Vtbatr aü Vrinttitings in Varliaintut.

HOUSE OF LORDS. MOMay, April 29—The War in America ; Lord Wodehouse's

Statement—Post-Office Savings Banks Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, April 30.—No business of importance. Tuesday, April 30.—No business of importance. Thursday, May 2.—Marriage Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill committed—Leases, ac.. by Incumbents Restriction Bill committed. Bill; Friday, May 3.—Marriage of the Princess Alice ; Message from the Crown—

Bankruptcy referred to a Select Committee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, April 29.—Berwick Election COMMissiOn; MT. Hodgson's Statement—Ways and Means; adjourned debate finished, Income tax resolution agreed to. Tuesday, April 30, "No House." Wednesday, May 1.—Conveyance of Voters; Mr. Collier's Bill withdrawn—Re- covery of Debts Bill thrown out—Religions Worship ; Mr. Locke King's Bill thrown out. Thursday, May 2.—American War; Mr. Ewart's Question—Ways and Means ; the resolution carried by 299 to 281.

Tea Duty,

Friday, May 8.—Marriage of the Princess Alice ; Message from the Crown—Pub- lb Business ; Lord Palmerston's Resolution. THE BUDGET DEBATE.

THE debats, on the motion that the Speaker should leave the chair, adjourned on the 25th, was resumed on Monday, and the first stage of this wide-spreading discussion was formally brought to a close.

Mr. Honsaux was the first speaker on Monday. He began with a comparison between this debate and that on the Reform Bill last year—" a bill disliked by the majority of us, and not viewed with favour by a majority of the Cabinet," just as the leading provisions of the budget is not desired by a majority of the House, and which "it is believed is not the' act of the majority of the Cabinet." Last year, he said, the Opposition hesitated to oppose the second reading of the Reform Bill, because the hostility to the six pound franchise clause was as strong on one side as on the other, and this year they again hesitated to give a party character to objections not confined to one party, "and as to which that rumour, so fatal to the Reform Bill, is again afloat, namely, that among the secret ill-wishers, and only half-disguised, disapprovers of the measure the repeal of the paper duty], not the least considerable maybe found on the Treasury bench." (Laughter.) But the parallel, he said, went no further. There must be no trifling with the questions at issue. "I must say I think it a matter of great regret that these questions of the paper duty and the House of Lords have come upon us again so soon." (Opposition cheers.) The Minister was not justified in assuming that the defeat of July would be converted into a triumph in April. The session had been tranquil : the policy of the Ministry had not been obstructed; and early prorogation was looked for. But Mr. Gladstone, sailing in a smooth sea, had run the ship on the only rock laid down in the chart. Mr. Horsman expected a budget to which all might have agreed. He was prepared to hear that all was flourishing, but he was not prepared to hear Mr. Gladstone, who had offered last year to throw away in February a duty which became a god-send in Jitly, adopt the tone of an injured man, and taunt those who, distrusting his calculations, had checked his prodigality. Last year the House was with him, the country was with him; but this year all is changed, "except the high courage which courts danger, and the indomitable faith that will acknowledge no defeat." The mistake of last year is now universally acknowledged. "The Government is not more strong: the Chancellor of the Exchequer, its brightest orna- ment, its mainstay—for he is the keystone of the arch which joins Birmingham to Tiverton—(/oud cheers)—has been proved to be not infallible ;" and members have determined to study the finances for themselves, as a real duty. With this exordium Mr. Horsman went into an examination of the budget. He complained that the proposals of the Government were to be embodied in one bill, "and sent to the House of Lords in that form, purposely and most signifi- cantly to deprive the Lords of their hitherto acknowledged and accustomed power of independent deliberation and judgment." (" Hear, hear," and" Oh.") Were they to provoke a new conflict with the House of Lords? The form of the bill is not a mere rebuke; "it is a bill of pains and disabilities intended to signalize the defeat of one party and the triumph of another." Then Mr. Herman contended that in taking off only a penny from the income tax when as he said, he could take off twopence, Mr. Gladstone was not conferring a boa, but committing an injustice. The repeal of the paper duty is a political remission, "a sop to a clique." (Cheers.) Last year, when he was about to impose taxes, Mr. Glad- stone treated the expired income tar and war duties on tea and sugar as a deficiency, and he said there was a "great chasm." The tax has again expired, but we have heard nothing of the great chasm, because we are not to be taxed. Mr. Horsman took Mr. Gladstone to task for his attack upon the expenditure, reminding him that he is a member of the Government under which this expen- diture is incurred. If he thought the expenditure, which has increased so much during his term of office, is unnecessary and avoidable, why does he stilt sit on the Treasury bench. The budgets ot 1860 and 1861 have breathed of war. The estimates have been war estimates. Nor is England the only nation that is arming. Germany Austria, Russia, and the secondary states, are arming ; and against whom? "We are arming against France," is the cry of all nations, "against France, the disturber of treaties, the rectifier of boundaries, the cham- pion of nationalities." ("Hear, hear," and klughter.) In twelve years, 180,000,0001. have been added to the debt of France by the Emperor, who pro.. claimed to the world that his mission was peace, and who, his friends and eat° gists tells us, thinks of nothing but commerce, but who "must be adjudged to be a devastator and disturber a the world." Mr. Gladstone would have done more for peace had he expostulated with "that monarch whose aggressive policy keeps the world in arms," than by all his upbraidings of his countrymen for prepara- tions which everybody known' to be dictated by the instinct of self-defence. (Cheers.) Mr. /foreman applauded the course pursued by the Conservatives in not making a motion on going into committee; in deprecating a change of Govern- ment caused by a detest on a budget. He did not think such a change, which he called a "perilous event," probable or possible; but, though not ready to assume the Government, he was glad to know that the Conservatives did not feel themselves relieved from the responsibilities of opposition. "Never, surely, did it behove any constitutional party in this House to be more wise in council, and more united and vigorous in action, than when they have publicly declared

