The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-07 00:00:00

fee not proposing any intsrferenee with the expiration of •
that duty were becett-T, pe.rtly in consequence of the
high price of bar;eya 'end partly in 'Consequence of the
opsratinn of the lecrea,seo war rate, th Consumption of
malt had undoubtedly been diminished, while the con-
sumption of ins and sugar had not undergone a dimi-
nution. ill-tar, hear.) At the commenceuisnt of the
present year, confining myself to the War duties, the
only indirect taxes with which it was competent to deal
were the dut'ete on tea and sugar. The duty on tea was
fillid at is. 7,1., to fall on the Ist of April to ls. 3d.
In round numbers every penny of duty on tea is equal
to a quarter of a million of revenue. Under those
nrcutnstances, locking to the necessity of providing
an additional revenue, it seemed to me that the duties
on ten, and sugar offered a fair ground for levying that
portion of taxation required, and that, not by in-
creasing those duties, not by preventing their fall a to-
gether, but by proposing a less descent than would have
taken place ender the existing liw, I was enabled to
form a eeale which would rai:e sufficient revenue to
inset the estimated expenditure of the year. On con-
sidering the matter, I think the house will come to the
conalusion that the prop 'sal is a fair one, and one to
which their assent may with propriety be given. It is
necessary the assent should be given before the first of
April. If the duty had not fallen on the Ist of April, I
might have rut, some risk of loss, and have left the
matter to the decision of another Parliament. Bat in-
asmuch as it was necessary, in orier to fulfil the pledge
that has been given to the country to reduce the war in-
come tax, which would otherwise be leviable at the full
rate of 16d. from the let April nexo it seemed to me a
reasonable preposition at the same time to arrest the en-
tire fall of the duties on tea and sugar. In recommend-
ing that plan of providing for the ways and means of the
year, I cited a pa.ssaee from a celebrated writer, whom
Mr. Gladstone familisfy and humor nisly, but not very
truthfully, styled "Old Young." (Laughter.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—" Old Arthur Young "
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCLIEQUER—I
would remark that Arthur Young is a writer of great
eminence and celebrity, and has been recognised as such
by all economical writers. His fame is not confined to
this cute ,try , it is of European extension, His works
were translated into French, by direction of the French
Government. He even received a reward from the RUE-
4an Governinen.-, which may perhaps mitigate the as
perity of some gentlemen towards him ; and, I believe,
with the produce of that reward he purchased an estate
in the Crimea. What became of that estate—whether
it is held by his descendants, I really don't know. His
antiquity is complained of, but I don't see why his au-
thority should be diminished on that account. Arthur
Young's published works have a chse bearing upon the
affairs of modern times. His death, certainly atan advanced
age, took place so late as 1820. I referred to a sayingof his
Which commends simplicity in matters of taxation ; and I
must still say that that dictum is perfectly sound, when
correctly understood. What that dictum condemned was
an attempt to raise revenue chiefly from one great article
or branch of taxation—for example, some all-absorbing
tax upon property, such as was recommended by one
party at the present day, or the system which prevailed
in Oriental countries of providing for nearly all the ex-
penses of Government by a land tax, He said : "
Im-
pose taxes upon different branche, of industry or pro-
duce, but do not attempt to raise your revenue by one
branch of direct or indirect taxation." He had in view
such a system as exists in this country, and when I quoted
his words I could not, for a moment, suppose that I was
recommending the abolition of the policy introduced by
Sir R. Peel, or that when I condemned simplicity in taxa-
tion I meant to recommend anything but variety—cer-
tainly not to recommend complexity. I have been tola
that 1 have thrown overboard, condemned, and repudi-
ated, as far as one year can go, the principles of finance
that were introduced and firstextensively applied when the
party opposite were in pea er. I am really at a lossto under-
stand how my prcposal with regard to the duties on tea and
sugar is in any way inconsistent with the principles of
liberal legislation. As opposed to free trade I do not
understand simply duties upon imported articles, but
duties of protective or prohibitive ature. There is
nothing in a duty imposed upon any article not grown
in this country, as sugar, simply for the purpose of
revenue, inconsistent with the doctrines of free trade.
Undoubtedly every such duty raises the price of the ar-
ticle imported, and thereby inflicts an injury upon the
consumer. But so long as it is raised merely for the pur-
poses of revenue, and the object is not to favour one class
of producers at the expense of another, or obstruct or
interrupt trade, it cannot be said that any one duty is
inconsistent with the principles of free trade. It has
also been said that our present financial proposition is
calculated to inspire alarm, because we are advancing
steadily to a state of things in which there will be a de-
ficient revenue, and that unless some vigorous interposi-
tion of the Authority of this house takes place, we may
expect the most extensive financial ruin. I assume
that, after proper discussion in committee of supply,
our expenditure will be fixed at a legitimate amount.
Whenever that legitimate amount shall be determined,
can it be doubted that the resources of this country are
amply sufficient to raise, without oppression of the
people, a revenue sufficient to cover that expenditure ?
There never was a time when the great branches of our
production, agriculture, manufactures, and commerce,
were in a sounder, more satisfactory, or more expansive
state. Judging from the pa-t, and without denying that
temporary interruptions to the Prosperity of trade may
return, there never was in our history any moment when
there was less ground for alarm as to the possibility of
raising au adequate revenue from taxation without se-
rious pressure upon the springs of industry. Looking
at the state of the vvorkmg classes, we find that all the
indications afforded by the returns of pauperism and of
savings banks concur in eetabiishing the same conclu-
,ion, namely, that the working classes are in the main
in a satisfactory state. I therefore cannot share in those
shrine that have been expressed with respect to our
financial state. Provided our finances are managed with
prudence, arid that our expenditure is fixed on a legiti-
mate basis, I cannot doubt that this house will, in every
successive year, provide the Goveriiment of the day with
ample ways and means of defraying that expenditure,
and of guarding against any deficiency. Let me remind
the house that if the plan of Mr. Disraeli should he poe-
tically acted upon, there would be in this year, not a cal-
culated or a speculative, but a real and a present defi-
ciency. I ti ust, therefore, that the house will not agree
with the proposal that has been made, but will be pre-
pared to accede to the motion I now make, that the duty
on tea, which is now ls. 9d. in the pound, and which,
according to the existing Law, wool 1 tall to is. 3d. on the
let of April, be fixed at the reasouable rate of ls. 51. in
she pound.,
Mr. GLAD STONE said he had come down to the
house with the anxious desire to adelr :ss hitnself to the
question as a practical question, and to confine himself
entirely within the limits which the terms of the motion
poke ed out. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
entered upon a wide field of discussion, had revived
the topic of the previous debates, and had devoted con-
siderable time and attention to the vindication Of the
fair fame of "Old Arthur Young." (Leughter.) He
had truly said that the principles of free trade were mis-
undrrst tod if they were supposed to require the abolition
,f al indirect taxation. lie (Mr. Gladstons) entire ly
agreed wi7ll that. The abolition of indirect tax ation was
well enough as a ~object of discussion (old dispute
among those who were [leased eith that sort of intelloc-
turd exercitations, but indirect, taxation was deeply and
ini x ricably rooted in our system, and it was neither
itracticable nor desirable to get rid of it. (Hear.) But
he stil het I hat the spirit of the Gevernment proposals
was advere to the principles on which the operations
were not merely getting rid of protection and prohibi-
tion ; twiny measures eminently calculated to benefit
the country hail rio connection with that obj et. Why
had we aboli4v,el all duties (11 exports, and ma ,y
hundreds of import duties that were productive of very
small anniunts to the revenue—a process which had im-
mensely simplified our commercial system, but had no-
thing whatever to do with the question of protection A
main object of all these optiitions, quite apart from
questions of prohibition and protection, had been to afford
extended, judicious, and permanent relief to the con-
sumers of th,se great commodities impoittd from abroad
which were essentially connected with the comforts of
the mass of the population. That had been a fundamen-
tal object and a capital feature in all those operations,
and oue on which happily there had been no conflict
whatever of party opinion in tkat house. On that account
he contemplated it with all the greater satisfaction, and
regretted the mt-re seriously and bitterly that the plans
of the Government for the present year made an
attack for the first tune upon those measures. Thu
house was placed in great difficulty with regard to
the whole of their proceedings as regarded the finance
and expenditure of the country. Sir H. Willoughby
was perfectly right. There was no reason why the
house ,hould deal with the ways and means, rather
than with the supplies in the first instance. That courne
involved them in the greatest difficulty ; because they
were called upon to supply, and they did not know what
it was t,iey were going to supply. It was true in 1845
Sir Rebert.. Peel had proposed a renewal of the income
tax before arty purlieu of the estimates were voted, but
that gas an entirely distinct operation from the providing
of ways and means. It was not done because it was ne-
cessary to support the ordinary expenditure of the cout.-
try, but to ascertain whether Parliament chose to renew
the income tax in order to repeal indirect taxes to a cor-
responding amount. (Heier.) "Pliat afforded no precedent
whatever fer this inversion of the ordinary cause of pro-
ceedings which bad been adopted by the Government on
the recommendation of some influential members who eat
behind them, lie felt the full force of Mr. Disraeli's argu-
ment—that they were a Parliament upon whom notice to
quit had been server,, and yet tney were called on tc
impose new taxes upon the people. The language of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer tended to promote
onisuederstanding. He said he was not increasing
the duties on tea and sugar. What he meant was that
he was not going to levy a heavier duty on those articles
aft r the sth of April than was now paid by them ; but
inh substance he was levying ahigher duty, because it two;
that his
tether than would he leviable by the present law after
If, was in perfect harmonymeansarising
the sth April. (Hear ) It Was a mistake to suppose
(Mr. Gladstone's) motion took away a portion
of the ways and
did not call upon the
eh with their recent
from indirect taxation.
Bose any additional tax.o policy. He
preposition, and he regretted that house in its expiring stage to Un-
ions° persons were 'induced to believe the whole pith of his
hferloitenlethethfaotr
eofll,the
interfering by his proposition with
,ethGe existing,law;has
and taking away from her Meaxiiee,ttiye,
laovernment the
ways and means which the
That was a total and gross mi.appreansiwon of his e them.
would not, on the present occasion. enter
oevnernter.
propo-
into the question of the income tax, but the
went were taking away from the income tax, which was
granted by Parl.ainttot, fee the purpose of carrying on
the war. Now what he asked was that they should not,
in connection with, or in order to relieve themselves
from, the income tax, impose naw burdens on the tea

