced
and epithets used, and descriptions given, which might have
had a verypowerful, and, possibly, might hereafter have a
detrimental influence on the state of public feeling in a
neighbouring country. But that the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Horaman) had borne a leading part in these discus-
sions, he would have thought that he had been unaware of
them. No one had been more precipitate than the right
hon. gentleman, who had used language which could have
no other effect than that of inflaming those to whom it was
addressed, and which would tend to produce an angry state
of feeling, and a sense of insult, which was the most likely
of all possible states of mind to drive Franco on to a preco
pitate course of action. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. ROEBUCK—Members of that house were in a diffi-
cult position in regard to foreign affairs. Sometimes they
were teld when they interfered, that they were too soon,
and when they came a little later they were told they
were too late. (Hear, hear.) That was their exact posi-

tion on this occasion. Tho noble lord had stated in that
house that the Emperor of the French would take no steps
for the annexation of Savoy ead Nice without consulting
the great Powers; the noble lord had said that that was
the statement of the Emperor of the French ; but he (Mr.
Roebuck) would boldly say that the question of Savoy and
Nice was settled, and without any reference whatever to
the great Powers. If this were the case, what influence
ought it to have on their estimation of the value of the
statements made in that quarter ? He held them very
cheep, even before this statement—(cheers and laughter).—
and now, after the very candid acknowledgment by the
noble lord at the head of the Government, there was no ex-
pression of worthlessness which would adequately convoy
his estimation of them. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. HORSMAN denied having made use of exasperat-
ing or insulting language on the subject.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said he believed that a full
discussion even now would be of the greatest advantage to
Europe. He had for along time looked upon the annexa-
tion of Savoy to Prance as inevitable.
REBUKE BY MINISTERS TO MEMBERS.
Mr. KINGLAKE said he could not but express his sur-
prise at the charge made by the right hon,•gentleatatz the

Chancellor of the Exchequer against his right hon. friend
the member for Stroud. It was the right of every hon.
member of that house to comment on the conduct of poten-
tates, and he did not see anything in what his right hon.
friend (Mr. Horsman) had said that could justify the right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the
manner in which he expressed himself to his right hon. friend ;
and before he (Mr. Kinglake) sat down he should express
his surprise at the language used by the right hon. gentleman,
who said, with something like fear, that the lanoline used
by hon. members in that house might give offence to the
Emperor of the French. He must protest against the no •
tion that the tone and language of that house was to be
regulated by considerations in reference to what the Em-
peror of the French might think of it. (Hear, hear.)
FRAUDS IN THE COLLECTION OF INCOME-TAX.

---
On the order of the day being read for going into com-
mittee of ways and means,
Mr. AYRTON said he wished to call the attention of the
Government to a subject of very serious importance in con-
nexion with the collection of the income-tax in the parish of
St. Leonard's, Shereditch. It appeared from a petition
which had been presented from the inhabitants that the
management of the income-tax in that parish was under the
control of commissioners and a surveyor appointed by the
Crown, but that those commissioners appointed collectors to
collect the tax. The petitioners stated further that a con-
spiracy was entered into between the surveyor and the col-
lectors for the purpose of defrauding the inhabitants and
her Majesty's Government. The nature of the conspiracy
was that the collectors should deliver to the inhabitants
notices of charge at a higher rate than the surveyor entered
upon the roll which was approved of by the commissioners
and transmitted to the Government, and that they should
appropriate to themselves the difference between the two
accounts. When the fraud was discovered the surveyor
absconded, and it did not appear that any steps were taken
either by the local commissioners or by the Commissioners
of Inland Revenue to have him apprehended ; one of the
collectors was arrested and indicted for obtaining money
under false pretences. That indictment was tried at the
Central Criminal Court, but it seemed that the conduct of
the prosecution was not entrusted to any counsel of anti •
nonce, and the result was that the prisoner was acquitted
upon some technical ground.
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said no
person could appreciate the motives of the hen, member in
bringing the case, to which he had called attention, under
the consideration of the house more than he did. There
were two points of view in which the question was to be con-
sidered, and one of them was that it was not shown that
the inhabitants in the parish in question had been sub-
jected to a higher assessment than others and than was
fair. The other point was that it was desirable that the in-
habitant ratepayers throughout the country should take an
interest in the manner'in which the revenue of the country
was collected. He did not think that the grievance com-
plained of had been overstated in some respects, and he
was glad to think it was not a common ono. It was his
intention, in the course of the present session, to propose
an act of Parliament to remedy the anomaly, that the col-
lection of those taxes should be brought under the direc-
tion, control, and responsibility of the Government.
(Hear, hear.)
The question of the adjournment was then agreed to.
WAYS AND MEANS.—THE INCOME TAX.

