said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Prize Money is coming to the Troops engaged in the China Expedition of I860, from the Sale of Guns, &c., captured from the Enemy; and, if so, whether it is likely soon to be distributed?

, in reply, said, that the commander-in-chief on the spot had determined the question practically by collecting the booty, selling it by auction, and dividing the proceeds among the troops. That course was not strictly in accordance with the regulations, but it was subsequently sanctioned and approved by the Secretary of State. There were some guns that were not included in the sale, and which still remained, but it was not intended to make any fresh distribution of prize money.

said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, If it is his intention to introduce a measure on the subject of Vagrancy in Scotland?

, in reply, said, the difficulty of dealing with the subject had been found to be so great that he had relinquished all intention to introduce any measure for the present.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in order to enable the Magistrates about to assemble in Quarter Sessions, and others interested in the management of Prisons, to consider the provisions of the Prison Ministers Bill, he will postpone the second reading till after Easter?

, in reply, said, he had had no representation made to him by English Magistrates who were in the habit of attending Quarter Sessions, and therefore he was unwilling to accede to the request. He would, however, postpone the Bill until next Thursday fortnight.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When the Papers regarding the Extradition Ordinance, which has lately been enacted, or which has passed Council in Malta, will be laid upon the table?

, in answer, said, that the Extradition Ordinance which had just passed the Council in Malta, had now reached this country. The Papers would be immediately laid on the table.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Report on Convict Prisons, which has been privately distributed among a few Members, has not been given to every Member of the House?

said, in reply, that he was not aware that the Report had been given to any one. He would, however, make inquiry on the subject.

said, he wished to move the insertion of words to limit the duration of the Bill to Midsummer day next.

proposed, to leave out from "day of" to the end of the clause, and to insert "September next."

said, he would then move to insert the following clause after Clause 1:—

(Repayment of Sums borrowed.)

"Any sum borrowed under the authority of this Act may be repaid by equal annual instalments, not exceeding fourteen."

said, he had then to move the insertion of the following clause: —

(Interpretation.)

"The word 'expenditure' in section Five of the said Act shall be construed to include the amount paid under any order of contribution issued by the Poor Law Board, pursuant to the said Act or this Act."

said, he wished to suggest whether his right hon. Friend would not authorize Boards of Guardians to borrow from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners; and if he would, whether it would not be desirable to provide for that power in the present clause. He had a natural reluctance that the county of Lancaster should be the first to ask for such a power, but, on looking back, he found very memorable instances in which power to borrow from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had been allowed under precisely similar circumstances. In the Report of a Committee which sat in 1810, there was a reference to a power of borrowing from those commissioners in 1793, when certain London merchants in distressed circumstances were thus assisted. A similar case occurred in 1825, and, he believed, also in 1847, to relieve distress in London and other parts of the country. He would therefore suggest that the guardians of Lancashire should be authorized to raise money from the Commissioners. Banks in Manchester had been applied to, but they stated that it was not in their line of business to lend money on the terms proposed, and private persons were equally reluctant to lend money to be paid in annual instalments. The consequence was, that the guardians were obliged to pay a much larger rate per cent than they would have to do under other circumstances, whereas they might get money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners at 3½ per cent.

said, his hon. Friend had pursued an unusual course, and was raising a very important question. The clause which had been moved had no reference to borrowing from the State or the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. It referred to the Act which he was seeking to continue, and in which it was provided that the guardians might borrow money on the security of the rates-—which was altogether a transaction of their own—and that they should have fourteen years for repayment instead of seven, as at first intended. He would ask his hon. Friend to wait until the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), who had given notice of a similar proposition, should bring it forward.

said, he had been under the impression that the hon. Member for Oldham had withdrawn his proposal.

moved the insertion of a clause providing for the Apportionment of contribution for Unions in two or more counties according to the annual rateable value of so much of the Union as shall be situate within such counties respectively.

said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause empowering the overseers of townships where the expenditure for the relief of the poor should have exceeded the rate of 3s. in the pound to borrow money from time to time, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, as they shall think necessary to meet such excess.

said, that the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), which stood next on the paper, to insert a clause—"Power to Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance Money to Unions"—could not be brought forward without the consent of the Crown, inasmuch as it referred to the appropriation of public money.

said, that the clause of which he had given notice, empowering the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance money to unions, was one which would, in his opinion, be productive of considerable advantage without inflicting a loss upon any parties. That clause was as follows:—

"The Public Works Loan Commissioners, as defined by the Act of the 19th year of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 17, may, out of the Funds for the time being at their disposal, advance to any Union such sum or sums of money as such Union may from time to time be empowered to borrow under the authority of this Act, subject to the following regulations:—1. No Union shall borrow any money from the said Commissioners under this Act until the order of the Poor Law Board has been issued for the purpose. 2. The interest payable in respect thereof shall be at the rate of £3 5s, per annum on each hundred pounds. 3. The period for repayment of any sum shall not exceed fourteen years."

It was not an entirely new principle that the Government should lend money for the relief of the peer, as by the Act of 1817, when the Public Loan Commissioners were first appointed, they were empowered to advance money, not only for drainage, piers, harbours, and other public works, but also for the employment of the poor in parishes of Great Britain. Though it might be true to a certain extent that the Boards up to the present time had experienced little or no difficulty in procuring money under the Act of last Session, it should be recollected that they had required less money during the last year than they would need in the next twelvemonths, in consequence of the largo subscriptions collected to relieve the distress in Lancashire. If the voluntary subscriptions ceased, and the entire relief of the distress were thrown on the unions, it would be with the greatest difficulty that they could tide over the crisis. The pressure in some of the unions had already been very severe, for he found that in the Union of Glossop the cost of the relief during the first week of February was at the rate of 9s. 3d. in the pound from the union, and 14s. 8d. from the relief committee, equal to a total annual charge of £1 3s. 11d. in the pound upon the rateable value; in Ashton the charge was at the rate of 6s. from the union, and 16s. 4d. from the relief committee, equal to a total of £1 2s. 4d.; and in Preston it was at the rate of 5s. 5d. from the union and 6s. 3d. from the relief committee, equal to a total of 11s. 8d. It also appeared that there were at present 470,000 persons in the receipt of relief, at a weekly cost of £39,000; and those figures showed that the greatest difficulty must henceforth exist in meeting the emergency. He believed, that if the Government did not give the slight relief he now asked for, the unions would be obliged to come to Parliament before the end of the Session and demand a national grant. He therefore trusted that the President of the Poor Law Board would take into favourable consideration the present proposition.

said, he had to remind the hon. Member, that as the clause could not be put, there was no question before the Committee. It proposed to give powers to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to appropriate public money in a manner not authorized by the existing law. If that were done, it must be done by an Act of Parliament introduced with the consent of the Crown.

