ness that the transaction would not bear the light. Passing to the financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he observed that Mr. Gladstone professed to follow the example of Sir Robert Peel, but a fallacy, he thought, lurked under this profession. Sir R. Peel lowered duties to increase revenue; but Mr. Gladstone, instead of reducing taxes, abolished them altogether. He imputed to the Government a double policy, a treaty of commerce and a rivalry of armaments, leading to expenses of peace and expenses of war, a system not satisfactory to the country, any more than that of reducing the duties on luxuries and taxing the necessaries of the poor.

Lord Palmerston insisted that the subjecting all the clauses of the treaty to the control of Parliament would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. The Government, he said, intended to give the House an opportunity to express its opinion upon the treaty in the same manner as Mr. Pitt had done in 1787. He concluded with a brief but spirited reply to Mr. Horsman.

Upon a division the amend ment was negatived by 293 to 230, and the House went into Committee pro formá on the Customs Acts.

In the Upper House on the same day, the financial and commercial policy involved in the Budget became the subject of an important though short discussion.

It was commenced by the Earl of Derby, inquiring what steps Her Majesty's Government intended to take to carry into effect the 20th article of the Treaty of

The

Commerce with France. noble lord said he should not discuss the question whether this treaty was or was not in accordance with the principles of free trade; it decidedly was at variance with the principles laid down by Her Majesty's Government some two or three months ago, and he read several extracts from the correspondence between Lord John Russell and Lord Cowley, to show that Mr. Cobden, with the sanction of Lord Palmerston and Lord J. Russell, had been actually negotiating a treaty on the very bases which they had shortly before repudiated. He had no doubt the Government considered the treaty as one of reciprocity,an opinion from which he most strongly dissented. There was a feeling in the country that much mystery had been observed in negotiating this treaty, especially as Mr. Cobden was not positively known to have been the principal negotiator before the treaty was laid before Parliament. The correspondence which had been made public was very meagre and unsatisfactory, and Parliament was able to gain but little information from it. He proceeded to draw a parallel between the mode in which Mr. Pitt had introduced his commercial treaty with France in 1787 and the course which the present Government had deemed it expedient to adopt very much in favour of Mr. Pitt's method of procedure. That procedure he detailed at some length, and called particular attention to the part which the House of Lords took in discussing that treaty, urging upon their lordships the absolute necessity of discussing questions of this kind, and not refraining from them on the mis

taken notion that, as the treaty referred to money matters, the House of Lords had no business to meddle with them. Both in a political and a financial light he considered it was highly beneficial and necessary that these questions should be discussed by their lordships. Did the Government, he wished to know, propose to use the same means as Mr. Pitt to obtain the consent of Parliament to render this treaty valid,-viz., first to communicate the resolulutions to their lordships and then to address Her Majesty for her sanction to the terms of the treaty; and, finally, to carry out the treaty by an Act of Parliament? He rated highly the advantage of extending our commerce with France, but he wished to see it done, if done by treaty at all, by a treaty bearing on its face some marks of reciprocity. He regretted to see that no steps had been taken to obtain an equalization of the duties on shipping, and denounced the article on the export of coal as most impolitic and highly dangerous in its possible consequences to our relations with countries with which France might be at war, if coal were to be declared contraband of war. In addition to this objection, it was an article in which there could be no reciprocity. This treaty was most unpopular in France, and was creating a strong feeling against this country among the French, not at all calculated to foster the relations of the two countries. The dislike entertained to the treaty might be estimated from the fact that the Emperor of the French, with all his power, was obliged to have the authority of a treaty to enable him to impose these changes as law on the people of France.

For the sake of regularity he would conclude by moving that there be laid before the House copies of so much of the journal of the two Houses of Parliament in 1787 as related to the proceedings in Parliament with regard to the treaty of commerce and navigation with France.

