The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-25 00:00:00

supposing there is no gentleman who sits opposite, or at
least upon the bench immediately before me, who does not
frankly regard this motion as one which, if carried, would
render it impossible for the Government to continue to hold
office. (Cheers.) I have no doubt my right hon. friend
who spoke last is the only member here who holds that
peculiar form of opinion he has expressed. (No, no.) Let
us, then, understand what the motion is. Is it aimed at
the treaty with France or is it not ? (Cheers.) Is it pos-
sible to hold that a motionwhich denounces any addition to
an existing deficiency by parting with revenue can be
thought compatible with a treaty which does add to the
deficiency by parting with considerable revenue ? (Cheers.)
It is a motion aimed in terms—and I interpret its spirit
solely from its terms—it is aimed at the life and substance
of the treaty. (Cheers.) But more than that, I will en-
deavour to point out why I also say the motion repudiates
the commercial legislation of the last 18 months. (Cheers,
and "No.") • Hon. gentlemen say "No." Permit me
respectfully to suggest that I am to be followed in the de-
bate by their leader, and he will have an opportunity of
conveying the " No" to which they wish to give utterance
in a manner quite as effective for their purpose, and much
more agreeable to the house generally. (Cheers and a laugh.)
The doctrine laid down is that it is not expedient to add to
existing deficiencies by diminishing the ordinary revenue.
That is the doctrine laid down in the motion, and that doc-
trine, I say, is fatal to every great and beneficial change
that has been made in this country in connexion with the
revenue for the last 18 years. I will endeavour to prove that
in a short and simple manner, and, without referring to all
operations during a number of years, will refer only to three
great crises. Putting aside the greatest of those events—
the Corn Law and the Navigation Laws, which had no per-
ceptible connexion with finance—l will refer to those great
occasions when we dealt largely with the finances of the
country in the sense of propositions of commercial reform-
-1842, 1845, and 1853. I was glad to hear, when the hon.
member for Birmingham last night said we were treading
in the footsteps of Sir R. Peel, that some members opposite
cried " No." It showed that we have arrived at last at a
time when it is admitted that those principles and that po-
licy constitute not the decoration of a name or of a party,
but a great national inheritance for which contending par-
ties may honourably strive. (Loud cheers.) That is a
great mark of progress, when we recollect what has taken
place within the memory of us all, when we remember that
the changes of 1842 and those which followed led the right
hon. gentleman the member for Bucks to denounce a Con-
servative Government as an "organised hypocrisy." Take
that as a starting point, and then realise the fact that the
two sides of the house are now contesting who shall be
the exponents, who shall be the champions, of those
principles.'
_lt' is a proof of the great progress that has
been made, and the only question remaining now is
which of the two sides of this house is endeavouring to
continue that progress, and which is to resist it. (Cheers.)
I will refer to each of those three years-1842, 1845,
and 1853—in order to show that in every substantial
and important financial change you will find the prin-
ciples to be precisely the same as those upon which
the present Government has founded the scheme which
is now before the house and the country., (Cheers.) I
shall place them in the sharpest contract with the motion
which you are invited to adopt to-night, which my right
hon. friend who spoke last is about to support with his vote,
and which declares that it is "not expedient to add to the
existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue."
In 1812 there was, as there is now, an existing deficiency
of £2,570,000. Sir R. Peel added to that existing deficiency
by diminishing the ordinary revenue. He took from the
ordinary revenue by the remissions he made a sum of
£1,210,000. He thereby swelled the deficiency to £3,780,000,
and he than laid on new taxes, of which the in tax was
nine-tenths to the amount of £1,380,000, thus obtaining a
surplus of £600,000. I think that is rather like the opera-
tion which you are now asked to sanction. (Cheers,) In
1845 there was one point of difference, and you will your-
selves judge whether it is vital, or whether, as I think, it
is comparatively unimportant, if it does not make out a
stronger case. In that year S:r R. Peel did not add to an
existing deficiency, but he created a deficiency by convert-
ing a surplus into a deficit. He had in 1845 a surplus of
£1,420,000. He converted it into a deficit bylarge remissions
which involved a loss to the revenue of more than X 3,502,000.
In that way he created a deficiency of £2,082,000. By re-
newing the income tax he obtained ways and means to the
extent of £2,600,000, and so secured a surplus of £518,000.
I think that again was rather like the operation of 1842.
In 1853, when subs'antially, though in less arduous cir-
cumstances, meet of us who are here present heard all these
dismal prophecies, there was again an existing deficiency of
£1,968,000. We again added to the existing deficiency by
diminishing the ordinary revenue to the extent 0f£1,656,000.
In that way we increased the deficiency to no less a sum
than £3,624,000. We supplied that deficiency by new
charges that were estimated to yield—but, in point of fact,
they yielded more—£4,o9o,ooo, and so obtained a surplus
within a few thousands the same as that which is now
proposed—a surplus of £466,000. In each and all of
these cases you pursued precisely for every substantial and
practical purpose the same course. You either found or
you created a deficiency ; you aggravated when yod did not
create it ; you had it to deal with in each case ; you dealt
with it after diminishing the ordinary revenue by the im-
position of new taxes, and that is the essence and founda-
tion of the scheme now before you, as compared and con-
trasted with those rival schemes ref which some faint glim-
merings have been obtained from one or two of the less
cautious of the speeches which have been delivered in the
course of the present debate. (Hear, hear.) I may observe
that 1853 was so far distinguished from the other cases that
in that year not only did we add to an existing deficiency
and impose new taxes, but the House of Commons, by so
strong and so prevalent a feeling bota in the house and in
the country that no one ventured to raise a general issue,
effected the operation by means of some indirect taxes laid
upon spirits, but mainly by direct taxation, and in no in-
considerable degree by an extension of the income tax itself.
(Hear.) I contend, therefore, that eLdemoi-stration, and not
merely by loose assertion, it is clear beyond all doubt or
arguments, and in the rigid logic of figures themselves, that
the plan we are now proposing, not as we describe it, but
as described in a hostile motion, corresponds in every point
with-the measures of 1842, 1845,' and 1853. (Cheers.) If
that be so, the issue is a very short and simple one, be-
cause the question is, will the house stand by those mea-
suress—will it endeavour to develop by further application
the principles upon which they were founded, or will it,
on the contrary, at this time of day, declare that it sees
cause to renounce those doctrines, and to adopt instead
of them the opposite principle, that it is " not expedient
to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the
ordinary revenue ?" So far I have quoted the words of
the motion, but I will add on my own account, " for the
purpose of making those investments on the part of the
public which a long, a sure, and -now an unquestioned ex-
perience has proved to be almost beyond all other invest-
ments fruitful, wholesome, and reproductive." (Cheers.)
