the policy of England and France was identical. He proceeded to consider the whole question of Savoy, and denounced as highly culpable the conduct of the Government, in even appearing to sanction the course upon which the French Emperor was entering. Up to the present moment the conduct of the Emperor had been most moderate. What would be the result if Savoy were annexed? All confidence would be destroyed in Europe, large armaments and consequent expense would be thereby occasioned, and mutual ill-will and suspicion engendered by the acquisition of a territory so small that, if it were not for the principle at stake, it would be of no consequence whatever. His opinion of the impolicy of this treaty was so great that, although he was not particularly desirous of dividing on the question, he should feel it his duty, if Lord Grey pressed for a division, to vote against the Address. The Lord Chancellor said it was quite unnecessary to pass an Act of Parliament in order to give validity to the treaty, nor was it requisite even to give validity to the 11th Article. The treaty was simply one of commerce, and did not affect the power of the Crown to prohibit the exportation of what was or might be contraband of war. Lord Chelmsford made a few observations in answer to the Lord Chancellor. Lord Hardwicke confined the few remarks which he offered to the consideration of the 3rd Article of the treaty. After a few words from Lords Wensleydale and Cranworth, the debate was brought to a close by a speech from the Duke of Newcastle. The noble Duke admitted the political bearing of the treaty, but called the attention of the House to the fact, that the negotiation was commenced before the question of Savoy arose. He congratulated the Opposition on their change of sentiments in regard to the Emperor of the French since the last occasion on which they had spoken of him, and denied in the strongest manner that there existed any connection between the annexation of Savoy and Nice and this commercial treaty, asserting that they were entirely unconnected transactions. This treaty was not an exchange of equivalents; for how could a country which had systematically abolished its own restrictions expect at once to gain equal advantages from a country which pursued a contrary system? It was not for England, however, to blame France for her restrictive policy, for we had taught her that policy ourselves by the adoption of the Methuen Treaty. Adverting to the speech of Lord Malmesbury, he showed by statistics that the increased consumption of wine would be greater than Lord Malmesbury supposed, and that, if it were to supersede the use of malt liquor, the revenue would certainly be the gainer, as the lower duty on malt would have to yield to the higher duties on wine. He could not agree with the assertion that the Government was contracting the sphere of indirect taxation, merely because they had curtailed the roll of the Custom-house to forty-four articles. The policy of such reductions had been sufficiently shown by the increase in the Customs and Excise since 1842. There was no reason for supposing that the Government CHAPTER III. FINANCE.-Discussions on the several portions of the Budget-The Wine Duties-Mr. Gladstone's exposition of this subject-Mr. M. Milnes mores an amendment in favour of allowing the Wine Merchants a further drawback on their stocks-It is negatived, and the original propositions are carried-Measure for facilitating the consumption of wine by licensing Refreshment Houses for the sale-Opposition of the Licensed Victuallers' and the Temperance Societies-Speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in support of his Bill-Mr. Crook, Mr. Wyld, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Edwin James, Mr. Hardy, and Mr. Henley oppose the second reading, which is supported by Mr. Ker Seymer, Alderman Salomons, Mr. Villiers, Mr. Buxton, and other members-The second reading is carried by a majority of 74, and the Bill becomes law-Removal of a great number of minor Customs Duties from the Tariff-Mr. T. Duncombe advocates the case of the Cork-cutters-Sir Joseph Paxton moves an amendment on the proposed remission of the Silk Duties-The Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeds in carrying his proposition-THE INCOME TAX-A resolution is moved to increase the rate to 10d. in the pound for one year-Sir Henry Willoughby moves to substitute 9d.-This and other amendments are negatived, and the Bill is passed-EXCISE ON PAPER— Various opinions as to the policy of repeating this Tax-Sir W. Miles moves an amendment to defeat the second reading of the Bill— Speeches of Mr. Stanhope, Mr. Norris, Mr. Black, Mr. Maguire, Lord R. Cecil, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Horsman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir John Pakington-The amendment is rejected by 245 to 192-The third reading is again contested, Sir Stafford Northcote meeting it with a hostile motion-Speeches of Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Puller, Lord H. Vane, Mr. Ellice, Mr. T. Baring, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Disraeli-The third reading is carried by nine votes only-Lord Monteagle gives notice of his intention to move its rejection in the House of Lords-The Earl of Derby also intimates his resolution to resist this part of the financial scheme -Important debate upon the second reading in the House of Lords on the 21st May-Earl Granville opens the debate in an able speech -Lord Lyndhurst asserts the constitutional right of the Lords to reject the Bill-Lord Monteagle attacks the financial plans of the Government-Lord Cranworth opposes Lord Lyndhurst's view as to privilege-The Duke of Argyll vindicates the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures-The Earl of Derby, in a powerful speech, supports the amendments, and comments severely on Mr. Gladstone's policy. The second reading is negatived by a majority of 89-Great conflict of opinion occasioned by this proceeding of the Upper House-It is regarded by some as a great infraction of the privileges of the House of Commons-On grounds of financial expediency, the Lords' decision is