Lord Granville defended the Government in the course they had taken relative to the treaty, and pointed out a distinction which had escaped the observation of Lord Derby-viz., that Mr. Pitt's treaty was confined in its operation to France and England, while the recently-made treaty dealt with the Customs' duties of the country generally, and affected the whole world as much as it affected France. In reply to Lord Derby, he stated that the Government proposed to carry the 20th article of the treaty into effect after certain resolutions were agreed to in the House of Commons; that House would then be advised to agree to an address to Her Majesty, and if their lordships wished for full information the

resolutions and address would be laid before them, and they might then adopt an address of their own, as was done by the House of Lords in Mr. Pitt's time. In answer to Lord Derby's objection, that the advantages of the treaty were all conferred on France, it was the opinion of many eminent Frenchmen that the treaty was solely advantageous to England, and that it would ruin French commerce. He himself thought that both countries would find equal advantages from it, and hoped that it might induce France to abolish her remaining protective duties.

Lord Grey did not consider the

present a fit occasion to discuss the merits of the treaty, but wished to point out one or two subjects of serious importance. Was it wise, he asked, that for the purposes of cheapening French manufactures we should bind ourselves to supply France with coals for ten years, while France continued to prohibit or levy a high duty on the exportation of articles of raw produce, such as rags and silk, equally essential to the manufactures of this country?

The Duke of Argyll said, if the treaty were to be tested by reciprocity, some defects would doubtless be found in it; but the advantages conferred by the treaty ought to be considered with its defects. He should have been highly gratified if the treaty had been a Navigation treaty, but it was not so; and Her Majesty's Government had not contemplated the revision of the French navigation laws, as the French Government had steadfastly refused to alter those laws. He wished it to be understood that the continuance of the Income-tax was not due to the treaty, but to the increased naval and military expenditure, which had rendered the continuance of the tax necessary.

After a few words from the Earl of Hardwicke, Lord Derby withdrew his motion.

The next important proceedings in the House of Commons upon the financial measures was the debate on Mr. Du Cane's motion, which had been postponed, as before mentioned, in order to give precedence to Mr. Disraeli's amendment, but came on the next day (the 21st), and was continued by adjournment on the two following days. A great number of members took part in this discus

He

sion, in which the whole policy of the French Treaty, and the various financial propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer underwent a searching investigation. Our space will only admit an abridgment of the principal speeches delivered during this prolonged debate. Mr. Du Cane's Resolution was in the following terms :"That this House, recognizing the necessity of providing for the increased expenditure of the coming financial year, is of opinion that it is not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by dimin ishing the ordinary revenue, and is not prepared to disappoint the just expectations of the country by reimposing the Income-tax at an unnecessarily high rate." objected to the Budget, he said, first, because it appeared to him that, while it failed to grapple with the financial exigencies of the country, it would increase our financial difficulties; secondly, be cause the principal reduction of taxation-namely, of the duties on wines and paper, was inopportune at the present moment, when he found the Income-tax raised to so high a rate; and, lastly, he objected to the Budget, because it was based upon an unnecessary and one-sided commercial treaty. Proceeding to show the main features of our present financial position, and the manner in which it was proposed to deal with it, he went through the details of the budget, which, according to the calculation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would, he said, leave a surplus at the end of the year of 470,000l.; but the probable deficiency of the succeeding financial year Mr. Du Cane 'computed at not far off 13,000,000l. He asked the House to consider

what was likely to be the consequence of such a state of things upon a reformed Parliament. Cut off from the most useful sources of indirect taxation, the House would either seize with avidity upon the Income-tax as a permanent feature of the revenue, and carry it to a length that would make it utterly oppressive and intolerable; or, on the other hand, it would provoke an ignoraut impatience of taxation in the House, and induce it to resort to the miserable, cheese-paring economy which had already led to such disastrous results on the defences of the country. After a detailed examination of the policy and effects of reducing the wine duties, he discussed the proposal to abolish the paper duty, arguing, upon the theory of taxation avowed by the Government in 1857, that if there was one tax more than another which the present Administration ought to have left entirely untouched, it was that on paper. Other taxes and other questions involved in the Budget he left, he said, to their appropriate champions, and proceeded to his final accusation, that the Budget was based upon a one-sided and uncalled-for commercial treaty, which was, he contended, neither a freetrade nor a reciprocity treaty; which cut off arbitrarily various sources of indirect taxation, and fettered the whole system of our taxation for years to come.

