The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 9, 1860,

(Continued from our first page.)
ad no doubt, be able to state whether the return on the
'hole of the paper made did not amount to about £6,000,000
er annum. But be that as it might, it was only fair to
'rgue that in proportion to the extent of the interest with
ahich the house was called upon to deal did it behove them
keriously to consider the results whiCh might flow from the
:node in which they were asked to legislate. Was it not
;nost unjust that taxation on a certain commodity should
e reduced, theTreduction of which materially interfered
4ith the manufacture of the article, and rendered necessary
'he imposition of an additional penny in the pound in the
hope of income-tax on the poor clerk, who could ill afford
o pay it ? (Hear, hear.) But there was also another ob-
ection to the contemplated repeal of the paper duty. He
had been told by persons conversant with the subject that
that repeal would tend to do material injury not only to the
manufacturers themselves, but to those whom they em-
ployed. (Hear, bear.) The right hon. gentleman had
net, however, informed the house to what extent he thought
the operation of the bill would be to diminish the number
of those who earned their livelihood in that way. lie might
add that the material from which paper was made was 40
or 50 per cent, cheaper on the Continent than it was in this
country, and that it was only the extra penny on each
pound paid by the foreigner in the shape of Customs'
duty that enabled the English manufacturer to hold his
ground against him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
however, called on honourable members to yield up the
advantage which the latter at present possessed, and
that, too, without the slightest equivalent. (Hear.) For
his own part he could see no justice in such a proceeding,
and he should remind the right hon. gentleman that if he
desired to see that treaty, which it was argued was destined
to unite two great countries more closely together in the
bonds of friendship, permanent, the best mode of effecting
that object would be to render it more equal in regard to
the advantages which it conferred, (Hear.)
Mr. PULLER said the Excise duty and the Customs'
duty on paper were quite distinct. The question as to the
Excise duty was already settled ; the house had condemned
it two years ago. The real point opened by the hon. member
for Stamford was, whether since the settlement any fresh
circumstances had occurred sufficient to induce the house
to reconsider its decision and preserve the duty. (Hear,
hear.) That was really a question of confidence in the Go-
vernment—(oh I) —and whether it could be trusted to draw
up the estimates. (Hear, hear.) It was an error of the hon.
member for Cambridgeshire to bring into the discussion his
own peculiar views of the Customs' duty on paper. It
would be impossible, by the terms of the treaty, to keep on
the Excise duty and the protection duty of a penny also,
which he hoped would be maintained till the Government
secured a free exportation of rags. (Hear.)
Sir M. FARQUHAR was surprised at the course the Go-
vernment had taken on the present occasion, when he found
what were the opinions expressed by hon. gentlemen oppo-
site in the discussion on the hon. member for Ashton's (Mr.
M. Gibson's) resolution in 1858. In that debate the hon.
member for Birmingham said :

"He believed the object of his right hon. friend in bring •
ing forward this resolution was merely to put on the records
of the house the opinions of hon. members on both sides, so
that, whenever the condition of the Treasury should be such
as to permit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to
the abolition of this tax, the right hon. gentleman would
select it as the very first for remission, and so get rid of it."
What said the right hon. member for Bucks on the same
occasion ? This—

" He objected to the motion as first proposed by the hon.
gentleman. He agreed with him that the maintenance of
the excise on paper as a permanent source of revenue would
be impolitic, but could not agree with him that such finan-
cial arrangements ought to be made as to enable Parliament
to dispense with the tax."
The right hon. baronet the Home Secretary said :
" He had certainly given the hon. gentleman no enema-
ragement, for he had said that, when they knew that they
had a surplus revenue and the means of diminishing the
taxation of the country, then was the proper time to consi-
der what under existing circumstances were the taxes
which had the first claim to reduction."
These declarations formed one of the grounds of the sur-
prise of the country at the determination of the same right
hon. gentleman to seize the present occasion to repeal this
tax. He would only quote one more authority, the noble lord
the member for the City of London—he said distinctly :
" The house would recollect that last year the then Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer proposed that the income-tax should
be kept up at 7d. in the pound, and instead of Is. 3d. the
duty on tea would be ls. od., and that there should be a pro-
portionate increase in the duty on sugar. This year they had
allowed the income-tax to fall from 7d to sd. in the pound,
but they had kept up the duty on tea at ls. 5d., and also
retained the proportionate increase in the duty on sugar. It
was therefore almost a matter of good faith whennext there
was a reduction in taxation, that the duties on tea and
sugar should be reduced, which were in fact war duties,
and there could be no greater claim for reduction of taxa-
tion than in those articles of consumption which entered so
largely into the comforts of the people."
As theincome-tax had been imposed, should any part of
the paper duty be retained, he could only congratulate the
right hon. gentleman on having that amount to meet any
difficulties that might arise. The right hon. gentleman ex-
pressed his surprise that they should object to the bill on
the third reading, Surely he had been long enough in the
house to know that they had a right to dispute draeasure at
every stage, on the second reading in committee, and on
the third reading. Since the period when the Budget and
the Commercial Treaty were brought forward the feeling
of the country had materially changed. (Cheers.) The
people had seen that there was not the desire supposed to
exist, on the part of a neighbouring country to meet the
free trade proposals of the Government. (Hear.) Under
these circumstances it might fairly be argued that the house
ought not to press the passing of the bill. The right hon.
member for Buckinghamshire had been taunted, he thought
unfairly, in relation to the question of fire insurance, having
stated last year as a Minister of the Crown the course which
he felt it his duty to adopt with regard to it. He himself
was in favour of a reduction of that duty, but he had not
voted on the question either last year or during the present
session, as he did not w;sh his motives to be misiuter •
preted. (Hear, hear.) He was extremely glad the hen.
member for Stamford had brought forward the question,
and he hoped the house would declare its opinion that it
was unwise to sacrifice revenue amounting to £1,300,000
when a groat deficiency existed in the present year, and it
had been shown that the deficit for next could not be less
than £12,000,000. (Loud cheers.)
Lord H. VANE thought the discussion had somewhat
wandered from the point raised by the hon. baronet, which
he understood to rest on purely financial grounds, the hon.
member admitting that by the decision of the house the
tax itself ought not to form a permanent revenue. The
point raised by the hon. baronet, and upon which he trusted
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would afford some infor-
mation, was, that inasmuch as the house would probably be
called on to adopt larger estimates than were at first con-
templated, and as the last of these had not yet been pre-
sented, it was desirable, before so large an amount of
revenue was parted with, that the house should bo in a
position to arrive at a just conclusion. In this view he
entirely concurred—(hear, hear)— and though it might be
said that the increased amount of the estimates would not
absorb the entire of the available surplus, there were other
questions looming—(hear, hear)—as to which they ought
to have some information. It was stated, for instance, that
the Government intended to propose certain plans of forti-
fication ; and it would be well that the house should be in
possession of the fact before coming to any definite resolu
tion involving such an extensive sacrifice of revenue as
they were now asked to make. (Cheers.) lie differed from
those who thought that an income-tax ought not now to be
imposed with a view of removing other kinds of taxation,
for the principle had been already adopted. The sole ques-
tion was whether sufficient provision had been made for the
additional expenses to be incurred. 110 did not find fan'
with the Government for not having produced these addi