i their wish not to displace the Minister n whom they trust, but, at the same time, to guard against the peril of their unwillingness to displace that Miuister. and of leaving the finances, and even the institutions of the country unprotected while another colleague of that Minister, whom they think a rash colleague- (Cheers.)—under the warrant of his more conservative chief, whom in his own

t cabinet he has over-ruled, makes the administration of the finances a great sys- tem of political change—(Cheers)—and even goes out of his way to combine a simple relief from an excise with a stab to the Constitution." (Loud cheers.) In an elaborate argument Mr. Horsman urged that the reduction of the tea duty would be more beneficial to the poor man than the repeal of the paper duty, and going into the figures of Mr. Gladstone's budget condemned his financial experi- ments, his "precarious and unsettled finance ; ' his shifts and expedients. ' We cannot, of course," he said, "at once right our finances; we cannot establish them in one year on sound principles ; but we can at least arrest their downward course; we can relieve Parliament and the country from a precarious, a capri- cious and, so far as it is political, a corrupt finance, and from the spell of a Minister who is bold and eloquent, ingenious, honourable, and most sincere, but of whom it is quite consistent with admiration of all his high and brilliant quali- ties that we should add that he has not among them that more sublunary quality most indispensable to the department which Ile governs, which could alone lead him to-be regardedas a safe financier." (Cheers.) When the resolutions were disposed of, the question would come up—why send the resolutions to the Lords in one bill ? and he trusted the answer would be a defeat to " this most ill- advised attempt to make the versatility of one House of Parliament the instru- ment for destroying the independence of the other." (Loud cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT answered MT. HOrSMatt, deSeribilIK him as an alarmist whose prediction two years ago of the nearness of war between Eng- land and France had been followed by the Commercial Treaty, and by the abolition of passports in the case of Englishmen travelling in France. (Laseghter, and cries 61 "Hear hear !") Mr. Bright com- plained that Mr. Ifor i sman had imported political feelings into the de- bate, and raised the question between the two Houses which the most judicious members wished to avoid.

He pointed out that the embodying of a number of resolutions on taxation in one bill was the original practice of the House, and in the committee which sat on the subject last year it was shown that the privileges of this House had been weakened by the innovation of putting separate resolutions into distinct bills. He urged that if Mr. liorsman's alarming statements were believed by himself, he ought to have demanded greater expenditure, and objected to any reduction of taxation whatever, and moved an amendment to that effect. He contended that the budget had been originally received by the Opposition with relief, and even with pleasure; and the subsequent hostility which had been expressed to it, which was inaugurated by Mr. T. Baring, who was always in the wrong about budgets, was only the necessary activity of an Opposition which would otherwise have been out of work. He characterized the obstruction offered to the repeal of the duty on paper as special, and having for its motive a desire to stand in the way in the diffusion of the light of knowledge. Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald had said that the budget was a political budget, intended to conciliate Mr. Bright. "Now, I give him the credit that when he was in office I found no one mote disposed, consistently with his duty, to do everything he could to conciliate me. lie does not ever remember that I asked him to outstep the line of his duty in anything i

I am sure his colleagues will say the same. But the question s whether, in adopting a policy which I have always publicly recommended, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone out of the path of his duty from any condescension to me. The lion. member spoke, too, of 'a noisy and'—I don't know whether he added uninfluential,' or influential section' on this side of the House, for I am told it is differently reported. Well, he may have heard that we are in the habit of making much clamour; but I venture to say there is one description of clamour that never comes from this bench, nor from those who are supposed fre- quently to act with me. The hon. gentleman has never heard from them the slightest clamour for office. If they do raise any clamour, it is for some object which they believe calculated to promote the public good. Why, I admit that this is my budget. (Cheers from the Opposition.) I approve, I adopt it, and, therefore, it is mine. In a tew days it will be the budget and the policy of this House, because this House also will approve and adopt it." And it was because it was in conformity with the great principles which had guided the policy of the last twenty years, and which placed England beyond the reach of those con- vulsions which now threatened all nations of the world, that he gave it his hearty support.

Sir JAMES FERGUSON replied to Mr. Bright. Mr. GREGSON said he would propose to reduce the tea duties but feared it would lead to the resignation of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. &mull COCHRANE and Mr. LIDDELL opposed, and Mr. O'BRIEN supported, the budget.