and sugal of the People—burdens which Parliament
never contemplated to levy by the law as it stood, His
n friend (Lord J. Russell) the other evening replied
to his observations on the budget in a tone which should
have saved his noble friend from the imputation which
was cast upon him in the Chinese debate. Those conser-
vations of his noble friend were not such as he (Mr.
Gladstone) had any right to complain of, but they showed
considerable hostility to the opinions he advanced. The
noble lord said ho had spoken in a sense to catch the
goodwill of gentlemen opposite. He certainly had no ob•
jection to catch the goodwill of persons wherever he
could honourably obtain it. The notle lord would not
hear from him any expression inconsistent with the re-
spect he bore him, and he could never forget the gratitude
he owed him for the cordial and generous—indeed the
over generous—support which he received fromthe noble
lord in his department of the Government of which
they were both members. But the main objection of his
node friend to his views was this—that whilst he (Ur.
Gladstone) complained of a deficiency in the revenue, he
likewise objected to the proposition for increasing the ways
and moans by the additional duty on tea and sugar. He
(slr. Gladstone) contended that he was in the exercise of
duty, as a member of Parliament, in complaining at
once of the deficiency, and saying that the particular ways
and means proposed by the Government were liable to
such grave and serious censure that they ought not to be
Provided for the service of the Government. He denied
that the house had given an implied sanction to the esti-
mates on the table, which it had not had the means of exa
mining. That construction was not borne out either by
!Ile debate or by the terms of the motion of the right hen.
gentleman the member for Bucks. Now, with regard to
the propositions on the subject of the tea duties, his pro-
position was that the duty should be ls. 3i., and
that after the sth April, 1858, it should fall to 11d. per
lb. His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer proposed to enact a duty of ls. sd. per lb. for 12
months from the sth April, leaving the trade quite in the
dark as to the duty in the following years. (Hear) Now,
with respect to the surplus there was, under the present
law, a surplus revenue for the coming year, because by
law the Government bad the income tax for the current
year. But by the plan of his right hon. friend, as it now
stood, there would be no surplus. He was deeply, too
deeply, convinced that if the plans of the Government
were adopted this Parliament would go to the country
with a deficiency of ways and means for the coming year.
[Tie right hon. friend showed a surplus of 890,0001. when
be made his first statement, but the modification which he
announced in the tea duties last night would reduce that
surplus to 500,0001. He thought he was quite right in
saying that would be so. But this was merely a nominal
surplus, for his right hon. friend had to provide for the whole
expenses of the Chinese war, for which not a single farth-
ing had yet been provided, nor for the expensee of the Per-
sian war, after the sth April; and althltugb his right hon.
friend proposed a vote for the expenses of the Persian
war up to April 5, he (Mr. Gladstone) confessed that he
thought the vote was far below what the expenses would
be. Setting aside that surplus of 500,0001. to meet the
expenses of the Chinese and Persian ware, there would
in point of fact be no surplus if the house adopted the
plan of the right hon. gentleman. But if there were, he
still said that it was the duty of the House of Commons
not to accept a proposition of the Government as to a
particular tax, simply because the plan of the Govern-
ment as it stood did not show a state of satisfactory re-
lation between the income and expenditure. He empha-
tically concurred in the observation of the hon. member
for Huntingdon, that the first duty of the House of Com-
mons was by all possible means to maintain at all times
and under all circumstances a surplus income, and he
hoped, therefore, the house would be disposed to take
such measures with regard to the expenditure as should
prevent that great evil of deficiency even in the provision
tor the present year. There was no surplus income, ac-
cording to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exche•
quer. There were other items, such as the Sound dues,
for instance, which the Government might have to pro-
vide for. He should now proceed to try the plan of his
right lion, friend on its own merits. The right hon. gen-
tleman had very much reduced the scope of his original
proposition. His first intention was, the present duty
being ls. 9d., to propose a duty of ls. 7d. Upon this
came his noble friend with his duty of ls. 4d., and he
(ilr. Gladstone) not striving for originality, with his duty
of ls. 3d. There was the original proposal of the Go-
vernment of ls. 7d., and which was afterwards reduced
to is. 5d., the proposition of his noble friend ls. 41., and
his (Mr. Gladstone's proposition of ls. 3d. The only
numbers that remain without patrons were is. Bd. and
ls. 6d. (Laughter.) By the existing law and by his (Mr.
Glad-tone's) proposition the duty would be ls. 31. per
pound. This the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
to raise to is 51. He would not repeat again what he
said the other night with regard to toe immense import-
ance and the enormous benefits which the country de-
rived from the reduction of the duties on the great articles
of consumption. He was sure these facts had fully im-
pressed themselves on the mind of the house. The reduc-
tion of the tea duty was proposed by the Government of
Lord Derby. That Government fell on a question of
finance, but those who followed took up the proposition,
and, with some alterations, passed it through the house.
It had therefore the most solemn and unanimous sanc-
tion which it was possible for the House of Commons to
give. Now, for what great boon or benefit, or for what
reason did the right hon. gentleman take the first step
in the reversal of that policy I Was it to obtain a sum
which would not exceed 370,000/. on tea, and about the
same aunt on sugar That would constitute the whole
gain which his right hon. friend would get by interfering
with the existing lew, and setting the pernicious example
of retrogression in this matter. This was a most inade
quate advantage for such a back ward proceeding, and its
benefit, as a mode of providing ways and means, would
not justify a step which was questionable on much
higher and broader ground . The object to be gained, in
a financial point of view, was very insignificant as com-
pared with the disadvantag• s on other grounds. But his
hon. friend the Secretary of the Treasury said that he
(Air. Gladstone) was the great Dffender with regard to
the duties, for that he had proposed an increase of the
duty during the war. That was not so. Upon sugar he
did propose an increase of duty; upon tea he did not. Se
deeply were the Government of wbich he was a member
convinced of the evil of arresting the descending scale of
the tea duty, that in 1354, when the Government ob-
tained the power of applying 12,000,0001. of taxes to the
defraying of the expenses of the war, they did not inter-
fere with the descending scale of the tea duty. Whilst the
income tax, the malt tax, and the sugar duty were in-
creased, the tea duty was left as it was, so great was
their disinclination to interfere with the progressive fall
in the tea duty. In 1855, when the pressure of the war
compelled them to resort to loansand increase other taxa-,
with regard to the tea duty they dirt not do more than ar-
rest the fat They did not increase the duty. That was
reserved for his right hon. friend. The question, there-
fore, now was whether they would continue in time of
peace the war duties, or a portion of the war duties,
on tea or sugar. It was of no avail to say that the Go-
vernment was not increasing the duty, that they were
only suspending it. It was insignificant by what name
It was ; it was subetanti.dey an increase of duty.
Let not the house be perplexed by words which had no
meaning, because if the present Government suspended
the fell, and succeeding Governments suspended the fall,
it was tantamount to an increase of duty. With regard
t i the traders in tea great hardship was inflicted on
them, because under the expectation of a fall in the
duty they were encouraged to import ; and if the pro-
mises held out under the sanction of an act of Perlia.
meat were broken, they would have just reason to corn-
)lain. (Hear ) It was all very well to say that the deal-
ers' must liberate their tea, whether there was a remis li
-
sion of the duty or not ; but there was nothing more
harsh or impelitie than to deprive the trader of the be-
nefit of the remission of the duty. The trader in the first
instance had the benefit of a remission of duty, and that
was the very hest economy, because the trader was
thereby stimulated to an extension of his operations,
which resulted in an augmentation of supply. (Hear.)
After holding out certain expectations to the traders,
you anticipated their fulfilment with the ingenious re-
mark, that the loss, after all, would not fall on the
consumer, but the dealer. (Hear.) Those who were en-
gaged in the China trade were perfectly entitled, except
under great pressure, to the benefit which they expected
by the fell of duty as provided in the act of Parlia-
ment. (Hear.) Much had been said on the inexpediency
of prospective legislation, and different philosophers
came into play on the question. The right principle, it
was said, was to vote the taxes for twelve months, as
you voted the supply for twelve months. Well, he would
show what the effect of prospective legislation had been
in respect to the supply of tea. His right hon. friend
stated, in reply to a deputation, as appeared foam the
public papers, on the 231 of January, ten days before
the meeting of Parliament, that the war duties on tea,
sugar, and coffee would terminate on the sth April. He
(Mr. Gledstone) must say that if these words, or words
equivalent to them, were used by his right hon. friend,
it became a serious question for the House of Commons
to consider whether they would sanction an inorease of
duty, because, no doubt, if these words were used, per-
sons engaged in the tea trade would immediately and un-
heeitatinely proceed to arrange their communications
with China in conformity with that statement. (reer.)
But with regard to prospective legislation, if that
.was
bad, the proposition of the Government, which provided
for the next 12 months, was good. The right hon. gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) thought differently, be-
cause he provided for a fall that ran through four or five
years, whilst the Government to which he (Mr. Glad-
st me) belonged provided for four years, namely, from
1853 to 1857. What was the consequence of that pr,,s•
pective legislation ? In 1853 that prospective legisla-
tion was adopted, and in 1854, although under the un•
favourable circumstances of the rebellion of China, the
efforts of traders and merchants were so active in provid-
ing for the public wants that the imports rose from
71,000,000165. in 1853 to 86,000,000,b5. in 1854 To-
wards the close of 1854 it eecaine necessary, in conse-
quence of the war, to arrest the fall in the tea duty, and
toe consequence was that the supply of tea, which rose
in 1854 by 15,000,000115. above that of 1853, not only
did not rice, but fell 2,500,0001b5. below the supply of
1854.

