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

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

that vote a salutary lessoh for the future when they see
what effect such a vote produces in weakening the hands of
those whose duty it is to maintain and enforce the law.
(Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend has said that this duty

is a talon literature and education, and the effect of it is

:o 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 impues 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 financii
year, and probably that of future years. (Opposition cheers.

That is not a matter that is new to the house, which had A
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 been 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 therewould
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 aro not such as will justify his-mo-
tion, 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 mesh largo sums between the Govern-
ments of India and of England is necessarily a disturbing
cause, whieh 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 will, 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 which it 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 Government under the circumstances?
Why, this; they have submitted to the house necessarily a
-sure 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 fertifications. 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 inacca.rate estimate, and
that the charge for the miscellaneous estimateswill approxi-
mate nearly to the figure at which I originally stated it. I
won't say there will not be 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
collectOn of the revenue ; and with respect to that, there is
something, in what has been stated by my friend, because,
owing to the early period at which the estimates were pro-
posed, they were stated at a lower figure than that at wbich'
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 expel:Lei-
hire, 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
sly 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,oo3—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 en
this its very last stage, the object of that bill being to
repeal a duty which involves a largo amount of revenue,
and a trade producing 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 mid counter cheers.)
If any other gentleman has known it, let us have the pre •
cadent. 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, iu 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 are 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 delibmitte
vote of the House of Commons, it is from that time regarded
by every person concerned as if it were already the law of
the land. (Cheers.) Is there an exception to that ? can
my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) furnish me with ten ex-
ception ? Let us recollect what this matter really is. 'The
business of the Queen's Government is to make darer cods
on the House of Commons for the sums necessary to ct trry
forward the public service, and to suggest the means by
which those charges are to be met. But this power of all ter-
ing the taxes of the country is one of the greatest, most im-
portant, and most vital parts of the functions of the Ho use
of Commons ; and what I now wish to bring to the parti, tu-
larliotice of the house is that there is no instance of the
correction of a deliberate vote of this kind. Directly 1 ;he
remission of a tax is announced by the Government and t
cepted by the House of Commons every description of
trading arrangements begin to be made by those who t ire
affected by the tax ; the whole operations of that trade a re,
in point of fact, dependent on the vote of the House of
Commons ; and when the house had deliberately given tb tat
vote I say it is always and without exception regarded as t: he
definitive and authoritative expression of its opinior
(Hear, hear.) I think my right hon. friend (Mr. Ellie ,e)
must be led to consider whether, even for the purpose of
retaining the paper duty, it would be worth while to gi ere
such a shock to public confidence as the new course of prt ►c--
tioe now recommended could not fail to give. (Hear, hea; n)
During the last 40 years you have at intervals repeal• ed
from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 of taxes, and in every o ne
of these instances the first affirmation of the house has be en
accepted by the country, and are we now going to break up
the traditions of the house, and destroy that confide] ice
which the country has ever felt in its declarations relative

to taxation. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for 11( frt .
fordshire says we have not lost our right to vote against - the
second reading of a financial bill because the principle ( )f it
has been affirmed in preliminary committee, nor to objec tto
the third reading because it has passed through committee .
Certainly not. (Cheers.) No person asserts that eith ei •
the individual members of Parliament in this house ha 3
lost their right to do what theyplease in the matter. (Ilea r, )
lam not questioning the right of the House of Common Ls,
but addressing arguments to its sense of fairness —(" 0 h,
oh," and laughter from the Opposition)—and to that di is
positions which the house almost uniformly shows to payi)
regard to its own traditions, and to fulfil those expectatio as
with regard to financial changes which it has raised in t' he
country. (Hear, hear.) I must also say that Ide not ihinak
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 cheek the manufacture, you would
progoribo all eutprprige, and you would ouly half obtaiu the 1,,

fiscal objects which you contemplate, while no small loss
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 thaw 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 ques-
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 one 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.
ante 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 by 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 on 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 reductionof 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 toe pro-
bable that if it be carried out English capital will be cars
ried away to be embtrked 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 °lithe 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 newmaterials. 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 th's 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 avo'ding 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-
tiry 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 see whether you are juse
titled in taking the step which the Government counsel,
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 yefr of £400,000 ; 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 phraseo •
logy of the right hon. gentleman, I understand that he es
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 np 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 tho
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
lcieuda,rteirf inthostehismheoasuirte, as
wntdll levesrharlleapbpeeagrr. eaTtlhyeyrnairse-
dropped. (Cheers and laughter.) There was an estimate
whenlarmeasures
etahseufirenaanwceiaulld produce
et was made thTaat thesethat paadrdticthue-
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—(hear, hear)—yet, as
far as the financial year is concerned, the amount which it
will give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will only be
£1,000,00, 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 that 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 come
mittee, 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 Chancellor
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 Calguet, but he offered zle clefetzeo