Mr. GLADSTONE made a reply upon the whole debate, taking up the salient points in the speeches of his more distinguished antagonists, and going so deeply into details, that it is impossible for us to follow He said that the Government, having made a computatioh of expenditure, asked Parliament for 70,000,0001. of taxes. If the laws in force last year remained in operation, the proposed taxation would produce 72,000,0001. They sought to reduce a million and a half of taxes ; and this attempt at reduction was vigorously opposed. It was true that it was asserted that there was no surplus, but that was not a unanimous opinion ; for Mr. Baring and Sir S. Northcote admitted that unless very exceptional circumstances occurred, the returns of revenue were fairly and properly calculated. But assuming a surplus, there was still less unanimity as to its application to reduction of taxation; some being for the income tax, others for tea and sugar, some for malt, and some for spirits ; while even some of the opposition had expressed an opinion that the financial plan was a fair and reasonable one, so diverse were the sentiments of the opponents of the measure. Mr. Gladstone then in detail replied to various criticisms on his financial measures • for instance, accounting for the state of the balances in the Exchequer; an alleged anticipated drop in the French Treaty which had long ago taken place ; an alleged excess in the army estimates, which had long ago been paid ; the falling due of a million of Exchequer bonds in 1-861-62, which it was not necessary to provide for in the present year. Referring to the question of the surplus, he showed how the prophecies of a deficiency this year had been disappointed ; and with extreme minuteness of detail he replied to statements made by Mr. Moffatt, the effect of which was to pat him in a defi- ciency of 27,0001., instead of his having a surplus; especially dwelling on the correctness of his expectation of receiving the Chinese indemnity. With regard to the income tax, it was said that its returns would not be so great this year as in the last, owing to deficient trade. But all his information pointed to a con- siderable increase. With reference to the paper duty, he contended that it was stationary, and not an increasing duty. He justified the reductions which had been made in taxation by means of the surplus, on the ground especially of its carrying out the principles of finance which had been accepted by the country. He urged that the course he had taken in comprising the repeal of the paper duty with other items of the budget in one bill, had suggested Itself as a fair and legitimate mode of meeting the difficulty which had occurred with the Lords, While the remission of the duty was accompanied by a reduction of the income tax. He asked, if his plan of finance was opposed to the real opinion of the House, that it should be declared by the test of a division. "Sir, in asking the House to vote that which may close the controversy of 1860, and not to vote that which is to hand it on from year to year, to be taken up again, perhaps, in cir- cumstances of greater pain, greater doubt, and greater danger. 1 think we have

done that which will be felt—I don't say by those who direct the maehinerv of party, but by those who bring a candid mind and an independent view to tho consideration of the question submitted to this House—to hare been our clear duty. I know not whether there is to be one division or many divisions on the subject of these financial proposals. We thought them, when we submitted them, to be very simple. But, although we thought them very simple, more than a fortnight has now elapsed, and we have not yet been permitted to take a single- step. I hope, if lion. gentlemen really entertain the feelings which have been described, that we shall have some mode of ascertaining the sentiment of the House. (Cheers.) Quite apart from the interest of any Government or any party, I do not believe that these long-drawn and aimless debates, with intervals of three or four nights between the times when they are resumed—supported, indeed, by men of great name, but hardly any two of them agreeing in the course of their argument, and none of them willing to submit a distinct proposition to the House—I don't believe, I say, that that method of conducting the public business is favourable to that which we should all desire to maintain—namely, the credit of

Parliament with the country I am convinced that when this House examines in full—and examine in full I trust it will, if it examines at all—the whole of the motives and arguments that bear on the proposition which we now make for liberating this last article of British manufacture from the fetters of the Excise (hear, hear), they will see that in making that proposition we are- following in the steps of those who have on former occasions given wise advice to Parliament, and the adoption of whose recommendations at various intervals during the course of the long period of twenty years has done so much to extend the fame and credit of this nation in foreign lands, and to establish the Parlia- ment and the Crown of this country in the affections of the people." (Loud' cheers.)

Mr. DISRAELI was suprised at the impatience of the Government at the discussion of these important measures. What other mode was. there for the House to express its opinion? To enter into com- mittee without thought or examination would lead to desultory arui immature discussion, perhaps precipitate conclusions:

This year it was especially necessary to proceed with caution, because the House had been kept in the dark. Last year Mr. Gladstone did not treat the House with candour. He scoffed at the credulity of those who deemed a vote of 500,000/. insufficient for the China war, and he denied that the Government had entertained proposals for extensive fortifications. A great deficiency was the consequence of the haste and precipitation with which the budget was passed then, and therefore caution became necessary now. That great deficiency was met by re- ducing the balances of the Exchequer and increasing the debt. Mr. Gladstone took repayment of advances, regarded them as revenue raised for the service of the year; used them in fact, in the very manner which he so severely condemned when Mr. Disraeli, in 1852, proposed to do the same thing; with this difference, that Mr. Disraeli proposed to apply these repayments with the assent of Parliament, while Mr. Gladstone had applied them without the assent of Parliament. Then Mr. Gladstone took the Chinese indemnity at the expense of the merchants, and on what principle "this financial parist " applied this year and a half's indem- nity to the service of the year Mr. Disraeli could not understand. As to the surplus, Mr. Disraeli thought there was some foundation for Mr. Gladstone's in- dignation at those who denied he had one. But how did he demolish an Opposition which had prophesied a deficiency, and, as he said, denied a surplus? By admitting that Mr. Baring and Sir Stafford Northcote did not deny a surplus; and be de- molished a Tory opposition by destroying the details of Mr. hioffat's statement! Moreover, when he wished to show how 'Tory opposition prophecies had failed, he quoted Lord Monteagle, and followed it up by quoting Lord Derby, whose prophecy of a deficit of 2,500,0001. had been literally fulfilled. Admitting that Mr. Gladstone had a surplus, he contended that he obtained it on a false assump- tion. He did not only ask for• the renewal of taxes required to provide for the public service ; he asked for taxes to make a financial experiment. Here Mr.. Disraeli went into the history of the paper duty question, with the view of showing that while he had supported the repeal of imposts that shackled the press--the stamp and the advertisement duty—he had always looked upon the paper duty ass fiscal question ; and that the alleged "pledge" of the House in 1858; was no pledge at all, seeing that Mr. Gibson's resolution was not carried, theMouse only expressing an opinion that the paper duty was one that, under favourable circumstances, ought to be remitted. Moreover, the House entirely agreed with the Government in 1858 in supporting measures intended to effect the ultimate remission of the income tax, and bringing about the termination of the war duties on tea and sugar. Mr. Disraeli reminded the House of the reduction of the income tax in 1857, and the beneficial effect of that step upon the revenue; and he said, that as the income tax is an engine of war, it is madness in time of peace to throw the whole weight of the financial system upon it. Mr. Gladstone denounced a profligate expenditure. That is a truly "gigantic innovation" in a Chancellor of the Exchequer who provides the ways and means!. He insinuates that some irresistible pressure—not the House, nor the country, nor the Government—urges them on. "Who is-it, then ? It is not difficult to point out the author of the expenditure, and I believe that in acting as he has- done he has been governed by a high sense of duty, and that he does not shrink from the responsibility of the course he has pursued. No doubt it is the Prime Minister of England. In repeated speeches in this House, and in addresses to- his countrymen out of doors, he has never concealed his opinion that the present position of public affairs was such that it was the duty of the Chief Minister of the Crown to call on the country to make those exertions and endure those sacri- fices. (Cheers.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, indulging in one of those unwise taunts which he sometimes conveys, talked about the gossip in the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr Horsman) on the subject of Cabinet divisions Lord sir, we need not maunder about in the ante-chamber to dis- cover differences in the Cabinet, when we have a patriotic Minister appealing to- the spirit of the country, telling it that it must be prepared to defend itself against aggressive ambition, and to show Europe that we are determined to mabi- taM our rights, and when, at the same time, we find the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, whose duty it is to supply the Ways and Means by which those exertions are to be supported, proposing votes with inuendo, and recommending expendi- ture in a whispered invective. (Cheers.) Don't tell me that there are not misunderstandings in the Cabinet—that the right hon. gentlemen and noble lords- who compose it are all of the same opinion—when on that most important subject, the expenditure of the country, which affects every branch of policy, there is- between two of the most eminent Ministers of theCrown—one the Prime Minister and the other the Chancellor of the Exchequer, such difference and discordancy." (Cheers.) He would touch on one other question, the influence on the Govern- ment of a hostile vote in Committee of Ways and-Means. Here he showed with great detail how the Minister's foreign policy had not been challenged or criticized by the Opposition ; how that Minister has been cordially supported, saved more than once from defeat, and not once opposed by the Opposition. Mr. Disraeli had even offended his friends by enabling the Government to retain the hop duty. It is one of the privileges of the House to advise with impunity upon the dis-

tribution of a surplus and it would be highly unconstitutional for a Minister i to desert h Sovereign, because on a point involving the distribution of a surplus

the House differed from him. There is no reason for rash conduct on the part of the noble lord. "From this House, and from those who because they sit opposite to him, bear the constitutional and formal name of Opposition, the noble lord since he has accepted office has received upon the whole aaincere and cordial support. (Cheers.) Sir, no one giudges the noble lord the position which Ir occupies. (Cheers.) He has for many bug years served his country and his sovereign, often with great advantage, though we may sometimes have questioned the pnidence or propriety of some particular course that he has taken. The noble lord has on all occasions expressed himself in a manner upon the important subject of the defence of the country which has obtained from this side of the House an echo sincere and stedfast. The general policy of the noble lord has been well received and countenanced on this side of the House; and on this very question of finance, on this question of the paper duties, if it is possible to understand language aright, no one who sat in this House last year can suppose that there is any serious difference between the gentlemen on this side and the noble lord. Then is this Minister, who in difficult circumstances has been so sup —is this Minister whose policy in these eventful times has not been chaflenged by the Opposition—is this Minister, who has come forward to make unprecedented demands on the finances of the country, to ask an amount of taxation for which he has never applied in vain,—is this Minister' who never has brought forward one great measure that has been defeated uy the Opposition (for I maintain that the measure of Parliamentary Reform was mainly defeated by his own friends); is this the Minister, who, after a career so long and experience so great, after having lived so long in the House of Commons and loved it so well, who will grudge to the House the enjoyment and exercise of its dearest privilege —the privilege of considering how a remission of taxes may be effected most advantagetmAy for the interests of the country? (Cheers.) I can never believe that the noble lord, after running so illustrious a career, will commit so great a political mistake. He knows the House of Commons better. He knows England better. Such a course might become a man of violent passions. It might become a man who has a secret understanding and carries on the business of' the State in such a mysterious manner as to confound all speculation. (Cheers.) But such is not the course that becomes the manly character of the Prime Minister or England." (Cheers.) Mr. Disraeli concluded by stating the course he should pursue when the House went into committee. Pointing out that the remission of part of the tea duty would stimulate the trade with China and Japan, that the markets in the far East would open, although our trade with the West was embarrassed, and quoting Lord Elgin in support of his views, he said the House should concentrate its efforts on the tea duty, and that Mr. Horsfall would take the opinion of the Committee on that subject. He was sure no man would more sincerely respect their decision than the Prime.Mmister -of England. (Lora cheering.) Lord PALMERSTON made a brief and dignified answer. The ques- tion was narrowed to this, how should the surplus be disposed of? It was a legitimate proposal to substitute the reduction of the tea duty for the repeal of the paper duty. " I prefer the remission of the paper duty," both on economical and political grounds. It is desirable on the gravest political grounds to repeal the duty, especially if we can do so in a manner that would render it less digagreeable for the other House to concur in its repeal. If the bill were sent up singly it would not be so easy far the other House to repeal the duty. The Government would therefore, on all grounds, maintain the pro- posal they had made. The House went-into Committee, and after agreeing to the resolu- tion reducing the income tax from 10d. to 9d:, the House resumed. On Thursday the debate was continued, this time in Committee of Ways and Means. There was, however, a preliminary proceeding. On the motion for going into Committee, Mr. HUBBARD moved au amendment to the effect that it was not expedient to remit taxation.to such an extent that the annual produce of the remitted taxes should exceed the estimated surplus revenue in the budget for the current financial year. Ho said that his object in proposing his amendment was to .arrest the course of extraordinary and. extravagant finance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer invited the House to enter upon, and which exceeded the limits of the present year and plunged us into an unknown, future. Mr. GLansTosin answered the speeoli supporting, this amendment ; then Mr. Disnanta expressed a wish that it should.be withdrawn,. and it was so. The way was thus cleared for the debate, and the House went into Committee.