approved in many quarters-Some agitation on the privilege question takes place-In the House of Commons Lord Palmerston moves the appointment of a Committee to search for precedents-The Committee makes a report-On the 6th of July Lord Palmerston proposes three resolutions, defining and affirming the exclusive right of the House of Commons-Supplies to the Crown-Interesting Debate on these resolutions-Speeches of the Premier, Mr. Collier, Mr. Coningham, Mr. B. Osborne, Mr. E. James, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Whiteside, Lord Fermoy, Mr. Butt, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Disraeli, Lord John Russell, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Bright, and other members-The resolutions are agreed to without division-The assertors of the exclusive privilege of the Commons are still dissatisfied-Lord Fermoy moves a resolution protesting against the alleged encroachment of the Lords -It is rejected after a debate by 177 to 138-The Excise Duty on Paper being thus continued, Mr. Gladstone proposes an adjustment of the Customs Duty on that article with reference to the French Treaty-The Paper Manufacturers exert their influence to defeat the measure-They allege special circumstances exempting their case from the rule of Free Trade-The Conservative party take up their causeMr. Gladstone states the arguments for his measure in a powerful speech on the 6th of August-Mr. Puller moves an amendment, and supports the case of the Manufacturers-Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. Henley, and Mr. Disraeli support the amendment—Mr. Childers, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Maguire, the Attorney-General, Lord John Russell, and Lord Palmerston maintain the principles of Free Trade as applicable to the case-Mr. Puller's amendment is negatived by 266 to 233, and the propositions of the Government are adopted. 'THE HE comprehensive scheme of financial arrangements embraced in Mr. Gladstone's Budget, may be regarded as containing four leading features. The first was a liberal remission of the wine duties, which was designed, under the commercial treaty, to induce some important reciprocal concessions from France; the next was the purgation of our own tariff from a large proportion of the remaining import duties which the preceding measures of Free Trade had spared; the third was the repeal of the Ex cise duty on paper; and the last was the reimposition of an increased rate of the income-tax. These several subjects involved a great deal of animated discussion, and raised in some quarters an obstinate resistance, insomuch that almost throughout the whole Session the time of the Legislature was more or less occupied with questions of finance. Without attempting to follow these numerous discussions in detail, we shall give a brief account of the more important debates that arose upon each of the leading features of the Budget, as above described. The first question which came under notice was that of the wine duties, and this branch of the subject was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with great fulness of detail in a Committee of the whole House upon the 27th of February. The right hon. gentleman began by observing that this was one of the most difficult fiscal questions with which he ever had had to deal. High duties had created an exceptional and artificial state of things, and the first step towards a thorough change in this department could not be taken without encountering great difficulties. Before proceeding further, he answered a question which had been raised as to the manner of ascertaining the strength of wines and applying the scale to them. The object of the alcoholic test was simply to determine what was wine and what was not wine. Any liquor containing more than forty degrees of alcohol was not admitted at all. There were no official data except for the strong sorts, and a great variety of samples had been collected. "The operation of the test," continued the right hon. gentleman, "to which I refer has been founded on actual experiment, and the mode of making that experiment is as follows:-The wine is first of all subjected to distillation in small stills, which have now been brought to such perfection that they perform the operation in less than half an hour. The spirit having by this process been extracted from the wine, it is tested in the usual manner, and with the most perfect accuracy, by means of Syke's Hydrometer. Now I come to the different classes of wine, and the dif ferent rates of duty at which they are to be admitted into this country. A portion of the lighter wines of France and of the Rhine will be admitted at a duty of 1s. per gallon. The remainder of the lighter wines of France and of the Rhine will be admitted at a duty of 1s. 6d. A portion of the lighter wines of Portugal, Spain, and the Mediterranean will also be admitted at a duty of 1s. 6d. per gallon; while the greater portion of the Spanish, as well as the great bulk of the Portuguese and a consider. able amount of the Sicilian, together with the wines of the South of France, will have to pay a duty of 2s. Next of the scale of duties. An uniform duty cannot be adopted, because wine varies in quality more than any other product. Anything more than a mere nominal duty would be unequal in its operation. But we cannot impose a nominal duty only, since the principle on which wine duties are levied lies at the root of half our indirect taxation-the imposition of duties on strong liquors. The lowest duty is a high rate on the lowest kind of wine. Therefore, in order to give fair play to the scheme, that duty must not exceed 1s." Entering minutely into various objections, Mr. Gladstone showed that the alcohol in beer is more legally taxed than the alcohol in spirits properly so called; and that the competition between beer and spirits and beer and wine is only indirect. The Government could not reduce the duty below 2s.when the spirit approaches forty degrees of proof, without perilling the 12,000,000l. of revenue raised on British and foreign spirits. Therefore, 2s. was as low as they could go. He had carefully considered in |