said, he would move that the Chairman report progress, in order that he might have an opportunity of expressing his approval of the proposal contained in the clause. He believed that such a course would afford a very proper mode of employing the public money, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the guardian of the public purse, would introduce a Bill for the purpose of giving the Commissioners the proposed power. Money had been advanced by the Government to promote agricultural improvements, railways, and other things, and he thought that a loan might legitimately be made to the unions. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Villiers') concession of power to extend the loan over fourteen years made matters worse instead of better for the unions, because they would have to pay interest for a longer period. He moved that the Chairman report progress.

said, it was not regular to move that progress be reported merely for the purpose of raising a discussion on a matter with which it was not competent for the Committee to deal.

said, he only wished to state, that if the subject could have been properly discussed, he would have proposed that the powers of the Commissioners should be similar to those which they exercised in the case of advances for the improvement of lands, making the principal and interest of the loans repayable at 6½ per cent, for a period of twenty-two years. The object he had had in view was to afford Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of more fully considering the matter before the Committee. He had been informed that great difficulty was experienced in the manufacturing districts in raising money for the relief of the poor, and he had no doubt that that difficulty would every day increase. The matter therefore required the serious consideration of the House itself. Why should not the Government assist the manufacturing districts in the present emergency by enabling them to borrow the money which might be considered requisite on the lowest possible terms? He hoped the matter would be reconsidered by the Government, especially as it could be done without incurring any loss.

said, he did not desire to prolong a discussion which had been pronounced irregular, but, at the same time, he was unwilling that the Committee should suppose that this matter had been overlooked by the Government. The effect of the Amendment he had introduced was to render the prolongation of the period of any loan optional, and not compulsory. The hon. Member for Oldham appeared to think that the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had command of an unlimited sum to be applied to any object for which a grant might be made; but that was not the case. It would be seen by the Act of Geo. IV., the powers of which had been from time to time renewed, that a specific sum was voted to the Commissioners for a specific purpose. No power was given to the Commissioners to advance money for the purpose for which it was desired by the hon. Member. If hon. Members referred to the Act, they would find that the particular works to which money was to be devoted were specified as works of utility, and it was to be granted according to the amount which might be in hand. And even with respect to advances made in connection with the poor, the nature of the work required to be done by the poor was always distinctly defined. The proposal of the hon. Member for Oldham was, that there should be a grant for the maintenance of the poor or for defraying the current expenditure for their relief. Now, a grant for such a purpose had never been made, and before such a. principle were sanc- tioned, he thought it ought to receive the serious consideration of the House. If any grant were to be made, the unions requiring it must state a definite sum; but no specific sum had been mentioned. He was not going into the question whether or not it was sound policy for the State to make advances in order to assist the manufacturing districts. He did not deny that a time might come when advances would be necessary, but no precedent existed, and up to the present moment the Government had seen no reason to justify the step suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham. They had not heard that the guardians were unable to obtain money, that it was impossible to collect the rates, or that the funds which had been provided had been exhausted. There was evidence, indeed, of an opposite character; but, at the same time, whenever any hon. Member should think it his duty to ask for a Vote in aid of the distressed districts, the whole matter would be deliberately considered by the Government.

said, it seemed to him that it would be altogether unwarrantable for the Committee at that time to make any grant of public money for the relief of the distress in the cotton manufacturing districts, and he believed that the Members for Lancashire and Cheshire did not wish for a grant of that nature. All the Members for those counties with whom he had conversed repudiated the idea. What they wanted was, not a Vote of money, but such facilities as Government could afford through agencies of which it had the command, to enable them to obtain sums which they would borrow upon their own security, which they would repay to the last farthing, but which it was most important they should procure on the lowest possible terms. The country was bound to meet the distressed districts half-way, to show that it respected in the highest degree the manner in which they had conducted themselves, and that it felt for the heavy and unprecedented calamity to which they were subjected. He thought the Government might easily do that which the hon. Member for Oldham had asked them to do. The case was one of peculiar and extreme distress, affecting the largest branch of our manufacturing industry, and involving a most important part of the community. One-fourth of the entire population of the afflicted unions was in the receipt of relief, either from the parochial rates or from the relief committees. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) stated lately that the loss was from £11,000,000 to £12,000,000 annually, but he (Mr. Baines) believed that the loss of wages alone was £9,000,000 a year; and if they added to that the loss of all profits on the part of the millowners, and the loss of rents on property, the loss would amount to nearly £20,000,000 a year. There was every probability that the distress would exist for some time longer, but he firmly believed that prosperity would eventually be restored to that manufacture. Cotton could be grown in a great portion of the world, extending over 60 degrees of latitude; and though some time was required to cultivate a sufficient quantity, he believed that the required quantity would be produced, and that again the machinery of Lancashire and Cheshire would be set going. Inasmuch, then, as the distress was peculiar and extreme, as it would exist but for a limited period, and as there was a certainty that there would be the ability to repay the amount borrowed, it seemed to him that the Government were called upon to do everything they could to provide facilities for obtaining the desired loans.

said, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board should have read him a lecture upon the impropriety of introducing the subject of a loan before the hon. Member for Oldham had brought forward his clause. The right hon. Gentleman must have done so with a full knowledge of the fact that the clause in question could not be discussed at all.

said, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was not aware that the clause could not be considered until the circumstance was pointed out by the Chairman.

said, he should however maintain that the observations he had made were strictly in order, inasmuch as he merely suggested to the Government to consider whether they could not give further facilities to the manufacturing districts by enabling the Exchequer Loan Commissioners to lend them money. He had in his pocket the latest report of Mr. Farnall, from which it appeared that in Lancashire at that moment, out of a population of 1,900,000 souls, there were 23 per cent receiving relief of one kind or another. In the town of Preston there were 33 per cent in the same condition. Under such circumstances the representatives of the distressed districts were justified in taking every opportunity to impress upon the Government the necessity of providing against any increase in the existing enormous amount of distress. The right hon. President of the Poor Law Board was wrong in stating that there was no precedent for the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham. He had already cited more than one instance in which advances were made to the merchants of London. Another reason why the distressed unions should be allowed to borrow money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners was, that the granting of such a power would remove many objections which were entertained to the Bill as it stood. Great dissatisfaction existed in the manufacturing districts with the principle on which the rate in aid was carried out, and which he believed was not, as had been stated by the President of the Poor Law Board, in accordance with the statute of Elizabeth. That statute said that when one union could not support its own poor, it should go upon the adjoining union; but in the present case the President of the Poor Law Board had defined the inability of any union to support its poor to be a rate of 3s. in the pound. The expenditure of such a rate enabled it to go on another union, and then the inability of the union was defined by a rate of 5s. in the pound, which extended the liability to the county. This was an entirely different law altogether from that of Elizabeth; and tenants complained that they should be obliged to contribute under circumstances which they could not contemplate so as to enter into arrangements with their landlords. He would suggest that the distressed unions should have the power of borrowing money at a less percentage, and repayable over a greater number of years; and then, if his right hon. Friend would consent to it, he would recommend that the limit at which the distressed unions should come upon the neighbouring unions should be raised from 5s. to 6s. But he would impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expediency of giving greater facilities to the unions for borrowing money, so as to relieve other unions as far as possible from the burden of a rate in aid, which they believed to be thoroughly unjust.

