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

THE SUN, ,LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 11, 1852. 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 bss 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 member for Lambeth was then withdrawn, and the original question on the house tax read by the CHAIRMAN. Mr. PHINN 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.") WhateYer 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 vrillingness 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 discuslt it separately. When the Government proposed to impose a new tax, the subject was entitled to ask, what w a s 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 strug 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. Ho 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 h e comp l a i ne d 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 Rxchequer) 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 =Asters, 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-year, and his house cost him 151. or 16/. a-year , he would have to pay two taxes from which 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, what was the use of a h ouse t a x, for 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, down to 1501. or 1001., we would find that the man o f 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 500/. e. 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 1001. per annum ; but when we come down to their having only 1001. or 150/. a year, they would have to pay 15 or 18 per cent. upon their income. Therefore, he said, this measure was an injustice upon the poor—therefore he said it was, as a h ouse tax, not graduated, more unjust ' than an income tax. (Hear, hear.) He had said his con stituents considered this as a disfranchising bill. (Hear, and cheers.) Out of the 920,000 e l ec t ors in all England,' there were about 320,000 living 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 he paythe house tax? and if he did not, that would be conclusive evidence against him, and he would have 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 sueceseful. (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 h ave t o th an k th e Conser vative Government for all this. (Hear.) Mr. R BALL thought the hon. member who had just sat dawn, 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 snare in the taxation ? And if, as had been the argument heretofore, that those who paid taxes should have a share in electing the representatives, why was it, now that they enjoy e d that p r i v il ege , th a t th e y s h ou ld as k t o b e exempt rolla their fair contribution to the taxation of their coma la T its (Hear.) ear.) H on . gen tl emen d ec l a i me d a b ou t th e malt N treduction was solely for the benefit of the far the malts tel. it no advantage to the consumer of beer, or of those who Nv , e or t he brewer ?—or was it no advantage to the inhabitanrtes o re consumers of malt, who were chiefly .. farmers certainly the great towns? (Hear, hear.) The to have had the iresrV have been much more gratified entirely repealed—(hear, hear) — from which a double aa x tage would have been gained— that of cheapening of beer a considerable extent, as well as getting rid of all the collecting the tax. (Hear, hear.) The consumer s e v‘Z se reeosCv s e i :he greatest benefit of the Present proP° 4 tion• In the i first time - i sub lec w t at: s competition with malt in this country was to • Place, the grower of s from which theulf3Oire the foreigner for the ct, also, to a great number of restrictirsa of the b e free, and both these cireneus aurnewaro,oihaeawr el o g r n k e e r n w ti o r i e il l d y for the benefit of the consumer. exorbitant securities sure very few. gentlemen were aw are from all It securities whit% were r equired what they Ina 'ter; aont ing to double the value of n tthe manufaetured. ^ s ers in count One of themost extensive m. count ry had told hi m, only be fore, that he had to find bon im, only a few da ys so, oool . The farmers had always(Lun en to the amount of with respect to the highways, county, and expect some relief knew exactly h o w ntY, and poor's rates ; not that t hey it was to come, but, somehow, everybody Ater was to m pay e le Opposition s I s, and th e fro th total was to be greater. (Lau, They had expected that the Chance llo r of the Exche quer would do something for them in that way ; they leaven believed th a t th a t right hon. gentleman had some le 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 it was to them, they had not attempted to thwart the right hen. gentleman ; and, so far as he (Mr. Ball) was con cerned, he never would advise his constituents to do so. it was his firm conviction, after carefully going through and considering 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 cer tain 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 posite to deal with their own friends as they had dealt with the