Mr. GLADSTONE moved a resolution to continue until' the 1st of July, 1862, the existing duties on tea and sugar, together with other subsidiary articles in the same class.

"He said that a great change had taken place since Monday fortnight, and the propositions which the Government had made as those of conciliation had been received 88 a signal of. war;- and. on the part of himself and hie colleagues he accepted the challenge. He did not complain of the minute criticism to which the budget had been subjected, the result of which was that Mr. Disraeli had quietly disposed of the main argument which had been used against the financial statement, namely, the doubt as to there being any surplus. The question now was, the claim of the tea duty to remission as opposed to that of the duty on paper. The remission was not always in such favour with the Opposition; for it was objected to by them in 1854. Referring to the petitionswhich had been pre, sented in favour of the repeal of the tea duty, he said that there was a suspicious Spontaneity in their being got up in the-last few hours. The loss on the duty on paper in the year would be 650,030L, while the-loss on the tea duty proposed by the amendment would be 950,0001., leaving a balanoe of only 150,000/., out of his estimated, little surplus of 400,0001. The postponement Of the reduction of ditty to the 1st October, proposed by the amendment, would have the effect of uuninishing consumption, while it would cause a large loss of revenue. A long period mast elapse before any benefit could be felt by the consumer, owing to the reduction of the duty on tea ; both this and his previous argument being founded on statistics which he quoted. He pointed out that, although almost invited to do so, no one last year declared in favour of the tea duty; aud it was only done now in opposition to the repeal of the paper dnty, to which the House was actually committed. He combated the objection to taking off duties which could not bereimposed, which Ire urged was inapplicable to excise duties. He argued that the remission of the paper duty would imme- diately cause a demand for labour, which would not happen in the case of tea. It was not the burden on the paper trade that exists which was-the grievance, but the prevention of trade which the excise duty caused. This point he-illustrated at some length, showing how invention was stifled by the excise, and, holding up piece of bituminized pipe made of paper covered with pitch—stronger and Ygliter than leaden or iron pipes—he told the committee that excise rendered that invention entirely useless. 'Before he sat down he asked how those gentlemen— like Sir Bulwer Lytton and Lord Stanley, who had been such staunch sup. porters of the repeal of the duty—could support the amendment in favour of tea; and what was to become of all those who, like Mr. Horsman, denied the pastence of any surges? All this might be matter of doubt, but what was not in doubt was the unfriendly spirit in which the attempt at conciliation on a vexed petition by the Government had been received ; and still more did he not doubt that the amendment would not he sanctioned by a majority of the House.

Mr. lionse.saL, in a speech crammed. with figures, proceeded to sup- port his amendment. Vindicating the validity of petitions he had

presented, and telling Mr. Gladstone he was the last man who should? complain of others that they had changed their views, he argued that if the House was pledged to repeal the excise on paper, so was it pledged to reduce the duty on tea to one shilling. His amendment was to the effect that the duty on tea should be one shillii g per pound from and after the 1st of October next.

The Marquis of HARTINGTON opposed the amendment. He inti- mated that the Opposition wanted to deprive the Premier, not of. office, but of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he trusted the noble lord would support his Chancellor whatever the result might be. Mr. HrarrrassY and Lord HOLHSDALM on the Opposition, and Mr. PAGET and Mr. Motors on the Ministerial side, were the next speakers.

Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said the question had been argued as if a choice had merely to be made in reference to the remission of one or two taxes standinF, on an equal footing.