said, he should maintain that there was no new principle in making advances for the support of the poor. The 43 Elizabeth authorized the levying of rates, not only for the relief of the poor, but for setting them to work. Nothing could be more irksome than the compulsory idleness to which thousands were now consigned in the manufacturing districts; and it would be a most legitimate course for the House to authorize the Government to grant loans to Boards of Guardians, who had ample security to offer, with a view to check this evil. There was a strong objection to the application of the rate-in-aid principle, the money obtained by which was found to be too easily obtained, and might be recklessly squandered. Although, indeed, there was no reluctance to grant a rate in aid when all other means had failed, yet it was felt that it ought to be kept as a last resource. If the Government would give the unions sufficient power and facilities for borrowing, many of them would be able to support and set to work their own poor, without calling for rates in aid from other places. The gross annual rateable value of the property in the Union of Ashton-under-Lyne exceeded £300,000, and surely the guardians of that union might raise at least £100,000 if necessary by loan. Up to the 31st of January last, no less a sum than £70,000 had been voluntarily advanced from different funds to the Union of Ashton-under-Lyne. Surely, then, a union having had that assistance, and possessing such large means of its own at command, ought to be called upon to exercise its power of borrowing money to such an extent as the Poor Law Board might deem just, before it could claim the benefit of a rate in aid.

said, he would add his voice to that of other Gentlemen who had urged the Government to take into their serious consideration the propriety of granting money through the Loan Commissioners, as being the fairest mode of meeting the present great emergency. By the time the Bill expired he was sure it would be found impossible to re-enact the rate in aid, so extremely unjust was it in its operation.

said, that the difference between the statute of Elizabeth and the measure under consideration, was, that the statute of Elizabeth left it to the discretion of the local justices to say when a parish should be aided by its neighbours, while the Bill fixed the limits, and in his opinion fixed the limit at a low point for wealthy Lancashire. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was sanguine that prosperity would shortly be restored to the cotton districts—that the weavers would return to their looms, and that everything would return to its former state. Well, he only hoped that that might be so, but it was certainly no argument for doing what had been proposed by hon. Members. He might remark, too, that the precedents quoted for granting loans of the public money for this purpose were all drawn from the evil times, before the passing of the new Poor Law, and he thought the House ought to hesitate before it followed them on this occasion. If, as stated by the hon. Member for Leeds, the distress was to be merely transitory, there seemed to be less reason for calling on the Public Exchequer. The difficulty was not so much the largeness of the demand made for the support of the poor, as the suddenness with which the rates had increased. There was a manufacturing town in Leicestershire where the rates had for many years been 5s. in the pound, and where they were now 8s.; but the Bill did not apply to that county. If it could maintain its own poor, there was no reason why the manufacturing parishes of Lancashire, when things had settled down, should not likewise be able to do the same. If, however, rates were to be permanently increased in Lancashire, there must be a proportionate alteration in the amount of rent received by the landlords; and any increase of the facilities for borrowing would be merely a staving-off of this inevitable arrangement. As the House would have another opportunity of considering the question before the end of the Session, the Government, he thought, were not called on to commit themselves at that time to the principle of loans of public monies.

I did not say that the distress would be of brief continuance; on the contrary, I said that it would have a considerable continuance, but that ultimately a return to prosperity was certain.

said, he thought that before the Government asked the Committee to come to any decision, they ought to put before it in a plain and definite shape how much the counties in question had actually raised. Up to that time no such information had been given. The expenditure for a week, or for a given number of weeks, had been multiplied to show what the yearly amount would be at a similar rate; but what the Committee wanted was an accurate statement showing how much had been actually raised within the year, and then it could be seen what ground there was for making such an unusual application. The hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) thought it very odd that people should dislike a rate in aid. Most persons objected to pay money, and Lancashire had shown herself quite as sensitive on that point as any other part of the country with which he was acquainted. It was very fortunate, he thought, that a limit had been fixed, and that it had not been necessary to determine by an appeal to the Courts what constituted inability to pay. He did not say whether in fixing that limit the proper amount had been adopted; but he remembered that when the debate took place the Members for Lancashire were by no means anxious to have the limit fixed too high. The hon. Member for Leeds had said that it was only a case of persons asking for facilities to borrow money upon property affording ample security. That did not correctly represent the facts. The unions wanted to borrow upon Government security at a less rate of interest than they could obtain it themselves in the open market. Well, the question was whether they could make such a case as would justify the Government in giving their security, and the basis of such a case was the amount already raised stated in figures, and not mere estimates in conjecture. The information for which he had asked was therefore indispensable. A 1s. rate in Lancashire would produce about £350,000, while at that time it was quite impossible to give an opinion how many shillings in the pound had been raised. The proposition was one of an unusual, and, if not maturely considered, possibly of a dangerous character, for nothing gave greater encouragement to lavish expenditure than a facility of borrowing at low rates. No one could prophesy how long the present state of things would last. It was important, therefore, to ascertain whether it was intended, whatever the duration of the crisis, to keep these people in idleness. A great temptation was held out to those who might want to employ these people again—he did not say they would yield to that temptation; but the Committee ought to bear in mind that to keep the working classes idle for a lengthened period was to incur great risk of demoralization, and that, once demoralized, the bad effects did not pass away in a single generation.