It may be said that that there is one important point of
difference between the circumstances of the present year
and those of the years to which I have referred, and that is
that the deficimicy with which we have to deal is much
larger than it was upon any of those occasions. That is
perfectly true ; but, on the other hand, let the house reflect
whether there are not special circumstances of the most co-
gent character which almost compel Parliament, by the
force of equity and justice, to recognize the claims of trade,
of industry, and of the population at large to remissions of
taxation. I shall mention two. One of them is tho falling
in of £2,000,000 and more of annuities, with respect to which
I think it will be admitted that some question at least arises
whether they are merely to be added to the means of meet-
ing an enormous and constantly growing expenditure, or
whether they mark an epoch at which we ought to endea-
vour to apply afresh the principles which we applied with
such good effect before. The other relates to the extraordi-
nary resources which we shall derive during the present
year from what may be called casual receipts that cannot
recur. Take the single case of the sums we are going to
obtain from the malt and hop credits. I have no difficult y
in justifying the application of those sums under the cir-
stances to the services of the year, partly because they may
in some sense be set against the really extraordinary expen-
diture to which we are liable on account of the military ex-
pedition to China, but mainly because we intend to make a
reproductiive use of the money. (Hear, hear.) Just look
how the case stands. We are going to apply from extra-
ordinary sources to the services of the year a sum of
£1,400,000. That is only £700,000 less than the whole
amount we are to lose by remissions of taxation ; in other
words £700,000 is the whole extent for the services of the
present year to which the ordinary revenue is really to be a
loser on account of the remissions we are making, and that
£700,000 represents three-fourths of a penny, or the differ-
ence between 9d. and 10d. in the income tax. But I must
object altogether to the assumptions of those who exclaim
against the reduction of indirect taxes as an irretrievable
loss to the revenue.an dTthheeyreincecirpetasseftrhe from
faster,indire ct
and con-
stantlytaxmesainly(Hear, hear.) The receipts from indirect
taxes will be larger in the present year, apart from the ope-
ration of the treaty with France, than they have been, I
beeau s e i we increase,
rez
is any past year within our recollection—certainly
the imposition of the income tax. The
believe,in any
year
since
nd the amoßut
unt
difference is enormous between the. amount at which they
stood when the income tax was first Imposed, a
emission
it does not follow that because we propose an operation of
to which they have been raised by judicious rs.
this kind in the present year it is therefore to be repeated
every year. You commenced these reformsinirscvliarellywians
1812. You went on in 1812, in 1845,
perhaps the greatest year of the w
returned to the
3
hole. In 1819 you re-
pealed the navigation laws. In 1850 you
1812 and 1853 i
repeal of taxation, chiefly indirect. In 1853 you made an-
other large remission of taxation. Between
there were not less than seven or eight years n which you
made these alterations, and what has happened since ? For
seven years, owing to the circumstances,
we will suppose, of
the time, the application of the principle has
ted altogether; and then comes a year when you intermit-
have an
been
extraordinary relief from the public debt, and when you are
going to apply extraordinary means to the servicees of the
year. With an interval of seven,years since you have done
anything for the further application of your principle, is it
strange that you should be asked to recur to a beneficial
practice? You may tell me that this is a year of great ex-
penditure, and that therefore it is an unfit year ; but do
you•who say that promise me that there will be greater re-
lief from that expenditure next year ? (Hear, hear.) If
it were a year of great expenditure, with the prospect of
immediate relief, I grant you it might be better to undergo
the inconvenience, and forego the benefit, and wait for a
year or a couple of years before proposing what we propose
to do now. But what is the spirit shown on the other side,
not by all gentlemen opposite, but by the mover of this
motion, whom I take as an excellent specimen of the dis-
tinguished class to which he belongs 9 What is the spirit
which he shows, and what is the spirit of his motion with
regard to expenditure ? Does this motion recognise it, as I
believe it is generally recognised on this side of the house—
as far as it is approved—as a necessity, but a painful neces-
sity, to which we submit because we think high interests
require it—(cheers)--but from which we are desirous to
escape—(cheers)—from which we hope to escape, and from
which we are determined to keep in oar own hands the
means of escaping ? (Loud cheers.) That is the spirit in
which the expenditure is supported on this side of the house;
but is that the spirit of the hon. mover ? On the contrary,
he pours contempt on times of economy—he fears we shall
get back to those times to which he applies the miserable
epithet of "cheeseparing"—(cheers)—he seems to give
countenance to the discreditable assertion that Ministers and
Parliament belong to this cheeseparing economy. Why,
who have been the Ministers during whose time economy
has been most in vogue? (Hear, hear.) I do not speak of
those who live and sit on this bench, I speak only of the
dead. The Duke of Wellington—(cheers)—than whose
Administration none did more for economy—Lord Grey,
Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel. Those are the men
under whom, by whose countenance, and by whose labour
rules of thrift were applied to the expenditure of the State;
and those are the men whom the mover of thin motion,
partly by its terms, and partly by the language by which
he expounds them, thinks fit to throw a slur as cheese-
paring economists. (Loud cheers.) I have admitted that
it is impossible to expect a rapid return for this benefit ;
that we have entered—though I trust that the estimates for
the present year are exceptional—on a high level of expen-
diture. But, being on that high level of expenditure, and
having heavy burdens to bear, can we not strengthen our-
selves for the task by means which in former years were
found so efficacious, and again apply the principles which

tives come and take tkeir seats in the old British House
of Commons they shall find the house denuded, as far as
we can effect it, of some of its powers. They shall find
that we have done for them something we thought dan-
gerous to allow them to do for themselves." (Cheers. If
there is to be reform of Parliament—if =asses of our fellow-
countrymen now excluded, be they great or small, areto be
admitted to the franchise,—let those who are returned to
the new house, when they assemble, be heirs to every
power, to every privilege, and to all the liberty of the old ;
and do not lst us presume to lay the foundations of jealousy
perhaps of disloyalty and disorder—by promulgating the
doctrine that in proportion to the larger number responsi-
ble for the election and conduct of Parliament the powers
of that Parliament to be limited. (Loud cheers.) That
is one way of guarding against the dangers of a re-
formed Parliament, and it is a way which, under pretence
of guarding against them, in fact aggravates their dangers.
(Hear, hear.) There is another method of proceeding which
I hope this house will pursue. We are at present returned
by undoubtedly a most intelligent portion of the population,
but a portion more limited in its numbers than we think
desirable. (Hear.) 'We aro about to admit new classes to the
exercise of the franchise. (Hear.) I have got the specific of
my right hon. friend for making the new Parliament in-
nocuous, and I am not able to adopt it. I will give him
mine, and leave the house to judge between us. It is a very
simple one. When the new class sends to Parliament repro
sentatives who will be more peculiarly its own, when these
newly-elected stewards enter upon the discharge of their
functions, when they come to review the actions of their
predecessors, let them find that, though we represented but
a part of the people, we held fairly the scales of justice be-
tween all classes and interests alike. And now I make my
second appeal to the House of Commons. I ask you which of
the two plans before you best corresponds to the description
I have given ? You know well that the interests of different
classes are materially affected by different kinds of taxation.
Hear my hon. friend the member for Buckingham—how
eloquent he is on the sufferings of the long annuitants. I
am very glad that the long annuitants should have a repre-
sentative in this house ; but there are classes which are not
represented, and I want to know what sort of justice it is
proposed to do them by the plan of the Government and the
plan of the party opposite respectively ? (Cheers.) Here,
again, I must resort for a few minutes to figures to prove my
case, and they shall be my last. I apprehend it is an ad-
mitted proposition that in a certain relative manner, but
with much of substantial truth, we may say that indirect
taxes upon commodities are paid in a largo proportion on a
number of articles of consumption by the unrepresented
classes, whereas the income-tax is paid almost entirely by
the represented classes, and in a great degree by the wealthy
classes. These are the terms in which I would state the
incidence of the two kinds of taxation, and bearing these
terms in mind, I beg the house to observe what has hap-
pened. Six years ago came the Russian war, and
we had to make great additions to the taxation of the coun-
try. The house thought fit to make those additions in cer-
tain proportions between what was direct and what was in-
direct taxation. I put out of view now—what if not put out
of view would make for my own side—the additional taxes
laid on spirits, because I conceive they were permanent
additions to the revenue which we gladly adopted, irre-
spective of the question of what class they favoured, and I
look only to the temporary additions which the House of
Commons made to the taxation for the purposes of the war.
