brought up Her Majesty's Gracious Answer to the Address presented to Her relative to the Differential Duties on shipping in French ports.

Mr. Speaker, in laying these papers—further Correspondence relating to the Affairs of Italy—upon the table, I wish to state shortly and generally their contents, and also to say a few words on the present state of affairs, as far as I can do so consistently with my public duty. We have thought it right to lay before Parliament the correspondence with M. Thouvenel, and in answer to a despatch which had already appeared in the public papers. That closes with a despatch from M. Thouvenel. We have replied on our part that we intend to keep the question of the neutralized parts of Savoy separate from the general question of the annexation of that province. There are likewise among this correspondence papers from Switzerland, containing an appeal to the Great Powers who signed the Treaty of Vienna on behalf of the neutrality of Switzerland, and a request that those Powers will meet in conference upon the subject. We have expressed no objection to going into conference, if that should be thought the best mode of dealing with the question. The papers also include a copy of the Treaty of Turin, which has been communicated both by Earl Cowley and Sir James Hudson. In the second article of that Treaty it is stated that it will be for the Emperor of the French to come to an understanding with the other Powers with respect to the neutralized portions of Savoy. We conclude, therefore, that there will be a serious examination of this important question, that it will be discussed with reason on all sides; and we hope that such propositions may be made as will be satisfactory to Switzerland, and will meet the views of the Powers of Europe generally.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Commissioners appointed on the 3rd day of December, 1858, to inquire into the condition and management of Lights, Buoys, and Beacons, have made their Report; and, if so, when he will lay it upon the Table of the House.

replied that the Report of the Commissioners had not yet been made, in consequence of the necessity of procuring extensive Returns from the Light House Authorities. He should be very glad to do anything in his power to promote the end in view, and he did not doubt that he should be able to lay the Report upon the Table before the close of the Session.

said, that in the absence of his noble Friend Viscount Palmerston, he wished to move, that upon Thursdays after Easter, and till Whitsuntide, Government Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion.

said, he had no wish to embarrass the Government in the conduct of the public business, and was convinced that difficulties had been thrown in their way which would shortly render necessary the adoption of some remedial measures; but at the same time he thought that it was rather early in the Session for the Ministry to take possession of Thursday, which was one of the only two days a week that independent Members had for their Motions. He observed that the Motion was not to take possession of Thursdays till the end of the Session, but only those intervening between Easter and Whitsuntide. The fact, however, was that practically the Thursdays after Whitsuntide were of no value whatever to private Members, because they had not the slightest chance of getting through with any measures which were not in an advanced state at that time, seeing that they would only have the Wednesdays on which to discuss them. A practice had arisen in the House which had met with great favour, the discussing many public questions on the Motion of the adjournment from Friday to Monday, and the Government had shown an evident disinclination to interfere with it. He could not, however, but think that that practice must cause considerable inconvenience to the Government in retarding the transaction of business, and, if it continued, it would soon be necessary to adopt some arrangement for the more equal division of the time of the House between the Government and independent Members. During the last few weeks the Government, instead of having two evenings a week for their business had only had Mondays and three or four hours on Friday. On Friday last, for instance, the debate upon the adjournment of the House lasted so long that the Bills of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not come on until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, when they were considered so hurriedly that he believed sundry errors had crept into them. He was of opinion, under these circumstances, that some better arrangement would have to be made for the conduct of public business; but at the same time he thought that it was only fair to private Members that the proposition now made by the noble Lord should be deferred till a later period of the Session.

said, that he very much agreed in the views which had been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member. There was no precedent for taking Thursdays away from independent Members until after Whitsuntide, and he did not wish to create one. If they gave the Government too much time, they might be disposed to bestow less care and attention upon their measures. He admitted that independent Members frequently occupied too much time on Friday evenings, but thought that some arrangement might be made to meet that evil. The Government now had Mondays, Fridays, and Wednesdays—["No, no!"] Well, then, he would say Mondays and Fridays; they had the same right of balloting for Tuesdays and Thursdays as was enjoyed by other hon. Members, and they had this advantage, that they had greater facilities for keeping a House, though on a recent occasion even they had not found that task a very easy one. The only object of the Government in taking these Thursdays must be to gain more time for their measures. He thought, however, the Government had already too much time given to them, and that they would not require more if their measures were better considered and more matured. There were certainly exceptions in that respect. For instance, the Budget, which, in his opinion, was a great and well-considered measure, had not occupied more time than was absolutely necessary, and was now pretty far advanced. Another great measure, the Bankruptcy Bill, had been so well considered and matured by the Attorney General that it had passed its first two stages without opposition. Had the amendment of the representation of the people been as well considered, and the views of persons both in and out of that House concerning it as well ascertained, he believed that a measure upon the subject—he did not say one that would have satisfied all parties, but one that would have been generally acceptable to the country—might have been passed in a fortnight. He was afraid the Reform Bill would occupy months in Committee, and perhaps fail to give satisfaction after all. He thought the Government should not seek to deprive private Members of Thursday till after Whitsuntide. He should take the sense of the House on the Motion.

said, he was sorry to hear the hon. Member say that he should take the sense of the House on the Motion, but he hoped at all events he would reserve his own vote until he was convinced that the request of the Government was an unreasonable one. The demand which the Government had made was really one prompted by a sense of public duty and public convenience, as well as by a regard to the state of public business. So far as his recollection went, there was no charge he had heard more frequently, and he must add very often more justly, brought against administrations than the charge that, by introducing very important measures at a very late period of the Session, they rendered it impossible for the House to give them due attention, and so had caused unnecessary delay in legislation. Now, whatever might be said of the measures of the present Government, it must be admitted that they had taken some pains to bring forward, at the very outset of the Session, the most important measures which they intended to submit to Parliament. How did those measures stand. The hon. Member had said that the Reform Bill would occupy a month in Committee: but was that not one reason for taking time to discuss it? He had also said truly that the Attorney General had devoted great pains to the consideration of the Bankruptcy Bill; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed it to be the expectation of his right hon. and learned Friend that that Bill, however well matured it might have been, must necessarily, from its very nature, occupy a considerable portion of the time of the House in Committee. It was obvious that that Bill, unless sent to the House of Lords at a comparatively early period of the year, would not pass into law during the present Session, because the noble and learned Lords who guided the deliberations of that House would naturally take part in the question, and would require ample time for its consideration. It was true that owing to the great kindness of the House very considerable progress had been made in the measures of finance, but at the same time he could not calculate upon requiring less than from four to six entire evenings after Easter, to get rid of the various questions which still remained for discussion in connection with the Wine Licences Bill, with some particulars of the Paper Duty, with the question of the Malt drawbacks, and several other questions. It must also be remembered that the House was in a very backward state as regarded Supply. They had had only one or two evenings given to Supply, and it would be absolutely necessary that the House should devote several evenings before Easter to the subject. What was the available time at the disposal of the Government? He had listened with interest to the sanguine views of the hon. Member, who said that the Government in addition to Mondays and Fridays, had virtually got Wednesdays and Tuesdays and Thursdays. If he could be shown they had got even a moiety of that very sanguine estimate the Government would have no reason to complain. He admitted that on two occasions the Government had occupied a portion of Thursday—once for some hours with the Bankruptcy Bill, and again for about an hour and a half with the Reform Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: The Tenant-right Bill.] It was likewise true that the Tenant-right Bill was introduced at a late hour on Thursday last. But on an average it would appear that the time which had been really at the disposal of the Government was only one evening and a half each week. The business of the Friday previous commenced, so far as the Government were concerned, at eight o'clock, when half the night was gone. The Government business of the preceding Friday commenced at nine o'clock, when more than half the night was gone. They had been obliged to compensate themselves for the many inroads upon their time by seeking for scraps and fragments at the end of other evenings. Members were kept until the latest hour on Friday evenings waiting for the Government business, until a miscellaneous, he was going to say, farrago, but he would say assemblage of subjects, had been disposed of in the singular manner in which they were commonly disposed of upon such occasions. Between Easter and Whitsuntide there were bit five weeks available for discussion, which represented, even taking the sanguine estimate of two nights a week, ten nights available for the Government. Now, several nights would have to be given to the Estimates, from four to six would be required for the financial measures; the Bankruptcy Bill must be got into Committee before Whitsuntide; and something, he presumed, must be allowed for the second reading of the Reform Bill. He confidently submitted that he had made out a good case for that additional time, amounting to about five days, which the Government wanted between Easter and Whitsuntide.