said, he thought it only respectful to the House, that having moved the adjournment, he should state in a few words why he took part in the proceedings. He should only refer to that part of the question which concerned his own country. He received daily remonstrances against the course which the Government were taking in this Bill. His constituents were in no way affected, but the subject created great interest in Ireland, and it was the duty of every Irish Member to press on the Government an inquiry into the allegations made by the tobacco manufacturers. The question had not, as had been asserted, any reference whatever to free trade; the prohibition of the culture of the tobacco plant in Ireland was decisive upon that point. There was not merely a differential duty on the cultivation of this plant, but an absolute prohibition to the Irishman, as indeed in this country. An hon. Gentleman, who seemed better acquainted with the statistics of the antipodes than of Ireland, had asserted that Ireland could not grow tobacco. If so, the prohibition was useless; but the reverse was the fact, for several years since it had been grown so successfully that the Government passed an Act to prohibit its growth and to purchase; the crop at a sum of £300,000. It was absurd, therefore, to talk of free trade when actual prohibition was given to protect the foreigners against the home growers. He believed, from the statements which had been made to him, that the Bill would seriously affect the trade of Ireland. Irish snuff was made from the stalks of tobacco. The manufacturer had to pay for these stalks 1s. per pound; and as it required a pound and a half of them to make one pound of snuff, the cost to the manufacturer was 1s. 6d Add to that 2d., the cost of the manufacture, and 3s. 2d for duty, and the cost was 4s. 10d. Now, in foreign countries the stalks were of no value whatever, and therefore there was a difference of the value of the stalks to the English manufacturer in favour of the foreigner. The consequence was, that the measure, instead of being a measure of free trade, was a measure of protection to the foreign manufacturer against the Irish. The consumer would not be benefited, for the foreign manufacturer would raise the price, and they would find that their home trade would be transferred to the foreigner, as they had found in many other cases. And so with regard to roll tobacco, which was the sort principally smoked in Ireland. In Ireland they prepared this rolled tobacco, as well as a manufactured tobacco, made up with molasses, rum, and other materials, requiring some manipulation; while in England they smoked a tobacco called bird's-eye, with others which, unless adulterated, required no further manufacture than the cutting of the leaf. The proposal to admit cavendish on the terms of the Bill would drive our article out of the trade in Ireland, and transfer the trade to the foreigner, without any corresponding advantage to the consumer, for the price would be raised as the result of the monopoly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of giving the home manufacturer a boon by providing that he might manufacture cavendish tobacco in bond; but the many arrangements made for fiscal purposes prevented the Irish tradesman from manufacturing in bond at all. Besides, many of the Irish manufacturers were in the interior of the country. There was one inland one which paid duty, it was said, to the amount of £150,000. There was one which also paid a considerable duty, and employed many persons; and the proprietor had assured him, that if the Bill passed in its present form, he would be obliged to relinquish the manufacture; and there were many others similarly placed far from the Custom-house establishments, which were generally in the larger cities and at the ports. Now, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to deal with these manufacturers, situated as he had described? Were they all to be destroyed for the sake of the theoretical advantages which the hon. Gentleman styled free competition, or was he about to form Customs establishments in every small town where there there was a tobacco manufactory? These establishments must cause expense, and he saw no provision for them in the Bill. He wished to add, that he made these statements on that serious subject, not upon his own authority, but on that of the Irish manufacturers themselves.

said, he could not help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been rather unfortunate, if not ill-advised, in the course which he had pursued in regard to the Bill. While the right hon. Gentleman had brought it, or rather the Resolutions upon which it was founded, before the House at a period so very early in the Session that it had created some surprise at his dealing at that time with a matter of some importance to the financial statement, yet certainly the course he had taken did give ample time for fully considering the matter. At the same time, he had brought forward a measure the importance of which appeared to have been somewhat exaggerated. Upon the principle of the Bill he believed the majority of the House were agreed; but, unfortunately, the discussion had been brought on at such inconvenient hours that two discussions had been provoked and two adjournments had taken place upon a very simple question. That he thought was to he regretted. The debate, however, had thus been spread over three nights, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets having made his speech upon one occasion and the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon another; and now the discussion was renewed in the presence of many Members who had heard neither of those speeches. However, as the matter now stood, they had only to consider in what manner they should deal with the Amendment. He had not the advantage of having heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last, but from the published reports he believed that his objections to the Motion of the hon. Member were two.— First, that the course proposed was unprecedented; and, secondly, that it would only have the effect of wasting the time of the House, and of putting off the discussion upon the Bill. With regard to the course being unprecedented, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not know whether there was any exact precedent for it; but the House ought to bear in mind that they were about to deal with a most important and at the same time peculiar branch of the revenue, realizing between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 annually, or one-fourth of the total Customs revenue of the country, and that the tax in fact amounted to a duty of 1,200 per cent upon the article upon which it was imposed. In order to secure those duties being raised, it was necessary to subject the manufacturers of the article to a number of complicated Excise restrictions. In consequence, there were many delicate questions raised, all of which ought to be considered before deciding to touch the tobacco duties. There was no saying to what consequences it might lead if they proceeded hastily and inconsiderately to deal with one portion of the subject. In 1840 an alteration was made in the mode of securing the tobacco duties and in less than three years it was found necessary to retrace that step, showing how careful the House should be in dealing with these duties. Therefore, he did not consider the fact of there being no exact precedent decisive against the proposal of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. The next question was, whether that proposal, if agreed to, would only lead to waste of time, and the virtual defeat of the measure. If that were its object, he certainly was not prepared to support it, as he was of opinion the measure was good in principle. But, although it was a step in the right direction, great caution was required in taking it, and he thought they would rather be losing time by recklessly discussing the measure in a Committee of the Whole House, without any authentic information to guide them. It was not true that a whole Session need be lost if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee. A case in point occurred in the previous year, when the sugar duties were referred to a Select Committee; and he apprehended that the questions which were raised in reference to the sugar duties were at least as great in importance and in complication as those raised by the Bill before them, but that Committee upon the sugar duties occupied very little more than two months, and then they presented a very good Report. Now, if they were to send this Bill to a Committee for discussion, and the Committee were animated by a like spirit to that which animated the Committee upon the sugar duties, they would get through their work in very good time. The Session had only just begun, and the Bill need not be lost if sent to a Select Committee. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: That is not the Motion.] His right hon. Friend reminded him that that was not the Motion, and he entirely agreed with him; but he was about to add, when he was interrupted, that he thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was not the one best adapted to meet the circumstances of the case. He himself would very much prefer to see the Bill read a second time, and that then the Chancellor of the Exchequer should agree to refer it to a Select Committee in order that they might affirm the principle of the Bill and afterwards discuss its details. He quite felt with the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) that they would be utterly at sea if they were to discuss the question in a Committee of the Whole House, in which most of the Members must necessarily know nothing of the details. He himself had had communications with several persons engaged in the tobacco business, but he did not know whether to take their statements as correct or not. He had had no opportunity of sifting them, and he did not know that he could do so in a Committee of the Whole House. The same would no doubt be the case with other hon. Members. Again, if they discussed the matter in a Committee of the Whole House, many hon. Members would come in on a division and vote with the Government or with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, without having heard the discussion. It was quite impossible that they could satisfactorily dispose of a complicated matter of this kind in such a way as that. As he had said, his wish was that the Government should consent to send the Bill to a Select Committee; and if he received an assurance that they would pursue that course, he would vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets; but if he failed to obtain such an assurance, he should feel obliged to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member, because he thought it impossible to go properly into the question without that minute and perfect information which could only be got through the medium of a Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House that he wished them to examine the matter for themselves; and when they said that they wished to examine it by means of a Committee, he said, "I do not wish that, and you must examine it in my way." That was not quite fair. It was like a conjuror who asks you to examine his cards but will not let you take them into your own hands for the purpose. Unless the House were allowed to inquire by means of a Select Committee, the invitation to them to examine into the subject was a mockery. He differed to some extent from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who seemed to be taking a line not quite in accordance with the received opinions of the majority of the House. He (Sir S. Northcote) was quite prepared to admit that in principle the measure was good and a step in the right direction. The details, however, had not been discussed. As matters stood, manufactured tobacco was practically excluded by a duty of a prohibitory character, and it would be for the interest of the consumer and of the revenue that that duty should be reduced so as to allow of foreign cigars entering into competition with English; but if the reduction went too far, they might be injuring the English manufacturer without benefiting, but rather injuring, the revenue. There were two evils to be guarded against—smuggling and adulteration. A reduction of duty might diminish smuggling; but if foreign cigars were allowed to be imported at too low a duty, a temptation would be offered to the English manufacturer to have recourse to adulteration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that it was necessary to make a distinction between the manufactured and the unmanufactured article in order to place the British producers on a fair footing with foreigners; but the question whether the protection given was adequate could not be discussed properly in a Committee of the Whole House without further inquiry. There was also to be considered the question whether the arrangements proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for manufacturing cavendish tobacco in bond were satisfactory. They were told by the manufacturers that they were not satisfactory, and he wanted to know how that was, and to hear the statements of the manufacturers on one side and those of the Custom-house officers upon the other. Then came the question whether they ought to give the cigar makers power to manufacture in bond? That was one of the questions upon which he should like to hear the opinions of the manufacturers and of the Custom-house officers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on being asked the question, answered that he would take the matter into consideration; but afterwards he said, without giving any reasons, that he thought that it would not do. The House surely ought to know what his reasons were, and how far they would bear examination; and he must himself confess that the only reason which he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer give was not a satisfactory one. He said that he could not allow the manufacture in bond because such permission would only be applicable to large manufacturers; in other words, that it would give the larger manufacturers an advantage which they ought not to have over the small ones; but as the effect of giving the privilege of manufacturing in bond was simply to place those who availed themselves of it on a level with the foreigner, the question would arise, did not the right hon. Gentleman, in refusing this privilege, propose to put the large manufacturers upon the same footing of disadvantage with regard to the foreigner that he had refused to put the small manufacturers upon in reference to the large manufacturers? That seemed to lead to the conclusion that the privileges given to the foreigner were too great. Another point was as to the question of the drawback. The Treasury and the Customs had fallen into an error respecting the drawback, and had fixed it at so low a point, that exportation was impossible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now promised a better one; but when a mistake in the calculations of the departments on one point was thus admitted, he thought that the conclusions of the Treasury and of the Customs authorities might be fairly challenged on other points. The House was told that the right hon. Gentleman only wished to give fair play to the home manufacturers; but with every wish to do that, he might have made some mistake in the figures, as had been done in the instance he had just mentioned. For these reasons he thought it desirable that the question should be considered in a Select Committee, where it might be disposed of in a comparatively short time; and such a course, indeed, would probably be attended with a saving of time, because nothing was worse than to press legislation upon matters of such serious importance, and then afterwards have to undo it. If, therefore, it was not understood that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee after being read a second time, he should vote for the Amendment.

