The Sun. — London, England, 1852-12-17 00:00:00

• residing in' Ireland, and yet there was no other differ ence between the two, for the Irish fundholder could transfer his stocks to the English funds when he pleased. and the owner of English funds could do the same with regard to the Irish funds. The rule laid down by Sir R. Peel was, that no deduction was to be made to the Irish fundholder when in Ireland, but when the fund crossed the Channel a deduction was to be made. It was with that exemption the Chancellor of the Exchequerproposed to deal. Then came the interesting and constitutional question of whether they ought or ought not to subject the 101. householders to the tax paid by the 201. house holders, and he had been unable to discover a shadow of argument during this debate to justify the Parliament of this country in exempting that class from the operation of a tax which was admitted to be a just one, which was ..-t:ablished because it was a wise mode of obtaining re venue, admitted of no evasion, and was easily collected. (Hear.) No clear or satisfactory argument had been off :rad to show that it was a constitutional thing that some 350,000 electors, holding political power, should not contribute to the direct taxation of the country. (Cheers.) The hon. and learned gentleman (Sir A. Cockburn) had said that they contributed something to indirect taxation. Well, but so did the 201. house holders ; and upon what principle were the 101. house holders to possess the franchise, and outvote the former, when they did nob pay direct taxes ? Upon what prin ciple was a large body of men holding supreme political power enabling them to tax other people—why were they not to be equally taxed themselves ? Mr. M'Culloch had been quoted upon this subject, and this writer, in the eonrse of his observations upon the house tax, made a reflection bearing upon the very point before the commit tee, recording an opinion, from which no unprejudiced man in this country would dissent, that he was unable bo apprehend why or wherefore the political fran chise was to be given to the 101. householders, while they were at the same time to be exempt from contributing to the house tax. (Cheers.) No authority could be quoted against this opinion, and if this, as he believed, were the great question now before them, why should 0% hon. and learned gentleman imagine that he would argue the committee out of their convictions by telling them that the 101. householders were so averse to the proposition, and certain boroughs so objected to it, that the members for those places would be afraid to look their constituents in the face if they voted for the increase of the tax ? This p; inciple, if carried out, would be a deadly blow to Par liamentary representation ; but he trusted that such re. presentations would not influence the committee, and that, if they were of opinion that the tax was a just one, they would vote for extending it, and would not be af fected by other considerations than by a sense of what Ava 3 due to their own judgment, their own self-respect, a4nl to the good of their country. (Cheers.) Lord DRUMLANRIG reminded the committee that the Scotch agriculturists, at least, had not been in the habit of publicly asking for relief in consequence of legis lative changes, and he would appeal to hon. members whether Scotland deserved to be singled out in order to be victimised by this budget, for the purpose of al lowing the right hon. gentleman to extend to some few and favoured localities remission of the malt tax ? (Oh, oh !) Yes, but he objected to an extension of the house tax to enable the Government reduce half the duty upon malt. Up to the present moment few farmers in Scotland paid the house tax, but now very few would escape either that or the income tax. The budget seemed to him open to great objection, and it should have his opposition. (Hear.) • Colonel BLAIR believed the budget as a whole had been favourably received in Scotland—at least it had been so in the county he represented, which was not one of the smallest in that country. (Hear.) He de nied that there was anything like compensation in the scheme beyond what the farmers had a right, in any re adjustment of taxation, to expect—(" hear, hear," from the opposition)—and he was by no means sure they would be satisfied with that. (Loud cries of " hear, hear," from the same side.) But this he could say, that the farmers would not begin the agitation. (Cheers.) Mr. G. H. MOORE said with regard to the consoli dated annuities a great fraud had been exercised some where, and the charge rested between the Irish candidates and her Majesty's Government. The gentle men of Ireland were indignant at this matter, while the landlords and farmers of Ireland mainly concurred with hint in the expression of opinion he was now uttering, and he had no hesitation in telling Irish members oppo site that if they succeeded in extending the income tax to Ireland they should never contest an Irish constitu ency again. (Hear, hear.) Hitherto they had suc ceeded in contesting the constituencies of the sister kingdom under false pretences and in canvassing Irish gentlemen under false promises, but he had this conso lation, that if they should be instrumental in carrying this budget it would be universally said in Ireland, and truly said too, that they had deserted the interest of their country for the purposes of faction. Mr. PEACOCK concurred with the spirit of' the resolution, but he reserved to himself the right of here after resisting its details if they were not amended. With regard to the extension of the income tax to Ire land, it was manifestly unjust to confine ib to incomes derivable from the funds ; it should be extended alike to land and property as well as the funds, He should oppose the repeal of half the malt tax, be cause it would injure the revenue without in any way benefiting the consumer. In fact, he agreed with the hon. member for Cambridgeshire, who the other day chanted the dirge of protection—and no more appropri ate mourner could have been found—and who, while doing so, took occasion to observe that any benefit the tai n era might derive from this part of the budget would be more than counterbalanced by the diminution in the import duties upon foreign malt. (Hear, hear.) So far as the house tax was concerned, he had no objection whatever to extending it to 101. householders. Taxa tion and representation should be made, as far as pos sible, co-existent ; and while the 101. householder was invested with the franchise, lie could see no reason why he should not be called upon to contribute to the house tax like his neighbour, whose rent was 201. a year. (Hear, hear.) There was an analogy between the posi tion of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and that of Sir Robert Peel in 1842. Both proposed to reduce taxation upon articles of consumption at once, and to leave it for the future to impose a tax like. the income tax or the house tax to make up the deficiency in the revenue. The plan was successful in 1842, and he firmly believed it would succeed in the present instance. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. BARING concurred with Sir C. Wood and Mr- Goulburn in thinking that the reduction of the malt duty would produce but little benefit ; that the surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very doubtful one • that the appli ca ti on o f th e i ncome t ax to t h e I r i s h funds was a breach of public faith ; and that the finances of the country would be left by the budget in a position not sufficiently secure. He discussed with considerable fulness the principles and details of the house tax, and then examined the proposed modifications of the income tax, pointing at various practical anomalies and incon gruities in their application to different species of in come, and he contended that, if there was an honest intention on the part of the Government to carry out their principles, the resolutions must be withdrawn and reconstructed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who was received with loud cheering from the Ministerial benches, said,—After four nights of criticism, conducted by some of the most considerable reputations in this house, on the propositions that I have laid on the table of the committee, I now rise to vindicate those propositions. (Hear, hear.) IS in the observations, which I will endeavour to condense as much as I can, I omit any remarks which have been urged against those propositions, I hope the committee will ascribe that negligence to inadvertence, and not to desiign. Having listened with all the respect and attention naturally due to such words from such lips, I can con scientiously say that I have listened to nothing that, in my opinion, has successfully impugned the policy which I recommended—(hear, hear)—and I am prepared to meet the objections which have been urged, and to show to the committee that those objections are entirely unfounded and illusory. (Hear, hear.) When, with the great in dulgence of the house on Friday week, I attempted to make a general exposition of the policy of the Government Toi,m, exhausting, lam conscious, the patience of the Louie, as well as myself—(hear, hear)—l endeavoured in the fulfilment of my duty to give, not estimates, but such information as was necessary as to the effect of the extra ordinary expenditure and the extraordinary resources that I anticipate on the revenue of next year and the year im mediately following, I did not enter into these details - which are necessary to substantiate the accuracy of what I stated ; I felt that at that moment the house was too (Aliartsted to listen to those details.; I felt that I should undergo the scrutiny of persons well competent to in- Widate that accuracy, if inaccuracy could be proved to must ; and I felt that I should have the opportunity, with the permission of the house, of answering such 7 t iticisms in due time. ( lean) I will, therefore, in the 4t Place, address myself to the estimate which I made te ''"allY as to the ef he effect o f th ese a lt era ti ons on th e revenue will two years which are under discussion ; and I taut aittli myself, in the first instance, to the two impor recoratasir : hi nt: of my course, and of the policy which I member for nalifnaxwere made principally by the right hon. that sum e f Acto cs i o And, first, I will address myself to ihents, I ree etma '__ which, under the name of repay :,,action as part or kotto the committee to adopt and to yob r. That proposed co w u ays and means of the impending I . %r i as at once denounced by the ri'.ht hon. member for thele gw...1:1 and in a tone somewhatviritY, and assailed in lan ounusual, certainly not very Pal !iamentary, by the right • his obuserv.mateimanber for Halifax ; for, liestead of addressing obsservtoar,'°ll, sir, he ad dressed, throughout hiss peech, hon. observation to myself. On a subsequent occasion, a right authority in this house—entered with minut o e great u :sl e s7n a a d with . the advantage which days of meditation withube cat gave him, into the same topic, enlarging upon it minnteness which was not observed in the attack of the rig - ilt hon. member for the University, and scorned by th e right hon. member for Halifax. • These three great autho rities have combined to influence the opinion of the con, mittee on the subject. lam not sure whether a third ex -Chancellor of the Exchequer has touched on it, for, unfor- Inna telY, I 'was absent from the house during part of the time he was addressing the committee. Probably, how however, he did not spare 'me any more than his right hon. friends have done. It is for me to treat the subject—if the committee will, as I have no doubt after these attacks it give me its kind and patient attention —L (hear , hers)—in a manner to show that the proposition I made brave a very different character and cm nplexion from what the committee has been taught to belileve. (Hear, hear.) There are two points in this subject befc.re the house ; first, .kru I justified in recommending that the ostablishment in question should be abolished ? Secondly, it,' I was justified ' in that recommendation, was I justified in recommending that the repayments should take their place in the ways Ind means ? These are the two issues in this matter be fore the committee ; I trust I have stated them fairly. I must advert briefly to the origin of this department of the Public Works Loan Commission, which on the former occasion I adverted to cursorily. I observed then that this department had its origin