farmers. He had listened, he confessed, with some surprise to that part of the very able and clear statement 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 ruin 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 Ulan 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 the3budget, 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 diately 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 that he 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 count r y where direct taxation is in the f ullest force—was cited in support of this view. On the other hand, it was considered by the earlier political economists, that by mean s o f 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 IL 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 hetni friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer in his budgets of this and last year —a doctrine which, he was sorry to sty, met with a very large acceptance in tho 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 hi m 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 diffic u lty o f co ll ec ti ng 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. gentlemen might d epen d upon it that the constitu- . encies of the country would be very imperative in their demands to know the 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 hail de clared to be rightful—(hear, hear)—and which he believed to he a very sound and tenable principle of taxation. (Hear; hear.) He believed that 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. Milnes) 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 ho 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 convi nce d th a t any Minist er th a t ignored p ublic 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. Mikes) 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 h e was wholly unable' to give his support to the budget of pe c h t i a s t i right n hon, whi eh friendha d b e ; en and heldw h when forth h e to the remembered public,t h e aenxd abfbre llive ;all by the right hon. gentleman himself, as to the nature of hs_gi-eat revision of taxation, he could hardly had adheredthc present was the scheme he had in store. heir:artily wished that the right hon. gentleman to his s :riginal plans, and that he had favoured a scheme might the country with . have rightly novelty, even though such encounter the opposition of the ex perienced and Practical men of the country. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SANDARS w as natltre of the new financiwaillling to admit the comprehensive sealiildbuntotatcothnecesademheistiampe he was forced to confess t hat he o proval to it, though for different reasons from those of the hon, gentleman who had just sat down, He (Mr. Sand are) obiete te d to frhe though, unlike the hon. member h h ° , 3 llB : B ,lv tax i:o reason why such a tax should for e Pona!et, not include even abase :Welling in houses valued at 71. eyed the franchise might to to the revenue, and if f l a n ir hi ly s b o e p csu inio e n d u th p o o a n , to wh co o nt e ii 7 b i u., so, he, for one, was hise. He entirely those classes were unwi l li n g to do quite ready to deprive them of the franc : 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, t hen, that such a reduction would afford but a very small reli:if to the agricultural interest, and that the sole advantage of its re peal would accrue to those great monopolists, the breNvers• 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 jection 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 caused 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 timo 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. lie objected to the doubling of the house tax ; and at the pr esent time, with a large 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 iin 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. Vl' VIAN (Truro) thought the 13udget 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 who 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 Governmeat 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 tho 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 systeme, si beau dans la th6orie, 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 offewive way, those classes which they called they aristocracy, let them be so good as to re member that the autocracy, 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 opposite (Mr. M. Mimes) 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 esure. cono h mi t lst a t tsot wa s php opposite a r s e ite p s teeacpol could the i l ndpoth malt sesiribglyh right tax was dniredicact an e tieonaffin the i rdc p i ercnotwemiptelheaes 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 ho 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. Ho 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 ' 461,000/. 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 per annum, but if tea would give satisfaction to the country. The duty on tea now realised very nearly 6,000,00 0 i. 