said, it appeared to him that the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets seriously invaded those principles of free trade upon which the commercial legislation of this country had been for some time past founded. When he heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, he was in some doubt as to the vote he ought to give; but having given to the right hon. Gentleman's statement his full consideration, and having carefully weighed the representations made to him by his constituents upon the subject, he had arrived at the conclusion that there was nothing in the particular article of tobacco that should exempt it from the principles to which he had referred. The correct principle was that every consumer should have the commodity he required free from increase of cost by reason of Custom-house duties of any kind except those which were necessary for purposes of revenue. The proposition of the Government rested upon three points. They said that the alterations they proposed would be for the advantage of the revenue, that they would prevent smuggling, and would be for the benefit of the consumer; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also stated negatively that the measure would not in the long run affect injuriously the manufacturer. Upon all these points his hon. Friend was at variance with the Government, but he (Mr. Crawford) was inclined to think that the views expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were the correct ones. With regard to the revenue, they were not in a position to express any opinion as to what the extent of the advantage might be. But the question was intimately connected with the question of smuggling. It had been stated the other night in the House that smuggling was not now carried on to the extent that was supposed. But if that were not the case, how was it they had not seen an increase in the consumption of tobacco with the increased population, as they had in the case of every other article of consumption. Their own senses told them that tobacco was used as largely by every class of the community as it ever had been; and, consequently, if there had not been the increase of consumption that there had been with regard to other articles some other cause must have been in operation to prevent it. For his own part, having examined the evidence taken before the Committee of 1844, and having seen to what an extent smuggling was carried on, and the ingenious methods by which tobacco was surreptitiously introduced, he had arrived at the conclusion that smuggling was still practised to a considerable extent, and that it behoved that House, therefore, to sanction the proposition of the Government, if it would have no other effect than to remove that evil. With regard to the interest of the consumer, he held, as he had before remarked, that the consumer of tobacco had a right to have access to the tobacco which he used without the cost being increased to him by any Custom-house or other exaction than that which the revenue required, and that if they protected the home manufacturer of tobacco against the foreign manufacturer, they were introducing again that system of protection against which that House had so often declared its opinion. The Committee to which he had already referred had, he thought, disposed of all the great principles which were involved in the present discussion; and considering the numerous opportunities which a Committee of the Whole House afforded for the consideration of the details of the measure, he saw no reason for resorting to the tedious process of sending the subject before a Select Committee. Reference had been made to the Committee of 1830 upon the growth of tobacco; and if hon. Members would refer to the Report of that Committee, they would find ample evidence with regard to the growth and manufacture of tobacco in Ireland. The permission to grow tobacco in Ireland for home consumption was not availed of in that country from 1799 to 1824; and though during the succeeding five years 500 acres were brought under tobacco cultivation, the evidence before the Committee showed, that owing to the inferiority of quality, a duty of 1s. 8d. as against 3s. on foreign tobacco would not be a compensating protection. Another thing which struck him in the course of the discussion was, that three prominent Members of the House, the hon. Members for the Tower Hamlets Southwark, and Sheffield, particularly, were all of them abandoning the great principles of free trade in the interests of a particular manufacture. Speaking for himself, he should not feel disposed to throw over the interests of ninety-nine out of every hundred of his constituents for the sake of the one who might be engaged in this manufacture. From the Report of the Committee which sat on the growth of tobacco in Ireland, in 1830, it appeared that Irish tobacco was in a great degree inferior to that grown in America. He would therefore ask whether it would be possible to expect that in Ireland or elsewhere tobacco could be grown profitably unless its cultivation were supported by a protective duty, and whether any man would now get up and affirm that any article of domestic consumption ought to be protected by a duty? He was prepared to assent to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he was anxious to have the question as to the rates of duty decided by a Committee, who had fully considered it, and heard all the evidence that it might be thought necessary to adduce on the subject, That could only be done by a Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was at present unable to state distinctly the rates of duty which ought to be laid down; and if that question were left to a Committee of the Whole House, they would have it decided by hon. Members many of whom would know nothing about the details, but would rush in to vote after the Question was put. They all knew that Ireland was suffering from a want of labour, and the tobacco manufacture was one of its most important industries, as hon. Gentlemen well knew that Ireland was remarkable for its excellent snuff. But there were other considerations. He had always understood that objects of luxury were, as compared with those of prime necessity, fit subjects for taxation, and tobacco was certainly a luxury compared with many other taxed articles. Moreover, the revenue from the tobacco duties was increasing. In 1860 it was £5,600,000; in 1862, £5,714,000 —showing that the trade was growing. The Army and Navy Estimates were before them, and there was a reduction of £2,000,000, and they heard that the revenue was in a very flourishing state: if they adopted the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and endangered a portion of the revenue de- rived from tobacco, they might prevent a reduction in articles of prime necessity, such as sugar and tea, and the income tax. For these reasons he thought it desirable that they should hear the financial statement, and consider whether there were not other duties which might be diminished with advantage before giving up perhaps £2,000,000 of the tobacco revenue.