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—l 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, the 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 £640,000 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 hox. 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 are not- to be entertained:;, that my views
are of a highcharacter, and that I take the moral, literary,

andeducational view of this matter. To consider the mat-

:er in this view is, in his opinion, to take the high view of
,t ; 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 are
in disorder, if its general prosperity ceases, then, depend

upon it, that intellectual piogAss 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 understand 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 lon. friend wants to have the paper duty
too. The right hon. gentleman says we are bound by the
tenth penny of the incom.e-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
ieferrecl 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 wale 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
was 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 Jim
doubled the income-tax—(loud ,cheers)—he has retabed
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 ! Why, anything more illogical or inconsequent,any
plea 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 (at £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 contradictions 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 audacious, ad.
vanced another principle, that when a Minister once pro-
posed that a tax should be repealed the house had no right
to interfere. (Chceers.) 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 reused 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 n tmarkable instances in which this house
having come to a d'etermination upon most important taxes—
taxes of far more importance than the paper duty—recon-
sidered and chang ed its opinions. The house came once in my
time to the deter' ainalion 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 El :chequer 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 gr.( at effect was produced in Mincing-lane
when that vote we a arrived at ; but did the house pursue
the policy which it had sanctioned with its approval ? On
the contrary, circa instances occurred which made the house
deem it prudent to reconsider its decision, and the sugar
duties were not ale elished. (Cheers.) What more do we pro-
pose to-night ? .Wte think the house on the subject of the
paper duty has arriv ed 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 imm ease scheme with respect to the come
merce and the finances Of the country placed bsfore 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 dietcitor and a despot in this house
(cheers), and under a species of terrorism the 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 that, demanded of the house to rescind
all the financial policy which for years he had been profess•
rag 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)7he: vindicated his
policy,:ashe has vindicated it to-night,by a statement
toldwhich
upon reflection he must feel has no foundation. He
11.5 that he had beva disappciAtecl is the polio" Tagcb, he

had established in 1855—that the Russian war had oc-

cupied and baffled all his plans. He quite for-
got that in 1867, *hen he was not in office, and when the
then Chancellor of the Exchequel, 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 P 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 shame—(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 the 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
I 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 d
vital importance in the present discussion. The right hon.
gentleman says that in 18571 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. 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
tliere 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!")
said,—l cannot sallow 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. What 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 could not tell either what
works the commission would recommend, or what the
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,
rinight 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 net pass through the
door to be counted by the tellers in the regular manner, but
passed through the rails in the lobby. (Laughter, and cries
of "Name.") He believed it was the hon. member for
Boston.
The tellers announced the division to be—
For the third reading
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
coroted.
The SPEAKER asked whether the hon. member for
Boston was in his place.
Mr. ii-G/ti.8.31 appeared in front of the table, and
The SP.I_7•.A.K.ER said—Was the hon. member in the
•
lobby with the '"Noes" ?'
Mr. INGEAg—Yes, Sir; but I was there by mistake.
(Laughter.) I did not ,hear you separate the questions.
The SPRAKER--Theo) was a case exactly similar to
this acme time ago. An Dm -% 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 he 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
left 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.

TILE IMMAI LS.

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, &c. (via Southampton) May 19.
Do. (via Marseilles) May 13.
India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. .. May 25.
Do. (via Marseilles) . • • . May 19.
Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, &c. .. .• 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. (% ia Cork) .. May 16.
Western Coast of Atrica, Madeira, Teneriffe .. 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. His 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.--EADVT.]
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Holloway's pills are renowned as a
safe and 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
Ridlington. Rectory, Norfolk, June 10, 1850.—
No. 4,208.—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,—For a considerable
time I have suffered severely from a violent pain in my left
side, 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 than
an hour I found relief, and my recovery was very rapid.
The duties which previously had . been an intolerable
burden, 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., 58. 9d. ; 51b., 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 150, Oxford-
street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopqate-
street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin,
Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Cc.;
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp ant'
Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and;Co.:; &Von%
araptou) ittatAl laud 0011

PiIIaIeIMENTARy DIVISIO7.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MAY 8.
PAPER DUTY REPEAL BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question
(24th April), " That the Bill be now read the third time"
—Question again proposed :—Debate resumed :—Amend-
ment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the
end of the question, in order to add the words " the present
state of the finances of the country renders it undesirable
to proceed further with the repeal of the Excise duty on
paper," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words
proposed to be left out stand part of the question :"—The
house divided :—The tellers reported the number as ayes
219, noes 209:—Notice taken that Mr. Ingram, one of the
members for Boston, had been in the division lobby with the
noes, and having passed the division clerks, had avoided
being counted by the tellers :—Whereupon Mr Speaker
directed the honourable member for Boston to come to the
table ; and Mr. Ingram being come to the table, stated that
he had gone into the lobby with the noes by mistake :—Mr.
Speaker accordingly directed his vote to be added to the
noes, and declared the numbers to be, ayes 219, noes 210.

