The Sun. — London, England, 1852-12-11 00:00:00

THE _SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER ii decision and settlement of the matter, and he believed it would be a great boon to the country if they could settle this question at once. He thought the hon. member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) was perfectly right to take a division on his amendment, and, for his own part, he could only say he would be glad to see the matter decided. He believed there would be abundant money found by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet the wants of the country, and he (Mr. Hudson) thought that, by supporting the Government on this question, he would meet the views of eight, or, at all events, of ten commercial men out of twelve. (Hear.) Mr. WILLIAMS said, with regard to his own proposi tion, he would willingly accede to the suggestion of the hon. member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) and other hon. mem bers on that side of the house, that a distinct vote should be taken, apart from all other questions on the house tax. He should be extremely sorry if, by any misunderstanding caused by him, he should risk the loss of a single vote against the house tax ; therefore, he would withdraw his motion for the present, with the understanding that he would take the earliest opportunity to bring it on again. (Hear.) The amendment of the hon. member for Lambeth was then withdrawn, and the original question on the house tax read by the tHAIRMAN. Mr. MINN said he would not venture to trouble the house with any observations of his at that time, only that, representing as he did a large and important constituency (Bath), who had confided to him, though a lawyer, the honour of representing their wishes and views, he thought it his duty—disregarding his own private feelings—to ex press their views and wishes upon this most important and momentous question. (Hear.) It was his wish to give the Government a fair support in any measures calculated to advance the commercial prosperity of the country, and it was in no factious spirit he felt bound to give his most de termined opposition to the question then before the house. His reason for doing so was this, that the increased house tax was a tax not called for by the exigencies of the coun try, and that it would inflict a twofold evil—first, that his constituents felt it would operate unfairly and un justly upon them, and, secondly, that in it they felt their political existence involved, for they looked upon this mea sure as a measure of disfranchisement. (Hear, and "Oh.") Whatever might be said—whatever sneers might be cast forth upon the class who were called the 101. householders —he (Mr. Phinn) could say he never yet knew them back ward in coming forward—(loud laughter)—he never found them backward in their willingness to bear their fair pro portion of taxation. He had never heard any murmurs on the part of that class, except against unjust or extravagant taxation. Therefore, he said their voice was entitled to be heard on this momentous question. He would confine himself to that particular question, as the one which would'press most severely upon his question, were it not that it was so mixed up with the other questions of the budget, that it was impossible to discuss it separately. When the Government proposed to impose a new tax, the subject was entitled to ask, what was the public burden or political exigency that required it—were you carrying on an expensive war, or was there any deficiency in the Ex chequer ?He apprehended none of those existed—it was a mere question of shifting the burdens of taxation—a mere question whether one class was to be relieved at the ex pense of another—a question whether the poor and strag gling class were to have added to them a new burden of taxation, or whether those who were comparatively well off were to be relieved of their fair share of taxation. When Parliament was convoked, he (Mr. Phinn) expected from the large promises held forth, and the trumpet ings of the Government organs, there would be some at tempt made to lay down some plain and intelligible prin ciples of taxation. They were told that the Government now in power would be able to provide for all the wants of the State in a manner that would meet with universal ap plause. He thought the right hon. gentleman (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer), in his researches in financial science, had discovered something that had baffled the genius of Pitt, and escaped the sagacity of Peel ; but he found no such principles enunciated, no great problem solved. Nor had he heard that problem solved, if we were to have a system of direct and indirect taxation combined, in what proportion was it to be imposed ; and there was not, he should say, in the whole range of political science a question of greater importance than that—how far one was to be vigorously enforced o and how far the other was to be judiciously moderated. There was another problem which he had hoped would be solved : that was this— whether we ought to reduce the duties on articles of excise or articles of customs, and whether it would not be better, considering the impediments which the excise throws in the way of both producer and consumer, its domiciliary visits, and minute details, which are so distasteful to the habits and feelings of Englishmen, to get rid of it. (Hear, hear.) But he complained that the great fault of the budget was, that it laid down no new rules to correct the abuses of our commercial policy, but left the old difficulties still untouched, still unsolved, and contained no guiding principle. (Hear, hear.) With much of the right hon. gentleman's system he was disposed to concur, because it met the views of those on that (the Opposition) side of the house, who always said to those classes who were told at every market table and commercial assembly—the West Indian and agricultural interests— that they had great grievances which the right hon. gentle man (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would redress— who said to them that when the right hon. gentleman came into power they would be deceived, and now they (the Opposition) found they were correct, and had told those classes truly. With regard to the income tax, he (Mr. Phinn) quite agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that if he took off the income and property tax together, he must put a proportion of income tax upon property. But agreeing with him in many of his propositions, he (Mr. Phinn) could not agree to the taking off of the malt tax. That was a proposition to take off a tax and yet leave the same restrictions, the same control over the farmer, and yet leave all the evils of collecting. He believed the ex pense of collecting the malt tax would be six per cent. on the amount collected—(hear, hear)—and the reduction would not benefit the consumer a farthing a quart on his beer, so that the benefit would go principally into the pockets of the great monsters, the great brewers, and the publicans, and very little of it indeed to the labouring classes. (Hear.) With regard to the propositions of the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) as to the tea duties, it appeared we were to have a reversal of that policy which the late Sir Robert Peel proclaimed, that in estimating what parties were to contribute by direct taxation, we were to consider what classes were to be relieved, and those classes were divided into three by that great statesman, viz., the labourer, those in humble situations, such as clerks, and those who, having realised by their exertions a small property, had been accustomed to look upon it as a means of retiring in their old age. All this was now to be reversed, and in a double way ; because, if a _person had 1451. a-ye a r, an d hi s h ouse cos t hi m 151 . or Mk a-yea r , he would have to pay two t axes f rom w hi c h he was hitherto free. It had been said of the house tax that it was good of itself, He (Mr. Phinn) agreed that it was, if we treated it as an income tax • but if we did so, wh a t was the use o f a h ouse t ax, f or tha t only an income tax in another shape, and the worst of it was, it did not compass the ends proposed by it. If we took a scale, say of men pos sessing incomes from 10,0001. a-year clown to 1501. or 1001., we would find that the man of 10,0001. a year would not pay above 5 per cent. in his rent, as he did not suppose that any man of that income would live in a house above 5001. a year rent, at least in London. If we then came to a man with 1,0001. a year, his rent would not probably ex ceed 100/. per annum; but when we come down to their having on ly 100/. o r 1501. a year, t h ey would have to pay 15 or per cent. upon their income. Therefore, he said, this measure was an injustice upon the poor—therefore, he said it was, as a house tax, not graduated, more unjust than an in come tax. (Hear, hear.) He had said his con stituents considered this as a disfranchising bill. (Hear , and cheers.) O u t o f the 920,000 electors in all Eng land, , there were about 320,000 l i ving in houses of between 101. and 151. a year rent. He asked any gentleman, did he not believe that, if this measure became law, the tenants would not ask their landlords to make the rent 91. 18s., to escape paying 15s. house tax—a serious sum to a poor man —and would not the tenant thereby forfeit his vote?—for the first question the revising barrister would ask him at the regis tration was, did hepaythe house tax? and if he did not, that would be conclusive evideneeagainst him, and he wouldhave no vote. (Hear, hear.) It struck him (Mr. Phinn), and it struck his constituents, that this was a measure conceived in a double sense. They were told that the propositions of the Government were twofold ; first, to settle our com mercial policy ; and, secondly, to restrain the democracy. He believed the Government were now trying, by this measure, to disqualify those who were most opposed to them, and who constituted the strength of their oppo nents ; and to that extent, he believed, if this measure passed, it would be successful. (Hear.) If this measure passed, there would be an agitation by the 101. house holders, who would be joined by the great body of the masses, and the country would have to thank the Conser vative Government for all this. (Hear.) Mr. E. BALL thought the hon. member who had just sat clown, though being a professional gentleman, had not carried out his arguments with that clearness which might have been expected from him. The hon. and learned mem ber had stated that this measure, if passed, would be the means of disfranchising a large body of his constituents —the 101. householders—and then, to prove that it would be so, he said they had always been most willing to pay their fair share of taxation. (Hear, hear, hear.) If that be the case, how was it possible they could be disfran- chised, when they were only required to pay a proportion of that which was as clearly due from them as from any other portion of the public ? Why were they to ask to be exempted from that which all other classes paid ? Why, if they were to have the privilege of sharing in the election of representatives, should they ask to be exempt from their heretofo re , in the tax a tion ? And if, as had been the argument !leretofor e , that those who paid taxes should have a share in electing the representatives, why was it, now that they nieYeki that privilege, that they should ask to be exempt tr ry ei;i their fair contribution to the taxation of their coun tax - (R ear-) Hon. gentlemen declaimed about the malt Iner !s if its reduction was solely for the benefit of the fart the maitat !: it no advantage to the consumer of beer, or of those who r, or the brewer?—or was it no advantage to the inhatutaneZ large consumers of malt, who were chiefly f armer , eortain r the great towns (Hear, hear.) The to have had the TeeTtould have been much more gratified tax entirely repealed--(hear, hear)— from which a d ouble that of cheape n i ng ot tiv e rtage would have been gained— as getting rid of all the to a considerable extent, as well hear.) The con sumer expense of collecting the tax. (Hear, the present proposition. 