said, the real question at issue between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) was not whether the duty should be 5s.2d. or 5s. 6d. It was this:—The hon. Member asserted, that whereas under the law which had been in existence for many years a valuable manufacture had been raised, in which it was decided by the Committee which sat in 1844 that no alterations could be made with advantage, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the other hand, said that the state of trade was not satisfactory, and that smuggled cigars were very largely imported. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets denied that any change was required—

explained, that what he said was, that if one change were introduced, a great many would be necessary,

But still he insisted that unless the duty on unmanufactured tobacco were reduced, no change could be made in the higher rates. For his part, he agreed with the hon. Member for Stamford that it was not the case of a reduction of duty with a view to recuperation afterwards; it was simply whether that difference of duty between manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco, which was fixed at a time when questions of political economy were not so fairly raised as they were now, was a fair difference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion was that the present state of the tobacco question, quite irrespective of the inquiry whether the duty on manufactured tobacco should be greatly reduced, was eminently unsatisfactory. He would test the question by a simple canon. Whenever a trade and the fiscal laws affecting it are in a satisfactory condition, either the article would be manufactured better abroad; and, if so, the import would steadily increase; or if this country were able to carry on its manufacture skilfully, there would be a steady increase from year to year in the export. If that was a proper axiom to be laid down in all instances, it was easily applicable to the case of tobacco. The import trade in cigars had not increased, except to a very small extent. On the other hand, there was no increase in the export trade from this country; and nothing could be more miserably bad than the home trade in manufactured cigars. If that were so, the House was clearly justified in passing the second reading of a Bill which would bring about a change. The consumption of cigars in this country, as compared with other tobacco, was probably much less than in any foreign country at the present time, or in any British colony, where the law stood in a better position than it did here. The consumption of cigars in England, though it was somewhat difficult to ascertain the facts accurately since the abolition of the old Excise survey, was between 2 and 2½per cent of the whole consumption. In foreign countries the amount of consumption was also somewhat difficult to get at, but in no foreign country probably was it less than 5 or 6 per cent. When they came to the colonies, where the habits of the people were in a great degree similar to those of England in other respects, the consumption of cigars amounted to 10, 12, and 14 per cent of the entire consumption. Therefore the law was favourable neither to the revenue nor to the wishes of the people, and should be put upon another footing. There was another question, of less importance, connected with this. In the consumption of snuff there was a great falling off at the present time. In no respect had national manners changed more completely in the last hundred years than with regard to the relative use of snuff and tobacco. In order to illustrate the utter impossibility of some event taking place the Poet Gay had written—

"Sooner shall Britain's youth from snuff be freed,

And fops' apartments smoke with India's weed."

However, he would leave the snuff question in other hands. But as to cigars, he thought that the evidence before the Committee of 1844 disclosed the facts without further inquiry. It was true that the witnesses who were manufacturers were anxious to retain protection. But almost all admitted that it was too high, and they justified it by arguments derived from the comparative rates of wages in England and abroad, of no value to free traders. Several admitted that a difference of 50 per cent was ample, and this was more than covered by 5s. as against 3s. 2d There was no system of statistics in this country to show the loss in the original weight incurred in changing tobacco into cigars, but in France, for example, where statistics were kept, it appeared that the loss was only eight per cent; that is to say, there was a loss of about 1,500,000 kilogrammes on 17,500,000 kilogrammes of leaf. Such being the facts, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put forward good grounds for giving a second reading to the Bill, and in Committee the exact amount of duty could afterwards be fixed. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not be induced to take a course which would be inconsistent with the principle of free trade. The question before them was a consumers' question, and as he was opposed to every attempt at bolstering up a manufacture to the injury of the revenue and the consumer, he should cordially support the second reading of the Bill.

said, he rose to protest against the view taken by the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) that the matter before the House was a question between protection and free trade. The question before the House was simply this, whether they should proceed at once to legislate, or wait till the whole subject had been fully considered by a Committee. He had voted for the adjournment of the debate on the first night, not from any opposition to the Bill, but because he thought there was a want of information, and they ought to have some time to receive communications from their constituents. When he saw the notice on the subject which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put upon the paper, he could not help asking why it was ncessary to bring in a Bill before the financial statement was made. They were told there were precedents for doing so, but there might be bad precedents as well as good ones. When a Motion was made last year to pledge the House to a reduction of the duty on fire insurances, he opposed the Motion, not that he did not think that the duty ought to be reduced, but, because it would be unjust to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to demand the remission of a duty which, upon making his financial statement, he might not be in a position to concede. He had received many communications upon the subject of the Bill, several of them approving its principle, but saying that great injustice had been done to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by those who drew the Bill, because it would be found inoperative. All the com- munications which he had received, however, concurred in begging him to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for further inquiry. He trusted, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would render a division unnecessary, by consenting to take the second reading on the understanding that the Bill should afterwards be referred to a Select Committee.