An HON. MEMBER-1,500,0001b5.
Mr. GLADSTONE—The figures which he had were
different ; but it did not matter as far as the argument
was concerned, for the supply remained as near as pos.
,ihle stationary in 1855 and 1856, shwing that as the
duty 1,11 the supply ar:d the consumption rose, but whorl
the fall of duty was suspended the consumption was al,o
arrested.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—What
was the supply in 1856 ?
Mr. GLADSTONE-86,000,0001b5. But tho remark
did not tell much for his right hon. friend, as what he
looked to was the consumption, not the supply. Of
course when operations were largely extended they could
not be suspended in a moment. (hear, hear.) The con-
sequence of prospective legislation had been that there
were larger stocks of tea in the sountry at the present
tune than was ever the case beTore. (Hear.) In the

present state of China this was a satisfactory result ; but
the right hon. gentleman ought not to exult in the gains
to be got out of the tea-dealers, because they were die-
appointed in the expectations which they very naturally
entertained. (Hear, bear.) The hon. gentleman (Hr.
Wilson) founded his argument upon grounds which he
ought to be the last man to advance. He said that the
Government were in the unfortunate position of being
obliged to make provision for war obligations which
were contracted when they entered office, and were left
unprovided for. The hon. gentleman was entirely un-
founded in that statement. The war obligations were
not left unprovided for ; they were meant to be provided
for, and were provided for, by the half-year's full income
tax which was coming in. In 1854, when the House of
Commons granted Government the power of contracting
temporary obligations in the shape of Exchequer bonds
or bills, they did so npon the express showing of the Go-
vernment that they were only going to borrow upon the
anticipation of the income tax. That was a very plain
and simple matter, and now came the time for the re-
d* notion of the pledge. There were 6,000,000/ of these
Exchequer bonds. You had 4,000,0001. or 5,000,0001.
of the half-yearly income tax in arrear. Of this
2,000,0001. were to go in payment of the Exchequer
bonds. That was perfectly right, because it was a re-
deeming of the promise made to Parliament. But the
other 2,000,000/. ought to be applied to a further redemp-
tion of the war obligations, and not to the ways and
means of the year. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, so far
from being encumbered with war obligations, provision
was made for the discharge of these war obligations,
but instead of applying that provision to the purposes to
which Parliament intended it should be applied, the right
hon, gentleman was going to apply it to maintain the
establishments of the year. (Hear, hear.) Therefore
there was no ground whatever for laying fresh taxes on
the tea and sugar of the people, in order to make provi-
sion for meeting the war obligations—that provision
having been already made by Parliament. He had
spoken of the abundant stock of tea on hand, and as he
had a motion also on the subject of sugar, it would per-
haps be better if be were to say a few words new on it.
fie thought his right hon. friend made a serious error in
his description of the case of sugar. He understood his
right hon. friend to say that the war tax on tea and sugar
had been borne without any diminution of consumption.
The war tax on sugar was no doubt aggravated by the
high price ; but the war tax was so much in addition to
the high price, and so far from the comforts of the people
not being diminished thereby, a large decrease, on the
contrary, had taken place under the combined influence
of high price and war duty. For the first eleven months
of 1854 the consumption of sugar was 7,500,000 cwt. ;
fur the first eleven months of 1855 it was 7,178,000
cwt. ; and for the first eleven months of 1856 it was
6,771,000 cwt., so that in the course of only two years
in this important and essential article of consumption
there was a decrease of 835,000 cwt., or one-eighth of
the whole consumption of the people. (Hear, hear.)
That was a serious fact for the consideration of the House
of Commons. They had been labouring and struggling
for many years to carry these great objects. For many
years the question of the sugar duties was not merely as
a question of revenue, not merely as a question of pro-
spective legislation, but as a question connected with
high social interests and the interests of humanity—was
a capital question of debate in the house. (Hear.) The
West India planters were the only persons who really
suffered from the reduction of the sugar duties, and this
entitled them to fair consideration at the hands of the
house ; but for the sake of increasing the supply of sugar
to the people of this country the house not only sacri-
ficed revenue, and broke down the fortunes and interests
of a class, but risked and hazarded the serious evil of
giving a new stimulus to the slave trade—such import-
ance did they attach to the object of increasing the con-
sumption of sugar. And now, under the influence of
high prices which they could not help, and war duties
which were more within their discretion, in the course
of two short years the consumption of the people was
reduced by one-eighth of their whole consumption.
(Hear, hear.) It was impossible to show more clearly
that this was a matter which demanded the most serious
consideration of the house. (Cheers.) It must not be
said that with regard to the sugar supply it was so limit-
ed that it could not signify whether they added a shil-
ling more or less to the duty. That was the grossest
fallacy in the world. With regard to tea, indeed, of
which much more than one-half, he believed two-thirds,
of the produce of China, came to this country, there
might be some grounds for saying that an addition to
duty would not much affect the supply in their own
market in relation to other markets, because there was
no great area of supply from which they could draw, on
a reduction Of the duty. But that was not the case with
regard to sugar; that was a product which extended over
an enormous variety of countries. Our consumption
was between 350,000 and 360,000 tons out of perhaps
1,400,000 tons which might be taken as the whole ex-
portable production. There was an immenne area from
which to draw that supply. He believed that cargoes of
sugar came to Cowes without any definite place of des-
tination, but according as the price of sugar was high in
London, hamburg, or Amsterdam, the vessels proceeded
to one or the other of these places. An addition of a