1 rreive the greatest benefit of tie se first pl ace , th e grower of malt in this country was to sub to competition with the foreigner for the first time .was subject, also, to a great number of restrictions fro ' w l ll be free, and both these circumstances the forei g ner woul d for the benefit of the consumer, all malt t dert i l d work entirely sure very few hon. gentlemen were aware of exoHrbeitawnats urities whieh were required from ing to double the value of what they 3 el's, amount manufactured. One only fthemost extensive maltsters in the country h a d to . e Id him, only a few days before, that he had to find bondsmen to the amount of 50,0001.. The farmers had alway s b een lm to expect some relief with respect to the highways count and poor's rates ; not that they knew exactly how it wa s t; come, but, somehow, everybody was t o pay less, and th e total was to be greater. - (Laughter from the Opp os i tion) They had expected that thee Chancellor of the Exche quer would do something for them in that way ; th ey believed that that right hon. gentleman had some leaven of comprehension beyond other men, that by the exercising of his magician's wand he would be able to do something to relieve them. (Renewed laughter.) They certainly had looked for more than, according to appearances, they were to get ; but, did they therefore come forward to complain ? No, though they had every reason ; though the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the bud et was quite as much a boon to the other side of the house as i t was to them, they had not attempted to thwart the right hon. gentleman ; and, so far as he (Mr. Ball) was "'ll e erned ho never would advise his constituents to do so. I t was his firm conviction, after carefully going through and c on s idering the budget of the right hon, gentleman, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward a scheme which showed itself to be the concoction of a Minis ter, not of a party, but of his country. (Cheers.) It was a fair, equal, and just scheme, and bestowed upon all parties alike benefits greater than the inconveniences which it might entail. He should vote for the whole of it taken together • but, certainly, if any attempts were made to subtract certain parts from it, and to leave only those which were beneficial to certain classes, he should oppose them. As a whole, he repeated, he was prepared to accept it, as the best thing he could get, though he certainly had expected more. (Laughter.) Hon. gentlemen must remem ber that he had entered that house determined to fight to the last for protection, but soon seeing that it was impos sible to get it, and feeling convinced that so long as the house continued as it was, protection was done with, he had made up his mind to be an honest free trader. Protection was destroyed; and now he said, let us have free trade. He was for taking off the duties upon metals and manufactures of all sorts, in fact to carry out free trade thoroughly ; and he would ask hon. gentlemen op positewiHtehhthadeirliostewnnefdn,enhdsedwidetailit somewrth the farmers. to .dealr s surprise to that part of the very able and clear statement as confessed, they ha of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he stated that the importation of sugar this year had surpassed that of every other previous year. That was followed up by the statement of the hon. member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) the other night, that the colonies were in a more flourish. ing state than ever they had been before 1846. Why, if there was a subject on which he (Mr. Ball) thought he was clear and certain, it was with regard to the total rain and destruction of the colonies. His opinion on this point had been confirmed by accounts which he had had from mis sionaries, with many of whom—eye-witnesses of what they related—he had conversed, and who all bore testimony to the deplorable state of things now existing in our West India colonies. In conclusion, believing that the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would produce much greater benefits than he had ventured to prophesy from it, and hoping that the time would soon arrive when he would be able to come forward and repeal the other half of the malt tax, he should certainly support it. Mr. M. MILNES said he was sure that honourable gen tlemen on that side of the house would receive with great pleasure the adhesion of the honourable gentleman who had just sat down, and would receive him into their ranks as an honest free trader for ever. (Hear, hear.) With re spect to the subject before the house, he believed they were perfectly right in considering the budget as a whole, be cause, if it were separated into its different parts, they would be so unreasonable as scarcely to be able to come under the discussion of the house. The income tax, how ever, did seem to him to stand somewhat separated from the rest of the:budget, inasmuch as it appeared to be the opinion of the country that it should not, for the present at least, be disturbed. The question before the house to night was the combination of the repeal of the malt duties and the increase of the house tax, because, if these two points were fairly disposed of, he did not anticipate that there would be much difficulty in dealing with the rest of the budget. With regard, then, to the proposition imme liately before them, he believed that, if there had been a studied desire to re-open the contest between town and country, it could not have been more effectually carried out than by this budget. The class which they would provoke to action in the towns by this tax was the class which was most active in the repeal of the corn laws— which believed that it carried that repeal—and which would, therefore, regard the imposition of this tax as an act of revenge on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. He knew very well that that was a consideration which would never present itself to a Government framing a financial proposition ; but he was certain that in that light it would be regarded by many persons throughout the country. (Hear, hear.) He really must say that in his opinion the measures of the Government imposed upon those who be longed to the landed interest of the country a restraint rather than a substantial advantage. (Hear, hear.) It struck him that the case of the consumers had been dragged into the discussion in a very subsidiary manner; for of course it was beyond a doubt that the consuming classes were always advantaged more or less by every reduction of taxation, The question, however, which the house had to consider was, whether the advantage derived by the consumer was commensurate with the great sa crifice of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed. In the case of the repeal of the corn laws, the voice of the country had fully declared that the benefit conferred thereby on the consumer entirely compen sated for any sacrifice which had been made. That point was certainly at one time a matter of controversy, but hap pily it was now no longer so. If, indeed, hon. gentlemen were to argue that every advantage derived by the con sumer was commensurate with any disadvantage that might at the same time accrue to the country, it would be to force a conclusion utterly untenable. As regarded the repeal of the malt tax, he, for one, must say th a t h e was very far from regarding it with favour. Even supposing that its effect was to cheapen beer, it should be borne in mind that a very large portion of the people were totally unaccus tomed, upon conscientious grounds, to the use of fermented liquors. Indeed, the article of beer was already so cheap that it had been brought into a very general consumption; and, in his opinion, the reduction of the malt duties would only have the effect of enabling those who already consumed that article to partake more largely of it, rather than increase the number of those who drank it. (Hear, hear.) And this, he must say, he did not deem a very de sirable object, for the house was well aware of the very great misery already caused in large towns by the very large consumption of that beverage. The Government had no right to hold that beer was an article of primary necessity, in the same way that that term had been applied to the use of tea, coffee, or bread. (Hear.) It appeared to him (Mr. Milnes) that a very grave question was involved in the dis cussion they were then engaged in—a question the import ance of which might be felt for years to come upon the destinies of this country—it was the question of the com parative merits of direct and indirect taxation, a subject which had long occupied the ablest minds of the commu nity. (Hear.) He himself could remember when the advocates of direct taxation formed, as it were, a special sect in the country, and when these gentlemen were re garded as mere speculative theorists by all practical poli ticians. Indeed, it was once argued that, in having re course to direct taxation, the Legislature were receding in the march of civilisation • and Turkey —a country where direct taxation is in the fullest force—was cited in support of this view. On the other hand, it was considered by the earlier political economists, that by means of indirect taxation a large amount of revenue might be collected almost without the ratepayers being cognisant of the amount they paid. But there were those, too, who be lieved that indirect taxation naturally favoured a system of protective duties. And therefore it was that, when that system was abrogated by the tariff of the late Sir R. Peel, the income tax was imposed. He was quite sure that, no matter whether it be in the shape of an income tax, or a house tax, the people of this country were fully prepared to submit willingly to taxation ; but, then, they must not be called upon to pay more than their just pro portion of it ; and the question for decision that night was, what proportion ought they to pay ? (Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government were prepared to impose upon the country a system of direct taxation, but they should be most careful as to how far they would extend it. They had in their hands a most delicate instrument, which, if used harshly, wrongfully, or violently, would be anything but useful to them. So far as Parliament had as yet pro ceeded, they had only imposed direct taxation upon those backs very well able to bear it. But if the doctrine which had been propounded by . his right hon. friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer in his budgets of this and last year —a doctrine which, he was sorry to say, met with a very large acceptance in the house—namely, that direct taxation was something akin to confiscation—was to be generally received, he for one must say that the system of direct taxation would be carried to a point at which the people of England would resist it altogether. (Hear, hear.) To him it was a matter beyond all question that every system of direct taxation must admit of exemp tions ; and, subject to these, he was quite ready to see it enacted. For the Government might depend upon it that, otherwise, the difficulty of collecting taxation would be so great that the anticipated revenue would never be forth coming. (Hear.) Now, let him ask, was this doubled house tax and extension of the income tax necessary ? Hon. gentlem en m i g h t depend upon it that the constitu encies of the c oun t ry would be very imperative in their demands to know th e reasons for such legislation. They would be called upon to show how by such measures the springs of industry were set free, or the popular wealth augmented—to prove what advantage was conferred upon the people in return for the ill-accepted compensation to the landed interest. (Hear.) The question of the tea duties depended upon an entirely different principle. (Hear.) The remission proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to him to be a reasonable and prudent one, and one which he (Mr. Milnes) would have supported most heartily, coming from whatever Government it might. To the question of the income tax, he was ready to give his most earnest consideration ; and on this point he was willing to recognise the distinction which had been made by the right hon. gentleman between fixed incomes and incomes derived from trades and professions, and to accept what the