in circumstances exactly the re verse of those under which it now exists, and was occa sioned by causes which now no longer operate. At the Peace, there being a surplus population and a deficient ca pital, the labour-market throughout the country being sud denly disturbed, and the labourers let loose on society, the amount of unemployed labour being aggravated by a body of 200,000 seamen and soldiers all at once disbanded, the Government of that day felt it necessary to take some ef fectual and artificial means of employing that surplus population. It is not necessary for us to enter into any discussion as to the policy or impollcy of such a proceeding. Probably political economists might not approve of it— probably statesmen under circumstances so urgent, though they might not approve of it, might have been forced to have recourse to such a measure. But under that impres sion that establishment was founded, which, by the credit of Exchequer-bills issued by the State, raised money and employed that money in what is called " public works." That system went on for, I think, nearly 15 years. Nearly 3,000,000/. of Exchequer-bills had been issued, and those which had been so issued for that purpose were not *of so favourable a character in the market as the usual sup ply of Exchequer-bills ; and it was found necessary or convenient to terminate the system. In the year 1842, the point from which we depart, the account was taken of that fund. It appeared at that time that in round numbers the sum of 3,000,0001. had been raised by Exche 'quer-bills thus issued ; that of that sum 2,000,0001. had been paid off, and that 1,046,0001. remained at that time " unsettled," if I may use the expression ; and to close the transaction they were funded. From that period, by act of Parliament, it was arranged that instead of loans raised on Exchequer-bills, the same commissioners, for the same purpose, should receive a sum of money to the amount of 360,0001. a year from the consolidated fund. The sum which we have to deal with is 300,0001., for by a subsequent arrangement 60,0001., a portion of that sum, was transferred to the use of Ireland only for public works ; and with that I do not propose to deal. I hope to put before the com mittee clearly these dry details. Well, now, sir, the right hon. member for Carlisle has dilated in almost moving terms upon the benefit of that fund, especially to the coun try gentlemen. He has eulogised its good administration by the unpaid commissioners, whose respectable and re spected names he read to the committee ; nor should he have forgotten, though he omitted it I am sure only from inadvertence, to have recorded, also, the names of the re' spected officials connected with that fund, whose perform ance of their duties should not, I think, be overlooked at this moment, whatever our opinion may be upon other sub jects. I am willing to admit that as far as those unpaid commissioners and those sedulous officials are concerned, there are few blots in the administration during a long pe riod of that fund by them. On the contrary, I think they have deported themselves with unimpeachable assiduity and care. Sir, the right hon. gentleman passing on, has dilated upon the importance of this fund, especially to the country gentlemen. With this fund, according to him, bridges were built, union workhouses were erected, lunatic asylums And public gaols arose— Sir J. GRAHAM I said " workhouses enlarged," not " built." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—NV ell, en larged ; the right hon. gentleman may have the benefit of the correction. (A laugh.) Certainly he talked of that fund circulating to the constant advantage of the landed interest, and he asked, " If that assistance is withdrawn, what are they to do ?" "Why has he touched it," said the right hon. gentleman ; "not a single shilling has been lost - why has he touched it ?" Now, sir, of a fund of this nature there is one observation to make of an abstract cha racter, which should not be omitted. This fund proposed to offer to lend money at a higher rate of interest than the rate prevailing in what is called " the money market." According to the right hon. member for Halifax that was in order that the money market should not be disturbed. (A laugh.) The rules of the loan fund were these—that ashamed to say that I have been a member of Parliament during the time in which this instance occurred, and I dare say a vast majority were. Its date is from 1847 to 1850, and it makes me blush even at this moment. (A laugh.) Now, this is well deserving the attention of the committee, because there is no reason why almost this very night or the next night the same operation may not be going on—there is not the least reason why under this ma chinery we may not every week be voting 100,0001. of the public money without a single member being cognizant of it. The case which I will now call your attention to is that of Battersea Park. (Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, lam far from saying that it may not be the duty of the Govern ment to establish parks for the community. Ido not want to enter into that great question now ; but I think it is a question whether the inhabitants of the district should not at least contribute their quota, and whether it may not be perfectly legitimate, in a great metropolis like this, that the central authority should aid in a purpose which contributes to the ornament and health of the general population. (Hear, hear.) It is perfectly legitimate for the Minister to come forward and propose a vote of 150,0001., or even more, to make a park at Battersea or anywhere else. The house in such an event has the ques tion fairly before it, and may consider it in all its details, and if it sanction it, although the speculation may be im provident, and the object not worth the investment, yet no one can complain or the result. Let me inform the committee what occurred in the case of Battersea-park. A bill was brought into Parliament, as usual, empowering certain individuals to buy land at Battersea, and to make a park. A clause was put into the bill—not compulsory, mind you, but permissive—to enable the Lords cf the Treasury, if they thought fit, to advance from the Public Works Loan Fund such a sum as they might think proper for the ad vancement of the object in question. The projectors of Bat tersea-park, with that bill which nobody had ever seen, and that clause—(a right hon. member, " It was a public bill") —yes, a public bill, of course, but it does not follow from that that five persons in the house knew what was going on —(hear, hear)—they go the Treasury, and what occurs ? They have an advance from the Treasury of 150,0001. I don't ask who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer that sanctioned that, notwithstanding the interruption that was raised. That is a statistical fact ; and, of all the speculations that man ever engaged in, no speculation was ever so absurd as that of Battersea Park. The persons who undertook the enterprise were totally ignorant of all the circumstances with which they had to deal. They purchased a great deal of land, and made arrangements by which they left so slight a margin to the Government as a return that 20 years must elapse, even if they are success ful, before they receive any rents ; and the slight margin that is left will never defray the sum that is already due for accumulated interest ; for, mind you, they must be paying 5 per cent. to the Public Works Loan Fund all the time—that is to say, acknowledging a debt which they never pay. The interest is added up every half-year, and it now amounts, I think, to 12,0001. (Hear, hear,) Now, Sir, I will not go further into any details of other instances. I have only done my duty in bringing them before the committee. I have here in my hand, from the year 1824 till 1840, a catalogue of parallel instances, and the whole additional amount is very little short of 100,0001., every shilling of which has been lost to the country. (Cheers.) "Not a single shilling has been lost," said the right hon. gentleman. "Why has he touched it?" (Renewed cheers.) Well, I've given him now the " reason why "—(cheers)— and I think the committee will agree, whatever they may think of the further merits of the question, that in stopping a system so iniquitous I was only doing my duty as a guardian of the public purse. Yet this is the system which, according to the right hon. gentleman, is administered by Lord Overstone and lent to the country gentlemen—(loud cheers from the Ministerialists)—all for building lunatic asylums at 4 per cent., which the Secre tary of State tells you the county of Worcester can build at 3 per cent. In fact, irrespective of the flagrant circum stances which I have brought before the committee, time had virtually done that for the Public Works Loan Fund, which an indignant Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have done long ago. A loan fund lending at 5 and 4 per cent., founded upon the assumption that there was surplus labour and deficient capital in an age when there was a deficiency of labour and a plethora of capital, really had come to its natural end ; and that is the cause of those large balances which must necessarily be swollen each quarter by the increment from the Exchequer. They have, in fact with these rapidly accumulating funds, been led almost to force their loans upon the Irish railways. But here the Commissioners come into play, and take care that the security shall be of the best description. And that which has happened within .a very recent period will per haps astonish the house; but such is the effect of the pre sent, and I believe the permanent state of the money mar ket, that an Irish railway company that had asked for the assistance of a very large sum indeed, have announced they will not take the loan, because they find they have a good security, and can receive assistance in the way of an ordinary loan. (Hear, hear.) Under these circum stances, I felt it my duty to bring before the attenti on o f my colleagues the state of this department—(hear) —and I called to their notice, that not only was there this waste of public money, but that there was no security against its continuance. That waste, too, has taken place during a period of several years when you have not been able to screw up your courage to vote 150,0001. for a National Gallery—(hear, hear)—and we came to a conclusion that it would be a good thing to relieve the consolidated fund from this annual charge, and stop the machinery by which such a ruinous and unprincipled waste of the public money took place. (Hear.) Then the question arose, what were we to do with the repayments which every year came in when the issue was stopped, and which repayments I placed in my estimate at 400,0001. The right hon. gentle man the member for the University of Cambridge seemed to correct me as to the sum paid being 360,000/. ; but he confused the issue from the consolidated fund with the repayments in a way that, with his experience as a Chan cellor of the Exchequer, I was astonished to hear ; but the fact is that the annual amount issued from the consolidated fund is no measure of the amount of repayments. But the question arose, what were we to do with these repayments? Were we to pay this 400,0001. into the balance of the Exchequer ? that was the first question. It is of the utmost importance that the balance of the Exchequer should be high. That is a very great principle. But, after all, the balances in the Exchequer are nothing more than balances of the nation with its bankers, and the same rule must apply with a nation and its banker as with a private individual and his banker. (Hear.) Whether you bank with Messrs. Drum mond or with the •Bank of England, neither would allow you any interest on those balances. It is necessary. there fore, for the nation, as for a private in4ividual, to-have a good, ample, and sufficient balan c e ; b u t it is inexpedient to have an excessive balance, and the consequence has been that the highest authorities, those most favourable to re taining a sufficient balance in the exchequer,have laid down what may be considered even as a rule and regulation for the amount of such balance. There is a certain point which it is considered most inexpedient your balance in the Exchequer should surmount. The state of your balances in the Exchequer is this :—They had long ago arrived at that point, at present they exceed it, and have done so for some time. Ever since 1842, with the exception of one year of