They were these :—ln 1854 and 1855 we laid on for the pur-
poses of the war £8,557,000 of direct taxes ; and in the same
years, also for the purposes of the war, putting aside the
spirit duties, £5,450,000 of indirect taxes. The House will
see that this is in the proportion very nearly of 8 to 5 ; 8
representing the direct, and 5 the indirect taxes. That was
the measure and the mode of the deviation which we made
at that period from our old system of taxation, and I think
the houge will go with me when I say that it was desirable
when peace returned, and we began to remit those taxes,
that we should not have remitted exclusively or mainly the
taxes paid by the classes that. returned us to Parliament,
but that we should have observed the same proportion, or
at least a proportion equally favourable to the classes not
directly represented here. What have we done ? Have we
conformed to that law—does the plan of her Majesty's Go-
vernment conform to it—does the plan of right hon. gentle-
men opposite conform to it or reverse it ? Here are the
figures, and I must
.say they are more curious than satis-
factory. In 1857_g we retained of direct taxes—above the
standard provided for peace, viz., 5d.—£•1,000,000. We
retained of indirect taxes £3,oo,ooo—those on tea and
sugar. In 1858-9, when the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site was in office, we retained of direct taxes of the war
—none at all of indirect taxes—£3,ooo,ooo. In 1859-60
we put on of income tax £4,000,000, not done by the
right hon. gentleman opposite, but done by the present
Government, br order to meet the charge of the esti-
mates in the main prepared by their
predecessors, and
we still retained £3,000,000 indirect taxes
on tea and sugar.
(Hear.) In point of fact, if we take the totals of 1857 and
1858, we levied of the direct taxes of the war £2,000,000
and of the indirect taxes of the war £6,000,000, and whereas
they have been laid on in the proportion of 8 to 5, not much
short of double, they were retained in the proportion of 1
to 3. The proceedings of last year somewhat rectified this,
because then we should have paid up to April £6,000,000
of the direct taxes of the war, and £9,000,000 of indirect
taxes—the proportion still standing at 2 to 3, instead of, as
it ought, at 3 to 2. If the house has followed ma in these
figures, I think it is clearly demonstrable that, if this house
is due from us to the consumers of the
really wishes to show the reformed Parliament which is to
fellow us that we have done justice as between class and
ohdinitgies in which the people take aninterest, and
grland sugar duties—
egtloraeatshst'sestimlilerneft which is afforded to those classes by the remis-
sion of duties affecting trade. (Cheers.) If any hon. gentle-
man opposite says we have ma_deha great mistake in select-
ing the paper duty instead f
enter into an
t to show that it would be nay better for the masses
argument
should be repealed, still we stand, at
that the paper duty
though I may
ground ; and I am ready to admit
any rate, upon common" concerned, the reduction of the
that, as far as principle is
differ from him, though
of the duty on
paper. But this is not the fact. Every proposal that has
duties on tea and sugar would bo as just in intention to-
wards the masses of the people as the repeal
of the house goes on the
every farthing affecting
principle of maintaining not only
of the duties in
the trading interest, but every farthing
proceeded from the opposite side
were to take it
con-
cerned as consumers. (Cheers.)
of
the case is
as a suns in arithmetic, the real state
we have
millions that
which the masses of the peoplelf are directly
this :—ln proportion to the nine
levied of indirect war taxation since the war, if we had 1
observed the same rule which we observed in aye
. ine• it on,is
balance
we should have levied £14,000,000 of direct taxation.
In-
stead of that we have levied £6,000,000, and the of
£8,000,000 would still be due from those classes. It is under
these circumstances, when we have kept up heavy charges
on articles consumed by the people, in which the labouring
man man takes a great interest, that we are again asked to
.sdas
minister relief; for I admit that a penny in the pound
great relief to the classes which have so long been subject .
to the burden of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) I am quite
satisfied with the issues which haae been raised. I do net
think it is necessary longer to detain the House. 'When hon.
gentlemen opposite regret that an unnecessarily high in-
come tax should be levied, I certainly agree with them. I
am sorry that any high income tax should be levied, whe-
ther necessary or unnecessary. We will debate on the mean-
ing of these terms when the proper time comes. For the
present, I have endeavoured to direct your attention to this
fact, that the main propiwition of the hon. gentleman the

tinction of a small office connected with the Treasury which
had a comparatively small sum of public money entrusted
to its administration ; I believe not more than £350,000. I
proposed that it should be taken, in the revenue for the•
year, to have a surplus which would be ultimately found
in the balances of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentle-
man denounced the project, but the right hon. gentleman
is in effect doing the same thing, but on a much greater
scale and under circumstances far less justifiable. We have
now that million of Exchequer bonds. Well, air, I under-
stand from the right hon. gentleman that we are now in a
condition of unexampled prosperity. Well, if we can't pay
them now that we are in a condition of unexampled pros-
perity, when are we to pay them ? (Hear.) The Secre-
tary to the Treasury, the other night, courteously reminded
me that in 1858 I postponed the payment of £2,000,000
of Exchequer bonds. Surely the house will recollect
the difference of circumstances. The country was still
staggering under a great commercial panic. A month
before Parliament met the minimum rate of interest
was I 0 per cent., and it was felt by everybody that
it would be totally impossible under such circum-
stances to prspose taxes which would especially press upon
the commercial classes, then suffering under events of so
startling and fatal a character. (Cheers.) The proposition
I made was unanimously adopted by the house, and no one
rose to make the slightest protest against it. I see no
similarity whatever between the circumstances of that time
and the unrivalled prosperity with which we are now blessed.
(Hear, hear.) What we object to in the scheme of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it does not resemble
the transactions of 1842 or of 1845. It does not resemble
the operations of Sir R. Peel, or the operations which the
right hon. gentleman himself conducted in 1853. It is be-
cause the right hon. gentleman has neglected to take the
same security—because his plan is improvident, and because
improvidence under such circumstances is extremely dan-
gerous—that I ask the house to interpose, and express its
opinion upon his propositions. (Hear, hear.) What will
be our situation next year ? It may not, under ordinary
circumstances, be discreet to indulge in very prospective
finance; but it appears to me that it would be perfect mad-
ness not to contemplate a little what may be our position in
1861. The member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), who
has some experience, has calculated the amount of the de-
ficit; and I shall confess myself surprised—l can hardly
say pleased—if it does not exceed that amount ; but if the
probable deficit in 1851 be £12,000,000, surely the house
should pause before it sanctions the propositions of the right
hon. gentleman, and should hesitate, with such a prospect
before it, before it accedes to a measure which unnecessarily
increases that deficit, and of which, if it be not persisted
in, the modification would mitigate the pressure of 1861.
(Hear, hear.) .The right hon. gentleman seems to be dis-
pleased that more than one speaker in this debate should
have contemplated the dangerous and inevitable conse-
quence of such a state of affairs, and should have suggested
that there will probably be a very considerable attempt to
fasten the expenditure of the country upon direct taxation.
The right hon. gentleman has brought forward a paper—
and
it is not the first time that ho has done so—and he has
tried to show the house that in the recent impositions of
taxes there has not been that fair proportion between direct
and indirect taxation which we believe just and politic.
But there is this fallacy in all those papers which the right
hon. gentleman read and in the inference which he draws
from them. We do not object to a fair proportion be-•
tween direct and indirect taxation in our financial system.