common sense of the country had de clared to be rightful—(hear, hear)—and which he believed to be a very sound and tenable principle of taxation. (Hear, hear.) He believed th a t a very great deal of difficulty would be got over if hon. gentlemen would but make up their minds as to the proper principles upon which taxation ought to be levied. The main point, however, upon which he (Mr. Mines) approved of the dis tinction made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, that thereby a man's expenditure rather than his income would be taken into consideration. He should have been very glad if they had been enabled to approach the discus sion of to-night without seeing it demeaned by the intro duction of party contests. (Hear.) He did not mean to say that the Budget ought to be, as it were, a riddle at which a Chancellor of the Exchequer should be permitted to have so many guesses, a view which seemed to have been taken of it on some former occasions—(laughter)—but still he believed that it was impossible for a finance Minister in this country fully to understand what would be the effect of any proposal until it was submitted to the consideration of the public • and he was conv i nce d that any Mi n i ster that ignored public opinion would fail in his duty as a consti tutional Minister. (Hear.) Nevertheless, he must prepare the Government for the storm which would yet be excited in the country by what he must term a most injudicious budget. Looking it as a whole, he was bound to confess that it was most certainly calculated to re-open the con troversy between town and country which was so nearly closed. He should, therefore, be very glad if his right hon. friend opposite would re-consider the matter, and wait until after Christmas, to see the impression which his scheme produced upon the inhabitants of the towns. An hon. gentleman had alluded to the question of disfranchise.. ment: He (Mr. Milnes) entertained no doubt that many who now enjoyed the right of voting as 101. householders would willingly remove to houses valued at 91. 155., to avoid paying the small tax which it was proposed to collect from them. Though he was unprepared to say that, in any revision of the representative system, the principle of taxation and representation should be separated, at the same time he maintained that whatever was got out of the class who inhabited houses of 101. value, would be lost to the Government in the shape of excise duties. Looking at the whole question, then, in the light he did, he regretted that he was wholly unable to give his support to the budget of his right hon. friend ; and when he remembered the ex pectation which had been held forth to the public, and ab o ve ll by the right hon. gentleman himself, as to the e !'.ur e e of his great revision of taxation, he could hardly E2untbelieve ,v9ethat the present was the scheme he had in store. rybeavZ wished that the right hon. gentleman ' adhered to his is plans, and that he had fa voure d a scheme might some spAghtly novelty, even though such ex perienced and 9 encounter the opposition of the practical men of the country. (Hear, hear.) '‘ Mr. SAND,,A g Wat , nature of the new financi willing to admit the comprehensive al propo sa l ; b ut at the same time he was forced to confess that he could not concede his ap proval to it, though for different reasons from those of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. He (Mr. Sandars) • objected to the house tax, though, unlike the hon. member f or Pontefract, he saw no reason why such a tax should not in. dude even those dwelling in houses valued at 71. In his .pinion those who enjoyed the franchise might fairly be called upon to contribute to the revenue, and if those classes were unwilling to do so, ho, for one, was quite ready to deprive them of the franchise. He entirely objected to the reduction of half the malt tax. These ob jections he had urged on the occasion of the hon. member for the North Riding of Yorkshire proposing the entire reduction of the malt tax. He maintained, then, that such a reduction would afford but a very small relief to the agricultural interest, and that the sole advantage of its re peal would accrue to those great monopolists, the brewers. And as to the consumers deriving any benefit therefrom, he believed that the experience of the last few years, not withstanding the low price of barley, could prove that they would obtain none whatever. There was another ob jeckon to taking off this tax. By so doing they would throw a trade which had hitherto belonged exclusively to this country into the hands of the foreigner. Barley was an article that was only grown in certain parts of Europe, and from November to March or April the ports from which barley was shipped were closed. By the, plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer barley would be imported during the winter months. This would not, therefore, benefit the agricultural interest, becaused if it oaused an increased consumption it would come in the shape of foreign malt. But there was another objection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to leave on all the expenses of col lection, while he took off half the tax. He agreed with Adam Smith that no tax produced so large an amount of revenue, and was at the same time so little felt by the people, as a malt tax. But he had to consider whether good or evil predominated in the scheme; and although he objected to some parts of it, there were others which he considered a great boon to the country. He particu larly alluded to the reduction of the duties on tea, which he thought was a wise measure. It would increase our trade with China, and afford a necessary of life to the public at a cheaper rate. He thought, therefore, that the mode in which it was proposed to take it off might be im proved. He gave his most cordial assent to that portion of the scheme which recognised a difference, as regarded the income tax, between real property and uncertain property derived from professions. The distinction had been ad mitted for the first time in this country, and he wished the right hon. gentleman had carried it a little further. He wished the right hon. gentleman had not introduced frac tions of halfpence and farthings into the taxes he intended to impose. He objected to the doubling of the house tax ; and at the present time, with a largo surplus, he considered there was no occasion for it. There was another important question to be considered, and that was what would be the consequences if the right hon. gentleman should not be able to carry his Budget ? Constant changes in the Go vernment of a country like this were greatly to be depre cated, and he should be exceedingly sorry to throw any impediment in the way of the present Government. He should have been glad to have beaten out the bad and re served the good of the plan in committee ; but, as he thought the good overbalanced the bad, he had made up his mind to give his support to the right hon. gentleman. Mr. H. VIVIAN (Truro) thought the Budget had led to one great good, as it had entirely set at rest the great ques tion of free trade and protection, even more effectually than if the house had agreed to the motion of the hon. member for Wolverhampton. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer had made many steps in the right direction. The reduction of the tea duties was an important improvement -in our commercial system. The case of the shipping inte rest had been considered in a very enlightened manner, although he denied that any injury had been done to that interest by our legislation. He was glad that the right hon. gentleman had finally settled the sugar question. But, as regarded the extension of the house tax, he thought it was imposed on a class of the community wko were least able to bear it ; and, in addition to the evils which had already been pointed out, he was afraid it would tend to increase the building of houses of an inferior description in our growing towns. He should most decidedly oppose the increase it was proposed to make in the house tax in order that the malt tax might be repealed. Mr. H. DRUMMOND said he was little disposed to sacrifice any question that was under discussion for the sake of destroying or of upholding any party in that house, and he should be still less disposed to do so when they were entering upon what he might almost call a new course of taxation ; for he was sure, whether it was by the present Government or by any other Government which suc ceeded them, that the principles laid down in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were such as must be carried out by every future Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was the first time, perhaps, that any Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to take advantage of circum stances such as would enable him to do what he had done. He cast no blame on the Chancellors of the Exchequer that had gone by, but he said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done rightly to bring forward his measures in the shape he had, however much he might differ from him on various matters of detail. (Hear, hear.) But he thought it was somewhat amusing to see the extraordinary dismay of the ancient Free-traders, on the first appearance in this house of direct taxation. They all remembered a description in Milton of a personage of some power and notoriety, who, on seeing his own offspring, exclaimed— " Whence and what art thou, execrable shape, That dar'st to cross my way !" (Laughter.) This seemed to be exactly what those gentle men were saying, now they had arrived at that direct taxa tion for which they had been so clamorous. (Hear, hear.) It was really not a very difficult question. Direct taxation, in his opinion, had not been carried far enough by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. The sources of it were land, in the first place, funds, and houses. In his opinion, it ought to go over the whole extent of those three objects. (Hear.) Then there was to be another tax on incomes ; and let them observe, by this they would relieve all the professional incomes, because they would not pay the tax on property. It sounded perhaps very well, but the fallacy of direct taxation had been proved in a neighbouring country on a very large scale. The hon. member for Montrose shook his head, but there were gentlemen in this house who remem bered that, at the beginning of the French Revolution, in order to strike at the privileged classes, they abolished in direct and took to direct taxation. They would also re member that, at the very time when Napoleon was desiring to be chosen Emperor, and was inclined to flatter the peo ple, he declared that he must return again to indirect taxation, as direct taxation was totally useless. The ex pression of M. Thiers on the subject was remarkable. He said—" Ce steme, si beau dans la the o rie, si faux dans le principe," had utterly failed, and they were obliged to revert to indirect taxation. It was by indirect taxation alone that they could touch the masses. And whilst they held up, he would not say to public dis like, but in an offensive way, those classes which they called they aristocracy, let them be so good as to re member that the aristocracy, in point of property and number, were as nothing in the balance. They led the people to suppose that the aristocracy were a sort of diggings, and if they were well taxed, the rest of the pub lic might go free. (Laughter.) It was a total fallacy. Those taxes were the most productive which taxed the greatest number of consumers. The hon. member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) was the only person he had ever heard in that house who was consistent on this sub ject. He differed with the hon. member as to the end to be attained, but he had truly said both here and in his writings, " Give us direct taxation, for it will be so odious that it will never be paid." (Hear, hear.) If this princi ple were true, they ought, according to sound reason, to extend their house and property taxes to the very lowest scale, down to the smallest cottage. But if they did so, in troublous times they would never be able to collect it. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the malt tax, he never had advocated the repeal of that tax. But so far from its be ing a question between town and country, he thought it was a question between hop-growers, who never drank beer, and poor people who did. The lower classes now saw through the juggle. They .knew that the dealers in London were condemning them to drink blacking, which was called beer. (Laughter.) Those gentlemen who sold it always drank sherry themselves and when his poetic friend opposit e (M r . M. Milnes) said he was afraid more beer would be drunk, and it was not good for the health of the people, he was sure that worthy inhabitant ofParnassus — (laughter)—drank very little of it himself, and did not know what it was. It was, and ever must be while the present excise laws continued, a bad mess. There was no doubt that the repeal of the malt tax was an efficient mea sure. It was a step in the right direction, and how the economists opposite could possibly vindicate their principles from the results of the excise laws he knew not. He (Mr. Drummond) never did take part against any Chan cellor of the Exchequer. He did not care whether he brought forward one or ten Budgets during the year. He thought his hon. friend the last Chancellor of the Exchequer was by far the best they had ever possessed, and certainly neither Whig nor Tory did he ever remember whose calculations were so exact. (Hear, hear.) Why they all close to badger him so in the last Parliament he could not think. (Laughter.) He (Mr. H. Drummond) had always supported his measures. Of all the offices under Government there were more gentlemen in this house who thought they were qualified to fill that than any other office ; but so far as his experience wont, he thought it was the most difficult of all offices, and he never would oppose the Budget of any Chancellor of the Exchequer, let it be what it might. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. HEADLAM observed that the house was justified in assuming that it was now about to take into consideration the whole finances of the country. With respect to the house duty, he believed the country was opposed to any in crease of taxation, but more especially to one of so harsh and oppressive a character as an increased house tax. He for one felt more confidence in the first Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered on the Ist of May, than in the last. Upon that occasion the right hon. gentleman had stated that the surplus at the end of the current financial year (sth April, 1853) would, in all probability, amount to 461,0001. Since that time the Kafir war had been, most fortunately and unexpectedly, terminated, and the grant, of 200,0001., advanced on its account, had not been ex pended. Against the latter sum and the expended surplus, the supplemental expenditure of 600,0001., just granted, would have to be deducted, and thus the surplus in the Exchequer, on the Ist of April next, would only amount to a very small sum. He believed the reduction of the duty on tea would give satisfaction to the country. The duty on tea now realised very nearly 6,000,000/. per annum, but if the consumption were to increase during the next six years in the same proportion as the consumplion of sugar from 1846 to 1852 (33 per cent.), the duty would yield 3,000,000/. to the revenue. The present consumption of tea was now 51,000,0001b5. per annum, and if it increased in proportion with sugar, the loss to the revenue on 74,000,000 lbs. (the increased consumption being taken at 20,000,000 lbs,) would be 2,200,0001. The excise duty on malt now amounted to 5,000,000/. per annum, but the argument in favour of the increased consumption of tea did not apply to malt, for there was no reason to suppose the consumption of that article would increase. The revenue would also sustain a loss of 2,000,000/. upon hops, and taking all these deduc tions together, the total sacrifice to the revenue would be nearly 5,000,000/., and that, too, at a moment when we had to expect incr ease d expenditurefor purposes of national de fence. He did not think it would be safe or consistent with the prosperity of the country to jeopardise so large an amount of revenue, and he objected to the Budget on the ground that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to adduce any argument for supposing that the na tional finances would be left in a satisfactory state if his propositions were carried out. It seemed to him that they were about to take the malt tax off one class and put it on another. He was satisfied that, if such a proposition were sanctioned by a temporary majority in the house, the question would still remain unsettled. There would be a vast amount of dissatisfaction out of doors, and there would by no motions, year after year, for the repeal of the tax. The effect of the repeal of the malt tax would be to benefit the brewer only, as the consumer would never sensibly feel it. More than a hundred years ago, when Dr. Johnson was about to sell Thrailes Brewery, he said he was not there to sell vats and tubs and mere utensils, but "the potentiality of becoming rich beyond the dreams of avarice." He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would act wisely if he abandoned the increase of the house tax andthe repeal of half the malt duties. He readily agreed that the reduction of the tea duties was a most valuable proposition, and likely to be acceptable to the consumers. The expectations held out by the Government to the people were utterly false and delusive, for their scheme would not bear investigation, it was so open to objection. There was no legerdemain about the finances of the country; if one tax was taken off, and the deficit had to be made up, ano ther must be imposed, but then such a tax ought to be se lected as would press least on the industry of the commu nity. The wisest and ablest Chancellor of the Exchequer could not do more than that ; but what he complained of was, that a course exactly contrary had been taken on the present occasion. Mr. CAYLEY thought there was some inconsistency in the speech of the hon. member who had just addressed the house, because he charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with wishing to obtain popularity, and then went on to show that the propositions in his budget would make him unpopular. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member objected to the intended alterations, but he forgot that they were ren dered necessary by the neglect of duty on the part of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The great change in the commercial policy of the country ought to have convinced him that the financial policy ought to be accommodated to that change. That was not done, and it was one of the greatest blots, not only upon the Government of Sir R. Peel, who effected the change, but upon every Govern ment that had preceded the present one, that no attempt 0 0 0 f ked attempting unmoved was made to mitigate the sufferings of the particula r c l asses with the kind, anything a o f h kininjudr,etdh.e late Government Insteadl per fect calmness on the sufferings of their fellow-creatures. He confessed he greatly admired the statesmanlike, en lightened, and comprehensive speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that speech he took the recent com mercial policy into consideration, and directed his searching attention to the distress of the agricultural classes, with the view of probing them to the bottom, and discovering some mode of relief. If there was one thing which pleased him more than another, it was the vigorous determination which he evinced to institute the most rigid inquiry into every department of the State, for tie purpose of cleansing the Aegean stable of all the rubbish and filth which had accumulated in it for ages. He admired his character, and would still respect and support him. (Hear.) He (Mr. Cayley) deemed it most presumptuous detaining the house after the speech of the hon. member for Hertford, who enttrely expressed his feelings and sentiments on the state of affairs ; but, by way of appendix, he would advert to some points which he had omitted to mention. As regarded the shipping interests, he had never heard them dealt with in so masterly and able a manner as by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer ; and that not on obsolete prin ciples, but on principles recently adopted by the country. (Hear.) He had long wished that the grievances of that important interest should be met in such a manner. It was impossible not to feel that the majority of the house ap proved of the main propsitions contained in the budget. If the house tax became unpopular, it would be for a time only, as the people would soon forget their objections to it in the advantages the country would derive from the re peal of duties and other measures. (Hear, hear.) He was glad the right hon. gentleman did not touch the county rates, as a remission of twopence or threepence in the pound would have been a boon scarcely worth accepting. In his opinion the house tax was the best tax that could be im posed on income, as persons could not evade it as they did the income tax, and probably that was one of the reasons of its unpopularity. As to the reduction of the malt duties, it was always admitted, that if the corn laws were abandoned the malt tax ought to be repealed. Sirß. Peel had admitted that himself, for he said if the corn laws were abolished it would be necessary to allow the agriculturist to grow his own tobacco, and beet-root for the manufacture of sugar. The same opinion was also expressed by the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle. (Hear, hear.) The malt tax, however, involved other considerations. Licen ses from the Excise had to be obtained by the master, the brewer, and the retailer, and each had to abide by strin gent regulations. If the maltster happened to be found out in a disobeyance of these regulations, he was liable to a fine of 1001. for each offence, and was som e ti mes ma d e t o pay 1,0001. H e wou ld a s k how a manufacturer of stock ings, or any other article of that description, would like to submit to such burdens and restrictions ? (Hear, hear.) Yet that was what hon. members opposite called free trade and unrestricted competition. (Hear.) Let them see what was the amount of the tax. It was five mil lions, but in reality it cost the public much more---it cost them twenty millions. And this was considered to be a convenient form of finance. If the malt tax was repealed, beer would be a great deal cheaper. It was said, however, that keeping up the price of beer tended to promote morality. He believed that if the tax were repealed it would drive men away from the beer-shop, who would enjoy their pot more conveniently in their own family. He believed also that if it were repealed the produce of barley would in crease three-fold. The frauds on the excise were now ex cessive, and this in itself was an evil. They admitted there had been a fall in the price of corn since the abolition of the corn laws, and he believed that, by the repeal of this single tax—the malt tax—they would have the best and most legitimate remedy against the evil consequences resulting from the repeal of the corn laws. For himself, as an agricultural landlord, he was ready to cry " quits" for the repeal of the corn laws if this tax were abolished. The hon. member for Montrose had told them they ought to be more scientific in their farming; and the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) had told them to grow less wheat, and more barley. They were growin g less wheat, but they were prohibited from growing more barley ; and he was persuaded that, if this tax were repealed, there would not be an acre from Land's End to John o'Groat's-house, and throughout the whole of Ireland, which would not be equally benefited by the proposed relief. The hon. gentleman complained that the farmers in this country were not permitted to apply the potato in the way done in Germany towards the fattening of cattle. He next came to the house tax. He must ask why the 101. householder should be exempted from taxation ? If the window duties had not been reduced, there would be no necessity for the proposed extension of the house tax. The shopkeeping interest objected to this tax, but they, more than any other class, had received the benefit of the recent reductions of taxation. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown great consideration in not immediately extending the income tax to Ireland, because the state of that country, in consequence of the famine and other causes, was not so satisfactory as that of England. The budget submitted by the Government appeared to him to relieve a suffering class—a class loaded with exclusive and oppressive burdens—it appeared to him to contain a right and a just modification of the income tax, and to benefit the consumers by a reduction of the high duties on beer and on tea. Reject this budget, and they rejected the principle of relieving an oppressed and suffering class —theyrejected the extension of the income tax to that portion of Irish property best able to bear it—they rejected not merely the consider ation of relieving the oppressed agriculturist, but of cheap ening articles of general consumption. (Hear, hear.) He called upon the house, but especially new members, to re flect upon these suggestions. And, again, were they not to look at the future government of this country ? Who were to be the successors of the present Administration— (hear, hear.) Could a Cabinet be formed out of such in congruous materials as those he saw opposite ? (Laughter.) What fetters could bind them in unity—what fetters would not be burst—what fetters, if strong enough to hold them, must not cripple their action ? (Cheers.) They would have a budget from such a Government, of which they knew nothing, and from men of whom, if possible, they knew still less. It appeared to him that the country, acting upon its natural instinct and common sense, was willing to receive and adopt this budget—(hear)—he be lieved that neither the interests of faction nor the clamor of agitators could prevent the country frbm seeing and appreciating the merits of the bold, comprehensive, and masterly scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The common sense of the nation was in favour of it. (Cheers.) Sir C. WOOD—If ho agreed with the hon. gentleman that the common sense of the country was in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget, he should have scarcely thought worth while to discuss it ; but he took leave to doubt whether the common sense of the country had accepted it, or would accept it. (Hear.) He made no apology for discussing the whole of the budget, though but one proposition was before the house, for the whole hung together, and it was impossible to discuss one part without referring to the others. (Hear.) As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had disposed of the claims of what was termed "a suffering interest," he hoped this was the last time he should hear of those claims. (Derisive cheers.) The hon. gentleman had spoken of the shipping interest as a suffering interest, but for his own part, he (Sir C. Wood) could not see where that suffering existed. He had heard of the in crease of shipbuilding in this country, which did not show that our shipowners believed they could not compete with foreigners. From the very last return of trade and naviga tion, he saw that British shipping was outstripping that foreign shipping with which it was brough into competi tion ; and these facts and figures, patent to all, were pro duced by the right hon. gentleman opposite, who, he well knew, would not falsify them. He repeated there was no no suffering he could discover which needed relief. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman had proposed measures for the re lief of the shipping interest. He quarrelled not with those measures ; but the measures of the Government were for the relief of the foreigner as well as of our shipowners. It was quite right this should be done ; he approved of it on general commercial principles ; but, so far as enabling the British shipowner better to compete with the foreigner, he unhesitatingly said that Government had not done anything of the kind. Those duties which pressed most severely on British shipbuilders, and which most effectually impeded their competition with the foreign shipbuilders, Government did not propose to interfere with—the timber duties. (Hear, hear.) If they were disposed really to benefit the British shipowner, and to enable him to compete with, or outstrip the foreigner, the best course would have been to reduce the timber duties. The only benefits which were proposed were in accordance with the views of the late Government, expressed by him (Sir Charles Wood) two years ago. The next interest was the West India interest. He could not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way in which he treated the so-called claims of the West India interest. He would not now go into the question—it was fully discussed last night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his (Sir C. Wood's) views, and the views of the Government of which he was a member, upon this question. He admitted there was temporary distress on the part of that interest—sufferings which he lamented ; but the late Government had, by the advance of loans, taken measures to improve the condition of those colonies —a step of which the right hon. gentleman opposite ap proved. Those loans had been for the purposo of pro moting emigration to those colonies, ' and he was glad to learn they had been at least to some extent, successful. But what the late Government contended for was, and their argument had been realised by the facts, that by the aid of science, free labour would excel slave labour —would at least be enabled successfully t o co mpete with it. The third " suffering interest" was the agricultural body of this coun try. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen opposite had on a for mer occasion declared that that interest was suffering under peculiar burdens, and they claimed compensation for those burdens. Now, the right hon gentleman finding himself in the position of an English Minister, had done that which he was bound to do—rejected those claims altogether. H e trusted that, after this utter rejection of those claims, by their most able advocate, the house would hear no more of them. The right hon. gentleman had formerly, in terms as strong as the English language would afford, claimed com pensation for those burdens to the agricultural interest; but now, finding himself in a position of responsibility, he felt compelled to dispel the delusion. (Free trade cheers.) Yet it was with such language—exclusive burdens of the agricul tural interest, &c., that the farmer had been imposed upon, and no one could say that the condition of the farmers had not been injured—that the relations of landlord and tenant had not been embarrassed, by the continual enunciation of this language, and by the hopes held out for a remedy. (Hear.) He had encountered the right hon. gentleman on this question in 1849. It had been renewed in 1850 and in 1851. But now the right hon. gentleman thought it wise and just to regret the proposal for this species of compensa tion, and in so far affirming that the law of 1846 was "wise, just, and beneficial." The right hon. gentleman could not deny but the condition of the labourer and of the consumer generally was improved, and that the poor-rates were much less. He thanked the right hon. gentleman for those ad missions—effects which the First Lord of the Treasury and the President of the Board of Trade attributed to emigration and to discovery of gold in Australia. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in truth, acknowledged that the well-doing of the industrial classes, and the general pros perity of the country, was owing almost exclusively to "recent legislation," but which he yet was not disposed to vote as " wise, just, and beneficial." He would now pass to the measures which some hon. gentlemen were disposed to consider as boons to the agricultural interest. He was glad hon. gentlemen, representing the agricultural interest were satisfied with such boons • but they appeared to him to be of the most paltry ki n d. ' What benefit would the remission of half of the malt duty be to them, 'coupled with the free importation of f ore i gn ma lt ? What crop paid the best at the present moment ? Was it not barley ? What stock paid the best ? Was it not the stock fed on 'the same kind of land as that on which barley was grown, namely, sheep ? If upon any description of land no boon was required, it was that very land to which a boon was given. The hon member for Wakefield (Mr. Sandars), who was a supporter of the Government, had told them it would be next to no benefit at all, inasmuch as it was in the shape of malt that foreign barley eould be most readily brought into competition with home-grown barley. But while the benefit would be nothing, or next to nothing, there would be an immense loss to the revenue. The same objection applied to a reduction of half the hop duty. There would have been some sense in proposing to take off the whole duty, but now the advantage to the grower would be nothing. But was there nothing else in this budget which would affect the landed interest ? Local rates were, in fact, the diminution of the landlord's rent, and it would have been some boon to the landlords to relieve the land of local rates; but instead of that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his income tax scheme, lessened th e b ur d ens imposed' by the other schedules, but left the rates paid by the land owners as it was. He warned the landed gentlemen of England that they were about to have put on them a burden, the ultimate extent of which it might be difficult, nay, it was difficult to foresee, because no one could tell on what principlee the difference now made for the first time could be limited. He now came to the budget of the right honourable gentleman 'itself. The right hon. gentleman assumed that he would have a surplus of 1,350,0001., things remaining as th e y were . H e s t ates that the vote or the Kafir war will, this year, be less by 260,0001., which made 1,610,0001. He proposed to repeal half the malt tax after October, to lower the tea duties, and to relieve the shipping interest, which caused a loss of re venue amounting to 2,100,0001. To meet this, he had the surplus of 1,610,0001. from increased house duty, 900,0001. and 400,0001. being the repayment of loans made by the Public Works' Loan Commissioners. The result is, that to meet the additional c h arge o f 2 , 100 , 000/ ., h e has 2,500,0001., leaving a surplus of 400.0001. The right hon. gentleman i the member for the University of Oxford, early in the even ing, had objected to the budget in limine, because the sur plus was produced not from the year's income obtained from the taxation of the country, but by applying to ways and means a sum which was originally a loan. The pro cess was this—some years ago, in a time of distress, Ex chequer-bills were issued and the money raised on them, which was advanced to various parties with a view of finding employment. Those Exchequer-bills were paid off from time to time, and fresh Exchequer-bills issued until the year 1842, when a stop was put to the issue of Exchequer-bills, and the sums that had been lent out came back in annual repayments of 360,0001. a-year. It was provided that the Exchequer-bills, then outstanding, should be brought up with the savings' bank money, and, of course, remained a portion of the debt of the country; and the sums annually repaid were again advanced. Thus a kind of circular re volving fund was created of these annual repayments, and the commissioners were always in a position to advance money. The right hon. gentleman proposed to put an end to that, and he (Sir C. Wood) must express strongly his disagreement with the policy of such a procedure. It was true, as the right hon. gentleman had said, that money might be had at a cheaper rate, but it was part of the ori ginal policy of the grant that it should take a higher rate of interest, in order that it might not interfere with pri vate capital. Many of the most useful works in this coun try, and Ireland had been aided by these advances—gaols, workhouses, bridges, lunatic asylums, and similar buildings --the repayments being made in a most convenient manner. But assuming that the system be put an end to, what