He wholly denied the truth of that position; Ile denied that his right hon. friend was in possession of a surplus. (Loud cries of " Oh !" and laughter frons the Miisterial benches, folknoed by cheering front the Opposition.) He did not question, and he never had questioned, the figures of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer—though his right hon. friend told him a few evenings since that he was " playing upon words" when he pointed out the real state of the case. He asserted that on the figures, as they had been put forward from the Treasury bench, there did not exist any surplus, but that a surplus had to be made. The question asked of the House was not " Which of two taxes will you remit ?" but "Will you put on one tax in order that you may remit another?" (Loud cheers.) For this statement, which he made unhesitatingly, he should refer, if authority were required, to the statement of his right hon. friend in 1857, under circum- stances parallel to those which now existed. The war duties on tea then existed at the rate of Is. 9d. in the pound, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day—the present Home Secretary proposed to make what he called a reduction to is. 7d., when by law they should have fallen to is. 8d. But his right hon. friend took a very different view of the change which was suggested. He said " Yon would have imagined that this innocent and harmless Budget was going to remit, not to impose, taxes on tea and sugar. But the case stands thus: The war tax on tea will fall on the 5th of April next from is. 9d. to is. 3d. per lb. My right hon. friend proposes to raise it again to Is. 7d., and then he takes credit for 2d. of remission. This is his process. He saws he remits 2d. I say he in- poses 4d. He intends to introduce resolutions enabling him to levy a duty which by law would not be leviable. That I call an increase of taxation. (Loud cheers.) What was the House now asked to do? According to the prin- ciple laid down by his right lion friend, to add 2d. to the dutflegally leviable on lea, and this, not to cover the necessary demands of the year, but to make up an excess over those demands in order that a certain other duty might be taken off. The case ought to be understood by the country. (Loud cheers.) It was not a question between paper duty and fire insurance on the one hand, or between tea and paper duty OR the other ; but the question was, would the House reimpose a duty levied originally for war purposes, and kept on after that war had ceased in order that other taxes might now be remitted? Sir Stafford contended, on grounds of general policy that the duty should be reduced, showing that it would promote the general interests of trade, commerce,, and manufactures, and supporting that view by references to the conduct of Sir Robert Peel, and quoting similar views from former speeches of Mr.Gladstone. Then he argued that on the ground of good faith the duty should be reduced. In 18.58, Lord John Russell said, "it was almost a matter of good faith that when next. there was a redaction of taxation, the duties on tea and sugar should be reduced." It was proposed that all these considerations of general policy and good faith should be set aside in order that some imagined insult from the House of Lords should be wiped out. What an absurd course! If there watt an insult, could it be wiped out by 'repealing the paper duty. The House of Lords rejected the repeal of the paper duty last year, not on account of any love which they had for the duty beyond any other, but because they thought that sufficient provision had not been made for the wants of the financial year. That was the rebuke which the Government and its friends received. It was a very severe rebuke, and a very just rebuke. (Load cheers.) It was a just rebuke, as was proved by the fact that the country had sympathized with the House of Lords, and that when challenged, the Ministry, with its overwhelm- ing majority, did not aocept the challenge, but submitted to the decision of the House of Lords. They could not reverse the decision of the House of Lords. They might take the paltry vengeance of erasing the name of the field upon which the battle was fought, but the House of Lords had for once sent back a budget which was hastily conceived, and rejected, a financial scheme which was not sufficient to provide for the wants of the country. They might do away with the paper duty; for do not not let them think that the Lords would again refuse to consent to its repeal; but the battle had been fought, and they could not reverse the decision. It was only a question whether they would with a good grace take the matter, as it stood and forbear the revival of this controversy, or whether they would expose to the wise and magnanimous conduct of tlie House of Lords—(Cries of" Oh, oh !" and cheers, which prevented the comple- tion of the sentence.) Did hon. members mean to say that the conduct of the

House of Lords was not wise, was not magnanimous? Then, let them explain their conduct of last session. He said that it was wise, that it was magnani- mous; and there were papers upon their table which proved the truth of his assertion. Let them look at the balance-sheet of income and expenditure, and add to the deficiency the less which would have been occasioned by the repeal of- the paper duty ; let them consult public opinion upon the subject, and then tell

him on what grounds they last year consented to submit to this rebuff and what were the grounds upon which they were this year going,out of petty pique,to revive a question which neither honour nor interest called upon them to raise. (Cheers.) Coming to the financial question, he said that he was utterly unable to make out that the reduction of the tea duty would entail a loss of 950,0001. on the revenue. According to his calculation it would be 820,000/. In 1853, when the consumer was benefited by the redaction of duty to the extent of 950,0001., the actual loss to the revenue, owing to increased consumption, was only 313,0001.; and a similar result might now tie expected ; especially when a new development to the trade with China was about to take place. What was the quantity of tea actually available for consumption? What was the state of the market from which they were going to draw their supply-? The markets of China had just been thrown open to them in a manner they could not have expected. Who were. the principal customers of China besides ourselves? The United States. And..

what was their condition? Was the trade between the United States and China likely to be developed hi the present condition of affairs? Now was the time to, step in and take advantage of the development of the trade of China, to avail ourselves of this great new market while the outlets in America and the Levant were in jeopardy. If they properly took advantage of this opportunity, a great advantage would be conferred on Manchester, Birmingham, and the other great seats of manufacture. Talk of the commercial treaty with France and the re- duction of duty on wine, the commercial treaty was a good thing—the redue-- tion of the duty on wine was a good thing, but give him the reduction of the duties on tea and an increase in the trade to China for the special benefit of manufactures.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS said that Sir Stafford Northcote's argument

was founded on a verbal distinction, which was inconsistent with the practical nature of a financial debate.

He thought that the question of the existence of a surplus was disposed of be- fore the late debate closed ; but it seemed to have been now revived with a sort of cobweb logic which had better be swept away. Starting with the assumption that there was a large surpins' the question was as to its disposal. There was no necessity to apply it to the redaction of debt this year, for which there had been of late years no encouragement given to finance ministers by the House. The text question was how the surplus was to be applied to taxation. He should be glad to have the income tax reduced to its original amount of 7d. in the pound, and he could have understood a motion for the reduction of that tax from the Opposition instead of that for the reduction of the tea duty. The right hon. gentleman then pointed out the advantage derived from the repeal of an excise duty; and as regarded the argument of good faith, the balance in that respect was in favour of the paper duty as compared with that on tea. He trusted the House would support a budget founded on just and economical principles.