tional estimates, for in the position in which they found
themselves at the opening of the session they had no choice
as to the manner in which they should introduce the finan-

cial details, and he believed it was customary for Chan-
cellors of the Exchequer to bring in towards the close of
the session a supplementary estimate, embracing all
additional and miscellaneous charges. He differed from
the hon. member for Hertfordshire, who thought that
the Excise and Customs duties were not intimately con-
nected ; on the contrary, they were so intimately related
that he could not conceive how any member could vote with
respect to the one without anticipating that he would be
called on to vote in similar sense on the other. (Cheers.)
And, therefore, ho thought himself justified in assuming
that the decision that night would virtually decide the ques-
tion on Monday, as all who now supported the Government

would vote against him on a future occasion. (Hear, hear.)
He was not surprised that the hon. member for Ashton-

under-Lynx should take credit to himselffor having brought

the question to an issue, for it was he who, by an argument
of great ability, induced the house two years ago to agree
to the resolution which had placed the paper duty in its
present anomalous position. But that position had existed
ever since, and he did not see that any great injury would
result from the postponement of its final decision till next
year—(hear, hear)—the house, in so doing, would be act-
ing in strict accordance with the principle which had guided
them since that resolution was passed. The capital of
£10,000,000, alleged to be vested in the manufacture of
paper, would remain in exactly the same position. it had oc-
cupied during that interval. (Hear.) Ile could see a clear
distinction between the reduction of Customs' duties and the
present case. In the former, the house proceeded by way
of resolution, and pledged itself to take off or reduce certain
charges, but with respect to duty imposed in accordance
with an Act of 'Parliament. its repeal was not accomplished
until all the successive stages had been gone through, and
nobody had a right to complain if in any of these the bill
for effecting that object was defeated! (Hear, hear.) lie by
no means contemplated the permanent retention of the

paper duty, against which many reasons could be assigned,
especially its harsh operation in the case of literary men
and of certain commercial interests, but he believed the in-
jury which it entailed was very much exaggerated. (Oppo-
sition cheers.) There was no tax which was absolutely free
from objection, and in every-insiance it was a question of
comparison as to the least objectionable mode by which the
Exchequer could be supplied. 'ln sUpport of the paper duty
it might be urged that it was of long standing, having ex •
isted ever since the time of Queen Anne, and that interests
had grown up tinter it. and become accustomed to it, while
duties more recently-imposed had interfered with existing
interests and ran more directly counter to the ideas and
WWI of the people, (Hear.) Unless, therefore, some fuller f

explanations were afforded than had yet been given, and '
unless fears which were not unreasonably entertained were
more satisfactorily allayed than had hitherto been the case,
t would be an act of imprudence in the house :o part at
such a moment with so large a portion of tie revenue.
(Cheers.)
Mr. ELLICE—I wish to explain to the house in a few
words why I shall feel obliged to vote 53 net the third
reading of this bill. (Hear.) Ido not co lie to that deter-
mination on any of the narrow grounds I have heard stated
since I came into the house, but upon the general view I
take of the resources and revenue of the country, which I
think are placed in considerable jeopardy by my right hon.
friend's budget. (Opposition cheers.) In the few remarks
I made at the beginning of these discussions I described
the budget as being in my opinion an ambitious budget, and
the experience I have acquired of it since only confirms that
opinion. (Hear.) I have sat in this house the most part of
half a century, during which time I have paid some atten-
tion to the financial condition of the country, and this is the
first instance within my recollection when a Chancellor of
the Exchequer has come down askieg us to repeal certain
taxes connected with thepermanent revenue of the country,
at the same time admitting that he leaves a deficiency to be
supplied by new taxes in the ensuing year, of somewhere
about £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. (Cheers.) I do not know
that any gentleman in this house can furnish a similar pre-
cedent. It is a course full of danger—(hear, hear)—and it
is full of inconvenience ; for at the beginning of the next
session we shall be launched into exactly the same discus-
sions which now prevent us from proceeding with the ordi.
nary business of the nation. (Hear.) If it should turn
out that some of the great measures of this session do not
succeed or are not carried we must recommence our discus-
sions upon them in the beginnir g of another session, and at
the same time we have to provide the means, which will
be then very much more disputed than now, of supplying
the deficiency of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. (Hear.) Again,
we have no security that the sums asked from us on account
of the estimates constitute the whole expenditure which we
shall be called upon to provide for the service of the year.
(Hear.) I have the greatest misgivings with respect to the
vote for the China expedition. (Hear, hear.) As to that
item, we must be guided not only by the actual estimates
before us, but by what our own judgment suggests as to the
probable expenditure we may be called on to face. (Hear,
hear.) Witk respect to the tax which we are now discus-
sing, I have not a word to say in its defence. It is about
as odious a tax as one can well imagine. It is not only a
tax which interferes, as all Excise taxes do, with an impor-
tant branch of manufacture—being almost the only tax of
that descriptien now left in our fiscal system—but it also
impedes the circulation of information and of knowledge.
Upon all these grounds no man is more disposed to repeal
this tax whenever we can do so without robbing the exchequer.
(Hear, hear.) But when we are ealled on to repeal it at the
risk of leaving a deficit, or when we are called on to impose
other taxes equally odious to the people, I think we should
wait until some more favourable time presents itself. (Hear,
hear.) It is upon these, and upon no mere narrow grounds,
that I object to the repeal of this tax. Another reason why
we should suspend our judgment is this :—My right hon.
friend proposes other taxes which have not yet passed the
house. some of them are objected to by various classes of
persons who a ill be affected by them. For instance, the
mercantile classes object to the petty taxes which are to be
imposed upon trade. It is true we remit duties on consump-
tion, but we impose petty, vexatious, shackles on trade,
such as 2d. or 3d. on removing packages, which are not im-
posed on the commerce of Hamburg, Belgium, Holland,
America, or of any other country in the world. (Hear.)
It is the first time in the history of the country that such
vexatious taxes were imposed. I feel strongly the objections
to such imposts, and it is therefore not quite clear to my
mind that others may not object, too, and that my right
hon. friend may not experience some difficulty in carrying
them. At all events, I think it will be better to wait until
they are carried before we proceed to remit other duties.
(Hear.) Though greatly indisposed, therefore, to do any-
thing in the least opposed to the measures of the Govern-
ment, I feel obliged in my conscience to vote against the
third reading of this bill. (Cheers.)
Mr. HOPE said, that had he voted on the second reading
of the bill he should have supported it on the grounds
urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that it
would relieve a great manufacture from great restrictions,
increase the purposes to which the manufacture could be
applied, and reduce the price at which the article cord be
sold. Having, however, watched the discussions carried
on since that time, he had come to the conclusion that no
such results would follow; that, looklng to what had
passed abroad and at home, it was a delusion to expect
them; and he should, therefore, feel compelled to vote
against the third reading. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I must
frankly admit that my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) does
found his opposition to the third reading of this bill upon
no narrow grounds. I might, indeed, question the correct-
ness of some portion of those grounds. He complains of
the Government because they are proposing the imposition
of a number of new taxes upon trade which havenot yet re-
ceived the sanction of this house, which may, therefore, be
uncertain as to their effect, and with respect to which it is
desirable that we shorld know whether they are to be adopted
before we surrender revenue. My right hon. friend says he
has attended the debates of this house for nearly half a
century, and it is perhaps no wonder therefore that he has
become so weary of hearing them, that the taxes of which
he speaks have been debated by the house, and, with an in-
significant exception, have received its deliberate approval
without his knowledge. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, as re-
gards that part of my right hon. friend's statement, if it has
materially affected his judgment, I can only regret that a
voice so authoritative should have been guided or misguided,
as the case may be, by considerations so entirely erro-
neous. (A laugh.) A 9 to my right hon. friend's criticisms
on the general policy of the Government scheme of finance,
I must point eut to him that he has spoken somewhat late.
His statement, which sums up, in fact, the most prominent
objections urged against the financial plans of the Govern-
ment as a whole, would have been extremely important if
it had proceeded from his mouth, with his authority, some
two or three months ago, and would then have, at least,
Leen in place and in time. At present, I hardly know what
purpose it can answer beyond that of eliciting warm ex-
pressions cf approval from that portion of the house which
finds a large amount of sympathy in a quarter where sym-
pathy with them was not previously known to exist. (A
laugh.) But I must submit to my right hon. friend that it
is too late to discuss these matters now. (" No, no.") With
great respect I must decline to follow my right hon. friend
into the mere enunciation of counter-statemeAts which it
would be I.erfectly easy for us to make, or into that very
minute examination, and, as I think, that not very difficul
refutation, of his opinions, which would, in point of fac