great, startling, and unexpected vicissitudes, the balances in the Exchequer have been very high, and higher than recommended by the highest authorities. The proof of that is that certainly, with the exception of 1848 and 1849, never, from the period I have mentioned, has there been any occasion to borrow money to receive any ac commodation from our bankers—that is to say, at the the end of every quarter, when the dividends were about to be paid, there has always been in the Bank a balance sufficient to discharge the claims of the public cre ditor, and leave a sum ample enough for all the contin gencies of the nation. Since 1849, with one exception, when I think a sum of 4001. or 5001. was paid for deficiency bills, and that only from a technical mistake, we have never been under the necessity of appealing to our bankers. The committee will then understand, that if the 400,0001. had been paid in to the balance of the Exchequer, it would in the present state of affairs have been just the same as locking up that sum in an iron chest—(hear)—it would have been immovable and unprofitable. (Hear, hear.) I must ask the indulgence of the committee while I enter into these details. Treasury finance is a subject with which the house is not very versant, but I hope the house will not think me presumptuous in attempt ing to instruct them upon it. I was not born and bred a Chancellor of the Exchequer—l am one of the Parlia mentary rabble—(hear, and laughter)—b u t I t rus t, a f ter all the observations I have made, it will be seen that I do know something on this subject. (Hear, hear.) I of fnr thefua g v h e t u favour Exchequer,not o f he4oobEe Exche quer, es think it is quite clear that the right h on . gen tl eman t h e member ashi f d o o rwi in to y a l o i u f t a h x teh w at balance as w h n e o n t 1. being e h in a g ve p says,quer The i s u n p p r r o o p e fi t r a b n g b n t t th o it r w h t h hon. ita g e t n h t i l a e , m — a i n t th reduce eme m t b h e e r d f e o b r t .'' the And un iv t e h rs e ity right f hoe. t ge t n o tle g m o an te Cambridge echoes that—and I am glad to hear that admission, because the Government think the same. (Hear, and a laugh.) In a recent transaction, 1,000,000/. debt was created by funding Exchequer-bills in 1842, and, therefore, say theright hon. baronet and the right hon. gen tleman, you ought to reduce the debt, both being against this sum being paid in to the balance of the Exchequer. Now, let us examine this question of the reduction of the debt. Upon this subject there is very great ignorance Pre valent in this house. I have been asked myself, " What do you leave for the reduction of the debt ? In your finan cial statement you have left nothing." The mode, method, and means by which the sinking fund is acted upon, and the public debt of the country is liquidated, does not de pend on the will of the Minister, or a vote of ^the H ouse o f Commons :it is provided for by Legislature. The law has prescribed the method by which you reduce the public debt of this country. There is only one way to reduce it, and the law has prescribed this—l beg the attention of the house, because this is a vital point—(hear, hear)—the law, I say, prescribes that every quarter an account shall be taken of our income and expenditure at the Treasury, the surplus shall be ascertained, and one-fourth of that surplus shall be instantly devoted to the liquidation of the public debt, or to the action of the sinking fund. It is nothing in the discretion of the Minister, or of a single House of Par liament ; the law is inexorable and imperative. It is totally impossible one can act on the debt and reduce it, unless you bring money into the ways and means. (Hear, hear.) It is only in such a way it can enter into the bal ance struck of income and expenditure, and that the sur plus can be ascertained, and one-fourth of the surplus ap propriated to the reduction of the debt. (Hear, hear.) And now I will show you how I have acted on the debt in the way in which I have recommended Parliament to deal with this 400,0001. of repayments. The house will assume, annual one. I will show the house how that year is an for the sake of my argument, that my surplus for the com ingsurplus will stand. The account or income and expendi ture is taken at the end of the first quarter of the financial year. The surplus is 400,0001. One fourth of that is im mediately devoted to the reduction of the debt. The same ceremony takes place every three months—the same action takes place on the surplus of 400,0001., and at the end of the year the whole of the 400,0001. is devoted to the reduction of the debt. (Hear, hear.) And in three years' time, all things remaining the same, and the repay ments entering into the Treasury, the whole of that sum of funded Exchequer-bills of 1,000,0001., and the accumu lat ed interest, will be liquidated, and the public debt reduced by that amount. (Hear, hear.) There is no other way of acting on the public debt or reducing it. By the course I have recommended I have put an end to a disas trous waste of public money. In the second place, I have relieved the consolidated fund from an annual payment of 300,000/. ; and, in the third place, I have laid the founda tion of a reduction of the public debt by that 1,000,0001., and:all its accumulations. (Hear, hear.) Then the ques tion assumes a very different character when this is ex plained ; but this is only an account of what I have done. Lets us see what great authorities have said on this subject. Hitherto, as I have put the case, the house may be of opin ion that I have acted discreetly or wisely, but unpre cedentedly. After the criticisms I have been subjected to before, let me inform the house what was the opinion on this subject of the highest authorities. In 1822 a select committee was appointed to inquire into the public ac cent its, and to recommend the means by which the keeping of ti tose accounts might be improved ; and to 'that-commit- 'or all undertakings in which profit was concerned 5 per cent. was to be charged, and for all undertakings in which nrofit was not concerned 4 per cent. only was to be charged. The first and natural consequence of any department lend ing money at a higher rate of interest than the natural rate of money market is, that the first-rate securities will not apply, for first-rate securities will not pay 5 per cent. or 4 per cent. if they can get their money at 34 per cent. ; and if your funds are employed the chance is that your security is second-rate security. (Hear, hear.) Well now, sir, I have here ample information as to the manner in which those funds were employed as regards the country gentlemen ; but I have no wish to enter into any details to show that in many instances those advances might not or ought not to have been made. At this moment the country gentlemen are not applying for any great amount of that fund, for the reason which my right hon. friend the Secre tary of State for the Home Department adverted to the other evening —viz., that they cannot afford to pay so high a rate of interest for the loan which is afforded them. (Cheers.) tat, sir, the objection to this department has nothing to do with the circumstances on the surface, to which the right hon. member for Carlisle has adverted, and only adverted. The question is one of a much deeper cha re.cier, and now, perhaps, the committee will permit moth inform them under what circumstances and by what rea son my attention was drawn to this loan fund. Sir, I found in revising the public accounts of the country a department, and a department of no great mark, with a very large bal ance of the public money unemployed, amounting, when it first attracted my attention, and I believe at this moment, to upwards of 380,0001., lying Reffectly idle. It is no doubt a rule, which I should think no gentleman opposite will impugn, that large balances of the public money lying idle are a feature which ought not to be encouraged, and which ought to be inquired into. But I found that with the large amount of balance there was a law in existence that per emptorily every quarter of a year increased it by the sum of 90,0001., less the amount paid to Ireland; and it became therefore my duty to inquire why so large a balance re mained unproductive—what was the object of that balance —what had been effected by that fund, and what might be the consequences of its remaining in its present state? The right hon. baronet said, in a manner which he did not in any way qualify—which, in fact, was almost the basis of his appeal, if not of his argument—that not a single shil ling had been lost—that under the innocent managementof those respected names which he appealed to, and those worthy officials whose services I have presumed to notice, the simple country gentlemen have been benefited—that that revolving fund had raised our gaols and enlarged our unions, and after 30 or 40 years' experience, not a single shilling mind you has been lost—" Why does he touch it?" (Cheers.) Now I must inform the committee that the right hon. gentleman, in the minute statementwhich he gave of this department, omitted all the most important facts. I doubt not, sir, that if a fund had been intrusted only to respect able unpaid commissioners of such habits of life as were re ferred to by the right hon. gentleman, devoted only to the worthy and laudable purposes which the right hon. gentle man described as the sole object of its investment, I doubt not that though there might have been an occasional job unconsciously perpetrated, and an occasional bad security inadvertently taken, yet that no very serious consequences would have elapsed. (Renewed cheers,) But, sir, with so convenient a fund at their disposal, there was another party to interfere beside the respectable commissioners, and the fund has been employed for purposes very different from those of my hon. friends near me—the country gentlemen of England. (Cheers.) With these large balances and funds another influence has interfered, very briefly alluded to by one of those right hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the subject. "We all know how convenient it is to the Minister," said the right hon gentleman, " to have at a par ticular moment such a fund at his command ;" and I will show the committee how convenient it has been to the Minister to have that fund at his command. (Cheers from the Ministerialists.) And I will show to the committee what flagrant misappropriation there has been of the funds of this country, and how immense an amount of money has been squandered away, virtually without the cognizance and control of Parliament, and entirely by the .machinery of this Public Works Loan Fund. Now, sir, "it is excessively convenient," says the right hon. gentleman. There are mo ments when even I, with my brief experience of office, which seems so much envied—(cheers)—when even I may experience the convenience of such a fund. Well, I don't know what I may come to ; but certainly, during the short period that I have had the honour of presiding over the Exchequer, I had not the slightest idea that I was to avail myself of such an opportunity. (A laugh.) This, now, is the way in which my predecessors have availed themselves of such opportunities. I shall hut the question simply before the committee, whether they think that a department ought to be encouraged for the reasons urged by the right hon. member for Carlisle, or whether I have taken a judicious course in attempting to terminate its existence. I leave that to the decision of the committee. Now, sir, let me explain how the Minister of the day,—l make no charge of any Minister of any party—my observa tions are general—bow the Minister of the day has availed himself of the public funds, virtually, as I shall show you, without the cognisance of Parliament, and how immense sums have been squandered without even the hon. member for Montrose, I believe, being aware of it. (A laugh.) Now, I take a case, and there are many other illustrations of the same thing. I take the case of the Thames Tunnel. Now, there is a body of ingenious men wll resolve to make a tunnel under the Thames. Well, it is a great triumph of scientific enterprise, and much to the honour of the Eng lish character, that such an undertaking should have been entered into without, of course, the slightest chance of ever getting the smallest interest for the money. It is only in England that such things are undertaken, and such enter prises encouraged. (A laugh.) However, there are mo ments when even the most enthusiastic