The order of the day for going into Committee of Ways
and Means having beerrread and agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in rising
to move the income tax resolution, said that he should
merely place the resolution in the hands of the chairman,
without any lengthened explanation; because, in point of
fact, in the course of these discussions on the budget and
the treaty of commerce, almost all the general topics had
been very considerably dealt with. The exact state of the
case was, that according to the calculations which he made
on the 10th of February, the revenue, as then anticipated,
on the supposition that the house would vote the minor
charges and the income tax, as stated in the resolution,
would give him a probable surplus of £400,000. He need
hardly say, also, that if a reduction of a penny were made
in the tax, it would leave a positive deficiency of about the
same amount, instead of a surplus.
Lord W. GRAHAM observed that, in stating hisbudget
to the house the right hon. gentleman had adverted to the
possibility of au extinction of the income tax by the reduc-
tion of the military and naval establishments of the coun-
try. Looking at the state of Europe, however, and parti
cularly as the act of spoliation and aggrandisement which
was soon about to be consummated, it became more than
ever the duty of the country to maintain an attitude of
armed watchfulness. It was an evasion, therefore, on the
part of the right hon. gentleman, to ask for the tax only
for a single year. The hon. gentleman had thrown away
large amounts of indirect taxation with such a lavish
hand, that there was no hope from that source of any re-
duction in the tax. Nor was it to be effected, that he could
see, by any reduction in the armaments of the country.
The estimate for the military expenditure, it was known,
was not adequate for the defence of the country, and the
right hon. gentleman had only asked for a portion of the
Chinese expenditure, proposing to make up the deficiency
by some hocus pocus mystification between the Indian
Treasury and the Downing-street Exchequer. It was
pretty clear, however, that the house might expect to be
told one day that all the money was spent, and that more
must be had. Tho right hon. gentleman used to pride him-
self at one time upon acting upon Conservative principles.
This, however, was no Conservative principle, but he rather
thought it one that was pregnant with rashness and im-
providence.
Mr. W. MARTIN said that the tax in future years
would become unnecessary if there should RO longer be oc-
casion to maintain our naval and military establishments at
their present extraordinary amount. To satisfy themselves
that such a reduction was possible, they had no need to go
back to the year 1835, so frequently taken as a model year
of finance, but if they would take the estimates of the year
1857, when the military service of the country was admi-
rably provided for by the hon. and gallant gentleman the
member for Huntingdon, they would see that their object
might be readily attained. In that year the sum voted for
the two great services was rather moro than £19,000,000 ;
at present it was more than £29,000,000. That arose, no
doubt, from the necessary permanent investment of a large
capital, but were they to go on for ever making Enfield rifles
and Armstrong guns ? Was there never to be a limit for
them to reach in this tremendous expenditure in time of
peace ? If there were not, then he agreed with the noble
lord opposite, the member for Hereford, that there was no
hope for the extinction of the income tax. It was a war
tax, and we virtually had war estimates, and in that cha-
racter he was willing to recognise the necessity of it; but
next year, whoever may be the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, ho would see whether an end could not be put to this
expenditure. The question would be if £20,000,000 was not
enough for the defence of the country. If it were not, then the
income tax was the only means of meeting the heavy cost of
our defences; and he was sure the country would not much
longer endure it in its present form. All men were heartily
tired of a tax which united in itself every possible objection
that could be urged against taxation. It was his film opinion
that if their armaments were largely reduced, the income
tax might be very speedily removed. (Hear.)
Mr, GARNETT said he rose chiefly to explain a misap-
prehension which existed as to the nature of the motion
which he intended to submit at a future stage of this sub-
ject. The proposal of the right hon. gentleman was that
incomes under £l5O should pay 7d. in the pound. His (Mr.
Garnett's) motion would be that that rate should be ex-
tended to incomes as high as £5OO. He had come to the
conclusion that £5OO was too high, and he thought it would
be better to extend the exemption to incomes under £3OO,
with the twofold object of relieving the greatest number of
individuals at the least possible loss to the revenue. Tak-
ing the income tax returns which were issued last July, it
will be found upon examination that the number of persons
under schedule D paying income tax on incomes between
6150 and £2OO were 41,031; upon incomes between £2OO
and £3OO, 33,611; but when they came to incomes between
£3OO and £lOO, there was a great drop, the number being
15,591. Taking the number of persons assessed under
schedule E, the falling off was still more remarkable, the
number of persons paying on incomes between £l5O and
£2OO was 11,521, between £3OO and £4OO, 10,484. and be-
tween £4OO and £5OO, 4,931. Therefore, in asking the right
hon. gentleman to extend the exemption to incomes below
£3OO, the amount lost would be £231,723, and there would
be a very large number of persons relieved from the burden
at that small cost to the exchequer. His main motive in
bringing forward this proposition was to relieve persons of
moderate means and precarious incomes, and to place them
undea the minimum rate. He hoped that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would be able out of his surplus to spare
that relief to a deserving and heavily burdened class of the
community.