was to be done with the money henceforward to be repaid? The whole sum now amounted to nearly 3,000,0001., partly raised originally by loan, andpartly bywhat the Public Works Commissioners called their profit—being the difference be tween the rate of interest paid by the borrower and that paid by the Government. As to that part of the money proceeding from the original bonded debt, he never heard of its being considered a portion of the annual revenue of the country applicable to meet the annual expenditure. If an end be put to the system, the repayments ought to be devoted to the reduction of the debt incurred for the esta blishment of the fund. That seemed as clear as the sun at noon-day. To do otherwise was just as if 600,0001. were borrowed to create a fictitious surplus, and no honest man in the house, looking at the credit of the country, could say that that was a proper application of the money. (Cheers.) Then as to the ensuing year, the result of the right hon. gentlemen's statement again left a surplus of about 400,000/. entirely en Heshould t uon the money derived from the repayment of loans. like to ask the right hon. gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, with his knowledge of fi nance — w ith hi s op i n i ons of what' was due to public credit—if he had considered and approved this budget ? (Cheers.) Considering the state of prosperity the country was in, and what was now the state of the revenue, how could any man consent that the whole surplus should be created by a loan ? (Cheers.) And that not only this year, but for two consecutive years, and he knew not for how much longer. In saying this for the year 1854-5, he assumed that the calculations of the right hon. gentleman were correct as to the produce of the taxes ; but even with that assumption, such a means of cr ea ti ng surp l us was wholly unjustifiable. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gen tleman proposed to reduce the malt duty by one half, and as that duty at present yielded 5,000,0001., there ought to be a loss to the revenue by that reduction of 2,500.000/. ; but by some means or other,—by the increased consump tion which would follow the reduction of the duty, the right hon. gentleman seemed to suppose that the loss to the revenue on that item would be no more than 1,700,0001. Probably, the right hon. gentleman expected that that loss would be, in great measure, made up by the drawback upon malt, of which he proposed to deprive the Scotch dis tillers. A few years ago the Scotch and Irish members, in conjunction with the right hon. gentleman, succeeded in putting him (Sir Charles Wood) in a minority in favour of the retention of that drawback, and now, the right hon. gen tleman turned round unkindly upon his former proteges and proposed to deprive them of all advantage arising from the drawback system. Now, with regard to the large increase in the consumption of beer, which the right hon. gentleman anticipated from his proposed reduction of the malt duty, he (Sir C. Wood) believed that there were no grounds for such expectation. He (Sir C. Wood) entirely differed from the calculation of his hon. friend the member for the North Riding. Ho could quote the opinion of one of the highest authorities in this country on the subject of malt, against the anticipations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the effect of his proposed reduction on the consump tion of beer. This was not the first time that such a reduc tion had been made in the malt duty. It was a remarkable fact, that increased consumption did not necessarily follow a reduction of the malt duty. The malt duty was reduced in 1816, from 4s. s(d. to 2s. 2d., and the consu m pti on of malt fell from 26,000,000 bushels to 20,000,000. In 1819, the duty was increased, and the consumption likewise increased. (Laughter.) In 1821, the duty was reduced, and the con sumption likewise fell to a small extent. But the most im portant reduction was made in 1830, when the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that time every exertion was made to promote a consump tion of malt. The whole excise duty upon beer was re pealed, all restrictions were removed, the licensing system was extended—in fact, everything that could be done, consistently with the retention of a duty on malt, was done in order to increase the consumption of beer. Some increase, no doubt, did take place, but it w as on l y an in crease of from 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 in the first year after the reduction, and 31,000,000 in 1833. But it was a remarkable fact that, in 2841-2, the 31,000,000 fell down to 30,000,000. (Cries of "Hear, hear.") And now as to the evidence which was given by the gentleman to whom he had alluded, viz., Mr. Charles Barclay, before the committee of the House of Lords, which sat to inquire into the burdens on land. On being questioned as to the effect of a reduction of the malt duty, to the extent of 10s. per barrel, Mr. Barclay's reply was, that it would make the price of beer only one farthing per pot less. Now, did that result give the Chancellor of the Ex chequer any ground to hope that his proposed reduction of the malt duty would have such an effect on the price of beer as to induce the public to increase their consumption of it to even one-third of the estimate which he had formed ? According to the calculation of Mr. Barclay, the increase to the revenue by the proposed reduction would be, not 800,0001., as the right hon gentleman anticipated, but only 200,0001. If the income tax were adopted in the shape pro posed by the right hon. gentlemen, even according to his own showing it would yield 150,0001. less than at present. His surplus, as ho called it, co ns i s t e d o f a loan, and he had mis calculated his receipts to the extent of 550,0001. Now, even supposing he (Sir Charles Wood) was wrong in his calcula tions by 200,000/. or 300,0001., still the right hon. gentle man had a deficiency—and a deficiency, mind, created wilfully by his own legislation. (Hear, hear.) We were not in times of such extraordinary safety that we could afford to tamper with our means of revenue. (Hear, hear.) And that fact 'alone should be a reason to induce the house to deliberate much before they 'acceded to the propositions of the right hon. gentleman. If he, from the votes of the other night, could form any estimate of the true feelings of the house on the subject of our na tional defences, he believed that the house felt that one of our surest means of defence against foreign invasionwas not so much great military strength as the possession of boundless credit. (Hear, hear.) Now he thought the house would pause before they tampered with our revenue, which was so essential to the maintenance of our national credit. They - were told that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was to submit to the house some great phenomenon in the shape of a budget of an altogether novel and attractive description. Every one expected that the country would be delighted, if not by some necromantic operation on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least by a scheme which would please every man by putting money into their pockets, and would effectually prevent the taking any out. He (Sir C. Wood) wished he could say that such was the feature of the present budget. It seemed to him that money would be taken out of our pockets by this budget, whilst it put none in. He bore his willing testi mony to the ability and eloquence of the right hon. gen tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he certainly could not discover in this his budget any wonderful and new principle of finance': (Cheers.) The principles em bodied in the budget might be right, or they might be wrong—he would say nothing on that point ; but wh ere was that new and wonderful discovery in financial science which had so charmed the hon. member for the North Riding. The principle of this budget was the old thing over again—the reduction of indirect and the increase of direct taxation. That might be a right pririciple--he would say nothing about it ; but it was simply the taking off one tax and putting on another. Whil s t th e right hon. gentleman dealt with indirect taxation in a manner to benefit no one, he dealt with direct taxation in a manner that was needlessly oppressive. (Loud cheers.) He quite concurred with the right hon. gentleman as to the desirable ness of reducing the duty on tea. Two years ago he had a conversation with some gentlemen t ouc hi ng the remission of the tea duties ; but, considering the influence for evil which the window tax had upon the health and well being of the community, he thought it was his duty, in the first instance, to repeal that tax. R e f erring to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer's proposition as to the duty on hops, the right hon. baronet said that he (Mr. Disraeli) had made as many blunders as it was possible to make in so small a matter. The present duty was 2d per lb., and the right hon. gentleman proposed to reduce it one half, and put on a protective duty also of 5 per cent. Now, why were the hop growers to be troubled with that 5 per cent. in addition to the duty. It was a reasonable enough proposition on the part of his right hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn), when he dealt with all the duties, to raise them all sor 10 per cent., as the case may be. As to malt, he did not quarrel with the manner in which the right hon: gentleman proposed to deal with the foreign grower; but what will be done with hops ? 12s. per cwt. would be more than ample for any excise purposes, and more than treble the duty on foreign hops. Yet the right hon, gentleman proposed to levy 11.25. 6d. per cwt. (Hear.) And that was, forsooth, a carrying out of the principle of unrestricted competition, which they were told was the principle upon which the Government were determined to act. He believed that the reduction of the hop duties on the system on which the Government intended to re duce them would be inoperative of any substantial benefit to the consumer, and would si m ply cause a d ef i ciency in the revenue. With regard to the malt tax, he was sur prised to hear his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Cayley) enlarge on the hardships which the maltsters endured under the present state of things, and still more was he surprised to find him complaining of the great cost at which the malt tax was collected. The Commissioners of Excise, of whom Sir H. Parnell was one and Mr. Wycombe another, inquired most minutely into this subject some years ago, and reported that no tax was less objectionable than the malt tax—that it was less felt and less injurious to the community than any other, and that no other tax was collected at so small an expense, in proportion to the revenue derived from it. And with respect to the maltsters themselves, Mr. Taylor one of the most eminent of their body, declared, on his examination before a committee of the Lords in 1846, that they had benefited by the removal of ancient restrictions, and that as a body they were satisfied with the present condition of their trade. The tax was allowed on the best authority that could be cited, to be less felt and less inju rious to all parties concerned than any other that could be instanced ; and this being so, he must take leave to say that the right hon. gentleman had exercised a very unsound discretion in singling it out for reduction. (Hear, hear.) He confessed he participated *in the apprehension of the hon. member for Wakefield (Mr. Sandars), that if one half the malt tax were taken off, the maltsters and brewers of England would pocket all the advantage, and the bene fit to the consumer would be so small as to be scarcely perceptible. Surely when a Chancellor of the Exchequer was looking round to see what taxes he should remit or reduce, it was incumbent on him to select those taxes which were most objectionable. Such, for example, were the protective duties on paper, and the protective duties on butter and cheese. The duties on butter and cheese were avowedly and essentially protective duties, and greater benefit would result to the industrial classes, and indeed to the agricultural classes themselves, from the abolition of such