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 3,000,0001. to the revenue. Tho present consump tion of tea was now 54,000,0001b5. 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 20,000,00 0 lbs,) would be 2,200,0001. The excise day on malt now amounted to 5,000,0001. 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 2,000,0001. upon hops, and taking all these deduc tions together, the total sacrifice to the revenue would be nearly 5,000,0001., and that, too, at a moment when wo had to expect increased expenditure for 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. Ho 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. Tho effect of the repeal of the malt tax would bo 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, ho 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 tho ancellor of the Exchequer would act wisely if he abandoned the increase of the house tax andthe ropealof 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 s h o w that the propositions in his budget would make him un p o pular. (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 was made H e xtigate the sufferings of the particular classes injured. (r.) Instead of attempting anything of the kind, the late Government looked unmoved and with per fect calmness on the sufferings of their fellow-creatures. H e 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 a tt en tion 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 this vigorous determination which he evinced to institute the most rigid inquiry into every department of the State, for th• purpose of cleansing the Aegean stable of all the rubbish and filth which had accum ulated 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 Mich 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 tho 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, 'lnvolved other considerations. Licen ses from the Excise had to be obtained by the moister, the brewer, and the retailer, and each had to abide by strin gent regulations. If the maltster happened to be found out in a disobeyanoe of these regulations, he was liable to a fine of 1001. for each offence, and was sometimes made to pay 1,0001. He would ask 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 boa great deal cheaper. It was said, however, that keepingup 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 growing 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 10/. 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 exclusiveand oppressive burdens—it appeared to him to contain a right and a just modification of theincome tax, and to benefit the consumers by a reduction of the high duties on beer and on tea. Reject his budget, and they rejected the principle of relieving an oppressed and suffering class —theyrejected the extension of the in come 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 ca ll e d upon the house, but especially new members, to re flect upon these suggestions. And, again, were they not 1 to look at the future government of this country? Who were to be the successors of the present Administration — (hear, hoar.) 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 Imew 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 from 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 he 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 brongh 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. Ho 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 tim ber duties. (Hear, hear.) If they were disposed really to benefit the British shipowner, and to enable him to comp ete with, or outstri p the foreigner, the best course would have been to reduce the timber duties. Th e 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 w ou ld no t now go into the question — it was fully discussed l as t n i g ht. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed the Governm en t o f w hi c h he was a member, upon this his (Sir C. Wood's) v iews, and the views of 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 purpose 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 to compete 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 wa s suffering under peculiar burdens, and they claimed co m p ensation fo r 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 fanners 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 lion, 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 kind. 'What benefit would the remission of half of the malt duty be to them, coupled with the free importation of foreign malt ? 