involve the repetition of our principal debates for the last
three months. (Hear, and a laugh.) I beg to state to the
house what I conceive not to be the question now at issue.
We are not debating the general principles of the financial
plans of the Government,- and I venture to tell my right
hon. friend that if he really has entertained these sinister
and dismal apprehensions, it might have been better either
to have uttered them in their full force at the time when
they might have operated on the decision of Parliament, or
possibly to have kept thorn to himself. (" Oh, oh.") The
time has passed by when the, decision of Parliament can be
governed by these prophecies, because in the main, as I
shall endeavour to show to the house, the principal ques-
tions raised by them are already decided. Ido not ask
your assent to that proposition now, but I will attempt pre-
sently to show that it is a sound and correct proposition.
We are not discussing the question whether it would have
iieen wiser on the part of the Government to have refrained
fro-n proposing a repeal of the paper duty, which was
to be made up by an additional penny of income-tax, be-
cause that additional penny has already become law, and
at this moment been levied from many of her Majesty's
subjects—(hear, hear)—and a large party in this house
opposed to the policy of the Government has, by its deliberate
vote, in its own self-chosen language, sent forth to the coun-

try that the proposition of a tenth of the income-tax and the
repeal of the paper duty were correlatives ono to another, and

inseparably united. (Hear, hear.) That has been declared
by the motion of the hon. member for Somersetshire (Sir
W. Miles), and supported generally by the party opposite.

Neither are we discussing the question whether the Govern

ment would have done better to have proposed the reduction

of the duties on tea and sugar rather than of that on paper,
because we have seen that while it has been argued that at

any rate it would have been a preferable change, yet there

has been no serious intention of recommending a Change of
that sort, or it would have been submitted to the house in

the shape of a formal motion. Neither are we discussing
the question whether a protective duty of a penny per lb. is
to be maintained upon foreign paper in consideration of the
legislation of foreign countries. I think I may assure my
noble friend who lately addressed the house that, as far as
arL-unient at least, the two questions of the duty to be im-
posed upon the importation of paper from.abroad and the
_ _ .

question of the retention of the Excise duty on paperyat
home are entirely distinct. He may say if he pleases, and
he has a right to do so, that the same inclination which led

a majority of the house to vote for the ono may lead them
to vote for the other; but, in truth, the two things are quite
distinct. Neither at this stage do I• propose to re-argue the
general question of the repeal of the duty on paper. My
right hon. friend has not gone 'further than to say that a

more odious tax than that for the retention of which he
argued could not be conceived. And this most odious tax

he desires. to retain after the house has given to the Ex-
chequer the equivalent which was stipulated for when the
repeal of the duty was proposed. (Hear, hear.) I do not
re-argue the general grounds against the tax. I merely re-
cite them. Among them were, of course, the general ob-
jections to Excise duties upon what is called a legitimate
and unexceptionable manufacture. Prominently among
them are the uncertainty and inequality of the present law,
which have led the responsible department to report that
" it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that we are levying
a duty upon A while we allow B to send out goods pre-
ci-ely similar in nature without any interference from the
revenue officers." So that, according to the opinions of
those who are most competent to speak upon the subject it
issnot-possible to go on longer as we are, and if the duty is
not repealed there remains for Parliament the doubly odioxs
task of new, vexatious,-and restrictive legislation. Another
and a less weighty ground is the resolution of this house,
and I hope that hon. gentlemen who voted for that resolu-
tion, meaning, apparently, nothing by it, will derive from ,