imposts, than from the reduction of the malt tax. With respect to the income tax, he was of opinion that nothing could be more injudicious than the mode in which the Government proposed to meddle with it. Ono would suppose that their object had been to render direct taxation to which they professed to be friendly, utterly intolerable. They proposed to extend the income tax to incomes of 1001. a-year in schedules A and B—to funded incomes of 501. a year in schedules C and D, and to official salaries. They also proposed to extend it to Ireland, at the same time that they doubled the house duty. Was it possible that they could have reflected how numerous were the classes who by this arrangement would be brought under taxation for the first time ? There was no doctrine of finance which the present Government, when in opposition, were so fond of reiteratieg, as that the income tax ought to be merely a temporary impost ; and it must be in the re membrance of the house that by far the most skilful finan cier of their party, the right hon. gentleman the member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) had suggested that the first use which should be made of the surplus was to devote it to the reduction of the income tax. The present policy of the Government but ill accorded with that sound and judicious proposition. Small landowners, that class for whom the Government affected to feel the strongest sympathy, would suffer most severely from this notable project. A man who had 521. a year in land, would henceforward have to pay 30s. a year income tax, and he might think himself lucky if he escaped the house tax as well. In schedule C, widows and retired tradesmen who had saved up a pittance of some 601. or 701. a year for their declining years, would also find themselves brought for the first time within the range of this voracious impost. The injustice to Ire land was also most flagrant, and the inequalities of the system were nowhere more flagrant than in this counts/. The small shopkeeper in Dublin, the saviors of whose life were amassed in the funds, was to be taxed, while the great Irish proprietor was to escape nasealked. And that they called justice. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Chan cellor of the Exchequer had talked a great deal about the exemption from taxation that Ireland enjoyed, and he emplained that whereas that country ought to have con tributed 400,0001. a year in stamp and spirit duties to make amends for the absence of the income tax, she had only contributed 16,0001. a year, and in order to make good that deficiency, he proposed a project which at the first glance appeared moderate, but which in point of fact was most deceptive. But he (Sir C. Wood) predicted that the Irish members would not be so easily caught. If the present proposition were carried, the Irish landlord in the lapse of time would not escape. The egregious injustice of the case would be too flagrant not to call for a remedy. It would not be endured, that the inspector of police should pay the tax on his small salary, while the owner of the adjoining estate got off scot free. (Hear.) It was the insertion of the narrow end of the wedge, and the Irishman was a more foolish fellow than he (Sir C. Wood) took him to be, if he suffered himself to be gulled by such a scheme. For his own part he had never concealed his opinion that, regard being had to the present circumstances of Ireland, it was neither just, wise, nor politic to extend the income tax to that country. Circumstanced as she at present was, Ireland had a l rea dy su ffi c i en t b urdens, and it was the duty of the Legislature rather to develop her re sources than to oppress them by additional taxation. He did not say that the time might not come when it would be advisable to extend the income tax to Ireland, but that time had not as yet arrived. (Hear, hear.) Besides, the imposition of this tax u p on th e f un dh older, and not' the landowner of Ireland, was a gross breach of faith. When the right hon. gentleman imposed a duty of 7d. on those in schedule B, and sjd. on schedule D, did he know what property was in schedule B, and what salaries were in sche dule D ? In dealing with the Irish fundholders, he came into collision with an act of Parliament. What was the interpretation to be put upon that act ? (A voice—" It is a breach of faith.") That act prohibited him from impos inc, a tax on the income from the funds. This at least it said, "You shall tax all other property of the same descrip tion after the same rate, all incomes not temporary and pre carious." No one would contradict that, not the honour able member for Montrose or any other would say, if the funds were to be taxed, that all other incomes of a similar nature ought not to be taxed also at the same rate. Well, was there any reason why he who derived income from the public funds should pay 7d., and he that h a d hi s money in East India Stock only 511. ? (He ar , h oar. ) W as th ere any reason why ho who held an estate in England should be taxed at 7d. on his income, while large proprietors, like the Duke of Devonshire or the Marquis of Hertford, deriving princely fortunes from estates in Ireland, and spending them in England, paid nothing? (Hear, hear.) Ought he who held an Exchequer bill to pay 7d., and he that held railway debentures only 54d. ? (Hear.) That was the right hon. gentleman's scheme, and he did not hesitate to call it a breach of public honesty, a breach of public faith. (Cheers.) There was more in that scheme of his. The words of the right hon. gentleman were rather indistinctly put, but he understood him to say that far mers were to be allowed to put their incomes down at one third their profits, so that those who now paid on 1501. would put themselves down at 100/., and the income tax would be charged upon that. But, at the same time, he proposed extending the tax to all incomes of 1001., except tenant farmers, and they were to be allowed to put down their profits at one-third. (Cheers). That was an injus tice—it was a fraud—and it was ingeniously wrapped up. He would bring before the house another . piece of calcu lation, which was nearly as gross. The right hon. gen tleman, by way of giving a boon to the clergy, said he would relieve all those whose incomes did not exceed 1001. from the tax, and that that would cost the country 30,0001. Now, that sum of 30,0001. paying 5,/d. instead of 7d., represented income to the amount of between 3,000,0001. and 4,000,0001. (A voice—capital,, not in come.) Yes, income, because it was 30 , 0001 . at 2d. the difference of the rates. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--You have misunderstood me. I merely stated that the clergy with ncomes of 1001. should be exempted from the hardship of schedule A, and should be the same as a person in schedule D, with an income of 1001., and therefore should be en tirely exempted. Sir C. WOOD.—If he understood the statement of the right hon. gentleman now, he was still right, because the person with 1001. in schedule D would have to pay, and the clergy, he said, were to pay equally. Those with incomes under 1001. were exempt no doubt. As to the house tax, that was an impost to which he had never entertained any objection, and when he fixed the limit at 201., he did not suppose there was any virtue in that. The limit of 201. was taken, not because he was imposing it for the first time, but in substituting it for the window tax, he wished to extend the new tax no further than the area of the previous impost, and to raise no more than he had derived from the window tax. He did not object to the extension of the house tax, but reasons were urged against it, for it was said the effect of laying it on 101. houses would be to disfranchise many of the Parliamentary electors. He said he could not believe the axiom which the right hon, gentleman had laid down, again and again, that direct taxation must bo as universal as indirect taxation ; and, for this reason, because it was absolutely impossible. Indirect taxation pressed harder on the working man than on those above him, and to lay direct taxation on him also would be gross injustice. Mr. Mill was of that opinion, and thought that, by fixing such a minimum limit to direct taxation as now existed, the evil would be corrected. It was a judicious admixture then of direct and indirect taxation which was wanted, and it was, no doubt, a nice problem to adjust the proportion. (Cheers.) The alteration, however, proposed by the right hon. gentle man, would relieve the large capitalist, the merchant, and manufacturer, at the cost of the poor man and the small far mer, who were to bear an extended rate. (Cheers.) That was his regard for the industrious classes. (Cheers,) As to the house tax, if any one proposed to deal with it in the view of direct taxation, he must keep it light and popular. Increase that kind of taxation now to its nearly full extent, and when war arose, and it was. impossible to increase the indirect taxation, he should have no resource for the defence of the country. By putting twice as much in the shape of a house tax upon the people as they had paid in the way of window tax, they would not bo able to maintain it. But he would not detain the house longer at that hour of the night. (Loud cheers.) He felt convinced that the right hon. gentleman was dealing with the taxation of the country on a most vicious principle ; for, with 6 ,000,0001. of tea duty, and ,000,000/. of malt tax, he Was making reductions that would not produce any per ceptible benefit to the consumer, and was betaking himself to direct taxation as a substitute. He (Sir C. Wood) would say to the Government, let them give up the house tax and the malt tax—(hear, hear) — then they would have a budget which might be swallowed. (Hear.) They need not be ashamed of taking back their budget. (Laughter.) Let them take their Christmas holi days to consider what they would do. It was obvious they had not considered their budget, or that they recklessly abused th e k now l e d ge they . possessed. (Hear.) Nothing could be so bad as the budget they had proposed, which w s a h c r h fi c e e d n e a e a r r e a v g e e n d u e directwhich t a n x ob at n y w t wished tampered r t e o benefit with tbhye, credit of the country, and was a direct tarnish upon its honourable name. (Loud cries of " Hear.") On the motion of Mr. C. BRUCE, the debate was then adjourned Sir G. PECHELL presented a petition from tho High Constable of Brighton, on behalf of an association for pro curing a charter of Incorporation for that town, praying to be exempt from the schedule of assessment. The petition was received, and at the suggestion of Lord J. MANNERS, its consideration was ordered to be deferred till after tho Christmas recess. The house then, at 25 minutes to one, adjourned. 1852. MARKET INTELLIGENCE• (From the London New Price Current of SUGAR.- To-day there was only a limited de' West India sugar from either grocers or refiners , ' close generally the same as on Friday last. - 130, making for the week 822 hhds, REFINED. - Production of Refined Suga r dealers' wants, a further reduction has taken lower sorts are least request. Sales have bee n , O w l ` t o scale ;_ brown lumps are 43s 6d to 44s ; titlersq ° , o o, 44s Od to 48s 6d, double, 49 s t o 50 s ; Hombre to 495, double, 50s to 51s ; and Standard lumps, cwt. Few contracts h ave b een e ntered in to I ivery, yet few parties are i nc li ne d t o sell at pro s e ll ._ To-day refined sugar was p urc h ase d more freely ; consumption, yet brown l um p s wer e obtainable and low to fine grocery 44s to 47s per cwt. MAITRITIUS.-To-day previous rates were Mauritius Sugar, but little was done privately was no public sale. A cargo of Mauritius off the; s, partly of the new crop, has been sold for Bride' per cwt. EAST INDIA.