What we do object to, and what we are objecting to, is
that the direct taxation should take the • form of an
income tax on this large scale (Cheers.) It is not
fair in the right bon. gentleman always to state
the question as it it were a competition between direct and
indirect taxation, and to describe this side of the house as
advocates of indirect taxation as against direct, when the
question is not what system is the superior (for I suppose
there are very few even now in this house who contemplate
a time when a considerable portion of indirect taxation will
not be an ingredient in our financial system)—when the
real question, I say, is as to the form of the direct taxation
--a form which no one has denounced in stronger terms
than the right hon. gentleman himself. (Cheers.) The
question is whether that form, the national evils of which
he has proclaimed, and the demoralising influences of which
upon the people he has described in such glowing terms,
should still exist, and not only exist, but shall under his
owri administration be 'increased, without his holding out
the slightest prospect er hope that that increase will not go
on in a ratio which no one can contemplate without appre -
hension. (Cheers.) From more than one gentleman who
has addressed us in this debate we have heard a great
deal about the people, and those who have objected to the
income tax in this form and to this degree—to this excess,
I will say—have been told that they do not advocate the
interests of the masses, who are not sufficiently represen-
ted, but by whom we now learn the house is to be elected
in the next Parliament. (Hear, hear) Well, sir, I pro-
test against the justice of those observations. (Cheers.)
There is a class of political philosophers .who are repre-
sented in this house, and who think that they elevate a
nation by degrading it into a mob. (Cries of "Oh," and
cheers.) Sir, I do not share in that opinion. (Cheers.)
The contributors to the income tax consist of various classes
in the State. They are very numerous, of very different
degrees of wealth, and of very different degrees of cultiva-
tion and position; but it is no doubt true that those' who
pay the income tax are, generally speaking, the " flower of
the' nation." With them are to be found the traditions,
the domestic integrity, and the moral qualities of the
nation; and it is in the high spirit of those classes, from
the highest to the humblest, that the State must look in
the time of its exigency. (Cheers.) It is not true that
the payers of the income tax are a class apart from the
great body of the people. They form a great portion of
that body, and they are themselves divided into classes
very numerous and very different in their respective posi-
tions. I am not sure if you go into the question of the
pressure of taxation, whether there are not several of
those classes who, under the imposition of the income
tax, suffer more severely from it than any of the work-
ing classes of this country suffer under their peculiar bur-
dens. I am perfectly ready at all times as freely as any
other member of this house to acknowledge how important
it is that we should consider the condition of the labouring
classes in this country—l know as well as any other gen-
tleman how much depends upon the ample and remunera-
tive employment which they may command, and what vi-
gorous action it gives to the wealth of the country—l know
that upon tho whole how to accomplish such a result we
should extend our commercial intercourse between this
country and other countries—(hear)—and I feel, too, that
those burdens which remain ought to be judiciously re-
moved. All these are high objects of policy, and objects
which I take for granted the present House of Commons
are prepared treaccomplish—(hear, hear)—but to accom-
plish these results only upon the condition that they are
practicable and consistent with the financial position of the
country ; and we cannot decide upon our financial position
without considering in 801110 degree the future. (Hear.)
Well, sir, let me say one word upon the point raised in re-
ference to the commercial treaty with France. (Hear,

_ .
hear.) Sir, I entirely approve of any means which may
increase our intercourse with France. That has been for
a lir oyf ao
fc e
tnht
ou r - - -0
vtehr
ne
Toobject
oo
ff
nhaencyo ny se taarnst—saotlilceiastutdeawqiutharmte
this country. (Hear, hear.) In 1840 we were informed—
not publicly, but it was well known at the time—that a
commercial treaty with France was in fact, in negotiation,
and I am not aware what was the real reason
not ratified, except it was in 'consequence of difficulties
which arose with the French Government. I should not
have alluded to this circumstance had not a member of the
Cabinet risen and referred to it, and had it not 'been an-
nounced by a servant of the Crown. When I was Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, not a month elapsed after the
Government was in office but they thought of seeing what
they could do with France ; and after the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs had opened the more formal part of asbusiness, business,the Earl of Malmesbury requested me to place
myself in communication with Lord Cowley. I corre-
sponded with that noble lord, and I do not say that it
would not have taken the form of a treaty but
perhaps not the one which has been contemplated by
the present Government. If it had been arranged, there
would have been mutual alterations in the tariff. (Hear,
hear.) What prevented, unfortunately, those changes not
taking place ? Why, towards the end'of the autumn circum-
stances arose which rendered it to be our duty when Pars
liament assembled to call upon Parliament for a great
increase in our armaments, and we found it impossible to
have to pass the budget for a war expenditure. I was the
victim, and my budget never recovered that fatal blow.
(Hear, hear.) But we had none of those prejudices which
the right hon. gentleman imputes to us—(hear, hear)—
against the French Government. On the contrary, if the
position of affairs had permitted, nothing would be more
desirable than that our commercial relations with France
should be considerably enlarged, and they might take the
form of a treaty. (Hear, hear.) But my objection to this
treaty of the Government is irrespective of the financial
one, and which in a moment I will refer to. I think it a
very bad treaty which was drawn with less care and with
less knowledge of the circumstances with which the nego •
tiators had to deal, "and I think that altogether, consider-
ing the many arrangements it refers to, that it will be not
only injurious to the interests of this country, but inferen-
tially. Ultimately it will ba injurious to France, and it will
sow the seeds of distrust between the two nations. (Hear,
hear.) It is not a time now, at one o'clock to enter into the
details. But take the previous clause in reference to coal.
I think it is a great mistake, and if acceded to at all, it
should only have bean upon a reciprocal arrangement on
the part of France to let her coal come into this country free
of duty. (Hear, hear.) Take the arrangement in reference
to the silk trade. That is extremely imperfect. There are
articles of our silk manufacture which now enter France at
a duty of 15 per cent., and many of them will be charged a
duty Of 30 per cent. (Hear, hear.) It is a very great
error that France should be permitted to enter into a treaty
which leaves an export duty upon raw silk and our manu-
factures subject to a duty of 30 per cent. import duty.
There are many other details of great importance ; but I
will not now weary the house with them. I object to the
treaty as an ill drawn instrument, and under the the cir-
cumstances I could not allow the discussion upon it to pass
without criticism and some opposition. (Hear, hear.)
But what I object to particularly in regard to the treaty
is this, that we have entered into it, and have thereby in-
creased that deficiency in our revenue, under which the
right hon. gentleman is suffering. (Hear, hear.) I will say
this of the treaty, that it will add to the deficit at least
£1,200,000 immediately; and it is so drawn that, when the
right hon. gentleman brings it into full operation, I feel
persuaded of this result, that he will not put it into order
without a further sacrifice of £500,000 to the revenue; and
that, I think will be a more considerable sum than that con-
templated by the right hon. gentleman in his statement
when he brought his budget under the consideration of the
house. I say, then, as to commercial intercourse with France,
there is no abstract objection to such a course. On the con-
trary, there is the greatest readiness to enter into any ar-
rangements which have that object; but we object to this
treaty, not skilfully negotiated—a treaty entered into at a
time which creates a considerable deficiency in our revenue,
and probably a much more considerable one than is calcu-
lated by the Chancellor of Exchequer; and we object to the
time at which it is brought forward, because the Chancellor
of the Exchequer himself confessed that the Tench Go.