that vote a salutary lesson for the future when they se e
what effect such a vote produces in weakening the hands of
those whose duty it is to maintain and enfoice the law.
(Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend has said that this duty
is a tax on literature and education, and the effect of it is
to confine within narrow limits the whole manufacture from
fibrous substances (hear, hear) which it is reasonable to ex-
pect, if the shackles of the law are removed, may become the
basis of a trade vastly multiplied, and which will contribute
t 3 the general prosperity of the country in a degree far beyond
the measure of tribute which it now supplies to the revenue.
(Hear, hear.) My hon. friend the member for Stamford
(Sir S. Northcote) stated the case not unfairly. I under-
stood him to take as his ground not that the financial policy
of the Government ought ab initio to have been rejected, but
that since it had adopted the principles of the repeal of the
paper duty such changes had taken place in the prospects of
our expenditure as impises upon us the duty and obligation
of withholding the relief we had promised in respect of this
particular item of finance. The state of our expenditure and
the probable demands upon the public purse were declared
by the Government at the commencement of the session, and
requires no declaration from the Government to show that
it contained some elements of uncertainty, because we had
undertaken to send, in conformity with what was our duty
and honour, a costly expedition to one of the remotest coun-
tries of the globe, with respect to which the cost must ne-
cessarily depend much upon circumstances attending the
despatch of that expedition; and the course of political affairs
which might follow its departure and arrival. I never dis-
guised this, nor do I now, that there is a degree of uncer-
tainty affecting the expenditure of the present financial
year, and probably that of future years. (Opposition cheers.)
That is not a matter that is new to the house, which had it
in view when it assented to our financial propositions, and
gave them its sanction and approval. (Hear, hear.) And
although the precise amount of that expenditure has re •
ceived some degree of modification, yet there has teen no
change as would justify us in altering the financial propo-
sitions which we submitted to the house. It is still a case
of uncertainty, but still it is precisely the same case. (Hear.)
Now I come to the specific case upon which my hon. friend
rests. He said there was a change in the estimates for the
collection of the revenue, and he intimated that there would
be a similar change in the estimates for the miscellaneous
services, although those changes would not involve any in-
crease of charge. I think he will see that although there
are changes, yet they are not such as will justify his rno-
lion. He says that several military votes have been al-
tered. It is true, and when we come to discuss those esti-
mates a good reason for the alteration will, I am sure, be
given, and the hon. baronet knows well that a state of ac-
counts involving su di large sums between the Govern-
ments of India and of England is necessarily a disturbing
cause, which from time to time tends to vary estimates and
to modify charges on either side. The estimates as pre-
sented by my right hon. friend he is prepared to stand
by; and the house w;11, I think, admit that he is not in the
habit of presenting estimates got up to meet an emergency,
and then relying upon supplementary estimates to carry
him through the year. My hon. friend adverted to the vote
for fortifications, and asked for details. Undoubtedly,
nothing can be more reasonable than that the house should
be informed as to the details of that vote; but the house
and the Government are essentially in the same pre-
dicament, inasmuch as it is known that a special
body has been appointed for the purpose of con-
sidering the important questions connected with the de
fences of the country, and the report of that body,
embodying the recommendations whicliNit may think
fit to make to the Government, is not yet in the hands
of the Cabinet for its consideration. What course, then,
has been taken by the Geyer ament under the circumstances?
Why, this; they have submitted to the house necessarily a
sum without details, which remains in a great degree un-
fixed, but at any rate a sum which is much more than the
vote of last year, or, indeed, of any preceding year, for
the purpose of fortifications. But that matter stands
precisely now as it did at the time when the house arrived
at the decision which it is now asked to retract. I come now
to the third head—that of the miscellaneous estimates,
which my hon. friend anticipated would be increased to
£7,772,000, but that is sheer anticipation. I think I may
venture to assure him that it is an inaccxrate estimate, and
that the charge for the miscellaneous estimates will approxi-
mate nearly to the figure at which I originally stated it. I
won't say there will not bo a variation of some £20,000 or
£30,000, but substantially that charge will correspond with
my former estimate. Then there remains the charge for the
collection of the revenue ; and with respect to that, there is
something in what has been stated by my friend, because,
owiag to the early period at which the estimates were pro-
posed, they were stated at a lower figure than that at which
it was afterwards thought prudent to fix them. But it is im-
possible for me to state even now in what degree that change
in the figure is likely to represent a real increase of expendi-
ture, because important alterations are contemplated in re-
ference to the revenue establishments and the collection of
the taxes, and at present it would be impossible for me to
say in what degree any changes that may be made in that
sense may affect the estimate ; but even if the whole of the
difference he anticipates were to be represented by a real ex-
penditure—that difference being above £2oo,ooo—although
it may constitute a change in the circumstances since the
budget was proposed, yet constitutes no change of a nature
or magnitude that would justify us in stopping the course
of a measure which involves a revenue of five or six times
that amount. So far, therefore, as regards change in circum-
stances since the period when the financial statement was
submitted to the house, there is nothing that would justify
the Government in making new financial proposals to Par-
liament. (Hear, hear.) But even that is not the whole
of the question before us ; and I entreat the house, before
coming to the vote of to-night, to consider what its mean-
ing and bearing really are. The third reading of a bill is
now contested, and you are, in circuitous and vague
terms, but still with no doubt as to the practical ob-
ject, invited to reject that bill on the adjourned debate on
this its very last stage, the object of that bill being to
repeal a duty which involves a large amount of revenue,
and a trade praducing many millions of pounds every year,
I entreat the house to consider what is really involved in
that proposal. My right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) says he
has sat in the house for nearly half a century, and I ask
him if he has ever known such a vote given as that in which
he is going to join to-night. (Cheers and counter cheers.)
If any other gentleman has known it, let us have the pre.•
codent. Has my right hon. friend, I repeat, ever known a
case in which the repeal of a tax affecting trade, deliberately
proposed by an executive Government as part, and a funda-
mental part, of its financial propositions for the year, long
debated in the House of Commons, variously discussed on
both sides, and deliberately affirmed by a large majority, I
say has he ever known such a case, in which, at the last
moment, on the motion for the third reading of a bill, the
House of Commons has :interfered and arrested the boon on
its way to the people ? (Cheers.) What does thisinvolve ?
What is the effect that is uniformly produced on the house
and the country when the repeal of a tax upon trade is an-
nounced by the authority of the Queen's Government, and
is accepted by the higher authority of this house ? (Hear,
hear.) I state, without the slightest fear of contradiction,
that such an arrangement, when so announced, is almost
uniformly taken for granted as a thing accomplished.
(Hear, and no, no.) These aro surely matters for a free
expression of opinion, and I state it as my opinion that even
upon the announcement by the Queen's Government of the
repeal of a tax on trade, that repeal is usually taken for
granted. But what I insist upon is this—and here I chal-
lenge contradiction in any form—that, without exception,
when such a remission of taxation has been proposed by the
authority of the Government and accepted by a deliber ate
vote of the Hou;e of Commons, it is from that time regarded
by every person concerned as if it were already the law of
the land. (Cheers.) Ts there an exception to that ? ' Can
my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) furnish me with an ex-
ception ? Let us recollect what this matter really is. The
business of the Queen's Government is to make demands
on the House of Commons for the sums necessary to carry
forward the public service, and to suggest the means by
which those charges are to be met. But this power of alter-
ing the taxes of the country is one of the greatest, most im-
portant, and most vital parts of the functions of the House
of Commons ; and what I now wish to bring to the particu

tar notice of the house is that there is no instance of the
correction of a deliberate vote of this kind. Directly the
remission of a tax is annodhced by the Government and ac-

cepted by the House of Commons every description of
trading arrangements begin to be made by those who are
affected by the tax; the whole operations of that trade are,
in point of fact, dependent on the vote of the House of
Commons; and when the house had deliberately given that

vote I say it is always and without exception regarded as the
definitive and authoritative expression of its opinions.
(Hear, hear.) I think my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice)
must be led to consider whether, even for the purpose of

retaining the paper duty, it would be worth while to give
such a shock to public confidence as the new course of prac-
_ _

tiee now recommended could not fail to give. (Hear, hear.)
During the last 40 years you have at intervals repealed
•

from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 of taxes, and in every one
of these instances the first affirmation of the house has been

accepted by the country, and are we now going to break up
the traditions of the house, and destroy that confidence

which the country has ever felt in its declarations relative
to taxation. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Hert •
_ _ _

„
fordshire says we have not lost our right to vote against the
second reading of a financial bill because the principle of it
has been affirmed in preliminary committee, nor to object to
the third reading because it has passed through committee.
Certainly not. (Cheers.) No person asserts that either

le individual members of Parliament in this house havo

Lost theirright to do what theypleaso in the matter. (Hear.)