- Ana bags This afternoon Only r at sugar were offered at auction, and sold at full , white Benares at 37 s t o 37 s 6d , m id t o fine 38aellow. Of Penang 700 bags went at previous ratesP,_.Y.'" 36. Gd to 35s greyi s h 35 s 6d t o 36 5, an d or d Whit e old 375. There was again no public sale of Madras) done privately. are FOREIGN. - Although duty paid parcels sparingly for sale, yet previous terms are not 1 " tained, in consequence of a limited d ema nd., j 5, parcels sold pri va t e ly were H avanna h , b r own at 3 8 0 low to mid y e ll ow 34 3 6d t o 3 7s 6 d , goo d to ful e y floretts 40s 6d to 41s ; Brazil, white 35s Gd t o , 33s 6d. to 355, brown 30s to 33s ; Porto Itie e ' 39s to 41s, lo w t o goo d 34 s t o 31s 6d, brown „„ China 30s 6d to 32 ; other sorts 32s 6d t a„, ° `'3 . s; clayed 32s Gd to 34s 6d, not clayed 33 8 1 ",, 3b9 brown and yellow 32s to 353 6d, grey and wl"L' e vs, foreign Muscovado, low to fine yellow 34s 6 ,1 " g d to. 32s to 34s ; and white Havannah in bond 2 6 s ',•ttle low to fine. To-day foreign Sugar met with a le st, tion for shipping or home trade purposes, Ye ti l ii i ( 9. 111 0' rally were not inclined to sell under previous te sio sh was no public sale. A cargo of yellow 11 ° 4 i sold at 2is 6d for numbers 12i, and one at 21 0 '.kor'pr MOLASSES.-There are many buyers, but l yr i c es l6i, transactions are prevented by the scanty suPP I Y*O Antigua rule at 16. s 6d to 17s, Demerara 1 6 5.„ a(l,,' „ e t other sorts of West India 14s 6d to 15s, C u b a 3 tolVi) Rico 15s 6d to 168 gd. Bengal and Mauritius ll i r o st . ' e t cwt. Tamarinds have been dealt in caution ; at 24s to 425, and East India 9s to 12s still sePrt thert.3 more plentiful. F ew b uyers are t o be f oun d, k e b ,3 o no decline ; Narbonne is held for 60s to 668, 16s, and Jamaica 38s to 50s per cwt. h et " i t COFFEE.-This afternoon Native Ceylon Coffee o,li b t little attention pri va t e l y . At auction 80 hags aPer•ill~b;e, sold at 46s 6d for goo d or d. Pl antat i on i s not demand keeps limited. The market for Mocha o ia „ bc-11° and there is a de c li ne o f 2 s. A pu bli c sa l e o f 2." went at 775. to 78s. Gd. for good clean garbled. t 10P 1, TEA.-Sales of lo w t o goo d common mat 1s1:;0? 10id., rather blacki s h l ea f t o bl ac ki s h leaf 1 - 1- 't o ° o,o strong to Pekoe sorts is ld t o i s Bd , an d of tl'ebeeo4l, is 9d to 2s 2d. Sorts under is 2d per lb ha v , e B ( ltql, in request. A goo d d eman d f or Pouehong 11 1 " toP„„j, Oolong sells mor e f ree ly, common to m id at 1-Tori,l and better sorts is 2d to is 9d. Souchong is sau,„,e il a t le t and rates are on th e a d vance, fi ne an d good sew-705 to 2s. low to mid lid to is 3d. In Green o'l4 in Greenest dill purchases hav e b een t ransac t e d , especial l y prices have advan ce d, an d ru l e as follows -low r c1 1e ,,, Hyson is 2d to is sd, goo d t o fi ne i s 6d t o 2° lod, 11 Val 3s Od to 3s 4d, young Hyson Canton 10d to ls, is 2d to is Bd, fi ne t o super i or i s 9d to 2s 3d,, lA, to ls, Gunpower C an t on 10d t o i s i d, Hyson tol!;o 2s 10d, fine 3 s Od t o 3 s Gd , Imperial Canton '`"To 4 7o Hyson Is 3d to 2s 3d, an d H yson s ki n 7d to 6 a . We ll ' public sale of 2,000 pkgs Green, and Scented Teas firm prices. sO t il tv SPICES.-To-day the public sale of Pepper w e dl prices ; 1,700 bgs Malabar at nd to 4 1 d for heal, s heavy, and 1,120 b gs B a t av i a a t 3ad to 3d Per r „' la e e r. go INDIGO.-There is at present only a small port demand for E. I. still holders are firm, aul r ii few sellers excepting at an advance on last Vs' terms of 2d per lb. Stock is 3,000 chts less than ,0 01, with an increase i n deliveries of 6,000 elite, and c° l o 01 ,11 are little suppli e d. Of G ua ti ma l a supply i s mo re , yet a good dem an d ex i s t s, an d 400 serons a t a a- t3 , l fr sold at 2s lld to 5s sd, being full rates for better Or ld to 2d per lb decline for ord. COCHINEAL.--There is at present only a i d nll 7. l , t e e r 'l Pl„e; trade or shipping demand, and supply being ra',' 00'0 ful, a decline of ld per lb. has taken place. A v ,:iceltli 480 bgs were mostly sold; low to fine Honduras li s vey 3s 7d to 4s 2d, dead and pasty 2s 8d to 3s 6 d; silvers 3s 8d to 3s 11d, and black 4s to 4s 3d. ot llll RUM, BRANDY, AND H OLLANDS.-A free s ale voila for Lee war d I s l an d rum, and the upward lu e ob 00 1 continues-1s 9d to is 10d p er ga ll on h av i ng bee" i , Ou t , for proof. East Indi a i s muc h requ i red ; sup ply and is 8d to is 9d i s th e va l ue. In Demera ra e fi 6 ) able transacti ons h ave t a k en p l ace, prices showing a io W ,s advance-2s 6d to 2s 9d having been obtained for noted scelif per cent. ov er p roo f ; i n d ee d , some parties w ill these rates. J ama i ca h as b een so l d to some exteu 4-, 'dc,i. for home t ra d e p urposes, an d prices are yet on the a 1. cep with a decreased supply ; choice sorts 36 to 4 0 136 0 ,) over proof realised 3s 9d to 48 4d, fine 34 t° t aiJ 3s 4d to 3s Bd, good 2s 10d to 3s 3d, low t a , i tsti to 34 over 2s Gd to 2s 9d. Havannah is ri:orpit is 7d to is 70 proof, and keeps in scanty t oes e ii Sales of Cognac best brands of the vintage of 18 5 1 ° 9 3 I P dirt Vs 4d to 7s 6d, 1850 ditt o 7 s 6d t o 7s Bd, 184 0 - 0 , to 7s 10d, old er 8 s t o 8 s 6d , l ow t o mid qualities t' c bse a 7s. Geneva met w ith l ess a tt en ti on, t h ere i s a a:, 2s 3d to 2s 4d having been accepted, and for fiee.', Myer 3s. The currenc y i s fi rm f or British made firr i t b ; being an exte ns i ve d eman d , th e value is 9s 9deasjeed' 22 under 8s 4d, and 17 ditto 8s 10d per gallon ; advance is looked for. TALLOW.-A reluctance has been evinced to oPe rat •% ; Russian on the spot this week, sad prices have git,, en fine yellow candl e se lli ng at 46s to 46s 3d PuroP-e • t r unimportant for delive r y in spring months, althoug h de tD e t are sellers at 46s 3d t o 46 s 6d . Home melte d i 5, J!* more plentiful, and b e i ng l ess wanted can be obti'ti 47s 6d cash. Other sorts met with little notice, an cline took place this afternoon at the public ss ie ge,; pkgs South American selling at 44s 6d to 47s 6c l a ; 0 3 ' Australian, beef 44 s 6d t o 45 s 6d, mutton 45 0 el ar Od ; and 14-0 bxs East I n di a a t 45 s Od t o 46s Od Deliveries of Tallow for consumption are, howe ve "' s Y e favourable, with a s t oc k o f 21,00 cks less than ' a t but rates are higher by 10s per cwt. ( ~ TO N•~NoxT e aMal £5 144 4: yama l'°C44 l 11 ► 1 reer l ale h s rA l fr : :: E f E li Sit ltarnett tt atinnal ks' O kelianopt, Th 3 ' B . nod W e,t gu r, of 1 °N3CT.Titro I esgr,3 crowd • Il a T nlan, T D '• .k ittl ,, Oke sluts (p .44 10 4— Messrs Yrn Mr r. 7 % i. t ete rs _ m Mr. ,• r. T 11( ,t,l'Ele e „Uses mai RAI C apital, L .T h 'sit to b ti4talii":'el ( not subs i tt , t o yiriug retire fof ` o a re deduct ka. tl n th E tlb t ;lnle ine . 1 ;114 b It(t . . "E. ( Atru eier„t and C Y d I " , at 1 3+ ,k • .ler ap pl, deteal l ".. '; and ti ot - 4 Lore still, r:reb3Se''' , 4th Deumb , O ce ' s oll n oil 1 , ,0 A' G REAT a IoW —4,5 f (in icoves, ,11itConn itilps , 45' ',4:"nittee ,;(1, into for . ent t e " "It s ' to eorra pros boo eV for n, 6j, go a t 40 6 LY ord for recia ir 7A, ere Ut el 7 sr lu sid the c° ll4 o' 41k Il tlet istol st , (1 1) (:%4 IS HER'. 4 kthto;fl u l t DovEri bags 10 f V" for ' au rat e° ' ,Lo nd the Col 39 5 on. ws to t ;)); By yeller sm t orn 1 7th, L ite 36s -- N. 5 are o tfel 4 oly , ik D i t. t iI STATEN be 11 ‘ ,, k, 5t '' 20 PAYING to s sliry_cent I. St ? ad 11W1rslin .11e Wllof Oit er ade imp toNt44 Lorabi'i fteej i 63; Wg to o 35s cob (14 rATRON ) 320; J o; t `4 1, /iL Po ite 3133 t h ° o o qte AL to 3 9,, ILLusTi 6a to to. .stthe Word. little 5 o e , 0 1, elli n eishop, liolde o T i ' t ero per, .reept terlD 9 ' I, ; t h: l4, fl ' T sq ue;d °l sv os 1 / 40‘ ler. a, the ELE CT RIC 'ut( 4A. r tot "0 tirt u Itesp t t 1 14 for ,1 . , CTS ly. fir° Or )141)4c:ill °f PO 3 6a i rfo rte 1441 Ittit. cl i Ni, 335 3'l o e sch is sto T„,, COUNTRY MARKETS. WAKEFIELD.—DEo. 10. °f otlif. The arrivals of w h ea t repor t e d to-day is larger Ti er 4 , grain mod e r a t e . Wh ea t must be quoted is to 1° r dearer, but the advance rather checks the_ sal barely nearly ma i n t a i ns l ast week ' s prices, but 4" l3oi meet a slow sal e a t l ower rates. Beans fetch rather money. Oats id p er s t one, and shelling is P er higher. • LIVERPOOL.—DEc. 10. 9 t 3tir There was only a moderate attendance of burr" corn exchang e thi s morning, and the general de° , 7,041 languid. Th e recently arrived American wheat iv,,Asfa to' ex ship, a t a re d uc ti on from Tuesday's prices 0' •,, 10' I d per bushel, with ou t l ea di ng to business. Parcels 1 ": or' house firmly held. Some of the speculative lots ot o tie di r e ', flour were brought on the market for re-sale, and '0 at 6d to 9d p er b arre l un d er Tuesday. No change ; value of any other article, but the tone of the trl Tb by no mean s so goo d as m i ght have been expecte d ' weather is again very wet. fro Li BRISTOL—DE c. 8. .e English wheats o f goo d qua li ty have again eAY jcP L an advance. F ore i gn i s very firmly held, and an 3.0-eiV,r of 2s, and in some i ns t ances 3s per qr. has been V, 1 1 1 Flour partook of the i m p rovemen t , and is dearer 101),; sack, and 2s p er b arre l . Malting barley is not 5 peet inquired f or , an d i s from is to 2s lower than last - „ 4 sb" grinding parcels are quit e as d ear, being in very r,ner supply. Oats are in request, and bring about ou r more money. Beans are the same as last week. EXETER --DEC. 10. 0e ; ~, ; Fat bullocks fetched from 75 9d to 8s 3d Pe r „ e r/i) sheep, 5d to sid ; lambs 6d ; calves, 5d to 53,d p er t i l3 keeping sheep, 25s to 30s : lambs, 15s to 18m ; c° ,..00,7,; calves; 9/ to 13/ ; barreners, 4s 6d to 5s 6d P ° ' 0 " Wheat, 6s Od to 6s 2d ; barley, 3s 6(1 to 4s ; o ats, 20 2s 9d per bushel. 21T—DEc. 10. le close of the market ' 0, 9 15 9 Russell's Hetton ....... ••' . 16 0 Hett0n................. •'' . ll Haswell ......... 1 Lambton ......... ...•••••'l6 Russel's Hetton ••••• • 'l 5 9 Pensher ............ . ..... •' . 16 Stewart's.. ................ ''l6 Cassop.. ............... ••• 1 5 0 Heugh ............ •••16 Whitworth ......... . ..... •••0 0 Hetton Hartlepool •••'''j6 0 Adelaide Tees ............ 6 Pease's West .........••• .16 Tees .. . . . ...... .... 0 Powell's Dui Steato Cwm Garnant Stone..•••• 26 Sold, 61. 14 9 14 9 16 01 Ships at market, 1 LANGE-YE S TERDA 1 . • Gibraltar Leghorn 3? 65 i Genoa . • • Milan ............•••• Venice • • ...• • • 4 1 " Naples . ..... ..... • • 1 94 ,i Palermo ••• • • • ••. • • • 01. sfesslna •• •• •• • • 5 3 ,, Lisbon •• • • ....• • • • " • •• • 5 3 " Oporto ......... • • • • Rio Janeiro ' ' • Buenos Ayres.. ..... - New York, 60 days' sigh t Philadelphia • •••• • • • • Eli o% i P RICES Os' BULLION, r 3 0 F oreign Gold in Bars X 0 0 0 P ortugal Gold Coin • • 0 Spanish Doubloons • • 0 0 0 0 04 New Dollars ••• • " 0 5 Silver in bars • • --•••• COAL MARI Prices of Coal per ton at tl Carr's Hartley l5 s. 6 Hasting's Hartley 15 6 llolywell ........ . ... l6 3 Howard's Wesi Hartley Netherton 15 6 Pelton Main l5 0 RaTensworth W. Hartley 15 6 Tanfield Moor l5 0 Tanfield Moor Butes 14 9 Smith's West Hartley _l5 6 Wall's End, &c. Brown Lawson Morrison Riddell .__ Eden Main 14 0 14 61 COURSE OF EXI - ----- Amsterdam ............ 11 16% Ditto, three months .. 11 18 Rotterdam 11 18U Antwerp .. 25 40 Brussels •"• • • 25 40 Hatnburgh ........ 13 5 Altona Paris 25 IN Ditto, three months •• 25 40 Marseilles.. ..... 25 40 Bourdeaux ..••• N'ranktort.on•Maine 119% Berlin . •• ••• • • • Vienna .. • • .- •• • • •••• •• 1126 Trieste •• •• •• • • 38 Madrid •••••• • • • • • • 49% Cadiz...—. • ..... 50 1 / 6 Seville •• • • • • .... BIRTHS. 11 0tO0' J° On the IGth inst. OF A SON. ,at Camberwell- grove , Arr. 4OF A DAUGHTER. _..../'' On the Bth inst., at Southsea, the wife of CaPt• Ste°l , of the Royal Regiment. MARRIED. . s o tnlo i ils' On the 9th inst. at St. James's-church, We s of Lieutenant - Colonel the Hon. A. Gordon second !c!" 2 prf ' P . E a tilis Right Hon. the Earl of Aberdeen, to Carolina eldestL daughter of Sir JF W. He rschel, Bar___2:_---- DIED. Jot On th e Bth inst. at at 4, Albert-terrace, Hatchara , Brett, . Esq , of the . Stock-exchange, aged 63. A. ' l ' On the 9 • P 9th inst., at 5, ~- Park-W 1 aco Paddington) C. Piesse, Esq. ,„4 , aged 68. DO i' ,- , n doll• _ O. v On 7th ins t ., at Old A b erdeen, Dr. R. M ac Lev —' one of the phy s i c i ans o f St. G eorge ' s H osp it a l, " 11 14 ------ ii 0 ilge LONDON : Printed and Published by 31 - 17 RD— 11' 20. ' - o l of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, ..„0' Strand, in the Precinct o f th e S avo y, in the c ° '"" Middlesex, Saturday, December 11,1852,