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. Sandais), 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 sould 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 the burdens 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 they were. He states that the vote for 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 additionalcharge of 2,100,0001., he has 2,500,0001., leaving a surplus of 400.0001. The right hon. gentleman 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 timofo 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, and partly bywhat the PublieWorks 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 400,0001. entirely dependent upon the money derived from the repayment of loans. He should like to ask the right hon. gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, with his knowledge of finance—with his opinions 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 conseoutive years, and he k new no t f or how much longer. In saying this for the year 1854-5, he assumed that the calculations of the right hon. gentleman wore correct as to the produce of the taxes • but even with that assumption, such a means of creating surplus 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 meps or other,—by the increased consump tion which woad follow the reduction of the duty, the right hon. gentleinan 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 anticipatedfrom 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. He 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. sd. to 2s. 2d., and the consumpti on o f ma lt 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 dbubt, did take place, but it was only 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 t o 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 prise 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 effeot 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 he called it, consisted of 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 200,0001. 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 ho, 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 tho 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 I budget, whilst it put none in. Ho 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 where 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 principle —he would say nothing about it ; but it was simply the taking off ono tax and putting on another. Whilst the right hon. gentleman dealt with indirect taxation in a manner to benefit no ono, he dealt with direct taxation in a manner that was needlessly oppressive. (Loud cheers.) He quite concurred with the right hon. gentleman BA to the desirable ness of reducing the duty on tea. Two years ago he had a conversation with some gentlemen touching 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 ta x . R e f err i ng to t h e Chan cellor of the Exchequer's proposition as to the duty on hops, tho 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 simply cause a deficiency 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 th e 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 ono of tho 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, ho was of opinion that nothing could be more injudicious than the mode in which the Government proposed to meddle with it. One 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 bo 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 counilip. The small shopkeeper in Dublin, th• savings of whose life were amassed in the funds, was to be taxed, while the great Irish proprietor was to escape wasaalbed. And that they called justice. (Cries of " Hear, hoar.") The Chan cellor of the Exchequer had talked a great deal about the exemption from taxation that Ireland enjoyed, and he complained 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 ohould 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 already sufficient burdens, 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 upon th e f un dh o ld er, an d 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 s}d. 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 ing 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 had his money in East India Stock only sid. ? (Hear, hear.) Was there any reason why he 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 ho 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 1001., 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 sid. instead of 751., 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. th e difference of 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 100/. 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 20/. was taken, not because he was imposing it for the first time, but in substituting it for the window tax, h e w i s h e d t o 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 be 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, ho 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 be 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 5,000,0001. 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 beswallowed. (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 the knowledge they possessed. (Hoar.) Nothing could be so bad as tho budget they had proposed, which sacrificed a revenue which nobody wished to benefit by, which encouraged direct t a xation, tampered with th e 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 the 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 the Christmas recess. The house then, at 25 minutes to one, Adjourned. MARKET INTELLIGENCff. (From the London New Price Current 0. SUGAR.