I am not questioning the right of the House of Commons,
but addressing arguments to its sense of fairness—(" Oh,
oh," and laughter from the Opposition)—and to that dis-

- - position which the house almost uniformly shows to paying
regard to its own traditions, and to fulfil those expectations

with regard to financial changes which it has raised in the

country. (Hear, hear.) I must also say that Ido not think

that, even in a financial point of view, you can effectually
reanimate the paper duty. YOu have gone too far. (Hear,
hear.) Your own deliberate resolution, and the continual

announcement of your own servants whose duty it is to

collect the revenue, would have this effect, that even if you
could be persuaded to reverse your vote you would only,
be able to bring back the trade to a paralysed existence.
(Hear.) You would check the manufacture, you would
proscribe all enterprise, and you would only half obtain the

fiscal objects which you contemplate, while no small loss 1
and suffering would be the consequence of your having dis-
appointed the just expectations that you had raised. (Hear,
hear.) But these considerations are apart from the import-
ant merits of the question whether the Government judged
wisely or not wisely in proposing the repeal of the paper
duty. What I submit is that it is above all things neces-
sary in matters relating to taxation that the people of this
country should know when the voice of Parliament has
been uttered. (Hear, hear.) The practice of 40 years has
exhibited a system of uniform conduct in this respect, and
I do not hesitate to express my individual opinion, that if
we were about to be, I will not say involved in war, but to
be placed in circumstances that would demand of us addi-
tional charges, it would be better that the Government,
having arrived at this point, should propose some other
appliances, and ask the house to find the means in some
other way, rather than do that which would involve the
breach of a legislative promise. (Hear, hear.) I feel confi-
dent that the house retains the opinion which it expressed
on the second reading of the bill. I also feel confident that
even some of those who doubted the merits of the measure
when it was introduced will not doubt now, when the pies-
tion is whether the house will or will not fulfil a solemn
pledge that it has given to the country. (Cheers.)
Mr. T. BARING said, I trust the house will allow me
to state that I for ono do not concur in the opinion ex-
pressed by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and that every removal or every reduction of a
duty proposed by the Government is to be considered al-
most by consent imperative. (Hear, hear.) In 1852 the
right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire
proposed, on the part of the first Government of Lord
Derby, a reduction of the duty on tea, but the house re-
jected that budget entirely. (Hear.) Does the right hon.
gentleman mean to say that because the Government pro-
poses a reduction of duty, such is the prestige and import-
ance attached to the proposal that all transactions of trade
in the particular commodity affected by it are brought
to an end, and that a rejection of the proposal ley this
house cannot be carried into effect without inflicting serious
and fatal injury on that trade ? I ask the right hon. gentle-
man, is he sure that in consequence of his proposal for the
removal of the Excise duty oa paper there has been such an
extension of the manufactures of that commodity as he
seems to suppose ? Does he mean to say that the paper ma-
nufacturers are in favour of his measure if that measure be
coupled with a reduction of the duty on foreign paper, with-
out any compensating reduction of duty on the import of
the raw material ? (Hear, hear.) So far as I can gather the
opinion of paper manufacturers, they would rather have the
• duty on paper remain if its repeal is to be accompanied by a
• reduction of the duty on foreign paper without any corre-
' sponding reduction on the import of rags. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman says it will be a breach of faith
not to carry out this proposal. But I think it is but too pro-
bable that if it be carried out English capital will be car•
ried away to be embarked in paper manufacture abroad,
when proof will be given of the right hon. gentleman's mis-
take in thinking that the rejection of this bill on the third
reading would inflict injury on the trade. (Hear.) The right
hon. gentleman is correct in saying that when a resolution
is carried in this house with reference to an import duty on
a foreign product commerce relies on that resolution being
formally passed, because it affects the duty on the import of
the commodity ; but when a resolution of the house affects
the manufacturing industry of the country it is a very dif-
ferent thing. (Hear.) I agree with the right hon. member
for Coventry that it is better to remove excise duties if we
can, but that of all excise duties that on paper is the least
injurious to the production of manufactures, the least hurt-
ful, the least preventive to inventions and the introduction
of newmatorials. But we are not now considering whether
excise duties are or are not hurtful, nor whether the remo-
val of the paper duty might or might not benefit the manu-
facturers and extend the trade of the country. We are not
now even considering whether it is better to repeal this
duty or those that press more heavily on the labouring
classes; but we are considering whether, looking to the future,
and looking to the uncertainties of expense, and to what
may happen next year, with perhaps another Parliament—
at any rate, with a great deficiency, we should now remove a
source of revenue which now exists without great pressure
on the productive powers of this country, and without great
injury to the manufacturing classes or detriment to the
consuming classes, and which may be wanted, and I believe
is now wanted, but which at all events this house would be
unwise to part with. (Hear.) For a Government to refuse
this proposition on the part of an Opposition was most ex-
traordinary. We have heard in old times of "her Maj sty's
Opposition," but this appears to be " the Government Op-
position," which grants the Government £1,200,009, and
places right hon. gentlemen opposite in the happy situation
of perhaps avoiding a deficiency, or at least secures to this
country its power to meet future contingencies, and to main-
tain public faith. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I should be quite contented to allow
this debate to close with the able speech of the hon. member
for Huntingdon, had .t not been for references repeatedly
made to me, not only to-night but on a former occasion by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the conduct
I pursued in reference to this tax two years ago ; and I
should not think it becoming to myself or the house to re-
main silent when I am aware that the right hon. gentleman
has spoken under an entire misapprehension of what took
place on that occasion. With respect to the question gener-
ally, as moved by way of amendment, it appears to me that a
very simple issue is raised ; and when we strip it of all the
envelopment which had been thrown around it by the rhe-
torical dexterity of the right hon. gentleman, we have be-
fore us only one point to consider, and of all points in the
world it is the one most entitled to the grave and earnest
consideration of the House of Commons. (Hear.) The Go-
vernment, from peculiar circumstances on which we need
not now dwell, had this year to make their financial state-
ment at an unusually early period, when we were not in pos-
session of the results of the financial year; and the proposi
tions of the Government were of a very extensive and singu-
larly complicated character. Well, the consequences of
these circumstances was the result which the right hon.
gentleman has admitted, that there were necessarily in the
statements made what the right hon. gentleman has hap-
pily and fairly described as elements of uncertainty ; and
it is because we are now in the middle of the Parliamen-
t:erg session, and because those elements of uncertainty
have to a certain degree been developed, and because there
is a prospect of a still further development of them, ending
in an issue not in harmony with the calculations of the
right hon. gentleman, that my hon. friend the member for
Stamford takes this opportunity, when the house is called
upon to sanction a further remission of revenue, to advise
you to consider your position and sec whether you are juse
tified in taking the step which the Government counsels
you to pursue. (Hear, hear.) I listened with great atten-
tion to the right hon. gentleman to see how he would an-
swer the objections urged both with moderation and
modesty by my hon. friend. In the first place my hon. friend
says that we are not yet in possession of all the estimates of
the Government, but that, nevertheless, we have already
had one estimate which exceeds the calculations made at the
beginning of the year by a sum considerably exceeding
£200,000; and as the Government calculated only on a
surplus for the whole year of £100,000.; therefore more than
half this surplus has already disappeared. I have not heard
any denial of the accuracy of that statement. (Hear.) My
hon. friend as well as the member for Coventry called our
attention to the vote of credit for China. Was the answer
of the right hon. gentleman on that point satisfactory ? So
far as I could follow the ambiguous though adroit phrase° •
logy of the right hon. gentleman, I understand that he is

in possession of evidence at this moment to the effect that
the estimate this year has been exceeded. Then what has
become of that surplus revenue calculated on at the begin-
ning of the year ? (Cheers.) The member for Coventry,
following up with more detail the intimation made by my
hon.' friend, appears to have excited great indignation on the
part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because that hon.
member succeeded in showing that some of the taxes which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer counted on, and which
were framed, if not with the intention, at all events with
the effect of greatly vexing and embarrassing the trade of
the country, would probably fail in producing the antici-
pated amount of revenue, and might not even receive the
sanction of the house. What was the answer of the Chan•
cellor of the Exchequer ? The house cannot have forgotten
the dignified reproof the Chancellor of the Exchequer ad-
ministered to the member for Coventry. Undismayed by
that hon. member's experience of half a century, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer positively gave him a lecture—
(laughter)—for not being aware that all these measures had
already received the sanction of the house. Is that so