in the enterprise begin to think that public assistance is required. Ap peals are made to the Minister. Those appeals are stengthened and supported by powerful Parliamentary in fluence. A bill is brought into Parliament on a sub ject which interests nobody, and it allows the undertakers of that public enterprise, the members of a public com pany, to raise money. Who of the 650 members has an eye on a bill of that kind ? Probably not five men in the house, unless they are directors of the company, are aware of it. That bill contains a clause permitting the Lords of the Treasury to advance from the Public Works Loan Fund a sum by way of loan to carry out the projects of that company. The bill is passed. Being passed the promoters go to the Treasury—l am now speaking of the Thames Tunnel Company—they go to the Treasury by vir tue of that clause. The Lords of the Treasury advance, by way of loan, through the machinery of the' Public Works Loan Fund, no less a sum than 250,0001. to the Thames Tunnel—(cheers)—not a shilling of which has ever been re paid, or can ever be repaid—(hear, hear)—and-en-which, I believe, only per cent., which is received probably as an admission f ee i n t o th e t unne l , h as ever b een g i ven t o th e Trea t - h urV. Now, what I sa y w ith regar d t o th e s y s t em i s is —lt is perfectiy open to the House of Commons to do that Which all assemblies and individuals have a right to do tunnellunildlus'e' asks the !it a great folly. If a Minister comes forward and of r Commons to vote 250,0001. to make a that 250,000/.,-ei,Z the object, and though you may think voti ng 2 50 3 0 Z f Thames, at least we have the glOry of and rational pu tbe employed in amore useful, elevating appealing to threPose reasont least there is an opportunity of ) Thlt and the sympathies of the house. ,0001.urilader this system no one is the least (Hear, hear. ltil3chth2eso country lent. Lent ! Yes, but how lent ? aware that 250 is of a loan. (Cheers.) Now, this It is a grant in the . sh a p e Ma and its accumulated interest try. I will give one more instance, and it i s one of recent interest. I am tee we are indebted, with scarcely any exception, for all the forms of public accounts that now prevail. What was the rcommendation of the committee of 1822 with regard to these advances and repayments ? That committee, formed of the most distinguished men, concentrating their atten tion upon this sole subject, specifically recommended that all advances and repayments should enter into the accounts of income and expenditure—(cheers)—and for six years the advances and repayments figure in the public accounts. It may be said there was another committee of public ac counts in 1828, and that they took a different view. That would not invalidate the high authority of the committee of 1822 ; it would not deprive me of the authority that the course I have taken is not unprecedented, because I have proved that it was practised for six years. But let us in quire what was the opinion of the committee of 1828. They recommended that it would be more convenient that advances and repayments should be kept in separate ac counts from those of the income and expenditure. But I am informed, wed I believe correctly, by a most distin guished member of that committee, that the recommenda tion did not arise at all from any difference of opinion in the principles brought into controversy on this subject, and they added this to their recommendation, that when ever the issues were stopped and the accounts were closed, then the general aecount was to be taken, and they were to revert to their old position in the public accounts. Well, Sir, I now approach the second great arraignment of my financial statement that was made by the right hon. mem ber for Halifax with respect to the grave mistake that I had made in the estimate for the year after next, as to the deficiency which would accrue to the revenue from the proposed semi-repeal of the malt duty. (Hear, hear.) The house will recollect that I placed in my estimate as the loss which I believed would occur in the year 1854-5 from the alteration of the malt duty the sum of 1,700,0001. The right hon. member for Halifax said the less on the malt duty must be at least 2,500,0001., taking, of. course, the most depreciatory view of the result of the re duction of the duty. He placed the duty as low as 200,0001., and he said, " You will get 200,000/. by your Scotch drawback, and other things, which will reduce the loss to 2,100,0001." Sir C. WOOD—I gavo you credit for 200,0001. Mr. DISRAELI—That is what I stated. (Cheers.) But the funds, the obstinate funds—(a laugh)—are above par, when they ought to be at a discount, and the national credit is good. (Laughter.) Now, when I brought under the consideration of the committee the subject of the re peal of the malt tax, I said that the Government had fol lowed in their treatment of that tax the recommendation of the Royal Comnhissioners of Excise Inquiry, presided over by . Sir H. Parnell, in 1832. The recommendation of those com missioners was, that in case there was ever free trade in barley, one-half the malt tax should be repealed, and that the Scotch and Irish drawbacks should be terminated. In the interval, since that commission sat, the Irish have voluntarily renounced their drawback. The commissioners further recommended that, when free trade in barley was established, and the malt tax was reduced to one-half, an end should be put to the enormous and preposterous system of credit given to maltsters. I said that we wished to follow the recommendation of those eminent men the members of the Excise Commission as nearly as possible • but we thought it hi g hl y i mpor t an t , i n f o ll ow i ng the recom mendation of the commission as to the reduction of the credit given to the maltsters, that the trade should not be disturbed. We felt that the whole system was 'vicious in principle and pernicious in practice, and that it was absolutely necessary to make some considerable change. That subject has been for some time under our consideration. Our object was to put an end to, or to modify, the system which grew out of circumstances totally different from those of the age in which we live, and, while we placed the conduct of the trade upon a much more healthy and satisfactory basis, not to disturb the trade. Well, assisted by those able gentlemen, many of whom, I dare say, are well known to members of this house, whose aid has been most valuable to me, we completed the plan which we con sidered to be right, but the effect of the new system upon which the credit of the maltster is to be placed, though, in my opinion, it will not in any way disturb the trade, will have an immediate influence upon the revenue. In the year 1854-55 there will be a sum of 600,0001. paid to the revenue, which, if this system were not reformed, would not be obtained. Now, what did I do under these cir cumstances ? Assuming that the loss from the semi-repeal of the malt tax would be 2,500,0001., I deducted from that amount the sum which, as I have just stated, was reported to me upon the very best authority as that which would be gained, and which would reduce the loss to 1,900,0001. Then the sum of 200,000/. taken from the Scotch draw back would further reduce it to 1,700,000/. ; and as I was not making a formal estimate, in dealing with a time so remote, I did not make any allowance for that increased consumption which was mentioned by the right honour able gentleman. (Hear, hear.) If I had made an allow ance for the increased consumption the sum would have been only 1,500,0001., according to the estimate of the right honourable gentleman, and if I had made an allowance according to the estimate which was given me by the highest authorities in the trade it would have been much less. But, as I have never made any estimate since I have had the honour of addressing this house, which has not been very prudential and moderate, instead of the sum which I was authorised to calculate upon, I only men tioned 400,000/. ; but upon the estimate I ofered to the house the other day, if I had chosen to take into conside ration the increase of consumption, which at so remote a period I did not choose to place before them, the surplus upon the year would have been 3(:)0,0001. The right hon. member for Cambridge University said that I had made another mistake with reference to the malt drawback. Now, in ascertaining the malt drawback, I look with great (reference to those gentlemen who have been Chancellors of the Exchequer, and who now rise and shake their heads at me. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) After all, there is only one way of carrying on the public business. When a question of this kind is put before us, we must obtain the very best information that we can get from the highest and most authentic quarters, and must exercise our own judg ment upon the facts placed before us. (Cheers.) Well, the highest authorities—men whose information upon this subject none can rival, and - whose intelligence and integrity of character none can surpass—men to whom I am indebted for their able and generous assistance, differing from me in political opinion as many of them do—(hear, hear)—united in recommending me to take one-third of the stock as the amount upon which I should pay drawback on the 10th of October, and the sum I was recommended to take, as a very safe estimate of the amount ' of drawback. calculated by those who are perfectly acquainted with all the principal maltsters of the country, was 880,0001. Well, according to my usual habit, I took -that 'amount a the minimum, and this is what excited the hilarious eloquence of the right hon. member for the Uni versity. " But why fix the 10th of October ?' said an hon. member on the other side. " Hero is the whole plot," said some hon. gentleman •, "if we can only find out why the Government fix upon the 10th of October, we shall be able at once to put an end to all this financial sophistica tion." (Hear, and a laugh.) An hon. gentleman who is a great accession to our debates—for I think it is a very fortunate circumstance in such an assembly that we should have gentlemen, on whichever side they may sit, like the hon. and learned member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), who has shown, on the rare occasions on which he has addressed the house, considerable information—seemed to possess on one point information superior to that of any other hon. member. I allude to the subject of brewing. (A laugh.) lam surprised that an hon. gen tleman who seemed so complete a master of the art of brewing, and who made so eloquent a defence of the sys tem of credit to maltsters, should be the person to ask why we fixed upon the 10th of October for the half-repeal of the malt tax. If I had been as successful with regard to my resolutions as I could - possibly expect to be, I calcu lated that it was not probable that the resolution upon the malt tax would pass before March, but the policy which I announced and recommended. in December would, if I had not proposed , a drawback, have completely paralysed the trade. It was absolutely necessary I should announce that the Government would give a drawback on stock in hand, and the consequence is that the trade goes on just as usual. The hon. gentleman who possessed such remarkable infor mation on the subject of brewing and malting ought to know that by far the greater amount of duty which is charged, and upon which the usual credit is given for 1853-54, is charged between October and April. Malting virtually ceases at the end of May, and I may say, indeed, that from May to October malting does not go on, but there is something that does go on, and that is brew ing. (Hear, and a laugh.) The brewer acts upon the stock of the maltater, and therefore, when you have to pay the drawback, you pay it in the most advantageous circum stances, when the malting season again commences. In fixing the 10th of October, then, I fixed a date which the highest authorities in the trade agreed was the only period at which the arrangement could be made. Now, I don't like to revert to a subject to which I have already re ferred, but the honourable member for Kidderminster said that he would look to me to mention a parallel case to one which he put as to the repayment of the 400,0001., and that he trusted, in my reply I should not forget his illustration. Now, in deference to the challenge, I to inform the hon. gentleman that my parallel case is this. I w ill su pp o se the case of a careful father of a family, o every of his expenditure and income, and devotes one-fourth of his surplus to the paymentf his debts, a portion of those th r ee months takes account d e bts being incurred by advances to his son ; but the son, when he makes the repayments, makes them into the hands of a banker, by whom no interest is given, and the father, instead of al lowing the money to remain there, takes it into his actu a/ account - when - he takes - stock for the three months, and. with the surplus contributes to the r eduction of his debts. I am sorry that this matter should have diverted me from the general tenour of my remarks, but after four nights' debate it is difficult to put every observation in its proper order. (Hear, hear.) Then there is another fault of mine upon which the hon. and learned member for Kidderminster is the great au thority, and that not only here, but I suspect elsewhere also. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Kafir war has broken out again. (Hear, hear.) Now, I made a state ment to the h ouse a fortnight ago respecting the prospects of extraordinary expenditure with regard to the Kafir war. I have formed my opinion on the subject of the Kafir war—with great deference to the dispatches which are received b y the Secretary of State—from the dis patches which are forwarded to my own department from a branch of the service under my immediate supervision and control—l mean the commissariat depart ment, a branch of the service which deals entirely with the extraordinary expenditure under the control of the Trea sury. Whatever the result may be, I must say that I be lieve the public funds were never administered by more able men than those who have regulated the extraordinary expenditure of the Kafir war in the commissariat depart ment. That department communicates directly with the Treasury, and, although the dispatches are mainly confined to the question of expenditure, there is sometimes a great deal of information conveyed in them in a less public and formal manner than in the dispatches received in other quarters- Well, upon the information which I have re ceived, which has never deceived me, which has justified me, at the commencement of the year, in not calling upon the house to confirm that vote of 200,0001., I made the statement the other night, that I believed the Kafir war was terminated. We have had more recent information, and I can t truly say that all the information that has reached Me has entirely substantiated the statement I made upon the previous authority. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") I have no hesitation in saying the Kafir war is terminated.. (Cheers.) The best evidence I have is, that the coma tissariat department, who are dealing with the extraordinary expenditure, the only one that figures in our estimate, are winding up their extraordinary accounts— (hear, hea r)—and they announce that, except for some casualties, they will not trouble me for any further ad vances. Hear, hear.) They give incidental details of the state c f th e country, which convince me that the war is finished. (Hear, hear.) In a war with a savage country, you cannot have peace suddenly and precisely ascertained, as you do -with a nation with which you have a treaty, or where you can take the capital, or where some incident occurs whie; h convinces all the inhabitants that the struggle is over. (He ar, hear.) A sort of flickering ember there may be ; and to the last an officer may be scalped, or some straggling as sassination may occur ; but that the Kafirs can now bring at ty force into the field I believe the committee may b© esti; fled is impossible. (Hear, hear.) It is not THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECF,MBER, 17, 1852. that several chiefs have surrendered—these things have happened before; it is not even that the Waterkloof is cleared, though that is important ; but it is that in the bush, in the Amatolas, the skeletons of the Kafirs are found ; it is clear that they have no means of subsistence ; they are lingering in the bush and dying. (Hear, hear.) Well, after my estimate, I thought it right to apply to the Secretary of State, and I said, " What are your dispatches? I have laid my estimates upon the table on the dispatches of my department ; but what are yours ? They may clash." The same ship that brought me information brought dispatches to the Secretary of State ; and here is a dispatch of General Cathcart. I will read a paragraph of it, if the committee wish; it is strictly in keeping with the subject; we are vindicating the estimate, and I rather think I ought to do it. (Loud cries of " Read, read") It is dated from Graham's Town, the 12th of October, 1852 By this report, and other events which are detailed in my dispatch respecting British K afraria, you will perceive that the war of rebellion may now be considered to be at an end ; and, as it has been attained not by any compromise or treaty, but by force of arms, and a severe moral lesson, by the dispersion and repulsion of the most powerful tribe from the natural strongholds which they long believed to be im pregnable, cannot fail to impress upon those who are consci ous of their inferiority in respect to these natural advantages the ultimate ruin and destruction that must be the result of rebellious opposition to her Majesty's authority, and there is reason to hope, provided that authority be duly supported by an adequate permanent military establishment"--(" hear, hear," from, we. believe, Sir W. Molesworth and others)—" that any similar protracted and expensive Kafrarian war may be long adverted." (Hear, hear.) I read that because it is a definite`annoimce ment. (Hear.) With respect to the "adequate military establishment," the hon. baronet need not be alarmed ; we shall depend upon the mounted police, which is a colonial force, and I think I may promise the house that we shall not have any increased expenditure on account of the war. (Hear, hear.) The head-quarters of General Cathcart are at Graham's Town. He has withdrawn two regiments from the seat of war, and I trust we shall soon withdraw others. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There is another point in the estimate which I ought to notice, which has been urged by the right hon. gentleman the member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn.) He said I had made no allowance for the loss to the revenue from the proposed permission for refining in bond. It is very inconvenient for me, at this moment, to refer in any detail to the subject of refining in bond. The refining in bond will depend upon certain conditions. I have pledged myself that those con ditions shall be placed before those most interested without being previously bruited about. I can only say, therefore, at present I do not make any allowance in my estimate for a loss on the refining in bond, because I believe not the slightest loss to the revenue will occur. (Hear, hear.) I hope the right hon. gentleman will be satisfied with my giving my opinion, and not press sue to go into any detail upon this point. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I approach, perhaps, still more serious subjects. It has been said that the house tax has been proposed by the Government in order to carry the semi-repeal of the malt-tax. Well, I admit that that is a very plausible charge ; it is a good card. (A laugh) I find no fault with any gentleman opposite who makes the charge. I know myself sufficiently to feel convinced that were I in their situation and their circumstances, it is very possible I should have made the charge myself. (Laughter and cries of " Hear, hear.") Nevertheless, though it be a plausible charge, a good charge to make, it is not a just charge. (Hear.) They have no connexion whatever in the origin of the measures which we have thought it our duty to recommend to Parliament. (Hear.) The right hon. gen tleman opposite informed the house on Tuesday night that I had promised the country a new system of taxation ; but he did not produce any authority for that important statement, and, generally speaking, when statements of such magnitude are made anthorities, are furnished. (Hear, hear.) I will sit down now, if the right hon. gentleman will rise and give me the authority. (Cheers.) It is very true that the lively member for Mid dlesex (Mr. Osborne) quoted a passage from my address to my constituents, which, certainly, was not merely made to my constituents, but to those in other places whom my feeble authority might. influence ; but if an opponent could have wished to assist the man whose adversary he was, he could not have done me more justice, or given me a better turn, than the lively and somewhat audacious member for Middlesex did. (Laughter and cheers.) I listened to his speech with all that pleasure which I am sure the house shared—(hear, hear) ;—I think it was one of his best speeches—(hear, hear) ;—but the passage that most delighted me was that which he quoted from my own address, for I had not seen that address for a long time; and, really, after some of these charges which have been lately made, I ar rived at almost a nervous state upon the subject. (Laugh ter.) What did I say there? I, who am charged with misleading the farmers at the election, and throwing them over afterwards—(hear)—l said that the genius of the age was in favour of the change that has taken place, that it was in vain to struggle against it, that they must find the means of meeting it in reducing the cost of production, and that one of the means of reducing the cost of produc tion, lay in reducing taxation. (Hear, hear.) And I am described as having deceived the farmers before the elec tion, and thrown them over afterwards—(hear hear)—and the right hon. gentleman says we are assembled here to re ceive the new system of taxation which I promised. Where is your authority ? Her Majesty's Government did all that they promised ; they did not promise a new system of taxation, but they did revise the taxation of the country. (Hear, hear.) The committee will, I hope, excuse my en tering into details. We gave to that subject a long, and an anxious, and a most impartial consideration. In review ing that, which I may call a colossal subject, the question naturally divided itself into many groups, if I may use a word now familiar to us. We had to consider those ar ticles that entered into the general consumption of the people, that were necessary for their healthy sustenance, and that were exposed to enormous imposts, such as tea and coffee. That was one subject on which we felt that it was necessary something should be done to meet the principle of unrestricted competition, now permanently established as the principle of our commercial code, and in order to assi milate the financial system under which the community live who were subject to the principle of a restricted com petition. We had to consider the whole question of the stamp duties with reference to those real burdens upon land—upon the transfer of land, which must sooner or later be dealt with —(loud cries of "Hear, hear")—and question of the utmost difficulty, which must also not long be neglected—the question of the legacy and probate duties. We had to consider whether it was pos sible to propose to Parliament a duty on succession, which, in connexion with the total reform of the burdens on the transfer of land, would be an equitable and just set tlement of the question, and one which was for the welfare of all classes. (Hear, hear.) That is what I may call a second group. (Hear.) We had, in the third place, to consider those Excise laws which exercise a pernicious in fluence upon the employment of capital and upon the em ployment of labour, like the soap and paper duties. The question of the assessed taxes, with the necessary reforms which they require, alone form a fourth group. (Hear.) We were obliged to consider the whole of our tariff with regard to our commercial relations with other countries, because there was an inclination in some countries to in crease those commercial relations, and we wished to en courage them. (Hear, hear.) These were five great sub jects, all of them demanding our attention, with all of which, sooner or later, a Government must deal • and we had to choose how we would commence this arduous en terprise. (Hear.) But there was a very important question also to consider when we took this general survey of our financial system—a very important question to settle before we could decide even as to the first step we should take—and that was the question how far we should prevail upon the country to fix upon that sum of direct taxation which was necessary for any . Ministry that attempted to enter into a career of financial reform. (Hear.) I have been accused by the member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) of making a proposition which recklessly increases the direct taxation of the country. (Hear, hear.) I have been Ac cused by the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham)—prompt in accusation at all times—(Cheers from the Ministerial side)—of pushing direct taxation to a rash extreme. In the first place, the proposition I made on the part of the Government, instead of recklessly increasing the amount of direct taxation, would not, if it passed, occasion so great an amount of direct taxati on as prevailed under the superintendence of the finances by the right hon. gentle man the member for Halifax, when he enjoyed not only the income and property tax, but the window tax, which, in the last year of its existence, brought him nearly 2,000,0001. sterling. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman, who says you must not recklessly increase the amount of direct taxation, reduced the amount which he received in its last year from the window tax, and was content with the modest sum of 700,0001. by way of commutation for the window tax. I cannot forget that the right hon. gentleman, who recklessly charges me with in -creasing the amount of direct taxation proposed first a complete commutation which would have made his house tax larger in amount than the one I have proposed. (Loud cheers.) But is this all? Is this all that has been done by the right hon. gentleman who charges me with proposing recklessly to increase the direct taxation of the country? Why, there is the Minister who with the property tax you have now, producing its full amount, with a window tax that brought nearly 2,000,0001., came down to the House of Commons one day and pro posed to a startled assembly to double nearly the property and income tax. (Great cheering.) I look on this con duct as indicating carelessness of consequences. I look upon it as the conduct of a man who has not well weighed the enterprise in which he is embarked. We hear of the duplicittion of the house tax—an innocent amount ; but if the right hon. gentleman had carried the duplication of the property and income tax, I think he might fairly have been charged with recklessly increasing the direct taxation of the country. (Loud cheers.) The most curious thing, however, is that the Minister who came forward to make a proposition, which nothing but the most grave conjunction of circumstances could have justified, at the first menace of opposition withdrew his proposition. (Loud cheers.) Talk of recklessness ! Why, what in the history of finance is equal to the recklessness with which the right hon. gentleman acted ? (Loud cheers.) And what was the ground on which he made this monstrous and enormous proposition ; a proposition which only the safety of the State would have justified him in making? When he was beaten, baffled, humiliated, he came forward to say that he hail sufficient revenue without resorting to that proposition. (Great and continued cheering.) e future historian will not be believed to be telling the truth when he says that the Minister came down nearly to double the income tax, and the next day came down to say that the Ways and Means were ample. (Renewed cheering.) But then he tells me, and not in very polished, and in scarcely Parliamentary language, that I do not know my business. (Great cheering.) He may have learnt his business. The House of Commons is the best judge of that. I care not to be his critic ; yet if he has learnt his business he has to learn some other things—that petulance is not criticism, and that insolence is not integrity. (Loud and continued cheering.) The committee will remem ber that in dealing with those five great groups of taxa tion to which I have called attention, and all of which I may say equally demanded the consideration of a Minister, we had to deal with the great subject of direct taxation. There was, indeed, the income and property tax in existence for a brief space. It was, perhaps, possible that the Ministry might have come forward in the House of Commons and obtained a temporary continuance of that impost. That is not by any means certain. But there were peculiar circumstances connected with the position of the Ministry and the property and income tax. Her Ma jesty's Government were of opinion that the time could no longer be delayed when the Government of this country must recognise a difference between the incomes which ac crued from precarious and from realised property. (Hear, Neer.) It was evident that such an acknowledgment acted upon must diminish the produce from that tax at a mo ment, when certainly we did not wisli our resources from direct taxation to be diminished. It is difficult I confess, to answer every observation that is made ; but another right hon. gentleman, who recently spoke, has been criti cising, I think before the appropriate time, what he calls my bill on the property and income tax. In the first place, my bill is not before the house. When he sees it, he may criticise it. We are placed in this position with respect to the points of detail which the right hon. member for Ports-1 mouth mentioned. We were perfectly aware, as nobody ti le posed this measure, but I do not say it will not au thin ], interest of the cultivator of the soil, any more tha, t het that by remitting the duty on tea I have not n o , of which I have no doubt will greatly promote th , i 3 ii wl d o rot the Indian occupier and of the China trade. 13 e for th e bring forward the proposition, in the first t h e advantage and interest of India and China. L t, O -1 , 5 1 • 3 1 ,„ s oil farmers-or even those odious beings the o wners 1 J Ist t he -(a laugh)-have the benefits of toes legislatioen4eri or th e same as you admit the manufacturer of Manch s the merchant of Liverpool to find in his transaction. of tee vantage of reducing the price of bread or the nric i fi e sr, to the wife of the poorest cottager in the country- L .4 e on' bear.) But I said this-Deal with the interest 01 " 0 le -1 sumer, and incidentally you will find that yol i a o L tive i e . clueing the greatest advantage to the great P r° told thsi terests of the country. (Hear, hear.) But I il h.sto dipg in repealing a portion of the malt tax, nlestly 1 have that I showed you in my statement how me b ,_ to i ts put the resources of the country, I 'l2 -3 1'n Tlie ,Ile a " the foundation the credit of England. on I credit of England depends on a farthing 8113n r poor man's beer? (Cheers and laughter.) ew ber , forget how that " weird Sybil," the right h o i n. muca is Cambridge, gave forth that solemn oracle. t _ ter.) Now Ido not think that any thrall; publiic justify personal appeals of that kind. He 8 . 9 : 5 ill° credit is in danger. Well, I don't think w e ar, public credit never was in a better positioi:o i ;i s tori hear.) I never remember any period in i ' 11 „,,,y of this country when her resources were, from ' - ih e or daily, so visibly increasing.. (Cheer s fr° n Y 7/ position.) I will not enter into the discuss o s r the cause was gold, the repeal of the corn 11! , w l ore crease of emigration : but, as to the last point,fr 0 • one. thing in the speech of the hon. member.. io minster to which I have adverted so much. from what quarter it comes • my business is noowcilt the attacks made on the G overnm ent, but Io be opinion of the hon. member for Kidderminster t as heretical on emigration as it is upon hrew ni t k i malt. (A laugh.) I repeat that lam very gi,ord him here among us, but all th e o pinions I h ave n : lo e him yet appear to be q uite unsound. (Che ers a I continue in that opinion. In the first plio'oceueiT' founded Ireland and England, though I, the diet) pains, and perhaps not necessarily-, showed ,uf a it between them the other night. As to Eugl s ' s.e • interesting to hon. members to quote a Ps. °l cr i ar4 letter written by the most eminent actuaricre , greatest statistical inquirer in England, whose 11,11'.,. knowif-to the hon. member for Montrose; thong:B6;i, think it necessary to mention it, which I 1 0 .",c_ e _ eg , s, reference to this subject. " The rate,' u° l l , ; , e oss,'' births and marriages has greatly increased innw' to - and I think emigration may facilitate th D g than impede it, - the reserve of prodinel..) which we have in this country." (Roars of lail,n_ g o• is a point I wish to bring to 'the attention o; member for Kidderminster. (Renewed laugher.°'iti ' lived abroad in a country with a sparse nolll,lhave has no idea of the reserve of producing pow, or W (Renewed laughter.) But he goes on, Y.°ll„tiss from the fact that in the south-easter n e 0 th e re married women of ages between 2 0 and 45„ ." _4,111110.°d, women of the same age-that is, f ro m 20 to 4 , r thst 39(ll of whom only about seven bear children n otwi . 0 the (Renewed laughter.) Now, I have confiden ce 1 , v ie' serve of producing power, which I think tenh4o3l with his colonial experience, had not givenwilieb to us for. With respect to the point tO w ent ie alluded, my opinion is, that the surplus re v o country will be very considerable at the 8 , 8 fol year 1854-55. But I look to other resourcx ..ed pol e. year than to increasing profits, or the inc re lthe bbo lation of this country, and I will mention wi? trnihe ri (Hear, hear.) I look to a great retrenchm ent expenditure of this country-(cheers) -a nd 00 to the committee allow me, advert for one in°lllo.o point. I believe that any great re trenchruen, t h lisliP e o r 4 . effected by looking to the efficiency of our e gv3 ol,l 'llO and trusting to the economy which is the VS' quence of that efficiency. I do not think it II hor e h oe the result can be reaped till 14-55. NO W ' thew , yok house will permit me, very sho B r s tly, to show ° Le ft illustration of a remarkable kind what is the,'" e i p le m oo ! , ministrative reforms conducted on the the pr ,B e ec on, ciency without any regard to what is called iner._, rei ie ,l I, in my estimate of the effects of administratilug. to u oe should have spoken of millions, but I am now g ° , o aati s i i o with an instance in which only thousands ° l. l . r re yo l l e te concerned. But the case I am about to lay be oi set` real case which, however slight the instance, Itbe lll o show the principle. It is due to my noble frien„, sal' ber for Buckingham (the Marquis of Chandos) I am entirely indebted to him for the case in qn t , t i o bee e s I may most sincerely say of him that, since he the service of her Majesty there never wa s °' b ii se? who devoted his life so completely to the P t ! i e piet il (Hear, hear.) In preparinc , the measures of reform, which I wished Co bring before the making a catalogue of all the establishments '' be attended to, I found in the report of the se , of 1848 upon miscellaneous expenditure, of whil hon. member opposite was the chairman, this -" Whether a reform might not be effec' the Chief Secretary's office in Ireland with th , cillor's office." That suggestion was made in I to my noble friend the member for Buckinglisi attention to this passage, and I said, " Will, land and will you take somebody with you ' your labours, and examine into this question Secretary's office ? But, mind you, mere ref not our object ; economy must be combined (Hear.) If more money is necessary you but go to Ireland, examine into the whole report to me by what means you can ren , more efficient, and let me know the require." Well, Sir, he went, accompanie d tarp of the audit board, one of the most it assiduous of public officers. (Hear, hear.) their inquiries into the Chief Secretary's offi. By the report of the committee of 1848 it whether the consolidation of the Chief Seci and the Privy Council office would not be My noble friend, however, effected a 1 not only of the Chief Secretary's office a. Councils', but of the Pines' and Penalties' ofil , deal with an annual cost of 21,7381. He office into the most efficient state that a in • be in ; and the natural consequence of its bei most efficient state was, that the cost of 21, duced to the sum of 5,1781. (Cheers.) Th effected by an inquiry conducted without a' sideration but that of efficiency, produced per cent. upon the original cost ; and yet - nothing can be done in administrative reforul' I must, in justice to any noble friend, netic, f , stance. His only fault is that he is of a too ret,i -1 4 • (Hear.) There are very few men more capab le vl st i , ing information to the house, especially 11 1 )1111 1 financial accounts ; but he takes refuge insto`' ‘ , l siiP„iic" . : domitable power of application to business for obr, already so distinguished. (Hear.) There WS, S tbe j , tion made, and apparently a very fair one, s 4l , of the Secretary at War, when the Militia 7 301 fer 2 ) .,," for an increase of staff. There was of cour se n - tar,bi e , siderable increase of duty in the office conseq u ' o cle new measure, and it was just one of those J whi, 4 ° might have been conceded heedlessly, and wilt ye cir one, upon a-superfi c i a l v i ew o f th e case, might „,, I ` 3 „ pr ij' 4t W " accorded. But I, h av i ng grea t confidence in ut'„ ti , t ) i l o of administrativ e re f orm , an d equa l confidenc ° ,," to °E lities of my noble friend, before I would ag re ,, ij ce e crease of expenditure in the office in consetlit„ t militia, which I should have witnessed with V-04003/0/ lingness-(hear)-asked him to appoint A c o d ,„tt which he did with the assistance of the Secrea a qtr Treasury, the secretary of the Audit Board, C l i eP ll ;sd' man once a member of this house, the resen t cretary of War (Mr. B. Hawes). They exani i ' ll t - e , 5 11 .4 o'',f ject and put the office into a most efficient 041 .,,itIrd`„ whole of the additional business is carried on," t he i fr fe l farthing of additional expense. (Cheers.) 