shilling to the duty on sugar was therefore a matter of
great importance, beeause its effect might be to dimi
nish the stock of sugar in this country. It was, there-
fore, by no means unimportant whether they put on an
additional duty on sugar or n•t on the plea that the
stocks were small. Though the stock of sugar was
small, it would be made yet smaller by arresting the
fall, that was to say, by increasing the duty. (Hear,
hear.) He had stated to the committee what was ne-
cessary to put the question in a clear point of view, and
had no wish 'to repeat what he had urged on a former
evening; but he stiould again enter his protest against
the supposition that they were then called on to take a
proceeding of • mere secondary importance. It was re-
presented that this was a mere 41journment of the fall
in the duty_that it was merely reserving the question
for the new Parliament : it was no such thing. If they
could leave the question in statu quo let them do so—let
them leave the question to the judgment of the new
Parliament ; but let them not think that this was a mere
secondary or formal proceeding—it was the first step of
retrogression in the path on which every onward step
had bestowed such lavish blessings on the people. It
was easy to say that they were not going to make an in-
crease, but merely to postpone the decline. -If, however,
the proposal of the Government was accepted, what
example would they show to future Chancellors of the
Exchequer At the present moment they had a surplus
revenue secured by law, yet in order to secure certain
other reductions they were going to impose now
duties on tea' and sugar. But what would be the
condition of things next year ? At the present
moment they had ample means in their hands;
but another Chancellor of the Exchequer would be
in a very different position in 1858-59, when he had
to provide for the enormous deficiency which -must
result from the measure of the present Government. He
would have to come to the house and ask, not for an in-
crease, but for a further. suspension of the reduction ; and
in all probability ho will have an infinitely better case,
for he will be able to say, you suspended the reduction
at the very moment yotr,vere in possession of a surplus
revenue in order to reduce something that pressed on the
wealthier classes; and ho will. justly say, you ought
never to have taken the first step. He will say that in
1857 a parliament on the eve of its dissolution left a defi-
ciency which he was called on to meet ; it was necessary
to raise a certain sum, which he would divide between
direct and indirect tax dim], and he would, therefore, be
driven to propose a further suspension He (Hr. Glad-
stone) was most desirous to avoid anything in the nature
of a factious opposition, and if, when he had stated his
views, he found individual members were not likely to
support him, he would, after taking the sense of the
committee, respectfully withdraw his opposition ; but if,
on the contrary, he found that his opinions met with
support, he would shrink from the duty of pressing them
to the utmost of his power. He was convinced that it
was of urgent importance to redeem the pledges of
Parliament in this regard. It was important in itself,
and important with a view to the satisfaction, con-
tentment, and loyalty of the people, and important,
he did not hesitate to add, to the stability of the in-
stitutions of the country. When the representative's of
the people were elected not by the entire mass of the po-
pulation, but by those who were placed something above
the level of the labouring classes, it was most im-
portant that the latter should feel that their interests
were fairly, justly, and liberally cared for by the
Parliament—(hear, hear)—and that there should be no
disposition to respect unduly and unequally the interests
of those who possessed the franchise. If he were an
agitator for an extensive organic reform in Parlia-
mentary representation he would not desire a better case
to put before the unenfranchised. He would say, here
is a fair test of limited representation ; here is a case
where Parliament had by law ample means provided for
meeting the expenditure, but when a movement arose
amongst the classes who possessed the franchise for a re-
duction, they did not first fix the expenditure of the
country, but they determined, when about to dissolve,
that whatever the expenditure might be the wishes of
the enfranchised classes should.. be met, and they began
the undoing the beneficial works of former. Parliaments,
and increased the burderis on tea and sugar.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, said he
was totally unable to understand the drift of his right
hon. friend, or the policy which he proposed. Each sen-
tence of his speech, taken by itself, was clear and
polished, but when he came to put them together as a
whole, and sought to understand them, they were totally
devoid of coherence and intelligibility, and reminded
him of the sculptor mentioned by Horace :
" eEtnilium circa ludum fabor imus et ungnes
Exprimet, et molles imitabitur wre capillos,
Infelix opens summa, quia
Nesciet.' ponere totum
He confessed that if he had to submit a new budget to
the house on the principles recommended by his
right hon. friend, he should be wholly at a loss
how to carry them into effect. His right honourable
friend complained of his proposal to arrest the fall
in the duties on tea and sugar. It was a mere rvfin-
irg on the meaning of words to say that to arrest
the fall was to increase the duty. His right hon.
friend's meaning appeared to be, that a reduction which
was less than a greater reduction wasno reduction atoll.
[Hr. Gladstone—No, no.] For how did the matterstand?
The present duty on tea was Is. 9d.; by the law as it
now stood it would fall on the lst of April to ls. 3d.; he
proposed that from the let April it should be is. 5d.,
and he maintained that the alteration from ls. 9cl. to ls.
Sfl. was a reduction. But his right hon. friend said it
was an increase, because it was a less reduction than a
greater reduction. His (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer's) proposal was that on the Ist of April a duty
should be levied which was lees than the duty that now
existed. Did his right hon. friend mean to contend that
the reduction from 16d. to 7d. in the income tax was no
reduction, or from 11d. to sd, on incomes under 1501. a
year ? There was no interference at all with the fall in
the war duty on malt,
so he supposed it would not be
denied that was also a reduction. The came with regard
to the duty on coffee, the entire reduction on which