(Hear, hear.) I have watched the progress of these mea
sures, and I have observed that the charges in the various
operations in warehouses, such as "tapping, regauging,
bottling," &c., which stood on the motion paper of the
house for a considerable time, have disappeared from that
paper. (Cheers and laughter.) I have made, not a pub-
lic: inquiry, but an inquiry, I believe, at an authentic
quarter in this house, and I shall be greatly mis-
led, if those measures will ever reappear. They are

dropped. (Cheers and laughter.) There was an estimate
when the financial statement was made that these particu-
lar measures would produce £130,000. To that add the
sum of £230,000 in excess occasioned by the collection of

the revenue and the unknown, but certain excess on the
China vote, and we shall soon be arriving at the amount

of this very tax, the remission of which is under our con-
sideration, (Cheers.) For I must remind the house that
though this tax produces a revenue of more than £1,200,000

a-year, and is increasing in amount—(hoar, hoar)—yet, as

far as the financial year is concerned, the amount which it
will give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will only be

£1,000,000, and the items to which I have already alluded
approach to an amount something exceeding two-thirds of
that sum. (Hear, hear.) But a very important element is

still to be noticed, and tLat is the subject of fortification.
(Hear, hear.) The member for Stamford very properly
called the attention of the house to that matter, which is

no longer a rumour, but an understanding sanctioned by

an announcement from Ministers to the effect that the

question of the fortification of this country on a very great
and costly scale has been under the consideration of a corn.

raittee, and the report of that committee has, I understand,
been made to the Government. At any rate, there is a

general impression that the report, when made, will be

acted upon. No denial has been given by the Chahcellor
of the Exchequer on that head. The right hon. gentleman

evaded the question by merely saying that the report is not

yet submitted to the Cabinet, but he offered no defence

against the grave and sensible objection made on the pos-
sible resulting expense. (Hear.) He said there. was an
item for fortification in the Army Estimates of £640,000,
without the usual specification in detail; and then he con-
veyed to the house the impression—indeed, he more than
conveyed an impression—I might say he made the state-
ment, that if the great expenditure on account of. fortifica-
tion to the amount of £10,000,000 were on, it would be
minus, at all events, tie sum already included in the Army
Estimates. The house must recollect that only a few weeks
ago, in answer to a most specific inquiry, the Secretary for
War in a most frank and unambiguous manner announced
that that item of £6.10,000 in the Army Estimates on ac-
count of fortification was not in any way connected with any
future plan for the general fortification of the country, but
was, as it were, a mere routine item. The right hon. gen-
tleman has really totally evaded the objections that were
made by my hoz. friend. The President of the Board of
Trade has appealed to me to support this bill upon the
grounds which I expressed some years ago and more than
once expressed in favour of the repeal of the paper duty.
He says that the financial views of my hon. friend the mem-
ber for Stamford aro not to be entertained:; that my views
are of a high character, and that I take the moral, literary,
and educational view of this matter. To consider the mat-
ter in this view is, in his opinion, to take the high view of
it ; to consider it in a financial point of view, and with re-
ference to the national revenue is a low view. Now, Ido
not agree with the right hon. gentleman, because moral,
literary, and educational progress is entirely dependent on
the state of the country, and if the finances of a country aro
in disorder, if its general prosperity ceases, then, depend
upon it, that intellectual progress to which he refers must
cease also, and the efforts which multitudes make to edu-
cate themselves must vanish as a dream. (Cheers.) And
when the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board
of Trade, who ought to undersfand what important consi-
derations are involved in the finances of the country, decries
that view of policy as low which only aspires to keep the
revenue of a country in a healthy and satisfactory condition
I say that a sound state of the public revenue and expendi-
ture is the only foundation upon which you can build up
those plans for the amelioration of the people to which I
should be most happy if it were in my power to contribute.
(Cheers.) The President of the Board of Trade says my
hon. friend is unreasonable, because we have got the income
tax, and now my hrn. friend wants to have the paper duty
too. The right hon. gentleman says we are bound by the
tenth penny of the income-tax to remit the paper duty. But
dces the right hon, gentleman mean to maintain that we
ought to remit the paper 'duty, whether we can
afford it or not ? (Cheers.) Because, that is the question.
(Hear, hear.) " But then," says the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, " remember the resolution you sanctioned two
years ago. Your mouth is closed by this resolution." Now,
if that resolution were more concise and explicit than it is,
I should still consider my liability to support it with refer-
ence only to the present financial condition of the country.
(Hear, hear.) But what was this resolution so frequently
eferred to and misrepresented by the right hon. gentle-
man ? lam not surprised if hon. gentlemen do not remem-
ber it, especially considering the fallacious manner in which
it has been adverted to. The stream of public affairs is too
rapid to permit these matters to be remembered, and only
those who are responsible for them can remember particular
acts and the motives by which they are actuated. • That
motion which declared that the paper duty ought not to be
a permanent branch of revenue really meant nothing, as my
hon. friend the member for Norfolk said at the time. What
were- the circumstances under which that resolution was
brought forward ? It was brought forward after the finan-
cial statement of the year had been made. In that financial
statement I proposed, on behalf of my colleagues, a policy
which the house entirely and unanimously approved and
sanctioned, and no one more cordially than the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer—viz., that it was the bounden
duty of this house, although at great sacrifices, to fulfil the
compact that had been made in 1853 by the right hon. gentle-
man himself, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer,
for the entire abolition in the year 1860 of the income-tax.
(Loud cheers.) I expressed on the part of my colleagues,
with the entire concurrence of both sides of the house, our
desire to remit the war duties on tea and sugar. We gave
reasons, however, which were unanimously approved of by
the house why we could not do so, and we showed that the
first thing a Finance Minister had to do was so to guide
the revenue and expenditure as to get rid of the income-
tax in 1860, and thus to complete and consummate the
financial policy of the right honourable gentleman the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers.) If that
wss the policy of the then Government, approved of
by their political opponents, how could it be supposed that
when two or three weeks afterwards we came to consider
the paper duty, that policy could be supposed to be upset by
a resolution of that kind ? Such a resolution only meant that
when the war duties on tea and sugar were removed and
the other obligations to Parliament were fulfilled, then, if
the opportunity were afforded and the state of the revenue
permitted, this Excise duty should be remitted. I admit
that I should have been most happy to remit it when the
state of the revenue permitted. I had always been in
favour of repealing Excise duties, on the ground that they
interfered with the national industry, and I should have
been delighted to repeal this particular Excise duty, the
remission of which was recommended to me by considera-
tions !of moral influence that I highly esteemed. (Hear,
hear.) That is my answer to the right hon. gentleman.
(Cheers.) Has the income-tax terminated in this year,
.1860 ? (Cheers.) Have the war duties on tea and sugar
been abolished ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman is
now responsible for the finances of this country. He has
'doubted the income-tax—(loud cheers)—he has retained
the war duties on tea and sugar; and then he turns round
upon me, and says I called for the abolition of the duty on
paper I Why, anything more illogical or inconsequent,any
p!ea more futile or fallacious, was never put forward.
(Cheers.) Of late years I have doubted whether we have
not been dealing with the forms of this house too lightly,
and whether we paid them that eneration and attention
which our predecessors thought it wise to give. But I did
not expect to hear a Minister of the Crown rise and make a
speech which, if it had any meaning, would imply that
the forms of the house are entirely abolished on all ques-
tions of finance, and on all proposals to levy taxes—
the subjects of which most interest the country, and
which are the main and principal reason for our sitting
here as their representatives. 'Why, sir, suppose a war
should occur during some fantastical financial proposition,
in which a tax of this kind is included ? Well, there is a
war. (Cheers.) There is a Chinese war, the cost of
which is estimated rat £500,000, but which may be
nearer £5,000,000. (Cheers.) Here is a war. And then
the right hon. gentleman—with all the mysterious dogma-
tism he knows so well how to assume when it suits him,
contradicting himself as he constantly does—with rapid in-
coherence, but covering his contradiction's with that robe of
glittering phraseology which prevents one from detecting
the weakness of his argument—(cheers)---first laid down
the principle that when once this house has consented to
the remission of a tax it is impossible to offer any further
resistance to its repeal. The house seemed astonished, and
the right hon. gentleman, becoming more audaciousi, ad •
vanced another principle, that when a Minister once pro-
posed that a tax should be repealed the house had no right
to interfere, (Cheers.) I gave, unfortunately, an indiscreet
cheer, as much in admiration of his coolness as anything—
(laughter)—which reminded the right hon. gentleman that
he had better reconnoitre his position. Having, therefore,
treated the right hon. gentleman the member for Coventry
to another admonition, the right hon.. gentleman turned
round and said that there was no instance in which the
House of Commons, having once voted the repeal of a tax,
had afterwards refused to carry out its vote. I do not know
what the half century of experience and observation and
wisdom which has been referred to to-night in so ad-
monitory a tone can supply to the right hon. member for
Coventry. My experience is much more limited ; but I re-
member some remarkable instances in which this house
having come to a determination upon most important taxes—
taxes of far more importance than the paper duty—recon-
sidered and changed its opinions. The house came oncein my
time to the determination to repeal the malt-tax. (Cheers.)
The malt trade is one of some importance, and I suppose
that decision of the house put all the maltsters of England
in a flutter, but the malt-tax was not repealed, which shows
that there is nothing so essentially unconstitutional as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer says in this house reconsider-
ing a resolution to which it may have previously come.
(Hear, hear.) I remember, too, the house once coming to
the determination to repeal the sugar duties. The sugar
trade is one in which there is immense speculation, and,
I dare say, a great effect was produced in Mincing •lane
when that vote was arrived at; but did the house pursue
the policy which it had sanctioned with its approval ? On
the contrary, circumstances occurred which made the house
deem it prudent to reconsider its decision, and the sugar
duties were not abolished. (Cheers.) What more do we pro-
pose to-night ? We think the house on the subject of the
paper duty has arrived at a very imprudent, premature, and
precipitate decision. (Cheers.) We are not so much sur-
prised in this case as we might have been in the case of the
malt tax or the sugar duties. These were isolated questions
placed fairly before the house, and the house had every
opportunity of arriving in either instance at a sound decision
without being perplexed by extraneous circumstances.
What has been the condition of the house in the present
case ? It had an immense scheme with respect to the corn-.

