the advertisement and stamp duties were abolished, the
loss of revenue would be so small as not to be put in the
balance against the advantages that would arise from
it.—The motion was also supported by Mr. W.
WILLIAMS, Mr. D. SEYMOUR, and Mr. J. PHILLIMORE.
—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave an exposition of the
state of the newspaper law.—Lord J. RUSSELL said,
the objections to the motion might be stated in a very
small compass. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
asked the house to suspend its opinion until Monday,
and he thought they ought to accede to so reasonable a
request. On the other hand, he could not wonder that
Mr. Gibson should have brought the subject before the
house. These duties all stood upon different grounds,
and he did not think that the term "taxes on
knowledge" applied to them. It had been said that the
stamp duty was originally imposed as a restraint upon
the diffusion of knowledge, and he did not think it
consistent with the policy of this country to impose such a
restriction; but, while he regarded this as a tax for
revenue, he was afraid, if it were removed, mischievous
publications would still exist. With regard to the
paper duty, he put it to the house whether it was not
premature to enter into a question which involved the
general taxation of the country.—Mr. DISRAELI
sympathised with her Majesty's ministers, having had to
consider this question when in office, and his colleagues
had thought that no time should be lost in proposing
the repeal of the advertisement duty; but it was the
opinion of Lord Derby that, on the whole, it was better
that it should be postponed until the government had
time to consider duties of an analogous character. Was
the house, then, justified now in dealing with the first
resolution? His opinion was that they were not justified
in dealing with all the three duties, considering them
in a fiscal point of view; he proposed to consider only
the first. What was the principal argument brought
forward by Lord J. Russell? Why, that no proposal
for the remission of taxation should be made before the
budget, and what success it would have afterwards the
house would decide. The proposition amounted to this,
that the administration of the day should have the
exclusive privilege and monopoly of proposing a remission
of taxation. Such a doctrine was most dangerous.
What chance had the house of dealing with this
important question if they lost the present opportunity?
He was ready to vote for the repeal of the advertisement
duty, as this was a policy he had been prepared
to propose to the house as a policy which he believed
sound and beneficial; he did not think the house could
advance the general question if this opportunity were
missed, and he recommended them to adopt the motion.
—Mr. J. BALL said that he would not join in voting
for the resolution with Mr. Disraeli, considering his
support not an honest one.—Mr. COBDEN presumed
that Mr. Gibson was in earnest, and desired to see
these taxes abolished, and he accepted the assistance of
Mr. Disraeli and his friends with all his heart. Upon
the general question, he referred to the evidence of the
large circulation of exceptional publications, contending
that, in the absence of the duty, the good cheap
publications would put down the bad.—Mr. J. M'GREGOR,
Sir J. PAKINGTON, and Mr. MAGUIRE supported the
motion, which was opposed by Lord R. GROSVENOR.
Upon a division the first resolution was carried against
the government by 200 to 169, the second was
negatived by 280 to 98, and the third by 275 to 80.

On Friday, April 15, Sir B. HALL reported that the
Tynemouth Election Committee had Found Mr. Hugh
Taylor not Duly Elected, on the ground of bribery and
treating.

Sir J. WALMSLEY called attention to certain statements
in a morning paper respecting an Alleged Refugee
Conspiracy, and asked whether it was true that (as was
asserted) the house of M. Kossuth had been searched
by the police?—Lord PALMERSTON said in reply;—" The
facts of the case referred to by the hon. baronet are, that
information having been received that there were in a
house somewhere near Rotherhithe—not in a house
occupied by M. Kossuth—a quantity of military stores,
and especially a larger quantity of gunpowder than was
permitted by law to be held even by dealers, a search
warrant was issued in the ordinary course by the magistrate
to the police; the house in question was entered
yesterday, and in it were found upwards of seventy
cases, closely packed, containing, apparently for
transmission to some distance, several thousand rockets, not
such as are used at Vauxhall, but for the purpose of
war. There was also found a considerable number of
rockets in various stages of preparation, and iron cases
which usually contained the combustible matter. There
were found 2,000 shells not as yet loaded, a considerable
quantity of that composition with which rockets are
filled, and 500 lb. of gunpowder. These things were
seized by the police. Who they belong to, or who were
the persons employed in making them, the house will
not, perhaps, expect me, in the present stage of the
matter, to enter into. These will be questions for
future consideration. But I think the house will agree
with me that the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, having been informed that there was
reason to think that such an immense quantity of
warlike stores were to be found in a private dwelling, was
justified in taking these steps for the purpose of taking
possession of these arms, and founding thereupon any
such proceeding which the law advisers whom he may
have to consult may think there is ground for taking.
l can assure my hon. friend that he is mistaken in
supposing that the government are acting in this matter
upon any pledge, promise, or engagement given to any
foreign government, except that given in the face of
parliament, viz., that we should use our utmost exertions
to enforce the law in this country, for the purpose of
preventing that shelter, which I trust will always be
given to foreign exiles who may come here from any
political cause whatever, being abused for the purpose of
organising or carrying on hostile proceedings against
other countries."—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE declared that the
statement, as regarded M, Kossuth, was a perfect
fabrication; and asked Lord Palmerston whether he did not
know that the house was no private house at all, and
that a Mr. Hale, who was a rival of Captain Warner,
had six years ago taken out a patent for the manufacture
of rockets, which he sold to foreign governments?—
Mr. BRIGHT asked further, whether there was at present
any reason to believe, upon any evidence before the
noble lord, that M. Kossuth was in any degree more
compromised in this matter than any member of the
Orleans party resident in this country?—Lord PALMERSTON
replied, that he did not know so much about this
subject as Mr. Duncombe evidently did, whose representation
he did not mean to dispute. As to M. Kossuth,
he was sure the house would be of opinion that, in this
stage of the proceedings, it would be inconvenient to enter
into further discussion. Without casting any imputation
whatever, he would only say that it remained to be
ascertained to whom the premises in question belonged,
and who were the persons chiefly concerned.—Lord
D. STUART said M. Kossuth denied all knowledge whatever
of the transaction.

The question of the third reading of the Jewish
Disabilities Bill gave rise to another long debate, which,
however, presented no novelty, the subject being
exhausted. Mr. CUMMING BRUCE moved the third
reading that day six months.—The Bill was supported
by Mr. Kirk, Mr. Sergeant Murphy, the Solicitor-
General, Mr. Bright, Mr. Fitzroy, and Lord John
Russell; and opposed by Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Child,
Mr. Goulbourn, Mr. Moore, Mr. Walpole, and Sir R.
Peel. On a division, the third reading was carried by
288 to 230.

On Monday, April 18, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER made his Financial Statement, the house
having gone into a committee of supply. He commenced
by laying before the committee the state of the public
account; and demonstrating that although the balance
of the income over the expenditure of the past year was
£2,460,000, the present available balance was much
smaller. He then went into an elaborate defence of his
own views on the income tax, in which he asserted the
importance of the impost as a temporary tax suitable to
emergencies, but one not to be tampered with. He
protested against the plan for capitalising incomes, and
showed the difficulties in the way of striking an average
between persons in the same class. He was strongly
against the perpetuity of the tax as a portion of the