would take effect. He had made a statement on a former
night which his right hon. friend had stigmatised iii no
very mild terms as an attempt to deceive the public; ho
admitted that he had used a wrong expression ; he said
he proposed to reduce certain duties, he ought to have
said that by the plan he proposed certain duties would
be reduced. Nothing could be inure unfair than to repre-
sent him as bringing before the house a plan the main
feature of which was increase of taxation. If a stranger
had happened to listen to his right hon. friend, he would
have supposed that he (the Chancellor of the Exche
quer) at the close of a war was bringing forward a plan
for adding to the burdens of the people. All he could
be accused of doing was not allowing the full reduction
to take place. He would again state to the committee
the amount of reduction in the ensuing year, as compared
with the highest rates of the war taxes. The re auction
on the malt duty would be 2.000,000/. ; on the income
tax, 9,125,0001.; on tea, 669,0001.; on coffee, 135,0001 ;
and on sugar, 342,0001.—making a total of 12,271,0001.
It is quite true, as his right hon. friend reininiied them,
that the entire of that reduction would not occur within
the financial year, as the taxes were not always paid tbe.
moment they became due ; but, taking the taxation of
the year on those items, as compared with the highest
taxation during the war, there would be a remission to
the country of more than twelve millions. His right
hon. friend spoke of him as making a bargain for the
Exchequer, and having an interest distinct from the
public. He altogether disputed that theory ; but, even
if he were to make a bargain, he was quite ready to take
the law as it stood, if the war income tax was left, and
the full reduction taken. On the tea and sugar duty the
Exchequer would be an enormous gainer, and a much
larger sum would be levied on the public. His light
hon. friend meant to take all the plums out of the pud-
ding. (Hear, hear.) He could only imagine that his
right hon. friend, in the labyrinth of his own proposi-
ti lost the thread and became bewildered in his own
calculation. His right hon. friend had accused him of
having denounced prospective legislation on the tea
duties ;be had done no such thing. The principle of pros-
pective legislation was perfectly familiar, and he had in
his original resolution fully recognised it. His reason
for not doing so in the resolution then before the com-
mittee had been stated by the noble lord at the head of
the Government on the previous evening, namely, that
in the present position of the Government, and provi-
sional state of the Legislature, he would be acting un-
fairly if he asked for more than was necessary for the
service of the year. He had at first proposed to fix the
duty for three years, and thereby recognised the princi-
ple of prospective legislation, end withdrew his proposal
for the two last years simply on the ground of the altered
position of the Government. It was intended to ask for
supplies only for six months, and for the Limited Mutiny
Act, but it was impossible to impose a tax for a less
period than a year—a shorter period would embarrass
mercantile transactions. He had next to deal with a pole
tion of his right hon. friend's speech which had puzzled
and perplexed him above all others; that part of it which
referred to the redemption of the war loans. He said
that four millions and a half of the war income tax would
be collected during the ensuing year as arrears of the
war income tax, and contended it ought to be applied to
the redemption of the Exchequer bonds ; two millions
would be so applied if the house would grant sufficient
ways and means for the service of the year ; but, if the
proposal to reduce the tea and sugar duties was adopted,
it would be necessary to provide some other means for
the discharge of the bonds. But, even supposing that
the house would grant two millions more of the income
tax for the purpose of this redemption of the bonds, as
the law now stood there would be no power to apply
that money to the redemption of these bonds. The bonds
for neat year were in the bands of different parties, and
there was no power to call them in until they became
due. If there was a surplus in the Exchequer at the
end of the present year the Commissioners for the Re
duction of the National Debt would be bound to
apply it to the extinction of some of the exiting
debt, and in order to carry out the plan of his right
hon. friend it would be necessary to pass an act
to impound two millions of revenue and keep it
ready for May, 1858, to redeem the bonds when they
became due. Of course if his right hon. friend wished
to keep up the 16d. war tax for the present year it would
much facilitate the redemption of debt in the next year,
but it appeared to him rather a clumsy mode of pro-
ceeding to keep up the tax for this year for such pur-
pose. It would be much better to give the pe ,ple the
relief this year, and increase the tax next year if neces-
sary. His right hon. friend had accused him of mis•
stating the consumption of tea and sugar ; and be
would therefore state the figures to the committee, that
they might be able to judge whether the war duties had
a material effect in limiting consumption, and how far
the pathetic appeal of his right hon. friend against this
grinding and crushing tax was justified. In 1835 tne
consumption of tea was 36,574,0001b5., in 1845 it was
44,193,0001b5., in 1852, 54,713,0001b5., and in 1853,
58,834,0001b5. That was the year before the war, and
would serve as a point of comparison. In 1854 the
consumption had risen to 61,953,0001b5. ; 1855.56 was
the time of the highest war duty, but the consumption
was in 1855 63,429,0001b5., and in 1856 63,277,0001b5.,
so that the last two years were those of the highest con-
sumption ever known in this country, notwithstanding
the grinding and crushing tax of is. 91, which he pro-
posed to reduce to the crushing rate of is. sd. The
present consumption was very little less than double
what it was in 1835. He would next refer to sugar.
In 1835 the consumption was 4,000,000 cwta. ' • in 1845
it was 4,800,000. Between that and 1855 a great
change lock place by the extension of the principle of
free irade in colonial produce ; in 1852 the consumption
was 7,172,000 cwt. ; and in 1853, 7,487,000 ; in 1854 it