Mr. DISRAELI, in reference to Mr. Gladstone's statement that his budget was proposed in a spirit of conciliation, said that conciliation was not among the numerous high qualities which that right hon. gentleman possessed, while amongst those qualities the chief was that stupendous courage with which he could support any view which he might adopt.

On this occasion he had argued with bitter energy against the principles of which he had once been the most eloquent and apparently sincere advocate. Mr Gladstone is one of the strictest protectionists that ever sat within the House His argument was that the reduction of a duty does not benefit the con- sumer. Was it necessary to refute that? All his assertions and arguments were confuted by facts adduced by Sir S. Northeote. He contended that the tea duties had long been the subject of consideration by finance ministers in the interest of the consumer, and by none more than by Mr. Gladstone himself when out of office in 1857, who declared the reduction of the duty involved a great political question, awl one which might be made the test of the care which Parliament bestowed on the interests of the labouring classes, and of the effects of a limited representation of the people; and yet that same gentleman now said that reduction was of no consequence, politically, socially, or even financially. He contended that the case for the amendment had been fully made out, and every argument against it by Mr. Gladstone had been completely and disastrously confuted. Considering that the Conservative party was the first to deal with the duty on tea, and to provide for its ultimate reduction to one shilling, it was un- reasonable to accuse them of adopting a new policy in advocating reduction in that direction now, when all the surrounding circumstances were favourable to that policy. When Sir George Lewis, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, pro- posed his budget, who opened upon it in such violent tones as Mr. Gladstone?

The right lion, gentleman said that this was a question which concerned the millions, and that if the first imposts taken off the industry of the country were not the duties on tea and sugar, it should not be kept secret from the people. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Such a deed, the right hon. gentleman declared, should not be done in the dark, for he would rise in the House and let the people know who were the statesmen, and what was the policy, which continued upon them such grievances. (Cheers and laughter.) [Mr. Disraeli created great amuse- ment by speaking of Mr Gladstone as "my right honourable friend, and imme- diately substituting "the right honourable gentleman."] With regard to the question of privilege, he denied that there had been an increase thereof by the Lords ; and if there was, it was not for the Ministry who had condoned that offence to talk of its vindication now.

Lord Peiatzitzroic said that in debates in that House, when a great party was defeated in argument, they resorted to personalities, and selected some particular member of their opponents for especial vitu- peration and invective. In this, the object was the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

"But I am sure my right honourable friend, if no other consolation were afforded to him, would have derived it from an incident in the speech of the right honourable gentleman, for in the midst of his most Eery invectives the kindly feeling of his heart showed itself—(laughter)—and when he was accusing my right honourable friend of every misdeed which a public man could commit, his tongue was involuntarily false to the line of argument which he was taking, and he could not help calling him his right honourable friend. (Cheers and laughter.) I say that divests the duel between the right honourable gentleman and my right honourable friend of anything like a personal character." (Laughter.) Passing by that feature of the discussion, the question was simply, a surplus being admitted, how a portion of it should be converted into relief of the community. If the tea duty was high, hp would allow that to be an argument in favour of reduction; but the duty was lower than ever it was ; neither was the price high as compared with recent periods, while the consumption had largely increased. There was no such pressing urgency in the case of tea as to lead to its choice in preference to any other taxed commodity which had pecu- liar claims for consideration. As regarded the paper duty, it was admitted that an excise duty was an objectionable and obstructive one. Then every mode, in the shape of resolution and bill, by which the House could pledge 'itself to the repeal of this duty had been deliberately adopted. It was also desirable to put an end to the cause of a difference of opinion between the two houses of parlia- ment on a question of finance, interference with which the House of- Commons had always exhibited the greatest jealousy of, and there could be no more favourable moment for attaining that object than the present-

A division was then taken, when there appeared : for the resolution, 299; against it, 281. Majority for the Government, 18.

[After the division had taken place there was evidently considerable anxiety on both sides to know the result. On the tellers taking their places to announce the numbers, when it was perceived that the Government had a majority, there was vociferous cheering from the Ministerial benches, and especially from the members below the gangway. When it was announced that the "Ayes" were 299, there was a burst of cheering from the Opposition side of the House, which was re- peated again and again when the "Noes" were declared to be 281.]

After the resolution had been agreed to, Mr. GrAnsrortz suggested that they should go on with the resolutions that would not be opposed ; but to this Mr. DISRAELI demurred at once, saying that as the majority had been so small—" as it is in its teens it can hardly be called a majority at all"—it would be better that both sides should have time to reflect. Lord PA.LMERSTON said: "We have not the least objec- tion to allow honourable gentlemen opposite to reflect on what has taken place—(cheers)—and we will, therefore, proceed with the reso- lutions on Monday.

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP' BILL.