vernment is bound to postpone the carrying into operation
of a portion of it till the year 1861. As there was a seeret
negotiation, there was not the slightest reason why it should
not have been a secret treaty till it was all brought into
operation, But I must consider the proposition of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer this year in combination with the
budget of 1853. It is a complement to that budget. They
are, in fact, inseparably united. Now, what has been the
fate of the financial propositions of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer of 1853 ? and can we not draw some warnings
from their fate as to the probable result of the financial ar-
rangements of 1860 ? There were four great features of the
financial scheme 0f1853, that famousfinancial scheme whose
praises have been so celebrated, and on the credit of which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has flourished until he
made the statement of 1860. I need hardly take up much
time with tho first. It was not attempted, I will not say, to
pay off the national debt, but t o reduce the interest. But it
appeared that when he endow/oared to enter on that enter-
prise, he found it necessary to give anotice of some months
to the owners of some 500 millions of stock, which rendered
it impossible to carry out the project. The right hon. gen-
tleman acknowledged that the scheme was an abortion. But
I will say in passing, what is perhaps not known, that it was
an abortion that cost us the whole of the balances in the
Exchequer, and that we entered into the great Russian
war with a balance in the Exchequer of little more than a
million. The second portion of the scheme was a reduction
on the tea duties to Is. in the pound. Well, I may venture
to say that that was a measure adopted from his predeces-
sors. I had the honour, when in Lord Derby's Government,
to bring forward a proposition by which the duty on tea
should be eventually reduced to ls. a-pound, and if that plan ,
had been carried into a law the duty on tea would at this
time have been Is. The right hon. gentleman was
.deter-
mined to do it quicker than I anticipated, and what is tho
result ? The duty on tea is now much more than Is. in the
pound, and I was quite surprised to find that from the de-
putation from the tea trade the other day the Chancellor of
the Exchequer received with some complacency a sugges-
tion from a gentleman interested, that that duty should be
increased ld. a pound.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here made
an observation across the table which did not reach the
gallery.
Mr. DISRAELI—One great advantage of the freedom
of debate is that we are favoured with a running commentary
by the right hon. gentleman. I never object myself to be
interrupted, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will not object in future. 'Well, that was the fate of his
second great proposition. The third great feature of the
financial scheme was the succession tax. Let me recal to the
house the mode in which that scheme was recommended to
us, and the estimate of its produce. Here was a taxdirectly
against the landed interest, which recommended itself very
much to the hon. member for Birmingham, and which was
to produce £2,000,000 a-year, and with these £2,000,000 and
£2,000,000 of terminable annuities the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said, " I shall have a pretty good sum of money to
assist me in' putting an end to the income tax." But the
succession tax, instead of producing £2,000,000 per annum,
has produced about a third of that sum. The fourth great
measure, much larger in proportion, is now before the house,
and the income tax, the promised remission of which gained
the right hon. gentleman the applause of all parties, and the
gratitude of a grateful country, which in 1860 was to termi-
nate, is now to be reimposed in an aggravated form. (Opposi-
tion cheers.) The income tiix of 1853 is unfortunately still
alive, and is a child that has grown wonderfully. The income
tax of 1853, which year after year was to diminish, and this
year to cease altogether, is now 4 per cent. or 10d. in the
pound, was the fourth great measure and the fourth great
failure of the right hon. gentleman. And it is in conse-
quence of this successful measure that we are to put great
confidence in the wild and improvident proposition now be-
fore us. But I shall not state the case unfairly against the
right hon. gentleman. Ho had reminded the house that
circumstances intervened which he could not control, and
to which he attributed the failure of his arrangements. A
revolutionary war which was not expected occurred. But
let me remind the house that the Russian war was entered
into as an excuse, because he repeated his views, and opinions
in 1857, when he criticieel the budget of; the right hon.
member for Radnorshire. So far as a speech could aid. him
he recommended the same course himself. So far back as
1858, when I occupied his position in the Ministry, and
when the income tax lapsed to 6d., the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, ever and still faithful to his pledges, main-
tained the course which I thought• it my duty to state. But
now for the plea. Instead of witnessing the termination of
the income tax, we are called on, not only to sanction an
increase, but also an arrangement which will inevitably
cause its re-imposition another year in a more odious form.
We are told that it is to the Russian war that we etre to at-
tribute the budget of 1853. Let me remind the house that
we now know much more of that war and its causes than
we did in 1853. He never had placed on the table the se-
cret correspondence between our Minister at St. Petersburg
and the noble lord opposite, and which, in consequence of
authentic information which I received, could not be kept
back, and in which we find that no sooner was Lord Derby
expelled from office than the Russian Emperor declared to
the new Government his designs on Turkey. 1 could bring
.the evidence of a man of great commercial, now of great di-
plomatic reputation—the secret negotiator of the F aria
Treaty—l can bring forward Mr. Cobden to prove he never
gave a vote with greater reluctance than that which expel.
led Lord Derby from office, because, as he stated, he had not
the slightest doubt that that fact produced the Russian war.
(Loud Opposition cheers.) On the Ist January he informed
our Minister he intended invading Turkey, the Menschikoff
mission followed, and yet it was with all this knowledge
that the right hon. gentleman brought forward his budget of
1853 with all these arrangements, which only the certain
expectation of peace could justify. He held out to
the Parlament which had long repudiated the income tax
a plan for settling this long difference when Europe was on
the eve of convulsion, and a war was imminent, in which
England must be the prime mover. (Hear, hear.) But,jti
Sir, is that all ? The Emperor of Russia acted
great hesitation and perplexity, watching the course of
the English Government ; and at that period, had that Go-
vernment been energetic, it could have arrested its course.
But we know that our Cabinet was torn with
sensions with two parties,
by theirown confession in it. 'We
know that if the First Prime Minister had remained the
war would not have taken place„ but there was a party
that exercised a greater influence than the Prime Minister
or the Secretary of State, and that was the party that pro-
duced a peace budget when it should have been preparing
cheers.) And what was the
war armaments. (Opposition
consequence ? That famous vote of supply in 1854, when
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, forced to join in a course
that would arrest the progress of the Emperor, and show
that England would not be trifled with, proposed to send
certain battalions of Guards out to Malta, and proposed at
the same time the vote that should bring them back again.
(A laugh.) Who could be surprised that war took place
three months after such feeble conduct on the part of the
English Government ? And what has been the consequence
of that war? An addition of £40,000,300 to the debt, en-
tailing an annual charge of £1,180,000, exactly the sum we
are going to pay annually for this French treaty of com-
merce. Yet we aro told of that successful financier who
proposed the great budget in 1853, and who has now
brought forward the budget of 1860—that great statesman
whose policy is to equalise the incidences of taxation upon
differext classes who shrinks from unnecessary expenditure
—whose constant call is for retrenchment, and who re•
sorts to every possible means to lighten the bur-
den of taxation on the people. (Cheers.) Why,
had one of those great statesmen shown more
force and firmness and prevented the Russian war,
which they precipitated by their feebleness, do you not see
that the incidences of taxation would have been much
lightened ; and do you not see from what has occurred that
other qualities than mere political economy are necessary
for the government of nations ? (Hear, hear.) ' I told you
that the budget of 1853 was inseparably connected with that
of 1860. You have seen how completelythe budget ef 1853
was founded on all these four features ; you see whyit failed
—because external circumstances that were not foreseen by
those who ought to have been prescient of them interfered
with their consummation. What is the state of affairs
now ? Is the aspect more serene than in the spring of
1853? No one can supposed that the right hon. gentle-
man now is ignorant of the state of external politics,
The

right hon. gentleman takes great interest in the affairs of
Italy. He has favoured us in this house with his opinions
on that subject, and if the budget of 1860 ends in that
confusion which I believe awaits it, as must await all
schemes so truly improvident, he will not be able to tell us
next year that his plan has been frustrated by external
causes he could not foresee. He takes great interest in the
affairs of Italy, though he has quarrelled with the Pope,
as he has quarrelled n ith many other of his friends—
having, I suppose, learned that Christian charity which
the other night he grudged too for the Greek
Church. But, sir, it would be well ashen the house
has a scheme of finance so improvident placed before it
—when a deficit exists, a deficiency is created, and a tax
is increased, that at the moment of emergency should
be the source upon which we can most rely—it would be
well to consider what is the state of oar foreign relations.