was 3,332,000 ; in 1855 it fell to 7,547,000 ; and in 1856
to 7,361,000 ; e• that in the last two years it was greater
than in 1852, and in 1855 greater than in 1853, and in
1856 nearly equal ; so that the consumption has not been
materially affected by the alteration in the duties. In
molasses the increase was still greater. The consumption
in 1853 was 844,000 cwts., ia 1854 927,000, and in 1856
938,000: The article of malt, however, showed a very
different result of the increase of duty i❑ 1852, and in
1853 the quantity was 41,000,000 bushels ; in 1854,
after the increased duty was put on, it fell to 36.000,000;
in 1855 it was 33,879,000, and last year 36,970,000 :-.30
that the effect of the increase was far greater than that
produced in tea and sugar. While on this subject he
would read an extract from M'Calloch, than whom
there was no better authority. He stated—" That when
not carried to an extravagant height, a duty on sugar
offers one of the least exceptionable means by which a
large revenue can be conveniently raised." He regretted
as much as his right hon. friend, or any other member of
the house, that the necessity should exist for imposing a
duty on articles so extensively consumed, not only -by
the upper but by the working and middling classes, and
he much wished it were in his power to accede to the
motion and allow the decline to take place ; but he
feared that it they were to look for some other article of
general consumption on which to lay a tax, they would
find that it would not be less onerous or less extensive
in its application among the people.
Mr. SPOONER inquired whether, on the reception
of a deputatio❑ in January last, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had not pledged himself to the remission of
the tea duties in April ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
deputation had reference to the income tax, and the tea
duties were only incidentally mentioned amongst many
other subjects.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that having given notice of
an amendment, he thought it due to the committee to
state the course he intended to pursue. But before he
did so he wished to say a word or two on
the budget, upon which there had sprung a renewed dis-
cussion. On considering the budget which,the Chancellor
of the Exchequer introduced, it certainly appeared to him
a very fair and jest statement of the requirements of the
year, and of the mode in which he proposed to deal with
them. He did not think that the house would have ad-
mitted that the Chancellor was right if he had proposed
to continue the war income tax and to take off the duties
on tea and sugar; nor, on the other hand, would it have
been right to attempt to reduce the income tax and levy
a higher duty on tea and sugar. It appeared that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he (Lord J. Russell)
concurred in that view, that property having borne a
large share of the expenses of the war, the community at
large should make some sacrifices in the way of taxation.
He could not see that there was the smallest ground for
the statement of the right hon. gentleman (.11r. Glad-
stone) that an extreme Parliamentary reformer would
start with a great advantage by referring to the manner
in which the Government proposed to deal with the taxa-
tion of the country—remitting taxation upon the rich
and placing additional burdens upon the poor. There was
no pretence for such an assertion. He regretted that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer should have proposed his
duties for a less time than originally proposed, but under
all the circumstances he should support the Government
against the resolution which Mr. Gladstone had proposed.
Mr. RICARDO was sorry to find that this discussion,
instead of being confined to the tea and sugar duties, had
branched off into a consideration of the budget generally.
What be complained of was not so much the amount of
duty as a continual tampering with arrangements already
entered into. Me thought that when an arrangement was
made with any trade for the remission of any duties, that
arraugernent should be faithfully kept. In reference to
tea a contract was made, and it was acted upon by the
trade, who had no idea that it would be violated by the
Government. But the trade stated that they had under-
stood the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the war du-
ties on tea were to case on the Ist of April, 1357, and
they had acted upon that declaration. In November
last year, too, a gentleman had written to the Customs
to ask what was to be done, and the Customs, i❑ reply,
said that the reduction of the duty on tea front is. 9d. to
is. 3d. per lb. would take place i❑ April of the present
year.
Mr. WILSON said that no reference was made by the
Customs to the Treasury on the subject.