memo and the finances of the country placed before it the

moment it assembled. It had not a decent opportunity to
consider that scheme. (Cheers.) If any gentleman asked
for those fair opportunities which the forms of the house and
Parliamentary precedents secure to ,us, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer rose like a dictator and a despot in this house
(cheers), and under a species of terrorism tho house arrived

at a premature and precipitate decision, which has been

ruinous to our trade and has made us ridiculous in the eyes
of Europe. (Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
not satisfied with tfiat, demanded of the house to rescind
_ _

all the financial policy which for years he had been profess:

lug and upholding, and which so nearly concerned the in-

terests of the whole people. Ho asked the house in the year
when he had pledged himself, so far as a statesman can
_ _

pledge himself, to abolish the income tax, to double that im-
post; and when his propositions were not received with all

the enthusiasm which he seemed to count upon—for incon-
sistency is always sanguine (a laugh)—he: vindicated his
_ _ _ _

policy,:akhe has vindicated it to-night,by a statement which
upon reflection he must feel has no foundation. He told

us that he had been disappointed in the policy which he

had established in 1855--that the Russian war had oc-
cupied and baffled all his plans. He quite for-
got that in 1857, ►hen he was not in office, and when th&
then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Home Secre-
tary, wanted to induce the house to consent to retain the
war income tax, on the ground of the great expense of the
Russian war, which had added to the national debt an an-
nual charge of £1,200,000, he rose and scoffed at the right
hon. gentleman, and treated him with intense and unutter-
able derison. (Cheers.) And upon what ground ? Upon
the ground of his ridiculous assertion that the Russian war
had made any considerable addition to the annual charge
of the country or had diminished its permanent revenue.
He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an indignant
tone whether he would pretend for a moment that the
charge occasioned by the Russian war ought to induce the
house to abandon those solemn pledges which it made to
the nation in 1853—pledges which induced the people of
Ireland to consent to the income tax being extended to that
country; and then he referred to the succession tax, by
which alone the Government had been able to settle some
of the most difficult and delicate questions ever submitted
to Parliament. Such was his language in 1857. What is
the moral ? What confidence can we have in following the
counsels of the right hon. gentleman ? (Cheers.) I showed
you on a previous occasion, when you were in the delirium
of the French treaty, which every man on both sides looks
back to now with ehame—(cheers)—how the right hon.
gentleman had failed in every one of the great propositions
of his famous budget of 1853. (Cheers.) Having traded
ur on that false celebrity for seven years, you now meethim
again in 1860. Three months of they session have not yet
passed, and you already deplore the course which, following
his counsels, you have pursued. (Cheers.) Now, while
there is still an opportunity of at least mitigating our
previous folly by some prudential movement, how can
you reconcile it to yourselves to sacrifice, in the
present financial condition of the country, a large
branch. of revenue which the trade interested—and that is
an important consideration—does not want you to part
with, and,which the evidence before you proves is not a
declining but an increasing revenue ? Above all, will you
do this at a moment when Europe is in a condition which
must make the boldest man quake and the wisest man
tremble ? (Great cheering.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who, on
rising, was received with cries of " Spoke," and " Divide,"
said,—l•request the indulgence of the house for a moment
while I make an explanation upon two points on which the
right hon. gentleman has entirely misrepresented me. One
of them touches my personal honour, and the other is ( f
vital importance in the present discussion. The right hon.
gentleman says that in 1857 I urged that the financial con-
sequences of the Russian war had not made it impossible to
fulfil the plans of 1853, and that in 1860 I stated that they
had. I wish to meet that statement of the right hon: gen-
tleman with the most direct contradiction which the forms
of the house will allow. (Hear.) My words are upon record,
and they were distinctly and emphatically the reverse of
that which the right hon. gentleman has stated to the
house. (Hear, hear.) The other point is one upon which I
am content to rest the issue of this debate. The right hon.
gentleman says I alleged there was no instance in 'which
the house, having voted the remission of a tax, thought
proper afterwards to change its mind. To that statement
likewise lam obliged to give a direct contradiction. (Hear.)
What I said was, not that there was no instance in which
the house, having given a vote for the repeal of a tax, had
afterwards altered its mind and reversed the vote, but that
there was no instance in which the house, having voted the
repeal of a tax upon the proposition of the Executive Go-
vernment--(hear)—had afterwards reversed that vote, which
I stated to be equivalent to a pledge to the country.
Mr. S. HERBERT (amid cries of "Divide, divide I")
said,—l cannot allow to pass, as if I acquiesced in it, the
statement of the right hon. gentleman the member for'
Buckinghamshire, that in moving the estimates of my de-
partment I had frankly stated that the lump sum for forti-
fications included nothing more than would be moved under
ordinary circumstances. Mat I said, in answer to a ques-
tion of the hon. member for Norfolk whether any new works
were contemplated, was that no new work or no work
not sanctioned by Parliament should be commenced under
the vote given on account. As I Gould not tell either what
works the commission would recommend, or what tie
Gove-nment might decide upon, still'less what this house
would sanction, I took the vote as a sum in a lump, instead
of in detail, the details being then unknown. In the esti-
mates I purposely inserted a large sum without detail, in
order that, whatever might be the decision of the Govern-
ment or of this house upon the question, I might have the
means of providing what, in the responsibility of my office,
I might deem necessary for the defences of the country.
(Hear, hear.)