They-contain at this moment the greatest causes that can
possibly impel men to action, or that can influence the des-
tinies of empires. Totally irrespective of many causes of
comparative insignificance that in &den times have produced
wars, we have now in Italy three causes, any one of which is
enough to convese the world. We have first the question
of Papal supremacy—we have the question of the natural
boundary of empires, and we have the question of the na •
tiouality of races. Each of the first two has in its time pro-
duced the longest and most sanguinary struggles that have
taken place in the history of mankind. The question of the
Papal supremacy once gave you the 30 yearn' war. The
question of the natural boundary of empires gave you the
long war of the French revolution. Both these questions
are still at work, and in addition there is that which cannot
be avoided, nor perhaps long delayed—the question of the
nationality of races. And we are told he such circumstances
as these that all statesmen should do is to simplify their
tariff. (Opposition cheers.) Why, was there ever a mo-
ment in the history of the country when we ought more to
husband our resources ? Is this a time wantonly to put an
end to any of the sources of even ordinary revenue ? Is this
the time you should fix upon to anticipate the resources of
your direct taxation? There is not a man out of the house
who doubts the course that we ought to pursue. I think
the course recemmenced by the Government is the most
improvident—l could use a stronger word, but will not do
so—that ever yet was counselled to Parliament. Under
ordinary circumstances I should hesitate to adopt it. But
in a moment like this I feel it my duty to thoroughly and
completely protest against their policy. (Cheers.) The hon.
gentleman the member for Liskeard spoke with great friend-
liness to me this evening. He told me aloud, and of course
in confidence—(laughter)—that I recommended my friends
to a very unwise course in requesting my hon. friend to
propose that resolution which he did with so much spirit
and promise. (Hear.) The member for Liskeard said tome,
"Why. did you have a resolution of this kind—why did
you not admit the principle of the budget—that is, the
principle of the policy—and worry the Government in corn
mittee. (Laughter.) You would have got a great deal of
assistance. I would have helped you, and would have
beaten the Government on details." (Laughter.) But
nothing could be more unwise than the course you have
taken in doubting the propriety of the policy, and chal-
lenging the whole syetem which they recommend to the
country. I have no doubt my hon. friend the member for
Liskeard would make a much more adroit leader of a party
than I can pretend to be; and it is only, indeed, with the
assistance and the constant indulgence of my friends that
I can for a moment pretend to fill and carry out the duties
of the office which I now occupy ; but the hon. member
for Liskeard will allow me to tell him that he has
totally mistaken the motives which influence us—
(cheers)—and that those motives are quite different from
those which would regulate his conduct. (Laughter.)
The Chancellor of the. Exchequer seemed to deride the
speech of my right hon. friend the member for the Univer-
sity of Cambridge—a speech inspired, I believe, by as true
a sense of patriotism as ever actuated any hen, gentleman,
and characterised by as pure and noble an eloquence as any
speech which has over been made in this house. (Cheers.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to deride the pos-
sibility that we had any object in the course we have taken
but to ernbarass or subvert the Government. He said it is
our duty to terminate their Ministerial career if we enter-
tain the opinion we have expressed. But I differ from him.
I remember that the Parliament I am addressing was sum-
moned by the Queen by the advice of her councillors, of
whom I was one, andlthat Parliament, on its meeting,
though by a very narrow majority—still by a majority—
expressed that they had no confidence in the then Govern-
mens of her Majesty—they had no confidence in our foreign
policy—they had no confidence in our reform. policy.
(Ironical cheers.), What confidence the present Parlia- •
ment has in the foreign policy of the present Government
I will not at present decide. (Hear, hear.) All I know,
as far as I can form an opinion, is that the affairs of Italy
are exactly in the same position in which they were
whe Parliament was prorogued in August. (No,
no.) I think T speak with some knowledge of the circum-
stances. As far as the reform measure is concerned, I
confess that after the announcement of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer that the franchise is to be given to the
masses, no bill of reform that we could propose will vie
with the coming measure of her. Majesty's Government.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think they have a right to
understand that neither I nor my colleagues after that vote
are at all anxious now to attempt to occupy the places whitle
they then filled. (Hear.) But I at least may say for myself
that hon. gentlemen for more than two years led this house
in a minority. I shrink from the unparalleled anxiety and
responsibility of such a post, and I would recommend no
gentleman, on whatever benches he may sit in this house,
who has any regard for his nervous system—(laughter)—
to aspire to that position. (Laughter:) The important post
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer fills gives an ample
opportunity for the exercise of his eager mind and great
resources, and ho may perhaps aspire to the proud position
of leading this house, which no one could fill more efficiently.
(Hear, and cheers. But from what I have observed of the
temperament of the right hon. gentleman--(cheers)—l think
I may tell him that it is as well for him that, however
eminent his position, he reposes, at least for a term, beside
the multi, sapientium of the noble lord the Foreign Se ire-
tary, and the mild patience of the noble viscount—(cheers)
—that there is is such a thing as fulfilling a noble duty. We
are not unconscious of that duty, and we will not enter into
combinations and cabala. to embarrass the Government.
But when a party comes forward with a distinct principle
and to advocate a cause which is perfectly intelligible—
which they believe a great portion of the nation sympathise
with—to hold that such a party movement is liable to re-
proach is to confound the nature of things, and not to com-
prehend the scope and spirit of our constitution. (Hear,
hear.) It is the duty, and the noblest duty that can fall
to members of this house to fulfil such a task, and such is
the course we are now about to take. It is our opinion that
the proposal of the Government is one. pernicious, impru-
dent
in finance, not to say proffigate—one that may lead the
country to an extremity of circumstances at this time next
year which few can contemplate without the utmost alarm.
(Hear, hear) I wish to see such a course arrested. I have
no hope that by asserting in this straightforward manner
our policy we can accomplish that object at present , but
when by this resolution we all declare that to add to a, de-
ficiency is a course in finance to be deprecated, and that we
will not disappoint the just expectations of the people by
largely increasing the income tax we assert the policy which
we believe in, and will maintain. (Opposition cheers.) At
least those just expectations I myself will not disappoint,
and to the country I ultimately appeal. (Loud cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
follow the right hon. gentleman either in discussing the
details of the budget of 1853, or the causes and effects of
the Russian war, or the affairs of Italy, or even the nervous
system of the right hon. gentleman himself. (Loud
laughter.) I beg to say, in passing, that I feel
an unfeigned pleasure in finding him in se good
a condition. I will endeavour in a few short sen-
tences to recal the house to the subject really now
to be decided• ; and I will venture to say that a more im-
portant subject never was confined within six short lines of
a resolution, ample enough, however, for the decision of
Parliament, without mixing with it those various topics—
some personal and others general in their character—with
which the right hon. gentleman has indulged in the speech
ho has just made. The resolution before the house contains
a decided opinion upon two great questions, the on relat-
ing to our commercial arrangements with foreign countries,ot
the other relating to the developoment of our national
for
re-
sources at home. Either one or the other is a fit subjectna
a separate discussion. The hon. member for Essex, how-
ever, has judged proper to put them both together, and what
is the result he proposes to accomplish by obtaining the as-
sent of the house to his resolution ? Nothing more orless
than this, to reject, by anticipation, without any detailed
discussion, summarily the treaty with France, and the
budget of my right hon. friend. (Hear.) That intention is
sufficiently to be gleaned from the words of the resolution ;
for if any doubt could have been entertained, that doubt
must have been destroyed by the frank avowal of the right
hon. gentleman opposite that that is the intention and the
spirit and object of the notion now under discussion. I
shall not enter into any details as to the treaty or the bud-
get, because the house knows that we are going to invite
it to enter into a discussion of the different provisions of the
treaty, and it will have an •opportunity of giving its opi
nion in detail upon each. We have accomplished that
with regard to our commercial relations with France which
has been admitted to have been the object of Government
after Government in constant succession. We are
called upon now, although the right honourable
gentleman has not laid the ground for the
premature rejection of the treaty by the words of the reso-
lution to do that which is tantamount to an utter and entire
rejection of the treaty. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the
budget, by that part of the resolution which deals with the
income tax it is palpable that if the house agrees to the re-
solution they will set aside summarily the whole financial
arrangements which my right hon. friend has proposed.