1- „' l L iactr the Irish office, the persons employed were r` Ib:ti t, er 57 to 40 ; but, allow me to remind the house , pre ° ,:o L ,, , r, all this retrenchment, perfect efficiency . . ,05 ,„ 1 1 1 (Hear.) These are, some may think, min ill "tiou' but they are inst ances we ll wor thy of A te- with 14 11 Government' have been dealing, however , _„ o o l ll l, o, l l ''' larger instances. (Hear.) They have been 9 ":4,o o `'ef', deal with the great department of publi c e .,:,01 and, as the results of that attempt, I as the 49,.g Government, express our opinion that there 91 00 11 ; 0 v,f considerable retrenchment made in the publi c 10 1 ' and that this retrenchment may be brought to year 1854-55. (Cheers.) But, Sir, one thing is th 0 „ 1 ,: -that you cannot embark in an undertaking °f unless you have the fair support of the House, ° ,,,,, (Cheers from both sides of the house.) -c 4 . .fitli opinion is this-that it is not wise to grapple partment of public expenditure by co nunit_ i wil l iP`,o hear.) lam of opinion that you must deal "`bro l ''lf commissions-the same commissions that a l „r e g gli‘ bear upon the revenue department ; but, alt u ,. ° ;s - Inf ,) 1 1 1 have commissions and the royal sanction, it " L th e ~ f that the question should be fairly broughtber 9r 4 ;o l ili4 of Commons in the way of exposition, and th,.. 3 , - e s , have the moral sanction and support of that - 11 ,.° 4 - y.ing Le f hear.) It is perhaps the most difficult and ,01 a Minister can embark in, and unless he has, I is ce r s 4 Crown and Parliament to back him, failar e ,;ol l l o 4 . though with that support I think success i 5 ,1 1 ,9 -,, -e lj- 1"1 (Cheers.) Well, then,*hen lam told that 1 1 1 1 4 ' .4 ths i ii id) ground for my surplus of 1854-55, my answ e ..„ r ' foe lieve we shall have much.more than the s,,,tur n ot•J cursorily ventured upon in my general ataxy' a, AY, is q l you I have other resources upo n which I &I'l l , 9 ;1. I believe, with an ample surplus to begin I ` l - 1 0',';it fault of the House of Commons if in the year; thv a ti'li do not find their public service more effico n " n oirrot ll l, and less costly. (Cheers.) I think I hes t. ° euery objection of importance which has v e a coVii against the Government propositions. I hac e tion`li ll ,l tering into the question as to the unconstitu to', our conduct with respect to the income tax• t,(144 opportunities will arise for commenting u pon : l b I j be said upon this subject; and the house W;, 0 41 1 ,1e) come to a fair decision on the subject. .A.l""te minute objections have been made to poi n o t (I t ,o I have not stopped to notice these. I have,aiag bef yi to vindicate that part of the income tax re rf farmer's schedule. I shall be prepared to e've committee' the facts and reasons which 0 , 1 yt ol tie s o p us to take that course ; but I may st ll ' ° -,,i0 11 0 , ,,0 our only object was to make as close an aPPtbat- 5°01.4 justice as possible. And I will not vote for t ot deet;re if it is not the pre v ailing feeling of the ho use the fre-e just arrang After ement. I will not enter now int ° 0 tly of the hor• duty and thing s o f th a t ki n d. sch o f f a tracted a debate, and following so manysPn% e e - 11 01° .f e j mented upon so many points in the financis-iiiiet etw e s- Government, I hope the committee will fee l defe,bve°,3 o avoided some of those points it has been fro u ' e idie l "te them, and not from any wish of my own. tO r `¢er e "tol')lf' jest. nh I ( Ho ought, pßeruhtapsso,mtoe notice.advice be e„ e to ° ibeefdhieietir withdraw my budget. (Lauolter.) was ceilwrillP Pitt withdrew his budget, and that mo re Le I 4o t te0 ,,,; persons had done so too. (Laughter.) I N i i ",,. 11/ pire to the fame of Mr. Pitt, but I will not iz - s : sir degradation of others. (Loud cheers-) '''being t° iit seen the consequences of a Government net I,l° onr ll 11 pass their measures-consequences not h° ll „. v , 1 1 ° 0 0' Government, not adva,ntageous to the eotu l "'"t• to'ce - tir my opinion, conducive to the rePuta t i c l i o s-) 1 ,i' 1 4 which is most dear to me. (Loud c... --r ais j j e ber a budget which was withdrawn, t tA7 drawn, and withdrawn again-()augur{ tik e Q° veil sr 1848. Wh a t was th e co n s equence o f °ors° trot, existing upon sufferance ? What was the 00 bled the finances of this country.? Why, th at , i dow ° re A d . / 0 0' s ; tion respecting the commutation of the wm' t to r ti 1 0! duty, which now I am obliged to attereluf pa y „ o i s/Jo , ' The grievance is deeper than mere questi?e! 0, i m deration. When parties are balanced -wu cannot pass its measures-the hi g hest %ties , 0 5 ,, t ', life, the most important dogmas of Pl' this '''t• ,/ into party questions. (Hear) Look a'uetton direct taxation, the most importa nt q la ter : e we It is a question which must sooner or_ 15 , 0 f0i upon everybody's attention ; and I so t4 ° sYrapathiE ize t e med,' wit wde• taxes, the b l o ! q teinistr a ti ve 14 111 quire into ( 4 ?-tnpossible might treforrn wo Y I e4alition.es, (C vs,.) A. eoalitic i , LIO /Is, althou 4 6 their t r i un "peers.) i knowis I ; WhoseWhowhich 0 . d Wise an( 1 4 , e 'reos of Pt m oat august a e fabri of avi his seat amid 6 .414 A-bSToNE , obtain a hea :Prev ailed i n th "4( Mr. Patten, , ; 1 0 me that t 4 't Ought to l e t—(loud eh 91° ' the who had to make preparation on such a subject could be ignorant, of the anomalies that existed in schedule B. The right hon. gentleman and his friends will some day find in the records of my office, that I have not been negli gent in the consideration of that subject, which is one of the greatest difficulty. To frame a complete measure on that, or any other subject, connected with the property and income tax, would baffle the genius of the greatest man that ever dealt with finance. We have endeavoured in the bill and schedules to meet that difficulty. But it was im possible for me in December to offer an estimate, and at the same time place these schedules in the hands of the house ; and it was requisite that by the necessary alte rations made, the general financial result should not be affected—because the alterations were not only in schedule B. Under these circumstances I placed that estimate before you; but the committee will do me the justice to recollect I said that there would be an apparent deficiency, but that no loss would be incurred. I naturally thought an occasion like that was not the legitimate and proper timo of the year to enter on details respecting the income tax. (Hear.) I can assure the committee that, if I had thought otherwise they would have found that the question would not have been neglected. Whatever may be the result at which the committee may arrive with respect to the de tails, it will not change the financial result which I wished at that moment to impress on their attention. We had, then, to consider the great question of direct taxation. It is totally impossible—with whatever group we commenced —that we could embark on a career of financial reform which would be really efficient, unless we had an amount of taxation still including the income tax. What is the rule we laid down ? Instead of being reckless, or, in the language of the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle, ready to push direct taxation to a rash extreme, we resolved that the direct taxation on which we should , rest should be in amount of revenue inferior to that which had recently prevailed in this country, and which, since the repeal of the corn laws, had been cheerfully assented to by the people. Well, we had then to lay down two prin ciples connected with direct taxation. We had to assert that there is a difference between property and - income, a difference between precarious and certain income. We had next to vindicate the principle which we believed, and do believe, is a just one, and which, if not now, must ulti mately be recognised and adopted—namely, that the basis of direct taxation should be enlarged. (Ministerial cheers.) Having these two principles to guide us in de vising means by which we were to obtain the amount of direct taxation necessary for our purpose, we thought. if we applied them moderately, temperately, scientifically, and wisely in the measures that we brought before the house, we should be acting rightly. We believed that the difference which we recognised between realised and pre carious incomes was one which certainly did not operate on the excessive side of the scale ; but we believed that the recognition of that principle was one which would gratify the working millions of this country, and we believed also that in asking them to contribute to the revenue of the country, by extending the house tax to houses of 101., we were taking a course perfectly justifiable. (Cheers.) The question of the suffrage has been introduced into this debate. I candidly admit that lam one of those who do not like to blend the question of the franchise with a question of mere money ' • nor am I one of those who are so anxious to introduce this question of the suffrage into a discussion having relation to our financial system. If it be sought to establish as a permanent feature of our social system that there shall be created classes who are to exercise political power by means of throwing an undue weight of direct taxation upon the wealthier portion of the community, and an undue weight of indirect taxation on the working classes, I cannot imagine a circumstance more fatal to this country, or one more pregnant of disas trous consequences. (Cheers.) But of this I feel convinced, that those who will first experience the disastrous conse quences will be the privileged class. (Cheers.) There was one observation made by the right hon. member for Carlisle which I ought to notice. That right hon. gentleman parti cularly dilated on the hard case of that class whose income amounted to 1501. a-year • those whom he considered to form the most straitened class perhaps in the country, and who bore most of the brunt of indirect taxation. It was the same argument which has been used to-night by the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Southampton (Sir A. Cockburn.) Now, that subject has been investi gated by men who have devoted their lives to the study of these questions. It has recently been investigated by a gentleman who is what is called a Liberal, and who if he were a member of this house would, sit opposite to me--I mean Mr. —, one of the most able inquirers into these subjects of the present day, and, if any position has been more completely established than another as regards the incidence of taxation, it is, in my opinion, this—that there is no class upon whom that incidence falls more lightly than upon those who possess 1501. a-year. It is that class who possess property of 3001. a-year who bear the brunt of in direct taxation. That can be completely and most satis factorily shown. But we had on Tuesday night's debate a most doleful and piteous appeal made to the house upon the hardship of taxing poor clerks with incomes of be tween 1001. and 1501. a-year. The right hon. gentleman stated that 150/. a-year was exactly that point in