said, that the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) began his speech by complaining that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not anticipated the discussion upon the principle of the Bill; and in the very next sentence he stated that he supposed upon the principle of the Bill they were all unanimous. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets as inopportune, and regretted, that unless he got a certain assurance, he should be compelled to support it. But what, then, became of the complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they were all agreed upon the principle of the Bill? His hon. Friend appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint a Committee on the Tobacco Duties at a further stage of the measure; but the question then before the House was this, whether the Bill should be read a second time or not. The hon. Member for Stamford did not appear to stand well to his guns. Would the hon. Gentleman look to the terms of the Amendment, which were "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of altering the laws for raising a revenue on tobacco"? Would the House let it go forth that it was a question in doubt whether it was expedient to alter those laws or not? The hon. Member for Stamford did not doubt the expediency of altering those laws, and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets himself said he did not doubt, but he only wanted to promote more changes. Now, Her Majesty's Government stood upon the principle of the Bill, and that was the reason why they asked the House to assent to the second reading. Their object was to apply the same wholesome principle to tobacco which had been applied to almost every other article. His right hon. Friend had brought in the Bill to accomplish three purposes—First, to increase the revenue; secondly, to benefit the consumer by cheapening the article; and, thirdly, to deprive the smuggler of part of the unlawful profits of his business. Was it necessary to argue the question at length after the speeches of the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and after the admissions of the hon. Member for Stamford? Was it necessary to argue, when a single fact contained the germ of the whole question—when there was raised upon that article nearly £5,600,000? [Mr. AYRTON: Not from manufactured tobacco.] That only made the case all the stronger. If £5,600,000 was raised from unmanufactured tobacco and less than £200,000 from the manufactured article, what was the necessary inference? Was it not that, so far as our Customs regulations were concerned, there was a complete monopoly somewhere as against the consumer in the production of that tobacco? It was the destruction of that monopoly which was demanded. If it were a monopoly in the hands of the home manufacturer, it was a wrong against the consumer, who had a right to free trade in that as in other articles. But a worse monopoly was that given by the effect of the existing legislation to the foreign manufacturers, through the intervention of the smuggler. He understood that with regard to cavendish tobacco, the foreign manufacturers obtained a monopoly in the markets of this country through the intervention of the smuggler, and it was to destroy that monopoly that the passing of the present Bill was required. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets asked the House to do in respect of tobacco what had never been proposed in respect of any other articles— namely, to interpose by a dilatory inquiry as to the expediency of making the reduction at all. His hon. Friend said that tobacco was a peculiar article of manufacture; but the same observation had been made with respect to every single article on which reductions had been proposed in former times. The sugar duties, said the hon. Member for Stamford, constituted a more complicated case, and were well dealt with by a Select Committee in the last Session; and the hon. Member thought that that might form a precedent for a similar course of proceeding with regard to the tobacco duties. Now, it ought to be borne in mind that the duties on refined sugar had been from time to time considered in that House, and settled without being referred to a Select Committee, in consequence of the adoption of a Motion like that before them on the second reading of the Bill; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer only asked the House of Commons to deal with the tobacco duties in the mode in which the sugar duties had heretofore been dealt with. It was said that the measure was favourable to the rich and not to the poor; but the reduction on Havannah and Manilla cigars was the repeal of a direct impost, whereas on the great mass of manufactured tobacco the repeal was from a prohibitory duty—from a duty which did not go to the Treasury, whilst it added to the price of the article consumed by the great mass of the people. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) said they ought to begin by taking the duty off the raw material. That was a plausible argument. But he contended that the first thing to be done was to remove the protective duty, and then, when they saw what the increase of revenue was, the House would be in a better condition to determine what they would do with regard to the raw material. He therefore confidently appealed to the House not now to adopt an evasive Resolution, but to pursue with respect to tobacco the course heretofore pursued with respect to all the great articles of consumption, and to affirm the principle of the measure by passing the second reading.

said, he trusted that the House might be allowed to discuss the small question which arose on that occasion without any appeal to the large and general principles of free trade. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had told them that every article which had been legislated upon in the way of reduction of duty for the last thirty years had been regarded as a peculiar one. But there was one peculiarity in regard to tobacco which did not attach to any other—namely, that all the manufacturers of tobacco, as far as he could ascertain, would not object to Excise regulations being imposed upon them, if they were only allowed to choose their material and their mode of manufacture, with a drawback on exportation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that a difference must be made in the amount of duty to be paid by the person who had manufactured tobacco in bond, and by the foreigner who paid at the Custom House. The question was how the amount of that difference was to be obtained, and how the evidence was to be taken which could satisfy them that the proper amount of difference was arrived at. He therefore thought that some investigation was necessary, either before the Bill was read a second time, or, as he should prefer, after it was read a second time. Take, for instance, the article snuff, one of the principal forms of tobacco manufacture in Ireland. The manufacturers stated that for every pound of snuff made a pound and a half of tobacco was consumed. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Not tobacco, but stalks.] They said tobacco. The Chancellor of the Exchequer originally framed his Resolutions and his Bill entirely overlooking that fact, and fixing such a rate of duty as would have placed the Irish manufacturers at a great disadvantage. Since then he had proposed to amend his figures by a difference of some 5d. per pound. The manufacturers said that that sum was not sufficient; the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was. It was impossible that a Committee of the Whole House could decide where the truth lay; and this was therefore pre-eminently one of those subjects into which a Select Committee, before which the interested parties could appear and be heard, might advantageously inquire. Again, the Bill provided for the manufacture in bond in this country of cavendish and negro-head, the object being to enable the manufacturer to do what bad hitherto been prohibited, to mix with the tobacco sugar or saccharine matter. The Irish manufacturers said that cavendish or negro-head was not made in Ireland, and was not required there; but there was a sort of tobacco which was made there, roll tobacco, and they asked why that also should not be made in bond. With regard to cigars, too, although that was a manufacture which did not so nearly concern Ireland, hon. Members had asked why they also should not be allowed to be made with an admixture of saccharine matter, in which form the foreigner could import them. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, he cannot.] He saw in this Bill no clause which prescribed the form in which cigars should be imported, so as to prevent the foreigner from bringing in those which contained saccharine matter. Under these circumstances was it anything short of mockery to say that the home manufacturers were about to enter into a free competition with foreigners? It seemed to him to be a proposal to engage the home manufacturer to compete with the foreigner with his hands tied behind his back. There might be good reasons why it was impossible to allow roll tobacco and cigars to be manufactured in bond in the same way as ca- vendish and negro-head; but that was a matter for inquiry, and one which neither the House nor a Committee of the Whole House could decide merely by the assertions of Members on one side and on the other. But the reasons for inquiry did not stop there. The Bill professed, as the great foundation for the admission of foreign manufactured tobacco, to permit the manufacture of tobacco in bond; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not explained how he meant to carry out that part of the scheme. With regard to that part of the question, there were two different classes of towns to be considered, seaports and inland towns. In seaports he supposed that it was intended that the manufacture should take place in the Custom House or in bonded stores equivalent thereto. Was not the House to receive any information as to the existing accommodation for such manufacture? In Belfast there were twenty or thirty very extensive tobacco manufacturers, and it was impossible that they could be supplied with accommodation for their manufacture within the Custom House. Were they, then, to be called upon to provide, in addition to their existing manufactories, others in which, under a separate surveillance and with a separate staff of workmen, they should carry on the manufacture? And how were the inland towns to be dealt with? In Cavan £150,000 was paid annually in tobacco duties; in Lurgan one manufacturer paid £20,000 a year, and in Tullamore another manufacturer paid upwards of £70,000 a year. All these enormous sums were now paid at the nearest seaport without a shilling of expense to the Government, there being no collectors at the towns mentioned. Were the Government prepared to send a staff of officers to superintend bonded warehouses in these towns? If they were, ought not the House to be informed what additional expense would be caused by that arrangement; and if they were not, what would become of these manufacturers? Those were matters as to which either the Government ought to give some information, or there ought to be an inquiry before a Select Committee of that House. The manufacturers only desired that they should be left at liberty to manufacture tobacco without bonded warehouses, but subject to any proper control in the shape of Excise regulations. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would concede that, he would relieve the measure from a great deal of the odium which attached to it. The Bill did not provide for such a system of manufacture, but no one with whom he had conversed upon the subject was able to see why it should not be carried out. With reference to the exportation of tobacco, the House had only a few minutes before had presented to it a most excellent argument in favour of inquiry. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) said, that he had been looking at the statistical Returns of the Board of Trade, and he found that there was hardly any tobacco exported from this country. Did not he know that, according to the present law, and by reason of the arrangements regarding drawback, the exportation of tobacco was almost an impassibility? And was there one word in the Bill with regard to exportation? The hon. Gentleman was under the delusion that by voting for the second reading of the Bill he was going to promote the exportation of tobacco, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House that he had either in his mind or on paper some provisions which would facilitate that exportation. But surely the trade ought to see those provisions before the second reading of a Bill which had this for its foundation, that while on the one hand the manufacturers of this country were to be exposed to the competition of foreigners, on the other they were to be enabled to compete with those foreigners in the matter of exportation. That was a matter which might also be very properly inquired into by a Select Committee; and while it appeared to him that the present high rate of duty on foreign manufactured tobacco was extremely inconsistent with the whole progress of our legislation, he at the same time must say, that the question assumed an entirely different aspect when it was admitted that the home manufacturer could not be placed on the same footing with the foreigner, and when the point for decision came to be what should be the measure of the difference in the case of the two. The question at issue was not, in short, one of free trade, and for the reasons which he had adduced he trusted the House would see the expediency of adopting the course which he had indicated.