The latter part of the resolution disposes of the budget as
theformer does of the treaty. On what ground is it advo-
cated ? That of the increased expenditure ? Why, if we
are obliged to have an increased expenditure, which hon.
gentlemen opposite and the country don't find fault with,
but which has been in a manner forced upon us, then it is
the duty of Parliament to increase the income of the country
by all possible means ; and one great means of doing that is
by promoting commercial intercourse with our nearest
neighbours. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman talked
of a secret treaty, to come into force a year hence. What
would have been thought of the Government if they had
adopted such a course, so directlyinjurious to all commerce?
(Hear, hear.) "No doubt the example set by England and
France will be followed by other countries, and this treaty
will lay the foundation not only of increased intercourse be-
tween England and France, but amongst all the nations of
Europe. (Cheers.) So far from increasell
saexy that itpen
being an argument against the treaty,
strengthens the reasons for it. (Hear, hea:.) While par-
suing the course of developing ourresoutf-creee
the springs of
in 1842, 1845, snd 1853, we are setting as exemplified
t to our foreign com-
industry at home, giving develop men
(Hear, hear.)
merce, and increasing our own
resources.the fallacious arguments
Let gentlemen not be led away
by y
which
on the other side. Let them reflect
spnthat,osilibibydist disapproving
of this treaty, they would incur a responsibility
they would not like to be answerable in the future. (Cheers.)
l
The house divided. o numbers were—
For Mr. Du Cane's resolution
Against it .. ......
rit
Majoy for Ministers
•
The announcement of the numbers was received with
great cheering by the Ministerial side.
The Attorneys and Solicitors Bill was read a third time
and passed.
NEW WRIT.
On the motion of Sir W. JOLLIFFE, a new writ was

NOES-339.
Acton, Sir .T. Foley, Hon. H. W. MOstyn, Hon. T. E.
Adair, H. E. Fo!jambe, F. J. S. Napier, Sir C.
Adam, W. P. Forster, Charles Newark, Lord
Adeane, H. J. Foster, W. 0. Noble, J.
Agar-Ellis, Hon. L. Fortescue, Hon. D. Norris, J. T.
Alcock, T. Fortescue, C. S. North, F. -
Andover, Lord Freeland, 11. W. O'Brien, P.
Angerstein, W. Garnett, W. J. O'Ferrall, M.
Autrobus, E. Gaskell, J. M. Ogilvy, Sir J.
Arnott, Sir J. Gavin, Major Onslow, Guildford
Ashley, Lord Gibson, T. M. Osborne, Bernal
Atherton, W. Gifford, Earl of Owen, Sir J.
Ayrton, A. S. Gilpin; C. Packe, G. H.
Bagwell, J. 'Gladstone. W. E. Paget, C.
Baines, F. 'Glyn, G. C. Paget, Lord A.
Baring, 11. B. Glyn, G. G. Paget, Lord C. E.
Baring, Thos. Geo. Goldsmid, Sir F. Palmerston, Visct.
Bass, M. T. Gordon, C. W. • Patten, J. W.
Baxter, W. E. Gower, F. L. Paxton, Sir J.
Bazley, Thomas Graham, Sir J. R. G. Pease, H.
Beale, Samuel Greenall, G. Peel, Sir R.
Beamish, F. B. Greenwood, J. Peel, F.
Beaumont, W. B. Gregory, W. H. Peto, Sir M.
Bellew, R. M. Gregson, S. Pigott, Francis
Berkeley. H. Grenfell, C. P. Pilkington, James
Berkeley, F. Greville, Col. F. Pinney, Wm.
Bothell, Sir R. Gray, William Pollard UrquhartW
Biddulph,•.,Col. RM. Grey, ltt. lin. Sir G. ronson by, A.
Biggs, John Grosvenor, Earl Portman W. H. 13.
Black, Adam Gurdon, B. Pryse, Capt. E. L.
Blake, J. A. Gurney, John H. Pritchard, John
Bleneowe, J. G. Gurney, Samuel Proby. Lord. G. L.
Bonham-Carter, J. Hadfield, Geo. Pugh, D. (Connor.)
Botfield, Beriah Hanbury, It., jun. Puller, C. W.
Bouverie, E. P. Handley, John Itamsden, Sir J. W,
Bouverie, P. P. Hankey, Thomson Rayuham, Viscount
Brameton, T. W. Hamer, Sir J. Ricardo, .T. L.
Bright, J. Harcourt, G. G. V. Ricardo, 0.
Briscoe, J. I. Hardcastle, Jos. A. Rich, IT.
Bristow, A. Hartington,Marquis Ridley, G.
Brocklehurst, John Hayter, Sir Wm. Robartes, T. J. A.
Brown, James Headlam, Thos. E. Robertson, D.
Browne, Lord J. T. Heathcote, G. H. Roebuck, J. A.
Bruce, H. A. lleneage, G. ltothschild,BaronL
Bulkeley, Sir R., Bt. Henley. Lord Rothschild Baron I(
Buller, Sir-A. • Herbert, H. A. ltoupell, W.
Buller, J. W. Herbert; S. - Russell, Lord J.
Burke, Sir T. J., Bt. Hervey, Lord A Russell, Hastings
Butler. C. S. Hodgkinson, G. Russell, A. J. E.
Butt, Isaac Hodgson, K. D. Russell, F. W.
Buxton, C. Holland, E. St. Aubyn, J.
Byng, lion. G. !LC. Hope, G. W. Solomons,Alderman
Caird, James Hornby, W. H. Salt, Titus
Calthorpe, F. H. Ilorsfall, T. B. Scliolefie.d,•W.
Campbell, W. F. Howard, Hon. C. Scott, Sir W.
Cardwell,ltt. Hu. E. Howard, Lord E. G. Scrope, G. P.
Carnegie, Hon. C. Humberstone, P. S. Scully, V.
Castlerosse, Vist. Hutt, W. Seymour. Sir 31.
Cavendish, Hon. W. Ingham, R. Seymour, H. D.
Cavenclish, Lord G. Ingram, H. Seymour. Digby
Cayley, E. S. Jackson, W. Shafto, R. D.
Childers, H. C. E. James, Edwin Shelley, Sir J. V.
Cholmeley, Sir M. Jermyn, Earl Sheridan, R. B.