said, he was always disposed to accede to the requests of the Government for facilitating the progress of business, but at the same time it did occur to him that on the present occasion the request had not been brought forward and supported by those reasons which ought to induce the House to agree to it. In the first place, the Motion was made without the noble Lord who moved it condescending to offer a single reason in its favour. Since then the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought his great powers of argument to support it; but, after all, what was the result of the argument the right hon. Gentleman had used? It was neither more nor less than this—that independent Members ought really to have no days at all. That was the legitimate conclusion, and no doubt the Government business I would be in a much more advanced and satisfactory state if hon. Gentlemen had no privileges at all on two days of the week. There was, indeed, one argument of a more limited character in favour of the Motion, and that was, that at present the Government suffered very much from the arrangement which subsisted with regard to Friday. But he begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the head of his own Government, the leader of that House, who opposed the Motion which would have put an end to that which many hon. Gentlemen thought a great inconvenience and an abuse. He agreed, on the whole, though with conditions, to the course taken by the noble Viscount; but it was not open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the part of the Government, to complain now of the conduct of the House with respect to proceedings on the Motion for adjournment on Friday, when the Government, by their principal representative, had decided that the existing arrangement was convenient to the House and advantageous to the conduct of public business. After all, generally speaking, had the Government any right to complain of the manner in which their business had been received by the House? They had brought forward measures of considerable importance, which met with opposition from the majority of the Gentlemen who sat on the other side of the House on principle, and legitimate opportunities were taken to oppose them on principle, but the House studiously refrained from embarrassing the Government on matters of detail, because they thought that, having decided by a large majority on the principle of the measure, and there being many difficulties of detail, it would be unfair to take advantage of those difficulties. In consequence of this great progress had been made in the measures, and it did appear to him somewhat unreasonable that hon. Gentlemen should now be asked to give up their privileges on Thursdays in the interval between Easter and Whitsuntide, when it was remembered that the Government had not only been treated with great moderation on the part of the House, but also had availed themselves, he believed, on four occasions, of those very nights. As independent Members had not yet had fair opportunity of bringing forward many Motions which they might think important, and had given up many of their opportunities without demurring, he thought it unreasonable that they should he deprived of further opportunities in the interval between Easter and Whitsuntide. Therefore it was, he conceived, his duty, though he performed it somewhat reluctantly, to oppose the Motion.

said, he must admit that all the important measures brought forward by the Government this Session—he might perhaps mention one exception—had been met by the House in a spirit of fair discussion, and that no delay had been interposed beyond that which was necessary to enable hon. Members to express their opinions. He disclaimed therefore altogether the notion that this Motion was brought forward in any spirit of complaint. Possibly, in the case of the exception he had referred to—the Reform Bill—the Government might have some reason to complain of the manner in which the second reading had been opposed, but really this proposition was not made in the interest of the Government, but rather in that of the House. It mattered but little to the Members of the Government, who were compelled to be in town the greater part of the year, how Ions the Session lasted, but it was to the interest of the public service, and in an imperial sense to the interests of the House itself that the business of the Session should not be unnecessarily delayed. It was in accordance with the ordinary practice for the House at a later period of the Session to adopt the arrangement which they were now asked to assent to, and the only difference in the present instance was that the House was asked to give that assent somewhat earlier than usual. But the reason was obvious: the circumstances of the Session were exceptional—there was an unusual pressure of public business, which it was necessary to get through—and it was for the House to take its choice, either to give the Government the Thursdays for that purpose, or to sit till a later period. There was this Session, much earlier than usual, a large accumulation of important measures which it was essential to the public service should be proceeded with, and the proposition therefore was in fact offering to the House the means of getting through that business, which must be got through, at a period of the year which would suit the convenience of hon. Members generally, so that they might be enabled to bring the Session to a close at a time beyond which hon. Members wished not to remain in town. Hon. Gentlemen had spoken of the time which the Government had for proceeding with the public business of the country as compared with that which was at the disposal of private Members of the House; but the real fact was that the Government had only the Monday and about half of the Friday which they could call their own, while private Members had the Tuesday, the Wednesday, the Thursday, and the privilege of raising discussions upon the Motion of adjournment to the Monday—one-half in fact of the Friday. Now he must say, with all respect for the House, and with every regard for the privileges of private Members, that this was a most unequal division of the public time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that he (Viscount Palmerston) refused when a Motion was brought forward for that purpose on a former occasion to interfere with that faculty or power which private Members possessed of bringing forward Motions on the question of the adjournment of the House from the Friday to the Monday. That was quite true, and he did so because he thought it undesirable to interfere with the privilege which, by the established usages of the House, hon. Members had of bringing forward important questions of pressing interest on that day, which otherwise they might find it difficult to bring to the attention of the House; and though he must say that that privilege had been rather largely used of late, he did not think it would be wise on that ground to abolish it. The Government, nevertheless, did not propose to interfere with that privilege, but only on the ground of the pressure of public business, in some degree consequent upon the extensive use which had been made of that privilege during the present Session, to take, with the consent of the House, one other day, on which those measures which were of general public importance should be proceeded with. After the explanation of his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) of the measures which would have to be gone through between this and Whitsuntide, and, considering that it only proposed a temporary arrangement, he hoped the House would consent to the Motion.

observed that in reference to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that there had been one exception to the mode in which the Government business had been suffered to proceed, he (Sir J. Pakington) must remark that the Reform Bill was the one measure of all others to which no complaint could apply; and if that measure had lingered in its progress the Government must admit that the fault did not lie with the Opposition. The noble Lord could not suppose that in the case of a Bill of that importance the House would proceed to the second reading at once and without discussion. He had been led by a person connected with the Government to expect, that if the debate on that measure was not resumed last week it would be resumed this week; at any rate the delay had not rested with the Opposition, but with the Government, and it had been their own plan to postpone that discussion till the day for which it now stood. With respect to this Motion, he must observe that the Government had already had the greatest number of Thursdays during the present Session for proceeding with their own business. Tuesdays and Thursdays were considered as days set apart for private Members; but the Government had already, to a considerable degree, trenched upon this right. He would remind the noble Lord that this was a matter which lay very much in the hands of the Government themselves. If the system of desultory conversations on the Fridays was to continue, it ought, for the sake of the Government and of the transaction of public business, to be placed under some restriction, for nothing was more unsatisfactory than the way in which private Members, under the mere pretext of the Motion for adjournment, monopolized half the Government evening with discussions so ill-conducted that it was almost impossible to understand what was talked about. This was a matter which the Government should consider before they proposed to encroach on the rights of independent Members. He trusted the Government would not press the present Motion, but defer taking the Thursdays until after Whitsuntide.

said, that considering the many assaults which had been made by successive Governments upon the privileges of private Members, he thought that they would do well to make a stand and resist this Motion. It would be a dangerous precedent to depart from the practice which had so long prevailed without a special reason being given. At the same time he admitted that the Government Friday had been rather unscrupulously encroached upon, but some provision might be made for the more regular conduct of business on that evening.

said, it appeared to him that the Government had not made out any case in support of the proposal of the noble Lord. The Government said they had been prompted in their proceeding by a sense of public duty; but the noble Lord admitted that there had been no unnecessary delay, and the fact was the Government had encumbered themselves with too much business, and had miscalculated the time necessary for getting through the business which they desired to transact. The fault must lie with themselves, and it was most unfair on their part to propose a new mode of dealing with their own difficulty. The noble Lord said that this was only a temporary arrangement, but what the noble Lord called a temporary arrangement would possibly pass into a most dangerous precedent and ultimately become the practice of the House. The principal point to which he meant to advert was, that the whole tendency of the practice of Governments drawn from both sides of the House had been for some time past to stifle the right of independent Members. He hoped the House would not accede to this proposal, and that private Members, on the contrary, would be induced to compare the time now at their disposal with the time which used to be allotted to them some years since. Then Gentlemen could raise a debate on a petition as well as upon almost every question. That right had, however, been extinguished, and it was matter for consideration whether independent Members should not now claim the restoration of their old privileges.