Mr. RICARDO believed thatthe Customs woull never
have returned such an answer without communication
with the Treasury. He was the more confirmed in this
by the circumstance that another gentleman having
written to the Customs on the subject of the duties on
sugar, the Secretary of the Customs stated that the re-
duction of the duty on sugar would take place " under
the Act of 1855" on the 6th of April, 1856. If any let-
ters were ever calculated to mislead the trade these were
the letters. He did not mean to say there was not a re-
servation in the letters on which the Secretary for the
Treasury might rely, but he gave this as an instance in
which the arrangements of trade were tampered with.
He contended that this was essentially a tax on the poor
man, looking to the large portion of his income which
was spent on tea and sugar, and to the fact that these
were his only luxuries. He believed, also, that the result
of increasing these duties would be injurious to our
trade. The United States were now lowering their
duties on sugar, and the effect was, that the sugar
even from our own col mies went there, instead of here,
and employed labour in that country instead of this.
But he thought that the classification, of the sugar duties
was even more objectionable than the amount of the tax.

The classification of sugar was principsFy according to
colott. There were three elements—grain, colour, and
saccharine ;natter. Could any custom-housie officer
asc_ rtain or define eftlekly what was the shade or degree
of grill"), or saccharine matter? The consequence
wag, that a different duty was laid on the salve kinds of
sugar, not only in thu different pertsl, but in the various
ducks. Continual alterations were consequently made in
the standards. And the Custom-?muse officers were
sometimes unable to tell the rate which a particular
sugar should be to tied before he had written to the
honourable Secretary of the Treasury for a standard
sample. Now this classification was, in fact, protection
under a disguise. It was a protection on the lower and
worse sugars of Demerara, Berbice, St. Vincent, and
tther colonies, enabling them to come in and he sell at
the same price as the g, od sugars would be sold at if the
duties were equal. Now the loss by bringing over the
classes of Muse -,vado sugars was from 10 to 18 per cent.;
the loss on clayed would be Much less. That I,ss
amounted to 460,445 c wt..of sugar per annum, or to an
amount of 259,0001. And not only but these sugars
were of a most deleterious description, a 4 was proved
in the investigations lately conducted under the direc-
tions of the proprietors of the Lancet. That being the
else, he should Lice to see ail Muscavado sugar admitted
at the same duty, in the same way in which all qualities
of tea and wine, and other articles were charged. Be-
lieving that the trade of the country was interfered with
unnecessarily, and that a bad article was imported where
a good one might be obtained, he must again become one
of the coalition which bad been so much animadverted
upon, and must vote for the motion of the right hon.
I gentleman the member for the University of Oxford.

Mr. GREGSON contended that the answers returned
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Customs to
the trade was the only ones that could be given. He was
in favour of equalising the duties on different kinds of
sugar, as he believed that Cie present system led to
great confusion and difficulty in trade, and amounted
to a pi otection of the inferior qualities of tea. He
should not oppose the proposition of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer with respect to the tea duties, as
a large public meeting had agreed to a duty of
is. 4d. per pound, and especially 1 mking to the fact that
it was only for one year, and that then there would, he
hoptd, be a revision of the duties.
Mr. POLL ARD-URQUHART supported the propc-
sition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. M. GIBSON understood the proposition before
the house to be this—that whereas, by the act now in
force, the duties on tea would fall to is. 3d. on the 6th
of April next, the Government proposed to raise it to
is. sd. Why was this necessary? Because the Govern-
, ment told them that this increase of duties was necessary
to meet the estimates. But he believed that those esti-
mates could and would be reduced in committee ; and
he did not see, therefore, bow, in the last days of a
moribund Parliament, and without any examination of
the estimates, they were, in time of peace, to add to
indirect taxation, and enter upon a reversal of that com-
mercial policy which they had so long struggled to main-
tain. A very important principle was involved in this
question. The day of reckoning was near at hand, and
he did not know how they could give a satisfactory ac-
count to their constituents, if, without knowing anything
of the expenditure of the country, they were to vote for
an increase of the duties. This proposition was, in fact,
the worst that had yet been made, for they had altogether
lost sight of the ls., to which the duty was to come at
last.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—In
regard to the year commencing the Ist of April next, I
propose that the duty shall be is. sd. instead of is. 3d.
In regard to subsequent years, the duties as fixed by the
present act will remain unaltered.
Mr. GIBSON objected to the proposition to increase
the duty for the present year.
Mr. MALINS contended that the proposition of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer really amounted to an addi-
tional tax. Ile could not give the Government credit for
the remission of the war 9d. of the income tax, for it was
left on by mistake, and its, repeal was demanded by the
country. He should have voted for the proposition of
Lord John Russell had it been pressed, for fixing the
duty on tea at is. 4cl. for the next three years.
Mr. L. HEY WORTH was opposed altogether to in-
direct taxation.