Sir C. N'APIER could not allow the hon. member (Mr.
W. Martin) to indulge in the mistaken notion that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would be enabled next year
to reduce the income tax on account of what had been
already spent on the army and the navy. The tax would
not be one farthing less next year on that ground. We had
certainly got a new wooden navy, and very fine ships they
were • but who could guarantee that they would be para-
mount, and not have to be replaced by an iron navy. The
French were already building iron ships, six of them being
now in progress, and we had commenced following them, as
one iron ship at least was now building. If that was the
case we would have to construct new dockyards of immense
size for the building of the new ships. In addition, the pre-
sent navy would have to be new gunned with Armstrong's
or Whitworth's guns, at an immense expense, and if the
Secretary of the Admiralty had been present he would have
asked him how soon that could be done. He did not believe
that at present we could "gun" more than one or two ships
with Armstrong's guns. The cost of the war with China
would be far greater than had been estimated, and if the
French Government went on building ships of war at the
rate they did, we must build as fast or faster, because we
had a greater number of colonies and a larger commerce to
protect than France. (Hear.) The only way he could see to
any future reduction in the income tax was that the Go-
vernment should act on the principle advocated by Mr.
Cobden in that house, and enter into an arrangement with
the French Emperor at what point they should stop build-
ing ships. If that was not done, the house and the country
might depend upon it that the income tax next year would
not be less than ls. or Is. 3d. Europe wasin a most unset-
tled and unsatisfactory state. No one knew how far the
Emperor of the French would go. For his own part, he
believed he meant mischief, and under these circumstances
they must not indulge in any unfounded expectations of the
reduction of the income tax. (Hear, bear.)

Sir S. NORTHC TE complained that the usual course
had been departed from in voting taxes in ways and
means, before they knew really what the expenditure of
the year actually was. Indeed, the whole course pursued
appeared to him most. objectionable. Take the vote for
China, which was pressed forward at a late hour, and
which his right hon. and gallant friend the late Secretaryfor
War had questioned, subsequently, as to its accuracy. That
vote was for the year 1860-61, but to meet a deficiency in
the year 1859-60, and as that deficiency had been differently
stated at £1,170,000, while the vote taken was for £850,000,
it was clear that there was a discrepancy somewhere. He
must say it was extremely difficult to follow these estimates,
but from some experience at the Treasury, ho looked with
considerable distrust at all estimates that came from the
War-office. (Hear, hear.) He knew that, when last in
office, he found the military authorities extremely reluctant
to admit that there was any deficiency, when it turned out
afterwards that the deficiency was actually upwards of a
million. He would be glad, therefore, to hear either from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the
Treasury that they had satisfied their own minds as to the
accuracy of the estimates connected with China. (Hear.)
He said this because -he felt that there were many points on
which it was imporaktt the house shouldohave inforMation.
Was there any truth in the statement that a large loan was
to be raised for the purpose of fortifying our coasts ? Was
that loan to be Vu 000,00 n, or X 1,000,000; and if it was
either, how.was the interest to be paid ? They ought to
know whether it was inten,led to ask for such a sum, and not
have it brought forward late in the year as a supplemental
estimate. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pro-
mind that there would be a diminutioil ill the cost of the