said, he thought that there was nothing unreasonable in the request of the Government. What was it that they asked? They merely asked that four Thursdays between this and Whitsuntide should be given to the public business. It was urged that it would be an exception to their usual practice; but was not this an exceptional Session? They had the Reform Bill to discuss, and if the proposal of Government was not acceded to they might sit until December.

said, he doubted very much whether the noble Lord, if the arrangement suggested were agreed to, would advance the Government business. The Government, in his opinion, would do much better if they gave up the Fridays to private Members, and took the Thursdays themselves. By this means they would avoid the loss of time consequent on the miscellaneous discussion on the ordinary Friday Motion for adjourning the House to the Monday.

said, he thought that, under present circumstances, looking to the exceptional amount of business before the House, the Motion was a reasonable one; but it should be understood, if granted, that it was not to be converted into a precedent. [Laughter]. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he (Mr. Clay) should certainly be content with the assurance of the Prime Minister that no precedent would be made of the Motion.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel French) had described this as an exceptional Session. So, in one sense, it was; though not perhaps in the sense in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended; because there had not for many years past been a Session in which so much time, which should be at the disposal of independent Members, had been in practice appropriated by the Government. Turning back to the last few weeks, he found that on Thursday, the 1st of March, there was a discussion on Customs' Duties; on March 8, the Address in favour of the Treaty was moved; on the 15th, there was another debate and a division on the Customs' Duties, and the Bankruptcy Bill was introduced; on Thursday the 22nd, there was a discussion on the Reform Bill; and on the 29th, one upon the Income Tax and Stamp Duties. There had absolutely not been one Thursday from the beginning of the Session down to the present time, of which a part at least had not been devoted to Government business. The demand made by the Government was an exceptional one, for which, at this time of the year, there was no precedent within his Parliamentary recollection. Nor was there any justification for such a demand in the state of business. Parliament had begun to sit considerably earlier than usual; the Government—and he said it to their credit—had taken the earliest opportunity of bringing on the most important business of the year; and their financial business was in a state of greater progress than usual at this time of year. On what ground, then, did this demand rest? Generally, it was true, the Civil Service Estimates had been presented before April; and it was not usual to have one set of Army Estimates submitted, and then withdrawn that others might be substituted in their place. But there was no good reason for acceding to the Motion, which, as had been said, would be set up as a precedent hereafter. If independent Members too easily surrendered their Thursdays, then they would not he likely to get them at a similar period another year. As to the discussions on the adjournment which took place on Friday evenings, if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) were again to submit his Motion on this subject, it would meet with a very different reception from that accorded to it before. But he believed it to be the general feeling on both sides of the House that such a demand as was now made, could not reasonably be pressed upon the House.

said, he would remind his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), that when the Government had taken Thursday evenings for forwarding their measures it was after the notices of Motions had been disposed of—a course to which he could hardly conceive any objection could be made. He would ask the House to consider the important change which had of late taken place in regard to the amount of legislative business which the Government were called upon to undertake and conduct through Parliament—a change which was by no means conducive to the progress of business. According to the old custom, the Government hardly ever brought in any measures. They proposed their Budget and their Estimates at a certain time; but there the duty of the Government ended, and Members who wished to bring in measures on any subject did so. Of late years, however, as everybody knew, the House had insisted that the Government should take up any important subject which happened to require legislation. He had tried in vain to resist the pressure; but the House had always said in such cases, "This is a question for the Government, and it will be disgraceful in them if they do not deal with it." In that way one subject after another was forced upon the Government, and the result was to throw upon them the responsibility of preparing and passing through Parliament at least ten times as many measures as they were formerly required to undertake. But while the amount of labour had been increased by the compulsory pressure of the House, there was on the other hand a diminution in the time during which it must be performed, and as his noble Friend had shown, of the business days of which the week consisted one and a half only went to the Government, the other three and a half being, according to the practice of the House, taken up by private Members. Thus the Government which had three-fourths of the whole legislative business of Parliament in its hands, was left with only one-fourth of the time. His hon. Friend (Mr. Rich) thought the present arrangement satisfactory, because it was the old established practice. Now, what was the working of this old established practice? A number of important Bills were brought in by the Government at an early period of the Session—take as an instance the Bankruptcy Bill; it was brought forward with great applause, it was afterwards read a second time with still greater applause. In Committee, however, it would very probably be found that the few objections which had been raised on the second reading would swell out immensely. Points deserving of careful consideration would be raised. The House would take great pains in order to settle the clauses in such a way as should be most satisfactory to the commercial community. Much time would necessarily be consumed in this way, the Government having meanwhile to carry the Estimates and transact the ordinary business of the year; and perhaps, in the month of July the Bill would pass a third reading. It would then be sent up to the House of Peers, where it would be declared impossible for the law Lords at such a time of year to attend to so many details; and the whole time of this House as well as the legislative skill and ability which bad been bestowed upon the measure would thus be utterly wasted. The Government simply wished to improve the system under which the business of the House was conducted. They thought it would be desirable, instead of having discussions upon a variety of subjects leading to no definite conclusion, to have a system established under which the attention of the House would be directed to the substantial legislation of the country. If, however, such a proposition were objected to, he thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes), would be an improvement upon the present practice, because the Government could then get Thursdays for their own business instead of Fridays, which would be given to the House. At present the Government were only able to obtain a portion of the Friday.

said, he would beg leave to suggest a plan by which the Government could get their measures forward between Easter and Whitsuntide without disturbing the established rules o the House. The noble Lord spoke smilingly and mysteriously of a certain important measure that had been postponed from day to day. He presumed that the measure regarding the representation of the people was the one alluded to. But how was it that a measure affecting the constitution of the country should be received with such indifference, and in such an apathetic and sneering manner by all parties inside and outside of that House? He thought if the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would but allow his "poor little Bill" to be dropped and buried under the floor of the House, with a requiescat in pace, everything would go on well, and there would be no tears shed over it, and the Government would have little difficulty in proceeding with their other measures.

submitted that it had been shown that the Government had monopolized almost all the Thursdays already. They had, further, the power of encroaching upon the privileges of private Members by resorting to an expedient which was sometimes adopted to arrest the progress of a measure or debate which was objectionable or inconvenient to them. Under such circumstances he did not think that the Government could fairly ask for any further accommodation from the House; above all, they had no right to ask private Members to surrender to them those few remaining privileges which they possessed. He hoped that the House would not assent to such a proposition.

said, he would remind the House that he had proposed a Resolution with a view to the transaction of the business of the House in a more convenient and orderly manner. The Government, no doubt, had two days in the week assigned to them for their business, but it could scarcely be said that they had the full advantage of those days. He thought that those days should be given to the Government without interruption. That was the object which he had in view when he had made his proposition. At the same time he was not disposed to forego the privileges already possessed by private Members. He should support any arrangement that would give the Government the full advantage of two days in the week without interruption, but at the same time he was opposed to the proposition of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). He thought that the House was generally desirous of preserving the privileges of independent Members in submitting certain questions for consideration on Friday evenings. It was, in his opinion, most objectionable to introduce any precedents interfering with the privileges of private Members; because if they once established a precedent of the kind it would be most difficult to retract it.

said, he did not think the House had any just reason to complain of the Government proposition, when it was considered that, in addition to the two days at their disposal, hon. Members exercised largely the privilege of bringing forward questions on the Motion of adjournment to Monday. He did not think, however, that the Government would gain their object if they pressed the question against the feeling of a large minority of the House. He hoped, therefore, the Government would well consider that point before they divided the House. He, in common with some other Members, had been returned to that House for the purpose of endeavouring to reform it, and he believed the country would not be satisfied unless they brought that question to an early issue. There would only be five weeks after they met again before Whitsuntide, and unless the Bill passed that House before Whitsuntide, there would be little chance of its passing the House of Lords this Session.