— To-day there was only a hull West India sugar from either grocers or ref close generally the same as on Friday last. 130, making for the week 822 hhds, &c. REFINED. - Production of Refined S' dealers' wants, a further reduction has t lower sorts are least request. Sales have scale • brown lumps are 43s Gd to 44s ; title 44s Oil to 48s Gd, double, 49s to 50s ; Haul to 495, double, 50s to 51s ; and Standard Few contracts ha - Cre been enterec! ivery, yet few parties are inclined to sell a To-day refined sugar was purchased more consumption, yet brown lumps were obtain; and low to fine grocery 44. s to 47s per cwt. MAtutmus.—To-day previous rates we; Mauritius Sugar, but little was done Ova' was no public sale. A cargo of Mauritius o, , s , partly of the new crop, has been sold for Bristol _ per cwt. li3gs 15e 1; ', ‘ EAST INDIA.—This afternoon only 4°° 11 s tes ' sugar were offered at auction, and sold a t full o 395 bt .4 ,„ white Benares at 37s to 37s 6d, mid to fine 385 11 011i,,` w Of Penang 700 bags went at previous rates.,):L 36s 5 ` t o Gd to 355 greyish 35s 6d to 368, and ord whi te 01 11 375. There was again no public sale of Madras' done privately. • aro ob . FOREIGN. Although duty paid pave— to sparingly for sale, yet previous terms are not • 0 0 5 tained, in conseq uence o f a li m it e d demon' 3:3s t° 4 o parcels sold privately were Havannah, brown at s s i to low to mid yellow 34 s 6d t o 37 s Gd, goo d to fule o, Y eio a floretts 40s 6d to 41s ; B raz il, w hit e 35s Gd to o , re ; 33s 6d. to 355, brown 30 s t o 33 s ; Porto Rico, ~ to .0 9 . „0, 39s to 41s, low to good 34 s t o 31 s 6d, brown .„, China 30s 6d to 32 ; other sorts 32s Gd to ';• i 0; ' i os; clayed 32s 6d to 34s 6d, n o t clayed 33s to 365 14 ' 1 0 brown and yellow 32s to 35s 6d, grey and wbit. s 3 9 n , bOp f foreign Muscovado, low to fine yellow 34s 6d t° to 3l ' • 32s to 34s ; and white Havannah in bond 2 , 6 s at c low to fine. To-day foreign Sugar met boA te r tion for shipping or home trade purposes ! yet ro s, rally were not inclined to sell under previous o ol) was no public sale. A cargo of yellow 115v , A. sold at 21s 6d for numbers 12A, and one at 2 10 o irf o r MOLASSES.—There are many buyers, but, pric i o, transactions are prevented by the scanty supply o. o # Antigua rule at 16s 6d to 17s, Demerara 1 59 _ no dl other sorts of West India 14s 6d to 15s, en° to 1 4 •'?Ait Rico 15s 6d to 16s Gd. Bengal and Mauritius 13!,,,,egt1701 cwt. Tamarinds have been dealt in caution; "„ly at 24s to 425, and East India 9s to 12s, still ON tb more plentiful. Few buyers are to b found, 92 bn ;# no decline ; Narbonne is held for 60s to 6 5 5 , r it) 465, and Jamaica 38s to 50s per cwt. gm. r pori COFFEE.—This afternoon Native Ceylon ea" - A i' Old 6cilitlo little attention privately. At auction 80 bags n h " o per., e , sold at 46s Gd for good ord.. Plantation is not c, demand keeps limited. The market for Mocha li i f-frr and thore is a decline of 2s. A public sale of 2 3 . 1- went at 775. to 78s. 6d. for good clean garbled. 0 1 4 TEA.—Sales of low to good c o mmon made a t 0 101 4 10id., rather blackish leaf to blacki s h leaf lid n of strong to Pekoo sorts is ld to is Bd, and of thebens t/J, Is 9d to 2s 2d. Sorts under is 2d per lb bay? &l to7j, in request. A good demand f o r P o uehong nv, to P.l Oolong sells more freely, common to mid at IG` ors and better sorts is 2d to is 9d. Souchong is I:aun t: 11 ,0 11 1 and rates are on the advance, fine and good se 1 " 1 1, 0 p0 90 1 to 2s. low to mid lld to is 3d. In Green " r heti° purchases have been transacted, especially in prices have advanced, and rule as follows—low t rod /0;1 Hyson 1s 2d to is sd, good to fine is Gd to 2 0 ,„ r " . , s oa 3s Od to 3s 4d, young Hyson Canton 10d to 15,„,,,„-P - ' 0 30, 1 Y . v is 2d to is Bd, fine to superior is 9d to 2s 3d,. to is, Gunpower Canton 10d to is ld, Hyson P i l l t o Pit 2s 10d, fine 3s Od to 3s Gd, Imperial Canton, ." i l'o 4 lo Hyson is 3d to 2s 3d, and Hyson skin 7d to St wel l public sale of 2,000 pkgs Green, and Scented lu"'" firm prices. , SPICES.—To-day the public sale of Pepper wow 5/0 prices ;1,700 bgs Malabar at 3id to 48d for heal . 0 , heavy, and 1,120 bgs Batavia at 38d to 3P per D o y r INDIGO.—There is at present only a small • u fthere je , port demand for E. I. still holders are firm, an" i .jy ,5 %, few sellers excepting at' an advance on last quart ° in 1t" . 4 terms of 2d per lb. Stock is 3,000 chts less than 0 0; with an increase in deliveries of 6,000 chts, and. °„etios ° lO O O are little supplied. Of Guatimal a supply is more r c l yet a good demand ex i s t s , an d 400 serou s at 0 ,40 sold at 2s lld to 5s sd, b e i ng full rates for better s° ' ld to 2d per lb decline for ord. ts d 117 r tni COCHINEAL.