AYES-219.
Acton, Sir J. Forster, Charles Ogilvy, Sir J.
Adam, W. P. Fortescue, Hon. D. Padmore, R.
Agar-Ellis, Hon. L. Fortescue, C. S. Paget, Lord A.
Alcock, T. Freeland, H. W. Paget, Lord C. E.
Andover, Lord Garnett, W. J. Paget, C.
Angerstein, W. Gavin, Major Palmerston, Visct.
Antrobus, E. Gibson, T. M. Paxtog, Sir J.
Atherton, W. Gifford, Earl of Pease, H.
Ay-'nn, A. S. Gilpin, C. Peel, F.
Bagwell, J. Gladstone, W. E. Pilkington, James
Baines, E. Glyn, G. G. PollardErrqu.hartW
Baring, Thos. Geo. Goldsmid, Sir F. Ponsonby, A.
Baxter, W. E. Gordon, C. W. Pryse, Capt, E. L.
Bazley, Thomas Gower, F. L. Pritchard, John
Beale, Samuel Graham, Sir J. R. G. Proby, Lord. G. L.
Beamish, F. B. Greenall, G. Puller, C. W.
Berkeley, F. Greene, Capt. J. Raynhara, Viscettnt
Bethell, Sir R. Greenwood, J. Redmond, J. E.
Black, Adam Gregson, S. Ricardo, 0.
Blake, J. A. Grey, Rt. lin. Sir G. Richardson, J.
Blencowe, J. G. Gurney, John H. Ridley, G.
Bouverie, E. P. Hadfield, Geo. Robartes, T. J. A.
Bouverie, P. P. Hankey, Thomson Robertson, D.
Briscoe, J. I. Harcourt, G. G. V. Rothschild BaronPt
Browne, Lord J. T. Hardcastle, Jos. A. Rothschild,rlaronL.
Buchanan, W. Hartington,Marquis Roupell, W.
Buller, J. W. Hayter, Sir Win. Russell, Lord J.
Buller, Sir A. Headlam, Thos. E. Russell, Hastings
Buxton, C. Henley, Lord Russell, A. J. X-
Bypg Hon. G. H. C. Herbert, S. Russell, F. W.
Caird', James Hervey, Lord A _Russell, Sir Win,..
Calcuti, F. Hodgson, K. D. St. Aubyn, J.
Calthorpe, F. H. Howard, Hon. C. Salomong,Aldern tan
Cardwell, Rt. Mn. E. Ingham, K. Balt, Titus
Carnegie, Bon. C. ' Jervoise, Sir J. Bcholefletcl, W.
Castlerosse, Vist. Johnstone, Sir J. Scott,•Sir W.
Cavendish, Hon. W. Kershaw, J. Seymour, Sir M. r
Childers, H. C. E. King, Hon. L. Seymour, H. D.
Clay, James Kinglake, Serj. J. Seymour, Digby
Clifford, H. _
M. Kingscote, Lt.-Col. Shelley, Sir J. V
Clinton, Lord R. Laing, S.
Sheridan, R. B.
Clive, George V.
Langton, H. G. Sheridan, H. B.
Cogan. W. H. Lawson, W. Smith, J. 11.
Collier, It. P. Leatham, E. Smith, Augustus
Coningham, Win. Lennox, Lord H. G. Smollett,' P.
Cowper, Hon. W.F. Lewis, Sir G.C., Bt. Staepoole, W.
Craufurd, E. H. J Lindsay, W. S. Stafiord, Marquis of
Crook, Joseph Locke, Jos. Staniland, M.
Cross, R. A. Locke, John Stansfeld. J.
Crossley, Frank Lockhart, A. B. Stuart, Col.
Dalglish, Robert Lowe, Rt. Hon. B. Sykes, CoL W. H.
Davey, R. Lysley, W. Thompson, H. S.
Davie, Sir H. R. P. M'Cann, J. 'Tollemache, Hon.F.
Deasy, Rickard M'Cormick, W. Turner, J. A.
Denman, G. Mackinnon, W.A.jn. Verney, Sir Harry
Dent, John Dent McMahon, P. Villiers, Rt. Hon. a.
Diliwyn, Lewis L. Maguire, J. F. Waldron, L.
Douglas, Sir C. Mamwaring, T. Walter, John
Duff, M. E. Marjoribanks, D. C. Warner, Edward
Duff, Major. Marshall, W. Watkins, J. L. V.
Duke, Sir James Martin, P. W. Wemyss, J.
Dunne, M. Martin, J. Westhead, B.
Ennis, John Massey, W. N. Whalley, G. H. t
Esmonde, John Merry, James Whitbread, S. -
Evans, T. W. Miller, William Wickham, H. W.
Ewart, William Mitchell, T. A. Williams, W.
Ewart, J. C. Moncreiff, J. Wood, Rt Hn.. Sir C.
Ewing, H. E. C. Monson, W. J. Woods, Henry
Fenwick, Henry Morris, D. Worsley, Lord
Ferguson, R. Noble, J. Wrightson, W. B.
Fermoy, Lord North, F. Wyvill, M.
Fitzwilliam, C. W. O'Brien, P. TELLERS.
Foley, J. H. O'Connell, D. Brand, H. B.
Foley, Hon. H. W. O'Conoi Don, The Dunbar, Sir Wm.