said, the question had been discussed upon two grounds, which ought to be kept perfectly distinct. The one was the special ground, applicable only to the present year. The other was the general ground, applicable to the mode in which the course of business was usually conducted. In regard to the special ground, he did not think that a case had been made out for assenting to the proposition of the noble Lord. Ordinarily speaking, the financial statement of the Government was not proposed until after Easter; and all the measures consequent upon that were usually taken in the months of May and June. During the present year the financial statement had been very properly brought on at an early period, and that circumstance had apparently thrown into the background the Resolutions in Committee of Supply. In regard to financial measures they were clearly in advance, and he was inclined to think that in the general business of the country they were not more backward than in former years. Consequently, he did not think that a special ground had been made out for interfering with the right of independent Members in bringing forward their Motions on the pro- per opportunities. But he owned he was struck with the general ground urged by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It seemed to him that they had really come to the stage when it would be well for those who guided the deliberations of the House and his right hon. Friends on the front bench below him to consider what new mode, for the arrangement of the public business, might be conveniently adopted. When he wished to press on the Government was this—it seemed to him that unless the Government obtained the general acquiescence of the House to their proposition, they would be rather losing time in the progress of business than gaining it. He had looked at the Notice Paper for the Thursday after the holidays, and he found upon it two Notices and one Order of the Day of the Government—that for the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act. No other business was as yet set down, and it was impossible as yet to ascertain what business might be fixed for that day besides that to which he had referred. But would they be justified, upon so short a notice, in depriving independent Gentlemen of the opportunity of discussing the two first notices already set down for the first Thursday after the Easter holidays? His opinion was that the Government ought to give notice of their intention to bring forward a proposition after Easter to consider the best mode of disposing of the business of the House on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and particularly in reference to the course of business on Fridays. He believed by that course they would facilitate business much more satisfactorily than by pressing their proposition at that moment. He doubted very much whether the Motion before the House would not occasion much disappointment amongst the independent Members of the House. He, therefore, urged upon the noble Viscount the propriety of withdrawing the present proposition, and of bringing forward a distinct proposition on the subject immediately after Easter as to the general course of business, when he believed the great body of the House would give him their support.

remarked, that he was anxious that the Government should have their two days clear for the discussion of public business, but without infringing on the rights of private Members.

said, he thought it would be necessary, if they intended to make any alteration in the course of busi- ness, that it should be made before Easter. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) in thinking that it would be useless to press the proposition unless with the general assent of the House, inasmuch as it was purely a question for the general convenience of the House and the public, and not one in which the Government were specially interested. He believed, however, there was a very general opinion that the practice which had grown up of taking the greater part of Friday night for the discussion of general questions should be checked, or some compensation given to the Government for the loss of time which they thereby sustained; and, if he was not mistaken, there was a very general feeling in favour of the Motion proposed a few evenings ago by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Paull). He would take the liberty of proposing an addition to the Motion of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), which he hoped would be acceptable to the House. It was to add the words "and that Notices of Motion have precedence of all Orders of the Day on Fridays." That proposal was, of course, limited to the time between Easter and Whitsuntide, and the effect of it would be to make an experiment for that time of the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for St. Ives.

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to call upon the House to affirm his proposition at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman should first give notice of his intention to move the addition of those words. What had been stated as to the disappointment which the adoption of the Resolution would occasion to independent Members was, in his mind, a strong argument in favour of due notice being given of the proposition. He was very sorry at having unintentionally stood in the way of the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Paull) in which he concurred, by assenting to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) to refer the question to a Select Committee. He thought the best plan would be to refer the whole case to the consideration of a Select Committee after Easter.

said, the subject was not before the House for the first time. The Motion of the hon. Member for St. Ives and that of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had necessarily had the effect of calling attention to the subject, and he could not but think that without an inquiry by a Select Committee the House was perfectly-prepared to decide the question. He thought Government had no reason to complain of the conduct of the House this Session, seeing that a great number of Thursdays had actually been given up to them. But there was a general feeling that the time of the House was much wasted by the desultory discussions which took place on Fridays. He hoped therefore the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would be acceded to.

observed that they had wasted an hour and a half in this discussion. He hoped that Government would accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) and postpone the subject till after Easter.

said, he objected to the House being hurried into the adoption of any such changes as were proposed, and therefore he wished to urge upon the Government the propriety of withdrawing the Motion, and bringing it forward after Easter. If Thursday were made a Government day instead of Friday, it would probably come to be felt that the public business of the week was over; hon. Members would leave town, and the House would be counted out every Friday. He would suggest to the noble Lord to amend his Motion by giving all Orders of the Day precedence on Thursdays, so as to include the Bills of independent Members as well as those of the Government.

Sir, I rise to a point of order. I wish to know from you whether it is competent to the House to change a Standing Order without notice.

I do not understand this to be a Motion to change a Standing Order of the House. If this Motion were carried, the Standing Order would remain. It is only proposed to make a change for a certain number of days between Easter and Whitsuntide. I do not think, therefore that it is necessary to repeal the Standing Order for this purpose.

said, that the words of the Standing Order itself were, "unless the House should otherwise direct." Of course the addition he proposed would be a direction to the House.

said, it was the opinion of the Select Committee which sat to consider the forms and procedure of the House, that even the suspension of a Standing Order ought not to be made without notice. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) had on Saturday drawn attention to the fact that several hon. Members who were chairmen of quarter sessions would be absent on the present occasion. Now, in the category of Members who attended quarter sessions were many hon. Gentlemen who took a most useful part in the business of the House. There were other and grave reasons why changes in the procedure of the House should not be made without notice; but upon this ground alone he should support the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) that this change in the Standing Order ought not to be made without notice.

said, he could not consent to give up both Thursday and Friday for Government business. But the change proposed by his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) was in the nature of an experiment during the interval between Easter and Whitsuntide. If the experiment did not succeed the House could go back to its original practice. If, on the other hand, the change was found to be an improvement upon the present practice, if it favoured the despatch of business—if, above all, business came on when Members anticipated it would be taken, it would then be easy to make a change in the Standing Orders.

said, he thought that the change proposed was a very unwise one, and would tend only to prolong indefinitely the conversazione with which the House was regaled every Friday evening. It would be much better to arrange that on Fridays the Orders of the Day should be proceeded with at a specified hour, say seven o'clock.

said, he would repeat his objection, which was as strong against the Motion as a whole as it was against that portion of it which had been already adopted. The Standing Orders ought not to be changed or suspended without notice, and he would urge the House not to decide rashly a question which might seriously influence the future course of business.

thought the House had better try the utility of the Resolution just agreed to for a few weeks after Easter, and if the inconvenience which was feared really arose, he would be the first to vote against the plan.

observed that if the privileges of independent Members were curtailed by the Government, it must be expected that those Members would avail themselves of every opportunity that might present itself for the purpose of discharging their duty to their constituents. He regretted that such Motions should be forced on against the general wish of the House.

said, he wished to protest against the idea that the change was only to be an experiment, and to express his fear that if once sanctioned it would be established permanently. If independent Members were prepared tamely to submit to the arrangement proposed, they might as well put on their hats and leave the House.

In consequence of the vote to which the House has just arrived, considerable changes must take place in the conduct of public business. In the course of a few hours the House will adjourn, and it would be convenient if the noble Lord could give us some information as to the mode in which the public business will be conducted after Easter. I would remind the House that there are two subjects of great importance—of great interest to the House generally, but particularly important to the great Liberal party—namely, the measure for the abolition of church rates and the measure for the reform of the House of Commons. Now, it so happens that by the change which has taken place in the order of conducting the public business it is impossible for the church-rates question, which is a notice of Motion, to come on on Thursday, which has now become an Order Day, and the notice given by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the resumption of the debate on the Reform Bill cannot now come on on Friday, the 20th, because that Order Day has been transformed into a Notice Day, Now, it would be very much to our convenience if the noble Lord would inform us when the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill will be taken, and also if the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny)—if he is in the House—will favour us by stating what are his intentions with regard to the third reading of the Church Rates Abolition Bill?