the scale where manual labour ends and professional skill begins. You can recall to your minds the effective manner in which the right honourable gentleman stated this. (Cheers and laughter.) He showed himself, in my opinion, an unrivalled artist when he told us that this was the point where the fustian jacket ceased, and broadcloth became the clothing. (Cheers and laughter.) The right hon. gen tleman is one whose skill we must all admire ; though I do not so much respect him as I greatly regard him. (Cheers and laughter.) In deciding upon the incidence of taxation, no one knows who has not embarked in that terrible enterprise the labour you have to undergo, the documents you have to read, and the mental exertion you have to apply. I am sure, for myself that there has been nothing ever written on the subject that I have not had to digest. My researches have been ample, and among the memorandums to guide me and lead me, I have studied statutes and consulted records wherever they could be found. I hope lam superior to quoting Hansard, and all that sort of trash. (Laughter.) But I will state that among the documents, publics and official, which I read to guide me, and the perusal of which persuaded me, I found one which greatly influenced me. I found the Superannuation-tax Bill of 1834, which was drawn up and introduced by the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle, being one of those great and worthy efforts which the right hon. gentleman made with a view to the im provement of the administration of the country. (Cheers.) I found in that bill that the line was drawn at 100/. per annum—(cheers and laughter)—that the poor clerk under that sum only pays 2A per cent., while the poor clerk above that sum, though he may only have 1101. a year, pays 5 per, cent. (Cheers and laughter.) That was the reckless lal;our of the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle. (Hear, hear.) I know my deficiencies as much as any man in this house—probably more. But after all, what, I ask, is to guide us? lam perfectly wil ling to forget all that might be said in debate ; but when I get into office, and refer to public records, and when I look at a statute of the realm, then I suppose I am come to the calm, solid, and solemn conclusion of a statesman. Though I would not legislate upon a passage of a speech, yet I find dispatches and statutes to consult, then I feel that though opinions may change upon political matters, this is the better mind of the man, and, being the better mind of a most able man, I confess the reading of that statute did influence me in that very arrangement I had proposed respecting the poor clerks with regard to the in come tax. (Loud cheers.) And remember what has hap pened to the poor clerk since 1834, when this statute was drawn ; remember the reduction of taxation of which the poor clerk has had the benefit. Remember the repeal of the corn laws. (Cheers.) Look at the position of the poor clerk who had 1101. a year, and then had a double tax placed upon him by the right hon. gentleman ; and look at his position now to what it was then. I say without hesitation, that I do not believe that the condition of any portion of the labouring classes has been so much im proved as that of the class of clerks whose salaries range between 100/. and 150/. a year. Well, having believed that it was necessary, before we undertook the great labour which we felt it our duty to embark in, that we should have a certain amount of direct taxation to rest upon ; having determined that we would make this differ ence in the assessment in the schedule between realised and precarious incomes, which must inevitably reduce the amount of direct taxation from that source which our pre decessors enjoyed ; having believed that we had attempted to supply that necessary amount by our proposition with re spect to the house tax in a manner which was reasonable, which was just, which was on the whole most beneficial to the community,—which in its operation would ultimately tend even to confer advantages on those classes on whom the tax was to be imposed ; having by this measure, if suc cessful, succeeded in obtaining the amount of direct taxa tion which was necessary, but which was still inferior in amount to that which only two years ago had been enjoyed by our predecessors we had to decide upon which of the five groups of taxation we should operate. Recognising— I am obliged to repeat it—recognising the great and pT i manent revolution which has occurred n the commercial system of this country—recognising, as I have done, unre stricted competition as the principle on which our future commercial policy is to be based : and wishing to assimilate our financial to our commercial system, and assuming that we had obtained this amount of direct taxation to rest upon, we ultimately decided that it would be the wisest course to commence by acting upon those articles which entered most into consumption by the people, and that it would be for their salutary advantage, if we selected those articles which were subjected to the largest impost. (Cheers.) Now, that is the real history of the connexion between the direct and the indirect taxation, as they are both dealt with in this financial measure. Under these circumstances we were induced to recommend to the house the proposition which we have made with respect to the tea and malt duties. I think the house and the country have recognised the wisdom of the course we have pur sued. (Hear, hear.) At this late hour I shall not enter into any elaborate argumentation on the subject of the effect which will be produced by the modification of the malt tax. lam told, that if you reduce the tax on the con sumer, and only as a tax on the consumer—and to that point I shall advert presently, as being in perfect harmony with the principles laid down in our revision of the taxa tion on one article—to the extent of 2,500,000/. sterling, that you do not affect the price to him in the least, and that all the reduction goes to the brewer. (Hear, hear.) I remember when we used to discuss the effect of taxation on another article that similar observations were made. Ido not care now to remember from what quarter they emanated, but the effect and object of those observations was exactly the same. (Cheers.) Then it was, "Oh ! those villains, the bakers !" (Loud cheer ing and laughter.) You may reduce the price of corn— you may injure the agricultural interest—you may ruin the farmers and the country gentlemen—but you could not reduce the price of the loaf to the consumer. No, the bakers took it all. (Cheers and laughter.) Oh, yes. and there were the millers. The millers were worst of, all—they carried off all the reduction. (Cheers renewed.) Well, those arguments had a considerable effect, and there was such a prejudice raised against the bakers throughout the country, that I should not have been surprised if they had been all hanged in one day, as the bakers had once been in Constantinople. (Laughter.) It was said at that time that a fall of 4s. a quarter on wheat would not affect the price of bread, and we were told that the bakers, like the brewers, were a great monopoly—they were great capitalists—they were a kind of Freemasons, and, do what you would, it was totally , impossible in any way ever to get a cheap loaf, (Hear, hear.) And now—such are the vicissitudes of political life—now we hear the same argu ments from those who wanted to buy in the cheapest and to sell in the dearest market. (Hear, hear.) The great opponents of colonial imports—the members of the import committee—here we find them rail arrayed in favour of high taxation for the producer, and here we find them, with taunts to us, using all the fallacies which we at least have had the courage honourably to give up. (T remendous cheering.) Tell me Protection is dead ! Tell me there is no Protectionist party ! Why, 'tie rampant, and 'tis there. (Pointing to the Opposition benches. Great and prolonged c h eer i ng , and some ironical laughter.) They have taken up our principles with our benches, and I believe they will be quite as unsuccessful. (Cheers.) I must here make one observation. I say it is in the interest of the consumer, in complete accordence with the principles we laid d own in revising the taxation of th e country, that we have pro. )re at ,t chi MSS rhy a lubje An the 1 ph' rem Min 'PPM ren Les d )nomi mot sai( I c TOD tctly iety, ?ass be, area n lyself posit ‘urte: if son vail the COD lye tl b tha : ; tlll.l s :et aguter o tud f lmbl l iha . d t shhn h er, or jhl in ! octoh s hu s :i ( 4l .' intere o , 0 441 ,. t0 say to IT '4l'4l:lisle that he kti (Lona cheer ro ,,, e tilan that wha !~4--that he has " Vder a 1011, an th, "1°11 ) --- -that 011 • o , members uce in the e lt When coin (Loud I tt, •(L It; : 4 sing on frt to - al the v me us, a which of a se: ids. Ii positio ittee va: ropos iti, )ncled is oxte ter of t 1 and it Ler occa Lblo hoi to dew he MEM know i ve her( vast n Tder tl which )1 Pun passes 1 a libert amount Mee pal reduce ou ma. 3 iird rea that ipon any tee is en; , and I w t engaged in L'rroal duty. :! ,5 in the rule sttion f taxe , b• o . to Ject of that e( c a new tax. bi ti , 441 , and to giv i umittee whit h s' e w tax. (He( T e atlenaan speal , 4 °4 of those wl P itt —h e four y I tt—he is fres ', b V events of th ~ . 4°ll •Y Does 'Mire s to be ref I t v il e had. it decla e increase of 1 4 : ( 1 , • that by thi ,4 4 0 ( 1 . 113. t e h ;e n c , r b e T ar t acce , ue to an an lotion the tern . d vested it of i Oiled the pre t aken its stand 4 , 114 learnad ge ,V_Yself and my au, exercised. w ent I should W hich he spot; Cheers) —but 1 say with re, treat I never ] ' 5 '1,0141 demand " 4 1 not on all e i gilt hon. gent i l l, junelast yq t he Excheque. Was one not h 14 ''„ ,voPosals of tl advanced, ore W ithdrawn, a 'rank, the m s uspicion of e !Pection. (B 1 Ject the resoh Vote on the h, as a resolutio• l ' l , o Means pre have expresse Principle of a disadvantage , . 14 the difficu on a widened that shape fe t 2stem of the `otticulties a ' eitherto hav "° have been committee. ,Widened bey 4 . must say t cation for th Whether it v ItPon houses the notice of lected that (Illation was Vote for the tle n ,,, , w hi bier house i reasons why Whole, to I of the hen Portant qu, Of town a and the 1 3 is impossili and find ti one-half of that the wi under some tax as a gre Sir, there 1£ exposed by kouth. T ' rate of th . , grossly um 9 1 linowlef In London $, things bees the right 13 4 appears first hour 1 Which he 1 question— regard to l from the 1 solution o' of the whe ' nothi ng •L, although ] hours on c to tell us 1 and in sem xi:lent to d ' eensideral is necessa right hon for doubli tontlemai • 11 ° 10 50 tt: ia,lo ' acifootati r l ar oeoe i t i n e rci,rii e g ov cittiod:::0:1 ei :: :000 . . *4' ti it. trt : etilil e ,e ' l ic, . ~r , ‘,3,v1 lij a e o lu fl.au le l I(onttteClstth aheerihtrynteinheehtc)arweh!tt:lll. be vr , Lenin°. Kbether ' tle for 0 i rd from lice)—the ' tgl' ter . a . ' . e rap li i, e , he co- . 4f, ' II— \ a ~.lictioll he has a 11 41 13 . eareer_t I l__ eis ~1 . for ht hon, [ dadno„, '•{ °r 1 3 iv;;/ k'''' bor e d h e f g, try , ..„. 3 41.th eeo .h ' °llll o t.be r St a , ll , e4 all Fel ,aal ." ri elf stric .) /lit' Al ' P r nPrie be V II ' ' e l tre tre liar ~, sPttsf '` i : n a ;4 ' corm/ ' it l e li 1 le l fr i t h il 'II I, 46'11Y but I°o o PYPs tI : o er e . :a, ' effort Orr' # i who B°f odiep Ith 0 avail tbe r e. ' , _ ee l's and be r ' ' ta r t 13 0 k f to hay i t f er e ' lis 3 i lit k e , in h 1 '„f 0 0 ' the b [e v the Y those Is o f t i ri tn , for i ll 5, ~ ae): and car oel' ll it, - venceN i• pitoiri s trono th 4, 74 to Ca l ara lni 4 e ll o 'o befe r a boti ;,,re re - sevielicit.rearefAeti'l I.44Ohe°4firiBlit." C l lr ham roe° 0 1 " o' 14-`egllg ete d CO e i , 0 p r of ice'flplio ut th Innfit . s iol fre . eBB pro -bato c o extol] yotl.g a hat to floe L ev i is , othe r () ; I tr - eo ,1 1 ,130' w ith e f6 h , c i; i fi t j !„ 11 ,, °11 othE h 4ll "ge do 1 50 ° fi, (t oe 41 14. 3' free t th 1 1 : 1 :1 1 t o b e e r ir t i ,: i b f l e ti o rc ipr l o. i l T 11 1: b e h l w o It ofe hat 1 , 11 biej re are a flee ' b 4 0 ,„ 0 „ or g et 0 5 tieS! '1 0, k tilen t e ii,l 3 tjlber of b coil r s Ts t that r a nd tffebllolo is the [lee. tile O ce V ' c oo C l 'S' thes °I ai o I mbli t c ). ( n1 i P triay 1 1 73 81 ns . .00on oet th e th i of 14 8 '" -0 ) „, ( 4 (1.01)1 1 5 t ol l 9111 C l3Ce ir tO "P I rips , c t ll lloitteE tic° E D 4„ e° 2 lB e, at reiiin Or, 0 , trw eons /, .. tz,