said, he should support the second reading of the Bill. As far as he could judge it was agreed on all hands— even by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) — that the existing prohibitory duty should no longer be maintained, and yet the expediency of altering the law being thus admitted, the Resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman was one for a Select Committee to inquire whether, in fact, it was expedient to alter the law at all. The House was asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to affirm a principle which had not been denied by any hon. Member. The details of the measure could, and no doubt would, be fully discussed in Committee of the Whole House. He (Mr. Butt) was not altogether content with the rate of duty proposed; and he believed, if the right hon. Gentleman was found not to give to the home manufacturers the full contervailing duty to which they were entitled, he would fail to carry his proposition. It did not, however, require the cumbrous machinery of a Select Committee to determine what amount of duty was payable on the tobacco that entered into the manufacture of a pound of snuff. Such a Committee could result in nothing further than the production of a ponderous blue-book containing information by no means so definite and so easily accessible as that which might, by a system of examination and cross-examination, be elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Committee of the Whole House.

said, he felt bound to support the proposal of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who asked that the case of his constituents, in as far as they would be affected by the Bill, should be made the subject of a special inquiry. Let the House consider the position in which they stood. The whole of that £6,000,000 of revenue were based on a prohibition—a prohibition to grow tobacco in this country; and yet while they maintained that prohibition, they went on talking about protection or the abolition of protection. He believed that the prohibition was necessary for the purposes of the revenue; but it was still a prohibition, and any question of protection that could arise in the consideration of the Bill was comparatively a matter of utter insignificance. He did not like prohibition. Commercially and economically it was as absurd as unrestricted competition. He had risen, however, mainly for the purpose of protesting against the perpetual reiteration of the praises of a system of free imports which were thrust on the House in season and out of season. That was a mere waste of the time of the House. It only reminded him of the crowd which shouted, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." The question was, whether the House would consent to alter the tobacco duties without further information than that which they then possessed. They had high commercial authorities deprecating that course, and stating that the interests of certain manufacturers were involved in the matter; and under these circumstances he should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

Sir, I will not say anything of a controversial nature, but there are three points on which I desire to make an explanation. First, the principle on which this Bill is founded is, that in the shape of duty there should be, as against foreign manufactured tobacco, such a rate of charge as will fairly compensate both the direct impost paid by the British manufacturer on the raw material, and the indirect impost, as far as it can be fairly and liberally estimated, which a heavy duty of this sort is likely to entail in the form of trade regulations. Second, any restrictions as to the use of ingredients applied to the manufacture of tobacco at home shall be rigidly enforced in regard to the importation of corresponding descriptions of tobacco from abroad. Provisions for that purpose are in part to be found in the Bill, but there are other provisions to the same effect in the existing law which will remain untouched. Third, I do not admit that the question whether we can or cannot contrive a good system of export ought to govern our decision as to repealing the prohibitory duty. I have all along recognised the obligation and expressed the desire to examine with the utmost care every measure that may be proposed for the purpose of opening new channels of trade to the British manufacturer. I hope to be able, on the whole, to comply with the suggestion which has been made, that after the duty has been paid on tobacco when it enters the country the manufacturers shall be permitted to proceed with the manipulation of it without let or hindrance, and shall then on exporting it receive full compensation for the duty they paid in the first instance. I hope I may assume that the House will read the Bill a second time. In that event I shall fix the Committee for Thursday, in order to introduce into the Bill certain additional provisions. The measure will then be reprinted, and I shall allow an interval of a week or ten days for its consideration by Members.

said, that after that statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would wait to see the Bill in its altered form, and would not press the Amendment.

said, he desired that the Bill should be assimilated to the Act in force for England and Scotland with regard to the appointment of the officers under the Bill—namely, to vest the appointments in the boards of guardians. He would, therefore, move the insertion of words in Clause 23 to meet that object.

said, the question had already been considered by the House, the general opinion of which was in favour of the employment of medical officers.

said, there was no provision in the Bill that there should be a certificate prior to every burial, as in England. He approved the Amendment.

said, he thought the Government were quite right in their proposal, and that the English system never could be adopted in Ireland.

said, he could not conceive a more clumsy or ill-drawn measure. Every clause had been forced on in the absence of many Irish Members, and on every clause the majority of Irish Members present had been against the Government. He did not see why the Irish people should not choose whom they pleased for registrars, and he should support the Amendment.

said, he took a different view of the immediate question before the House. He had reason to believe that the appointment of the medical officers as registrars in Ireland would prove most popular in Ireland.

said, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary would not yield to the objections to the Bill.

said, he wished to call attention to what he considered to be two serious defects in the Bill. The one was the omission of a provision respecting the property of minors; the other was the want of a more convenient arrangement respecting the signature of trustees in the case of the paying out deposits.

said, he merely proposed that they should go into Committee pro formâ, and he did not intend to proceed with the consideration of the clauses until he had seen the deputations which he believed intended to wait upon him on the subject.

said, that the Two-and-a-half per Cent stock, one of the species of stock which it was proposed to invest the funds in, stood at a less value by three-quarters per cent than the Three per Cent Reduced, or Three per Cent Consols. The Terminable Annuities also was not a favourite stock. He thought that the Bill ought to be confined to its three first clauses, and that the other two were not consistent with the declared object of the measure. If the Government chose to diminish the public debt, it should be done in a fair and open manner and with the intention of discharging the debt. He had a very strong objection to misleading the country by falsely discharging the debt under the name of an annuity.