Sir, the arrangements proposed are, that we should take the Navy Estimates on Monday after the re assembling of the House; on Thursday the finance; and on the Monday following the second reading of the Reform Bill.

said, that there was a Bill of extraordinary length, consisting of 570 clauses before the House—the new Bankruptcy Bill—he begged to know when that would be taken?

said, he could not then answer the Question.

asked whether it would be army or Navy Estimates on the Monday?

said, they proposed to take the Navy Estimates.

said, that with regard to the Army Estimates the House had been informed that they had been delayed in consequence of the return of several regiments from India. As this must necessarily occasion great delay, he begged to ask upon what day they would be presented again?

said, that a considerable portion of these Estimates had to be reprinted, and the immense mass of figures in them took time. He would, however, lay them on the table on the first day the House met after the recess.

said, there was no necessity to trouble the Committee with any lengthened details, but merely to explain the relation in which this Resolution stood to the original Resolution No. 11. At that time it was proposed to make a charge of 1d. upon all articles of import and export alike, with certain adjustments, so as to keep it within a certain proportion of the value of the goods. It was also proposed to levy charges on articles removed in bond and on operations in warehouses. The total proceeds of these charges as originally proposed were calculated at £420,000— namely, £300,000 from the penny charge; £60,000 from the charge on goods removed; and £60,000 from the charge on operations in warehouses. But there were various points, particularly in respect to the charges on goods removed and on operations in warehouses, which were received with a great deal of doubt, distrust, and even disapproval by those classes in the mercantile world immediately affected by them; and he was bound to say that, as originally framed, they would probably have tended to restrict the application of the warehousing system, which was so highly beneficial to the country. There was some difficulty in the application of the penny registration to the trade, particularly the export trade, which for revenue purposes was not so easily managed as the import trade. The export trade had entailed the principal sacrifice which he was about to make. At one time he was disposed to get rid of the difficulty felt in the adjustment of the penny rate, by reverting to a charge ad valorem of 2s. 6d. per cent. Doubtless that charge would have had some great recommendation. It would have been levied in a very simple manner, and it would have had the effect of establishing that immediate relation between the statistical accounts of the country and the value of the goods which would have made it, to a certain extent, the duty of the Custom-house officers to check the value of the goods, and in that manner would have enabled us probably to attain what he had always looked upon as a most important public object apart from the fiscal operation of the Resolution—namely, a much greater correctness of the statistical accounts of goods of export. The accounts of the exports on which we so much relied, on which we founded such important arguments, and which formed the basis of a considerable part of our political policy, were in many of their details exceedingly inaccurate. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Hear, hear!] The objection to the ad valorem duty was that it offered—not to merchants, but to the smaller agents—perpetual temptation to petty fraud, therefore he entertained with great willingness a proposition on behalf of the mercantile community to substitute a fixed sum, to be levied by way of stamp on bills of lading outwards, and the Government were disposed to regard this proposition the more favourably because it tended to increase the accuracy of the statistics. The usage at present was for three bills of lading to be drawn and given to the parties concerned. These were countersigned by the different persons who were responsible, and they were liable to hear a stamp of 6d. each. The proposal had been that in all cases a fourth bill of lading should be given similarly countersigned, and certifying to contain an accurate account of the goods. That would supply, according to the estimates of the proposers, from £100,000 to £120,000 to the Exchequer. Taking, however, the bill of lading as they now proposed to do, with the stamp of 1s. 6d., they did not estimate that it would yield more than £60,000. As the plan was originally suggested to Parliament he should have expected to raise a considerably greater sum than that from the penny charge on exports. They had reckoned on obtaining nearly £300,000. As the plan now stood it would produce on imports about £170,000, and on the stamp on bills of lading outwards £60,000, making together £230,000; thus involving a sacrifice of some £70,000. Nor was that the whole amount of reduction as the other Resolutions would yield considerably less, even if they stood as they now did, than under the original estimate. The second Resolution related to goods removed under bond, and would produce somewhat less than it would have done under its origi- nal form. The Estimate at first stood at between £50,000 and £60,000; now it was about £50,000. The third Resolution dealt with charges on operations in warehouse. The rate on those operations had been so much reduced that instead of producing from £60,000 to £70,000, the Resolution in its present shape would produce only £30,000. There was still an indisposition on the part of many Gentlemen connected with the trade to see this principle of charge for operations in warehouse adopted. They did not dispute its justice but its policy in respect to the convenience of commerce. He was not prepared to abandon the Resolution, but as those who were opposed to it were still engaged in considering what substitute less open to objection they could suggest, he was quite willing to let the question stand over till after the Easter recess. On the whole, then, there would be a surrender of revenue, as compared with the original Estimate, of from £100,000 to £120,000, even assuming the third Resolution to be either passed or replaced by one equally productive. That surrender they might safely venture to make. The state of the revenue was good, and the changes of arrangement that had been made in the course of their discussions had been favourable to the Exchequer rather than otherwise. The sacrifice he had mentioned would, therefore, not impair the stability of the calculations for the year, especially as they would still attain the objects of policy which they originally had in view. Effectual precaution had now been taken under the first Resolution against the oppressive operation of the penny charge on packages. As regarded certain imports that simple impost would prove very onerous, the most conspicuous illustration of this being the case of boxes of fruit imported from the East, and which were used for filling up irregular spaces in cargoes called "broken stowage."

said, he wished to put a question to the right lion. Gentleman. Some time since he (Mr. Newdegate) had brought under the consideration of the House the fact that the exports from the port of Liverpool were grossly over valued. There were now no duties on exports, and no one could anticipate that the exporter would undervalue his goods, because he could gain no advantage by undervaluation, which would be used against him in the market to which his goods were being sent. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would take any additional steps to provide that the declared value should be more accurately given than heretofore. The trader was not likely to cry down his own goods before they reached their market, and he believed that the declared value had been considerably exaggerated. During a laborious course of examination, the actual value of the imports and exports of this country, for seven years, he discovered that the declared value of goods exported was generally above the real value, very considerably above the real value of the goods. Then with regard to the imports, he was afraid that notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's statistical arrangements increased accuracy, a greater accuracy, or even equal accuracy with that which had been obtained under the system that had hitherto prevailed, could not be hoped for. When there was an ad valorem duty it was the business of the Customhouse to ascertain the value of the imports. They, therefore, became cognizant of their value; and the statistical department of the Board of Trade was furnished with information which now they had lost; for when all duty upon the great bulk of the articles imported was abolished, the inducement to accurate examination ceased. It appeared to him that they would have the quantities given of the exports and imports, but nothing more, under the proposed arrangement. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it possible, or whether he intended, to adopt means to ensure increased accuracy with regard to the declared value of our exports?

did not think that the hon. Gentleman was accurate in his impression that the value of the exports was systematically overstated. On the contrary, the exports were often not entered at all, not unfrequently they were entered twice over, sometimes they were entered too low; sometimes too high; but he did not think there was reason to believe that they were systematically overstated. On the contrary, he would be inclined to think that they were understated. He did not think there were adequate motives for overstating the value, and, speaking in the presence of many hon. Gentlemen who were well informed on the subject, he judged by this reason, that up to the year 1845 they had an ad valorem tax of 10s. per cent. When that tax was levied upon the ex- ports there was a motive for understating the value. Trade at that time was growing rapidly; still that 10s. could have hardly had any material effect on an undervaluing of the return, and this the figures showed. When that tax ceased there was no sudden start, no great increase in the returns immediately, although an increase occurred some years afterwards. He thought, therefore, it was unnecessary to check the import returns upon this ground. But the values were delivered to the Customs at present by junior clerks of mercantile establishments, and they were not attested by responsible persons upon a bill of lading. It were desirable that this attestation should be secured; but as regarded the imports he thought no additional security would be necessary. He did not think any additional security was required.