The major part of the Wednesday sitting was devoted to the con- sideration of this bill. Mr. LOCHS KING moved its second reading and expounded its object. According to the law as it now stood no clergyman of the Church of England, except the incumbent or curate of a parish, could, without the sanction of the incumbent, enter that parish and perform religions service or preach therein. Some persons had doubted whether this really was the case; but the hon. member quoted judgments of Sir J. Nicholls and Dr. Lushington, and an opinion given by Dr. Phillimore, to show that the statement was perfectly accurate. Much. evil resulted from this state of things. In many. instances in the rural districts. services would be performed in parts of the palish eistant from the church but for the refusal of the incumbent to sanction them; and, in other cases, disrepu- table clergymen—of whom, however, he was happy to say that there were but a small number in the Church—were able to defy their parishioners, and drive them either to Nonconformist places of worship or to distant churches. It would be in the recollection of the House that only last year a clergyman, the incumbent of aparish in the Strand, stopped for several weeks the performance of special services in Exeter Hall This Bill would put an end to this state of things; it would re-establish the law as it existed from the Reformation to the reign of Charles IL, and would empower any clergyman licensed by a bishop to preach and pray in any parish within the diocese of that bishop. It would not give him power to administer the Sacrament, but only to preach and pray.

Mr. S. ESTCOURT moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six mouths, remarking that the real object of the measure was to enable the archbishop throughout his province, and the bishop in his diocese, to grant a license to any clergyman of the Establishea Church to perform Divine service in any parish without the consent of the incumbent. To this he objected. The Bill would place in every parish a rival to the incumbent, and revive a conflict like that between the regular and secular priests in the thirteenth century. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said that Mr. King had correctly stated the law, and if he would consent to alter the provision as to the license of the archbishop, and retain the existing regulation as to the license of the bishop, he was prepared to support the second reading. If that were done, the operation of the bill would be extremely limited. It would not cause strife because it would not trench on the rights of the in. cumbeut, and those conflicts which took place in former ages cannot take place now, because the circumstances are not similar. Lord JOHN MA.NNERS Said he had hoped that the House would escape one of what were generally called "Lewis's Missions," but the speech just delivered dissipated that illusion. Lord John insisted that the bill would subvert, not only the rights of bishops and in. cumbents, but the parochial system. This was the burden of the argil- inent against the bill, maintained with great fluency by Mr. HARD; Mr. NEWDEGATE, and Sir WILLIAM HEA.THCOTE' on the other hand Mr. Locke King's arguments were supported by Mr. Bess, Mr. Bux. Tort, Mr. SPOONER., and Mr. AYRTON. They maintained that the parochial system, though modified, would not be destroyed, and that the question was much like one of free trade and protection; the bill would break down the monopoly of the incumbent and nothing more.

Mr. KING was willing to adopt the suggestions of the Home Secre- tary; but on a division the previous amendment was carried by 191 to 145; and so the bill was lost.

PRIVATEERING IN THE SOUTHERN STATES OF AMERICA.

Mr. J. EWAItT asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing the possibility of privateermg being permitted and encouraged by the Southern Confederation of the States of America., her Ma- jesty's Government had placed a sufficient naval force, or intended to increase it, in the Gulf of Mexico, with a view to protect British shipping and British property on board of American ships ; and if privateers sailing under the flag of an unrecognized Power would be dealt with as pirates ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said : "Her Majesty's Government have taken the first opportunity to direct that a naval force should be sent to the coast of America and the Gulf of Mexico, to protect British shipping and British interests. With regard to the latter part of the question, though the honourable member has not put it, I think I may as well state to the House, that from day to day we hear the most lamentable accounts of the progress of the war in America. We heard the other day that orders had been given by the Southern Sates to issue letters of marque; and we hear to-day a confirmation of that state- ment. The honourable gentleman and the House know what are the general provisions of the law of nations on this subject ; but some portions of the question are so new and so important that I have asked the advice of the law officers of the Crown as to the course which her Majesty's Ministers and the Commander-in-Chief of her Majesty's forces in those seas should adopt. Her Majesty's Government deeply feel that it is their duty to use every possible means to avoid taking any part in the lamentable contest now going on; and nothing but an imperative sense of their duty to protect British interests and British honour would justify us in interfering in any way. We are not yet involved in any way in this matter, and, for God's sake, let us keep out of it. (Cheers front both sides of the House.) With that view I. wish to obtain the best advice as to how we shall act before I give an answer to the question of the honourable member."

THE BERWICK ELECTION.—Mr. HODGSON inquired whether the law officers of the Crown had formed an opinion as to what course was to be taken on the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into bribery at the last election at Berwick ; and in which he was stated to nave been guilty of bribery.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, having read the report and evidence, it ap- peared to him that the main evidence against the hon. member depended on the testimony of a witness who had absconded and was not to be found. The only other evidence was a statement of the hon. member himself; which he (the Attorney-General) could not use; and therefore, as he could not expect a con- viction, tie should not institute a prosecution against this hon. member.

THE TEousLEs IN AMERICA.—The Earl of MALmEntraY speaking with the utmost regret of the calamity which has befallen the United States, inquired whether the Government had done anything to prevent civil war. Lord Wone.- Konsis in reply stated that Her Majesty's Government, after mature deliberation, had decided that it was not desirable that this country should intrude her advice or counsel on the Government of the United States, as it was highly probable that a great and independent nation like the United States might not welcome advice given upon her international affairs if that advice were proffered without being asked. Lord Lyons, therefore, had been instructed to give no advice unless asked for by the contending parties, but at the same time to express on every fitting occasion the earnest desire entertained by Her Ma- jesty's Government that the differences between the North and South might be peaceably arranged. He also informed the House that the Government had not been in communication with any foreign Government on the subject.