beer, it will be admitted that he could hardly have wasted so much money with less benefit to the community. Abundance of acid wines and plenty of paper—it is a curious prescription for Mr Gladstone to found his reputation upon. But Mr Gladstone is resolved to proceed in his eccentric course. His crotchet this year is to cheapen tobacco. Three and a half years ago (in November 1859) Mr Bright delivered two orations at public meetings in favour of the abolition of the duties on tea, sugar, and tobacco, and the substitution therefor of an enormous income-tax. But Mr Bright thought that the tea and sugar duties were more deserving of reduction than the duty on tobacco, whereas Mr Gladstone gives a preference to tobacco. How is this to be accounted for? On the surface it appears a new piece of financial eccentricity; and in every view of the matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we should think, will find no small difficulty in obtaining the consent of Parliament to his proposal. There can be no question that tea, sugar, and beer have each and all prior claims upon the favour of Parliament, if the wellbeing of the community is to be consulted. But Mr Gladstone, in the speech which he made when introducing his proposal, propounded the extraordinary doctrine that a Chancellor of the Exchequer (and of course the Government which must approve his acts) has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the community. His only duty, says Mr Gladstone, is to get as much money as possible out of the taxed commodities. Judged by this rule, Mr Gladstone has certainly been a most unsuccessful Minister. We cannot, indeed, accept this view of a Minister’s obligations to the country; but, even if it were accepted, it would not furnish any justification of Mr Gladstone’s proposal. He says that the present duty upon tobacco is so high that smuggling is carried on to a large extent, and cannot be prevented by the Custom-house officers. This would be a good argument for abolishing the duty or reducing it to a trifling amount, but it is totally inapplicable to the case when he proposes to leave a tax of five shillings a-pound on manufactured tobacco, which is more than equal to the price of the best manufactured tobacco, freight included. The smuggler would still make a profit of more than a hundred per cent on the value of the commodity; and does any one believe that smuggling would cease, or even be sensibly diminished, when the premium upon smuggling is so great, and when (as Mr Gladstone states) the facilities of evasion are so plentiful? If Mr Gladstone were honest in the plea upon which he rests his proposal for this reduction of customs-duty, he would be labouring under a great delusion. But we take another view of the matter. It seems to us that his real object is secretly to carry out Mr Bright’s scheme of finance, and with great craft he begins with the duties on tobacco, where his operations are least likely to excite