said, that he doubted very much whether the right hon. Gentleman would obtain all he expected from his proposals. At present there was a large class of goods imported in small packages, known amongst shippers as "broken stowage," and which were taken for half freight by shipowners, because they could be conveniently used for filling up small spaces. The result of this tax of Id. on packages would be that a number of small ones would be put into one large one, and not then being useful as broken stowage, they would be charged full freight, and thus the consumer would pay double what he paid before. Again, the great bulk of our imports were now free of duty, but a charge would be created on all by this penny tax. At the Custom-house journal and ledger entries would be required for every penny or sixpence that was charged, so that in many cases the cost of collection would be greater than the revenue obtained. The additional 1s. 6d. on the fourth bill of lading he understood was merely for the purpose of securing correct statistical returns to the Custom-house, not for raising an additional revenue. But its operation would be extremely unjust. If a bill of lading represented goods not worth more than 5s., it would be taxed 1s. 6d.; while one representing £10,000 would only pay the same. To carry out the system would entail an immense amount of labour, much more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer supposed. He hoped that this Resolution also would be deferred until after Easter.

said, that though the amended Resolutions were preferable to those originally proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the grave objection remained that they introduced fresh complications into the operations of trade—subjected those engaged in trade to petty and vexatious payments—and introduced a system which it had been the object of past legislation to put an end to by simplifying as much as possible the process of buying and selling. No doubt after the sanction given by the House to the removal of duties upon a variety of articles which he believed ought to have been maintained—a removal which would neither benefit the revenue nor the consumer—he admitted that some substitute must be found. A more regular substitute, how ever, might have been found than this 1d. charge upon every package—especially when the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to leave a regulating power to the Lords of the Treasury. He thought that the penny system was an erroneous one. It had succeeded remarkably well in the Post Office; but there the rate had been reduced to a penny from a much higher amount; here a penny was imposed where nothing had been paid before. It would make the operations of trade and shipping a constant series of taxes from beginning to end, and when they began to add pence to pence on every small transaction throughout successive stages on the same articles, it was clear that, in the aggregate, it must produce a monstrous effect. If England was to be the emporium of foreign trade, the imposition of such charges as these must be most damaging. Competition was already smart enough, and the moment when a heavy income tax was being put on Schedule D, which included traders, was most inopportune for inventing a new tax of this character. At present statistical returns were obtained from the Custom-house clerks without any additional expense, and there was no need to levy a new penny tax for that purpose. They were taking off indirect taxation which really affected hardly anybody, and putting direct taxes on traders and merchants. The tax on dock warrants affected London peculiarly. The tax on bills of lading had been suggested by the mercantile body to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a substitute for all those obnoxious pence; but having got the suggestion he adopted it, and retained all the other taxes.

—No, no. As the Resolution stood originally it was a penny upon imports and exports as well. Now it is a penny upon imports; and instead of putting it on exports, we tax the bill of lading.

said, that the exporter ought to pay as well as the importer. Though the charge on bills of lading was objectionable, it might have been admitted as a substitute for the other little vexatious charges. There was no use in testing the opinion of the Committee, and the sufferers from the right hon. Gentleman's plan must bear it.

said, he did not share in the general objection to those charges; but if at any time they produced more than was anticipated from them, the mercantile interest would have a fair claim for their reduction. He thought that the penny tax on packages would be collected without much trouble, and would produce much more than was expected. As to the unit of entry he saw no great difficulty in carrying out the arrangements proposed by the Resolution. Nor did he think that the duty on packages would have the effect of diminishing the quantity of goods brought in under the denomination of "broken stowage." There would be no difficulty in so arranging the unit of duty in all cases that shippers of goods in all parts of the world would know perfectly well what peculiar circumstances they had to meet. The proposed tax on bills of lading would lead to great advantage in ascertaining the quantity of our exports. The bill of lading was in effect a contract between the shipper of the goods and the owner of the ship, and was not likely to be far wrong on either side. The fourth copy of the bill of lading would answer all the purposes of a declaration of value, and afford a very satisfactory means of arriving at the quantity and value of the exports of this country.

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the manner in which the cross-Channel trade might be affected by the Resolutions. Hitherto the trade from Ireland to England, even although the goods were intended to be re-shipped in England, had not been considered export trade, nor had goods crossing from England to Ireland been regarded as import trade. It appeared, however, according to the wording of these Resolutions, that goods sent from Ireland to Liverpool to be re-shipped, would be subjected to a double charge. He there fore risked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would be good enough to see that such precautions were taken as would prevent that from being the case. Then, with regard to the statistical returns of the Irish trade, it was a singular fact that though Ireland exported many millions' worth of goods per annum, yet as they were re-shipped from this country, no notice whatever was taken of them in the returns as forming part of the export trade of Ireland. From one port alone, Belfast, many millions' worth of linen were exported every year; but in the returns its exports were only stated at a few hundred thousand pounds. It would be desirable to have a correct record established, and this he thought might be done by adding the name of the place at which the goods were manufactured and from which they were sent to the particulars of value already proposed to be required in the bill of lading. This would show the place that bonâ fide exported the goods. In reference to the power of adjusting the amount of payments required by these Resolutions, he presumed that the Treasury, in whom that power was to be vested, would not be able to exceed the amount proposed by the Resolution, but would simply be able to fix any sum below that amount. The words of the Resolution "so that the charge shall as little as may be exceed ¼ per cent on the goods of the lowest value usually imported under the denomination" were vague and would seem to give the Treasury the power of fixing an amount higher than the maximum named in the Resolution. He would suggest they should run "shall in no case exceed ¼ per cent" and so on. Then with respect to the mode of ascertaining the value of the goods, it was proposed that the shipper should give that information. It would, however, be impossible to depend for accuracy upon the shipper, beyond which disputes and mistakes might occur, which would be completely avoided if the invoice price of the goods were on all occasions adopted. One serious objection to the proposed tax on bills of lading was its inequality, seeing that one bill of lading might be for £10 and another for £10,000. He thought it was a charge not justified by the motives assigned for its imposition, besides which it would have a tendency to hamper trade, and when imposed the pressure against it would lead to its removal.

said, his objection to the charge on bills of lading was that they had not heard any satisfactory account from the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting what it was to be a substitute for. It was not one of the original proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was made after strong objections had been urged against many of the minor details and charges originally proposed for adoption. He (Mr. Hankey) had no objection to a tax being imposed upon both outward and inward hills of lading, but before he agreed to it he should like to have an assurance that the tax on packages would be given up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had invited an expression of opinion from the City of London on this subject, and he (Mr. Hankey) had presided at a meeting where the utmost unanimity prevailed, and the opinion of that meeting was decidedly averse to this tax, but they had consented to it on the understanding that it was to be in substitution of the proposed charge on packages. Now it seemed that they were to be saddled with both.

said, he did not agree with what his hon. Friend opposite had said. He preferred the present measure to that which had been indicated in the opening statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; not that he gave his approval to the measure; on the contrary, he considered the collection of statistics a mere pretence. It might be a subject of question whether the cost of collecting statistics for the benefit of the community should be saddled on the commercial classes. At present, however, it actually fell upon those classes, because the servants of the dock companies collected the information at the expense of the importers, and the Customhouse officers took it at second hand without further inquiry. To lay a tax on bills of lading for the same purpose would be to imitate the conduct of the Russian officers, who, before quitting a village where they had been living at free quarters, presented a bill for the wear and tear of their teeth in eating dinners provided for nothing. The measure was most unwelcome to the commercial classes, as being a mere revival of numerous small charges, which had long ago been abandoned, as most embarrassing and inconvenient. The extra amount of account keeping such charges rendered necessary was most serious. Besides which the delay occasioned by them in clearing a ship might lead to the loss of a wind and of a voyage. He had known instances of fifty tons of goods stopped in consequence of an error of a few shillings, and carts and vans sent away empty from a considerable distance, and every extra charge increased the chance of such mistakes. The most serious objection to the proposed tax was that it would lead to embezzlement. There was no greater source of embezzlement than that of entrusting clerks and carmen with small sums of money to pay these charges. To say that the proposed tax was a relief to the commercial classes was absurd. It was something like a highwayman stopping a traveller and stripping him, and then giving him his own shirt and trowsers to go away with. He (Mr. Cave) was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman was going to reconsider his proposition with respect to charges in bond. The real effect of the scheme, as originally proposed, would have been to drive away to foreign countries many of the operations now carried on in this country, especially in respect to articles on which the duties were low. Thus the bonding system would be injured, for the importer would naturally prefer to pay the duty and perform the operations out of bond. He thought the general effect of the whole measure would disappoint the expectation of its framer, and that it would turn out that a scheme which professed to open up new channels of commerce would be found, on the contrary, to choke up those which already existed.