Churchill, Lord A. Jervoise, Sir J. Sheridan, H. B.
Clay, James Johnstone, Sir J. Smith, J. B.
Clifford, C. C. Kendall, N. . Smith, M. T.
Clinton, Lord R. Kershaw, J. Smith, Aug-ustus
Clive, George King, lion. L. Smith, Sir-14'.
Cogan. W. H. Kinglake, Serj. J. Smith, Abel
Coiebrooke, Sir T.E. Kingscote, Lt.-Col. Somerville, Sir W.
Collier, R. P. Kinnaird, Hon. A. Stafford, Marquis of
Coningham, Wm. Laing, S. Staniland, M.
Cowper, Hon. W.F. Langston, J. H. Stansfeld. J.
Craufurd, E. H. J Langton, 11. G. Steel, John
Crawford, It. W. Lanigan, J. Stewart, Sir 31. R.
Crook, Joseph . Lawson, W. • Stuart, Col.
Crossley, Frank Leatham, E. Stuart, Major W.
Dalglish Robert Legh, G. C. Sykes, Col. W. H.
Dashworicl, Sir G. H. Levinge, Sir R.G.A. Talbot, C. R. AI.
Davey, R. Lewis, Sir G.C., Bt. Taylor, Hugh
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Liddell,•Hon. IL G. Tempest, Lord A.Y.
Davie, Col. I'. Lindsay, W. S. Thompson, H. S.
Deedes, Win. Locke, Jos. . Tite, Wm.
Denman, G. Locke, J. Tollemache, Hon.)'.
Dent, John Dent Lockhart, A. E. Traill, G.
Divett, Edward Lowe, Rt. Hon. R. Turner, J. A.
Dodson, John G. Lysley, W. Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Vane, Lord H. G.
DDuouitgl3ars:ESir C.
Verney, Sir Harry
Duff, Major. Mackinnon, W. A. Villiers, Rt. Hon. a.
3311a'Cekafieln, 'Jj. J.
Duke, Sir James Mackinnon, IV.A.jn. Vivian, H. H.
Dunbar. Sir Wm. Dlaguire, J. I'. Warre, J. A.
Duncombe, T. S. Mainwaring' T. Walter, John
Dundas, Frederick Marjoribanks, D. C. Watkins, J. L. V.
Duukcllin, Lord Marsh, M. 11., Wemyss, J.
Dunlop, A. Marshall, W. Western, T. S:
Dutton, Hon. It. H. Martin, P. W, Westhead, B.
Egerton, A. F. Martin, J. Whalley, G. 11.
Egerton, E. C. Massey, W. N. Whitbread, S.
Ellice, Rt. Hon. E. Matheson, A. White, Col. H.
Enilyn, Viscount Matheson, Sir J. Wickham, H. W.
Ennis, John Mellor, John Willcox, B. M.
Esmonde, John Merry, James Williams, W.
Boston, Earl of . Mildmay II
• Winnington, Sir T.
Evans, T. W. Miller, %Villiam Wise, J. A.
Ewart, William Mills, T. T Wood, Rt Hn. Sir C.
Ewart, J. C. Milnes, R. M. Woods, Henry
Ewing,. H. E. C. Mitchell. T. A. Worsley, Lord
Fenwick, Henry Moncreiff, J. Wrightson, W. B.
Ferguson, R. Alonsell, lit. Hn. W. Wy Id, James
Ferinoy, Lord MonsOn, W.. 1, Wyvill, M.
Finlay, A. S. Montgomery, Sir G. TEL LE Rs.
Fitzwilliam, C. W. Moody, C. A. Brand, 11. B.
Foley, J. H. Morris, D. Rimitchbull-Hugess

PA
For Goverment. Against.
Mr 0 Stanley Col. Pennant
Dr Lyons • lin J Wynne
Col I. rench Mr le Cole

.RS.
For Government. Against.
Col Smyth Mr Davison
Sir De L Evans Mr 0 Morgan
Lord E Bruce Ld A Lennox
Dlr Dillwyu Mr Sullivan
Mr li; lice, Jun Mr Potts
Trelawuey Mr Cubitt
Mr \Varre MrS Esteoult
Mr Brady Mr Pugh

Col Coke Col Vaudeleur
Mr Thornhill Mr Mnudy

Ca O'ConnellCapt Palmer
Col Clifford Mr Connolly
Sir G-Pechell Col Bernard
Mr Waldron Sir It G Booth
Sir A Agnew Mr Tottenham
Mr Copeland Mr Hume

Sir It Feiguson Col Fiircle
Mr Lee Sir It Hayes

Major-General Buckley wa
from voting against Mr. Du CI

I prevenW by indisposition
me's resolution.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Notice.—In consequence of Messrs.
Lawes and Morton having just commenced 1840 with opposi-
tion similar to that which they previously advanced, and wish-
ing; to do those gentlemen every justice, 31r. Thorley is induce
insteadd
to enlarge his coming pamphlet, making it 64 pages
of 32- showing beyond doubt that their observations on the
so-called " Concentrated Cattle Food," and so-called " feeding
statistics," are without foundation ; that the liothamsted
experiment was not made with his food, and consequently
that this complete failure must either be through mism mage.
ment or from buying the Condiment at the wrong shop.
will be
The
first impression of One Hundred Thousand Copies
ready about the first day of March, and may be had post free
on receipt of Three stamps, on application to Joseph Thorley,
the Inventor and sole Proprietor of " Thorley's Food
for
Cattle," 77, Newgate-street, London ; 21, Broadway, New
York, United States; Mr. J. W. Thorley, Melbourne; vie.
toria ; Mr. Alfred Burt, Sydney, New South Wales; and of
all his agents throughout the United Kingdom.—Feb, 2.1860
lADVERTlSEMEinterestingNT.]—Nothing can be more •
than the numerous extraordinary cures with
of indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, constipation, medicine
of mneryicouse,
bilious, and liver complaints, cough, asthma, comm.
pation, and debility effected by Du Barry's delicious
re
Health-storing Revalenta
give a few :—" Winchester' Arabic} Food. We
Gentlemen,—l am happye to be able to inform Decembernber3, 1847.
you that the
person for whom your vale
ta
drveorypsgy, readtybespneepfistiaf, andromits usne; wdiassttp•erslurgedsynmasptdoemsrivedof
have been re constipation of long stand-
inghealth induced moved, and a feeling of restored
Having witnessed the beneficial
effects in the above mentioned case, I can with confi-
dence recommend
it, &c., &c. John Shorlar.d, late surgeon,
96th Regment."— 48,314: Miss Elizabeth Yeo-
man, Gateacre, nearnirleNrpooo. 1A cure of ten years' dys-
pepsia, and all the horrors of nervous in itability.—Cora
No. 46,814-11 Ir. Sam xton, Leicester, o.f two years dim,
rhcea.—Cure No. 52,612—The Dowager Co untess of Castle-
stuart,of many years nervous irritabianbile. , and indigeation-
En tins, at ls. 6d. •11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 5113. , 12,R .- 12.1 b
•,
265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, t.na rep eipto;f post::
office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent- -stro, ,t; London'
Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly : Abbie, 60.
Gracechnrcb.-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Oxford
street ; 330 and 451, Strand ;49 and 60. Biehopsgatos
street ; . 85, Tottenham-court-road. Ai .0 at Dublin.
Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, It aimes and Co. ;
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew • at Mar l'Aieeter, Sharp and
Scott ;at York, Raimes, ißlaricharcif and Co, ; at SoUtbr
ampton, Randall and Son.