The house then divided.
At the moment when the tellers approached the table to
announce the results of the division,
Mr. STE WART, remaining seated and covered, informed
the Speaker that one hen. member did not pass through the
door to be counted by the tellers in the regular manner, but
passed through the rails in the lobby. (Laugh‘er, and cries
of "Name.") He believed it was the hon. member for
Boston.

The tellers announced the division to be—
For the third reading 219
Against it 209

Majority for the third reading lO
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheers.

Mr. STEWART said the name of the hon. member
for Boston, who did not pass the doors, had still to be
counted.

The SPEAKER asked whether the hon. member for
Boston was in his place.

Mr. INGRAM appeared in front of the table, and
The SPEAKER said—Was the hon. member in the
lobby with the "Noes" ?

Mr. INGEAM—Yes, Sir; but I was there by mistake.
(Laughter.) I did not hear you separate the questions.
The SPR AKER—There was a case exactly similar to
this some time ago. Au hon. member was in the lobby
with the "Noes," and declined to vote. Having appeared
at the table, his vote was ordered to be given with that party
in whose lobby be was. (Cheers.)
Mr. W. MARTIN said he was the member who was
caught on that occasion. He did hear the question put,
but he understood the hon. member for Boston to say he
did not—(no)—

The SPEAKER—The name of the hon. member for
Boston must be entered with the " Noes." (Cheers and
laughter.)

The SPEAKER then announced that the " Noes " to the
[eft were 210.

•
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at a quarter to 2 o'clock.

THE MAILS.
MAILS DUE.
Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South-
ampton) May 19.
Do. (via Marseilles) June 4.
Bahamas and Havana (via New York) .. .. June 7.
Canada, &c. (via Cork) May P.
Cape of Good Hope, &c. June 1.
China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) May 19.
Do. (via Marseilles) May 13.
Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. May 19.
India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &e. (via Southampton) May 19.
Do. (via Marseilles) May 13.
India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. May 25.
Do. (via Marseilles) .. May 19.
Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, Bce. .. June 5.
Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto • • • • • . May 11.
Malta, Egypt, and Aden (via Southampton) .. May 19.
Do. (via Marseilles) .. May 13.
United States, California, &c. is Cork) .. May 16.
Western Coast of Africa, Madeira, Teneriffo .. May 10
West Indies and Pacific, Carthgena, Cuba, &c. May 14.

The Mysterious Power of the Magnet is most beautifully
developed by Mr. F. M. HERRING, of 32, Basinghall-street,
in his Patent Magnetic Brushes and Combs, which are the
remedy for grey hair, weak or falling hair, neuralgia, nervous
headache rheumatism, stiff joints, &c. Ilia Teazle Brushes
for cloth, velvet, &c., are admirable ; they not only cleanse
but preserve the fabric in a remarkable manner. The public
are cautioned against counterfeits.—[ADVT.]

ADVERTISEMENT.]—Holloway's pills are renowned as a
safesand salutary remedy for indigestion, liver complaints,
and all manner of eruptions and skin diseases. Pains in
the stomach after eating, evictations of wind, pains in the
back, aching of the right shoulder, weakness, languor, and
tawny hue of the skin, all disappear under the purifying
powers of these admirable pills. They contain no ingredient
which could by possibility hurt the feeblest frame. They
effect a momentous change throughout the system, by tho-
roughly expelling all impurities, and imposing on every
organ its natural functions. Many testimonials of their
efficiency can be produced, the latest of which has been for-
warded by Edward Smith, of Newport, Monmouth, who
was cured after wasting under dyspepsia fifteen years.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—The salutary effect of Du Barry's
delicious Revalenta Arabica Food in removing indigestion
(dyspepsia), flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious, and
liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility,
without medicine, is admirably displayed by the following
letters :—" Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk, June 10, 1850.—
No. 4,2oB.—Eight years dyspepsia, nervousness, debility,
with cramps, spasms, and nausea, for which my servant had
consulted the advice of many have been effectually removed
by Du Barry's health-restoring Food. I shall be happy to
answer any inquiries.—Rev. J. W. Flavell." "Bury, Lan-
cashire, Aug. 17, 1851.—Gentlemen,—F'or acop_siderable
time I have suffered severely from a violent pain in my left
aide, extreme flatulency, accompanied by an intolerable
sensation of heartburn, and other disagreeable symptoms of
dyspepsia. Various remedies, alleged infallible, were tried
in vain, and for a long time I was never 24 hours without
violent pain; indeed, I was unfit for the performance of my
daily duties. I was induced to try your food. In less than
an hour I found relief, and my recovery was very rapid.
The duties which previously had been an intolerable
burdep, became a delightful exercise, and I have since
accomplished more labour with less fatigue than
I ever expected to be able to perform. I have
never had a retturn of my complaint.—D. Thomas."
In tins, at Is. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; Slb., 125.; 121 b.,
265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post-
office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London;
Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly • Abbis, 60
Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ' • 63, and 'l5O, Oxford-
street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and. 60, Bishopsg ate-
street ; 85, Tottenham-court,road. Also at Dublin.
Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Co.;
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp an!'
Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, extel.Co.:; at,;Soult
ampton, Rondo] load Bos