said, he felt bound to support the fresh taxation now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, having given his support to the general principle of his scheme. But he wished to say a few words as to the way in which this tax would operate. The right hon. Gentleman, wisely in his opinion, reduced the duty on exports to a much lower point than the duty on imports. The charge on the exports was calculated to bring in only £60,000: while the charge upon imports would bring in £190,000 a year; and as the exports were rather larger in amount, it was quite clear that the charge upon imports would be at least double that upon exports. The charge looked small upon paper, and it was so small that the importing merchant would not be able to charge it on the consumer. It was too small a charge, amounting only to 6d. per ton, and the whole of it would fall upon the unfortunate merchant, and would in many cases increase from 25 to 50 per cent the income tax which he paid, under Schedule D, to the Government. So that this was, in fact, a special tax imposed on the mercantile classes.

said, the question was not whether they would have any of these small taxes, but what was the best form in which they could be levied. He accepted the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a compromise, and not because he agreed with its principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was bound to say, had most courteously received every representation that had been made to him. He (Mr. Horsfall) had himself introduced a deputation which had proposed a tax on both outward and inward bills of lading, but that was found objectionable, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the present tax, which he (Mr. Horsfall) was prepared to accept as a compromise. Nevertheless he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he was willing to abandon the, tax altogether. If passed this Session, he had no doubt that a tax of that kind could not be of long continuance. With regard to the over valuing of goods sent from Liverpool, he was at a loss to assign any reason for so doing; but there was sometimes carelessness on the part of the Custom-house clerks, and they were sometimes obliged to guess at the value, owing to the invoices not having come forward at the time of shipment.

said, he thought that the Committee was bound to admit the two propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the one that a certain portion of the deficiency created by the repeal of taxes must now be made up; and the other that it must be made up by taxes incident upon trade. But in the actual proposition before the Committee he would suggest some modification. It was a question whether the charges proposed by the Resolution were properly speaking Customs' charges at all. Duties of Customs were invariably raised either according to weight, quantity, or value; but these were rather in the nature of landing or wharf. Again, he had another objection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to raise under this Resolution £230,000, and it was to be raised "for defraying the cost of that part of the Customs' establishments which was incident to the conduct of trade." But so far from £230,000 being necessary, £50,000 would be as much as would be required for that purpose. He thought the country would be entitled to complain, if £230,000 a year was spent on establishments used only for the conduct of trade and collecting statististical returns. The hon. Member for Sunderland had very correctly stated that this charge would add very much to the cost of the Customs' establishments. The great mass of the expenses of the Customhouse was caused by the collection of the duties on duty-charged goods, the operations with respect to free goods being exceedingly simple. He wished, then, to know whether these charges or fees were to be treated as duties on duty-charged goods, or whether some other mode of dealing with them would be devised. In the latter case the objection he had stated would fall to the ground. He thought he could suggest a substitute not obnoxious to the objections to which the proposed charge was liable, and yet capable of raising the required revenue. The House was aware that all operations between the Customhouse and merchants were carried on by entries which were put into the Custom house by clerks of the merchants, either simple in duplicate or triplicate. Now, instead of putting on a charge such as was proposed in the Resolution, and which would be a varying charge, he would propose to the right hon. Gentleman to put on a uniform stamp of one penny on all entries. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to require that all entries, documents, shipping hills, or whatever else they might be, should be subject to a uniform stamp of one penny, he would be able to collect, if not as much as this Resolution would produce, at least sufficient to defray the charges for which this revenue was to be raised. With respect to the second part of the Resolution, which imposed 1s. 6d. on every bill of lading, it was to be recollected that already bills of lading were subject to a charge of 6d. each; but that charge might be accepted as the means of collecting more satisfactory statistics than could at present be obtained.

said, he thought that the complaint of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), that he had adopted the suggestion with respect to the taxing of the bill of lading and giving nothing in return, was rather hard; because the duties which he surrendered would be very much larger than anything which he would get from the bill of lading. The bill of lading would not yield more than £60,000 a year upon a sanguine estimate, while the 1s. 6d. per cent which he had given up would have yielded upwards of £150,000. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave), seemed to think that the stamp duty of 1d. under this Resolution was imposed in respect merely of the statistical department; the charge was of a more general character incident to the conduct of trade. It might be true with respect to the great dock establishments in London, which were so admirably organized that they stood in lieu of the services required from the Customhouse; but that was not the case with respect to other ports, where the returns made by Customs' officers were taken as the very best authority by the merchants themselves. With respect to the observations made by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he must observe that he did not think the hon. Member correctly understood the practice of the Customs in reference to the service rendered by that de-department. The hon. Gentleman proposed as a substitute the charge of 1d. upon every entry and paper of whatever description passed by the Customs affecting commerce and trade. Now, in the first place, he had no means of estimating what would be the produce of such a tax, and the hon. Gentleman did not say what he calculated it would yield; but, so far as it was a valid objection to this Resolution, that it would multiply small charges and give complication to accounts, it applied with tenfold force to this substitute. There was not a single act of any kind that was done by the proprietors of goods in warehouse, for instance, whether of removal, re-packing, or otherwise, to which it would not apply, and he confessed he thought it would not be expedient to adopt it. The sum proposed to be levied would require to be paid when the first entry was passed through the Custom-house. It would all he collected at once, and there would be no complication of accounts whatever. In conclusion, he desired to express his opinion of the perfect fairness of the admission that a Resolution of this kind should be considered part of the measures to which the House had already expressed its assent.

inquired whether these charges would pass through the Customs' books in the same way as the ordinary duties?

said, he apprehended that there could be no difficulty in instructing the Customs' department to keep a separate account of this duty, so that if it were subsequently found that the amount of duty was out of proportion to the cost of collection the mercantile community might have the benefit which might naturally be expected under these circumstances.

said, a separate account would be kept of all these charges, and the fullest means given to ascertain what was their produce, with a view to any proposal that might afterwards be made respecting them. As regards the collection of them, that would be conducted as far as possible by stamps prepared for the purpose, and which, no doubt, would be very extensively used for the convenience of parties. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Customs assured him that the whole operation would be a matter of the greatest simplicity, and would not interfere with the extensive reduction of the establishment which he promised.

said, he wished to impress on the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of reconsidering this charge of one penny. He was anxious that, if it was not necessary to amend the Resolution, the Government, in bringing in the Bill, should have a complete schedule of charges to which the merchant could refer. He also wished to ask whether the penalties would still be applicable as before? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] He was going to suggest that the penalties would be exceedingly heavy in proportion to the proposed rates, and he hoped the subject would engage the attention of the Government.