Mr. MOFFATT said that at the meeting of the per-
sons engaged in the tea trade they came to the conclu-
sion on the proposition of the Government, that it would
he better to effect a compromise. They, therefore, sug-
gested a duty for the year of ls. 4d. per pound. After
agreeing to this, they were astonished at the new propo-
sition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which left) the
question entirely unsettled. It would be most fatal in
its operation on the trade. Nearly all the contracts of
tea were made duty paid, and hence immense confusion
would arise from disputed contracts in consequence of
the alteration in the duty.
Mr. lIORSFALL regretted that the noble lord the
member for the city of London had withdrawn his pre-
position.

Mr. LAING believed that a far greater reduction
might be made in the estimates than the amount that
would be obtained by the increased duty on tea.
Mr. MUNTZ could not see the connection between
this question and that of free trade. He could under.
stand it if we grew tea in this country. He believed him-
self that the importers of tea would pocket the whLls
increased duty, and the consumer would never get a
farthing of it. What was this duty compared with the
income tax 1 It might be said that the income tax did
not affect the poorer classes, but he contended that they
were immensely affected, indirectly affected by that tax,
and if the country were polled the great bulk of the
people would be in favour of the Government measure.
Mr. NE WDEGATE did not mean to vote for a defi-
ciency. The house had determined to accept the esti-
mates from- the Government as they had been laid be-
fore them.
Mr. DISRAELI said in his mind this was a question
of a new tax, although it was in the form of whether they
should increase or reduce a tax. The temper of the house
showed how inconvenient it was to attempt to impose a
new tax at terch a time. Tne noble lord the member for
the City of London had withdrawn his proposition upon
that ground. He (Mr. Disraeli) had already in the course
of the evening said tbat in the lest days of a Parliament
they ought not ,to enter upon such important financial
qustions. (" Divide.") He had been in the house fcr 20
years, and now he was interrupted by those whose
voices he believed vrotild<not be heard in the next Par-
liament ; but he was no,t to be deterred from the expres-
sion of his opinions. It had been said that the proposed
tenpence would not be felt; it might be said ne,,xt year
that la. 7d. would not be felt. The twopence produced
500,0001., and that was an enormous burden on the
consumer. The proposition of the Government struck at
all those principles which up to this moment they had
considered were established. The proposed tax was op-
posed to every sound principle of pelitical economy and
political morality. It was sai I that the revenue required
the proposed tax, but that had n t ben shown. They
had Out the cart before the horse by going into committee
of ways and means before they had considered the esti-
mates. (Cries of "Divide.") No, he would not divide.
(Cheers and laughter.) What would have been the usual
c Airee ? Why, they would have gone into committee of
supply, and the estimates would have bee❑ discussed,
and then the house would not have been proceeding in
the dark. Why cool I not the financial statement be
made in May ? Why were they called upon in the last

days of an expiring Parliament to vote new taxes ? It
' was said that there had been extraordinary expenses in
consequence of the war. Granted, but why was the house
not informed of what these expenses were, and then the
house could judge? But, whatever the consequencen
might be, he thought a duty on tea was the best duty
which ought to be imposed to meet it. (Cheers.) Ile
believed the Government were acting upon a reactionary
principle. They had seen the effect of it that n'ght,
for it had been said it was only an increase in the
duty, and that would be said in the next Parliament if
they allowed the estimates to pass in the dark. This
was reactionary policy. They might go on on that sys-
tem for ever adding a trifling amount to the indirect
taxation, and the danger of that course was that the
moment that they arrived at the point of indirect taxa-
tion that was intolerable, they would have to revert to
direct taxation. He never would sanction in the last
days of an expiring Parliament the principle of imposing
new taxes.

Mr. GLADSTONE again said that the reduction of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no reduction at all.
The law had already given that reduction, and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was no more the giver of it than
he was of Magna Charts. This impost was among the
most objectionable that could be laid on the table.
L.rd J. RUSSELL thought some further explanation
was required from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
had said that the law would be only for oue year, and
that in 1858 it would be ls. Now, those who bad re-
ceive 1 the assurance that the tax would in April be ls.
3,1. would think that the Chancellor of tine Exchequer
had some reservation, and therefore it would be satis-
factory if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state
that he meant as far as he was concerned to fix the duty
at ls.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had merely stated what the law would be in 1858, but
he should not hold himself precluded, if he held his office
in that year, from proposing an alleviation in the duty,
if it should be considered necessary and advisable. What
he had said would so describe the effect of the law. He
said that if a duty now ls. 9d. per pound were fixed at ls.
51. it would be a reduction, although it would not be so
great a reduction as if it had been fixed at is. 31. (Great
laugh.er.) A trader who had to pay that duty would
come to the conclusion that it was a reduced duty.

Mr. HENLEY had a great objection to leave the re-
venue in a deficiency. It they agreed t) strike off
500,0001. that would leave the revenue iu a deficiency.

In reply to the CHAIRMAN,
Mr. GLADSTONE said that his proposition was that
the duty should remain as it wa', or that, if alteredo it
should be Ls. 3J. per lb.
The question was then put, and the committee di-
vided. The numbers were—
Fur Mr. Gladstone's proposition 125
Against it
Majority l•r the Government ... —62
The original motion, that the duty shall be, from and
after the sLit April, 1557, to the sth April, 1858, inclu-
sive, is. sd. per pound, was then carried.
SUGAR DUTIES, &e.
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put the rgolution,
fixing the duties on sugar, when
Mr. GLADSTONE said he would take the division
which had just taken place as conclusive respecting the
sugar duties, and would not again divide the house.
The CHAIRMAN then read the following resolutions
" SUGAR DUTIES.

"Teat, LI lieu of the duties of auteals row chargeable