Mr. Gower ably defended the Budget. Lord Robert Montagu took the opposite side. Mr. Liddell and Mr. Dodson thought the treaty with France was worth the sacrifice that was to be made for it.

Mr. Baxter considered the Budget as the very best that had

been proposed since the days of Sir R Peel. The greatest benefit that could be conferred upon the labouring men of England was to extend our trade and increase our commerce, and thereby render their labour, which was their capital, more valuable. Hitherto we had scarcely any trade with France, and the effect of the reduction of duties under the treaty would be greatly to extend that trade, and to inaugurate the principle of free-trade generally, which would be a guarantee of pence.

Mr. Crossley, M.P. for the West Riding of Yorkshire, said the treaty and the Budget had given the greatest satisfaction to his constituents.

Sir S. Northcote cordially admitted the great merits of the scheme before the House, and that it contained a great deal of sterling gold. But gold might be bought too dear, and the question was, whether what was offered was worth the price to be paid for it. After noticing certain matters in connection with the treaty at variance with free-trade principles, and admitting the great advantages that might be derived by our trade from the treaty, which made a breach in the French system of protection, he explained his objections to the scheme, and argued that the remissions and reductions of duties would, in spite of the elasticity of the revenue, leave a large deficiency, to be dealt with by a crippled taxation; and that this was too high a price to be paid for the advantages offered by the scheme. The reforms of Sir R. Peel were enormously successful because he had a virgin soil to work upon. He dealt with our indirect taxation; the direct taxa

tion should now be dealt with; but the Government were now throw ing away an opportunity of dealing with the direct taxation as Sir R. Peel had dealt with the indirect. He could not understand the scheme of the Government, unless it was intended to cut down expenditure, to postpone obligations, or to create debt.

Mr. Ayrton advocated strongly the repeal of the paper duty, and recommended a just and permanent income-tax.

Mr. Hubbard instituted a comparison between the concessions made by England under the treaty and those made by France; the former being large and important and the latter almost nothing. He instanced coal, upon which we had engaged to levy no duty, France, although she had coal, having none to export. He could not congratulate the nation, he said, upon an additional income-tax as the price of a lesson upon political economy by Mr. Cobden to the Emperor of the French. From the treaty he turned to the Budget, and pointed out the practical evils that would, in his opinion, attend the stamp duty upon contracts and dock warrants, in hindrance to trade, annoyance, and loss, and the charge to be levied upon certain operations in warehouses. His principal assault, however, fell upon the increased income-tax, which was to bear the brunt, he observed, of the reductions under the treaty, and fill up the chasm they created. Commenting upon the injurious and unequal action of this engine of extortion, he stigmatized it in its present form as a disgrace to the intelligence of the age. He concluded by an earnest protest against the remission of duties as most unwise, and against

the aggravated imposition of the income-tax and the multiplication of new and harassing imposts.

Mr. Baines considered the scheme of the Government as safe, comprehensive, and wise, as a whole. He gave a warm, though not an unqualified assent to this great plan upon these broad grounds. It was a completion of the fabric of free trade; in the taxes remitted regard was had to the interests of consumers, the bulk of the nation; and it established new bonds of friendship and commercial intercourse between England and her nearest neighbour. He dwelt upon the advantages which had been the fruit of our progressive advances in the path of free trade, in the vast expansion of our commerce, the improvement in every branch of industry, and the increase of national wealth.

Mr. Byng strongly supported the policy of the treaty as based upon the principles of free trade, and calculated to promote the cause of peace and concord among nations. Mr. Horsfall, M.P. for Liverpool. criticised the treaty, but could not join in opposing the financial scheme. He complained that the treaty made no reference whatever to the disadvantage under which British shipping laboured in comparison with American shipping in the ports of France, which operated as a differ ential duty in favour of cotton brought from America in American ships. He could not, however, support the motion. If it had been confined to the income-tax he should have felt it his duty to support it, but he could not vote for a resolution negativing a scheme which would sweep away from the tariff so many vexatious