said, the charges upon warehouse operations of all kinds, including the re- moval, were estimated at about £120,000 a year, and it was proposed in lieu of that to have a fee taken upon all warehoused goods when delivered at the warehouse, irrespective of their being removed, to the amount of 10s. per cent. But no sooner had that proposal been made than considerable opposition arose from some classes of Gentlemen engaged in trade, who observed that the cost to which the country was put by the warehoused goods was extremely different, and expressed a great preference for the principle of the Resolution in comparison with the new and uniform proposal. When the Resolution was proposed to the Committee originally, he ventured to state that it had in view an important object of policy—namely, to provide some self-acting regulator of the warehousing system. By degrees that system—speaking now only with regard to ports—had received an extension which was very costly to the country, for the convenience, in many instances, of very small communities, and without any compensating advantages to the Exchequer. It was needless to go into details or names of places, but it was within the knowledge of those who heard him, that a number of very small places enjoyed warehousing privileges at the cost of the Crown, which was the cost of the public, simply because they were ports of importation. They enjoyed the privilege, not with respect to the goods which they imported, in regard to which, it might be natural enough to grant it; but in regard to goods which they did not import at all, and only received from importing places. The consequence was that large towns in the interior became desirous of having warehousing privileges extended to them. Manchester very naturally, and very fairly took the lead in the movement, and obtained, on condition of bearing the necessary charge, the concession of warehousing privileges. But as it was subjected to the condition that the town should in one form or another bear the charge, Manchester complained of having to bear the cost where the deliveries amounted to hundreds of thousands a year, when little, insignificant places, because they happened to be ports, enjoyed warehousing privileges, and had warehousing establishments maintained at the cost of the public, and goods removed to them without any charge, and without at the same time being called upon to contribute one farthing to the cost of the Customs' establishment. A desire spread in the country, as a natural consequence, for the extension and multiplication of warehousing privileges at the cost of the public. He did not see where the demand was to stop, unless the places themselves were in some degree or some manner made to contribute. On grounds, therefore, both of policy and of justice, he thought the proposal of the Government sound and wise. He would also submit to the Committee that there ought to be some difference made in the charge when the goods were removed in bond. However small that difference might be, yet it would operate in the nature of a regulating charge. It would make the inhabitants contribute something towards the cost of the warehousing establishment, and would operate powerfully in preventing undue demands for the extension of the system inwards throughout the country, while on the other hand it would enable the Government to give fair scope to the extension, where the cost of the Crown was not likely to be very great. The charge was not a Customs' duty, but a fee upon goods which had gone into the warehouses and were delivered from it. The parties upon whom the charges fell in the first instance would not be the importers of the goods, but the retail dealers in the country. The charge would be paid upon the delivery of goods, and by the persons to whom they were delivered. Great objections had been made to a charge of ½ per cent, but he was happy to understand that the tea trade were now perfectly satisfied with the charge as it now stood, of ¼ per cent. There was an exception in the case of tobacco, because the charge was levied not on the value of the goods, but on the amount of duty, and the duty on tobacco was higher out of all proportion than any other duty. It was therefore proposed that the charge on tobacco should be mitigated by one moiety. The charge upon goods removed had been also fixed at ¼ per cent, and if the principle were sound that there should be a contribution towards the cost of these warehousing privileges, then he submitted to the Committee that the charge imposed was a fair one. The charge would be 5s. per cent, and if they took the rate at which money could be obtained at 4 per cent per annum, the 5s. would represent 21 days' interest upon the money payable for the goods. It was not fair to call upon the public for the charge of these warehousing establishments. These were the grounds on which the second 5s. was imposed. The only way of regulating the extension of the system was to call on the parties themselves to make a moderate contribution towards the cost of the establishments, and there was no way of doing this more fairly than by a small charge on the goods when removed. A special provision, however, was to be made for the particular case of sugar. Sugar cost in removal comparatively little to the Customs, for it was delivered from bond in very large quantities, and it was therefore proposed that for 5s. any single quantity of sugar should be delivered for refineries out of bond. The effect of this would be to substitute instead of 5s. per cent, a charge almost inappreciably small. The produce of the whole Resolution would be about £50,000—a considerable reduction of revenue as compared with that which would have accrued under the original proposition.

said, the Resolution, as it stood, was calculated to confer unfair advantages on the larger over the smaller ports, and to have the effect of giving the tea trade an advantage of the quarter per cent. He should, therefore, move the following Amendment:

"Resolution 21, line 2, leave out 'and removal.' Line 4 to line 7, leave out '10s. per £100 on the amount of Customs' duty payable on such goods as shall be warehoused, and removed under bond from any warehouse in any port or place, to any warehouse in any other port or place, and at the rate of.' Lines 8 and 9, leave out 'but not removed,' and 'in such case.' Line 11, leave out 'and that no more than the sum of 5s., in addition to the sum of 5s. per centum, shall be chargeable upon any single delivery of sugars for refineries when removed under bond."'

suggested that a much more equitable plan, and one by which the revenue might be more easily collected, was to impose a small annual fee upon the warehouses themselves. As he was aware that he could not move this as an Amendment, he would ask the House to reject the Resolution, so that, if rejected, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might con- sider the propriety of coming to such an arrangement as he had suggested.

said, he begged to second the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), as he entertained great objections to the proposed charge upon removals.

said, the inhabitants of the city he had the honour to represent (Dublin) contributed very largely to the Customs of the country, and this charge would fall on them particularly heavy. By false legislation they had been deprived of their foreign trade, and were obliged to import, for instance, their teas from Liverpool or London. They laboured under various charges for entering goods in bond. They had to pay 1s. for every entry, either of goods coming into or going out of bond, and 2s. on every Customs' entry for warehousing goods imported from foreign ports. The result was, they would have to pay the charges already imposed, as well as the extra charges proposed to be placed on them by the Resolution. If these new imposts were placed upon them they ought to be relieved of the old; and he believed the merchants of Dublin had made very strong representations to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns), that it would be most desirable to have some statistics of Ireland, with regard to its exports, and also of the coast Channel trade, because it was stated that Ireland contributed only a certain amount to the revenue. That amount was merely taken from the sum obtained by the dues paid in the Custom-house; but it should be remembered that they paid the duty upon tea, and many other articles in Liverpool, of which no record whatever was made; and Ireland was taken to contribute much less to the taxation of the country than it really did. He must enter his strong protest against those charges on account of warehousing.

said, the question of the statistics of Irish taxation had already been under discussion that evening, and the Government intended to make inquiries with a view to ascertain whether those statistics could be improved. With respect to the Motion for rejecting the Resolution the seconder had based his support of that Motion upon his objection to the charge upon removals. That charge was only a matter of £8,000 or £10,000, but the whole Resolution involved a sum of £50,000, and surely the hon. Member would not deprive the revenue of that amount simply because he objected to the smaller sum, especially as there would be other opportunities for explaining his objections to the charge upon the removal of goods. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) to impose an annual tax upon each bonded warehouse was most startling, and one that he did not think the House would agree to. There were 1,200 bonded warehouses in the country, and to call upon the proprietors of those warehouses to pay £50,000 a year, at a time when Parliament by remitting duties was excluding from them a large class of goods, and thus, to some extent, taking the bread out of their mouths, was too violent a proposition. The £40,000 upon warehousing was generally recognized as a fair charge by the retail dealers who would have to pay it, and he thought the Committee would not deprive the revenue of that amount because of any objection to a lesser amount for removals.

remarked, that the principle had always been laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the consumer who paid the taxes upon all articles

said, he objected to the favour shown to sugar for refineries.

observed, he was willing to omit the words "for refineries."

And rum?

said, rum had, by an accident of legislation, actually obtained a protecting duty, and therefore he would recommend the hon. Member not to enter upon any discussion upon that subject.

said, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to pass the Resolution as it now stood, or whether it was to undergo any modification?

replied, that the only modification would be that in the place of the word "duties" would be substituted "dues," or "charges," and he also proposed to strike out the words "for refineries."

said, he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether it would be desirable for so small a sum as £12,000 to incur such dissatisfaction at the outports, and occasion such an amount of inconvenience to retail- dealers at those outports, as would follow from the charge. He objected to the principle of taxing large outports, which amply paid for their Customs establishments, in order to cover the deficiency in small ones which did not pay. Let them apply that principle to the Post Office revenue, and they would be obliged to put a large impost on towns which paid for their postal establishments, in order to compensate the Post Office for the expenditure in small places whose letter traffic did not pay. He would venture to ask whether it would not be better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the Resolution.

said, that unfortunately the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House when he made his statement upon this subject, and fully explained the object of the Resolution. The charge on removals was not for purposes of revenue, but to provide a self-acting regulation instead of having a great warehousing system throughout the country. He would not, however, preclude himself from reconsidering the principle suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) in a modified form.

said, he thought the small places should be required to pay their own expenses, and hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not insist on-such a petty tax as that now proposed.

said, he thought that the small trader would not only have to pay for the accommodation in his own town, but he would have to pay for the accommodation in London; in other words, he would not only have to pay the proposed 5s. in his own town, but an extra charge in large towns. He did not think they ought to endorse any legislation which would impose a differential duty, and place the traders and consumers in small towns at a disadvantage with those of the larger towns. The result would be to produce a differential price of ¼ per cent on tea and other articles. He hoped, when they went into Committee on the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would yield to the very strong expression of opinion in regard to this matter, because the Resolution had been carried only by a small majority.