—There is at present only a li +her er trade or shipping dem an d, an d supp l y b ein g on" 0 0 '0 ful, a decline of id per lb. has taken place. - 5 -" 480 bgs were mostly sold; low to fine Honduras'Toper 3s 7d to 4s 2d, dead and pasty 2s 8d to 3s 6°; re silvers 3s 8d to 3s 11d, and black 4s to 4s 3d. st ill F RUM, BRANDY, AND HOLLANDS.—A free 0 3(3 ,; vails for Leeward Island rum, and the upward continues—ls 9d to is 10d per gallon having bell' is sl'ior for proof; East India is much re qu i r ed ; suPfnl co ogli and is 8d to is 9d is the value. In Demerara foiv.o able transactions h a v e t a k en pl ace , prices showing - 30 t'd advance-2s 6d is 2s 9d having been obtainedtb r ,t aerif .„, ~ per cent. over proof ; indeed, some p ar ties t clod. these rates. Jamaica has been sold to some ~, ext'u"cltni. for home trade purposes, and prices are yet on the .. . 4 with a decreased supply ; choice sorts 36 to 4 0 96 over proof realised 3s 9d to 4s 4d, fine 34 (.°,_ 3s 4d to 3s Bd, good 2s 10d t o 3 s 3d, low fl 'i ) 0 4 ,1(. to 34 over 2s 6d to 2s 9d. H avanna h is T - 40 is 7d to is 7)d proof, a n d k ee p s i n Beall als`":4 Sales of Cognac 'best brands of the vintage of DP 4,, 0 ir t ,• Ay, a i 7s 4d to 7s 6d, 1850 ditto 7s 6d to 7s Bd, 1849 to 7s 10d, older 8s to 8s 6d, low to mid qualities ci A 7s. Geneva met with less attention, there is a 2 , 2s 3d to 2s 4d having b een acce pt e d, and for fun t , 0,5 3s. The curren c y i s firm for British made sr o li ;,41 being an extensive demand, the value is 9s 9a ° lce 22 under 8s 4d, and 17 ditto 8s 10d per gallon ; advance is looked for. TALLOW.—A reluctan ce h as been evinced to 0 . 1 5 0 0 4 : Russian on the spot this week, aid prices have 8 3 ,, ns fine yellow candle selling at 46s to 46s 3d. Pllr e ' - u h e K i t unimportant for delivery in spring months, alt . , 11 ° 11 4 , 5 rsvd are sellers at 46s 3d to 468 6d. Home melteu ht ;joy more plentiful, and being less wanted can be 0 - ~,1 47s Gd cash. Other s o rt s me t w ith Mlle notice, .. 1 5. ; o cline took place this afternoon at the publie,,r4ooo pkgs South American selling at 44s 6d to 47s 6d to,e, Australian, beef 445 Gil to 45s 6d, mutton 405 ,„ ,erc, o l Od ; and 140 bgs East India at 458 Od to 468 nu r o r Deliveries of Tallow for consumption are, howe v ; t ? favourable, with a stock of 21,000 oho less than 15 but rates are higher by 10s per cwt. GRAPH ; rt b r , C: v t G I S HEREBY an d DOVER are for .."rnees No. 30, Cornh ti,Zge3 on ' the Continent a By order c K ''orthin 17th November ' TMENTS. 0 20 ' l4 t r AYING MINE, sti Per cent. per ar. *iIIeARES In the bes t0p 41.... r11 soon pay 13 , o f ;_r_ s ble improveme Lombard-stre( h„ LAURENr: ( 4i) IL ROOM far] e, E m il e Lour Parmant to Act 'tvery e vening with t Boolcou; !ti,,, cmn at Admission ktid te Half-past Eta \,2ninate at lialf-p J PA, 017TH TAN b,..itTR DEVON, an iii:trn,of SHARES will ti .t No app "' 14 th instant. 1 4 \I .-- GUTH, TI 11 TORTII DES'( Provlsio C apital £500,000, Deposi kII4,7IIONIAS GILL, FROWN : s " .°ll ' CALMADY I 1~ , Dept VY Lopez, Iraq., Mat v ourchler , Savile, I tik'liaYcroft, Esq., P 1 40,2 1 010 N Esq., PlYr. C rotch, Esq., (Wel WtV/id Pearse, Esq., 'L 131 1rnell, Esq., Plyn ' t Adam s, Esq., Plyn ke 4 It Barnett , o b vn calelarei, 4 44 luikehampton. ( tti l t li",..• 'lodge and Co., 2., west of England ENGII '''tI,TIEG ENG INEER li lt , tk,,,.• Crowder and • 4, 4 ,, r nan. Tavistock. '.11 4 `ufre, Plymouth. 1 / 4 4k`s, Okehampton, AltEs (pro tem). Messrs. Hichens 'N o kr. E, N. Bryan 411-- -Mr. T. B. Tye 41, r 4t z . 1.1.5e5 .., Mr. R. Luxcol Thomas San t tt r ils,,, may be obtai either of the So tti t , FEATUR • 1 DEPOSIT ASSUR 18 , New Bridge eAtirru,--ONE 'i t tl(, i 3. Barnes, Esq., sc~rke, rke, Esq . , late q V Esq. Portlan tw.su Jersey ra cknall, Esq.. 1, 1e are. Lincoln's-int Esq., 15, C ," ~"( 4f lerdsbie. IN, l de - ,„Maelean, II "ele Esq 32, U t t ' l e ! 'r basCp E . s'q • 47 I S t : est. 'ett r l l ,, (l rerr Riddell, Esc ''Sp e ;. ll ,, 2 1, Upper Ser 1 .4 "Ing, 14, St. Jam ili t „ E_, 126, Stan Ni , p , i Generl Life c k "es, Esq a , Accou kle a Price, Marryat, ac a. 21, Upper Seyi lan, Esq., 16, I eeran, Esq., 44, CON; Francis G. INSTE F. P. s're -.41 Wellington Coc Messrs, Hill HEM 11111, Char "it 5„, 11 ,' rqspeetfuly ii,` 4, lii' BL en'l of Assurar ,ITlrler the ammo the wtllt,!ratlve Tables to 44,1.7:te5t birthday, on t • ON THE At the end of thirty Years when t he party is fifty Years old, hewill have' Paid into the office. 1249/. 73.6 d, 1 '44" POLISH G , '-' (ref "ILDIIALL, on ____................„ ~, „res.bnients ineluiet 151 .; tbr gi lady, Neff' 11,4 "rPoolit reet , C i ty. ) °j stictelip ci p , Itw i: ito j- bitistid G ri,.. l : aun "- L yy V tob E A re ß dt p weri t Taterd# EST ated d° nl . t° t ,o * s tind s '' ' '' l z& ifinerl, , ..,,, i pw for d .„ OLDERs at purc.lw" ‘, of t i,"" l erY , in e h e c „,... ice ani A.l', the 20th stign: el :: .1 ta k e n 00' 0 11 114 be' 0 0 o, 'To street, Dec( 'erg, lo w t° , 4 ,4 e n nbro' I #ls"s re u A and pP. tiltes inve h rs ln the abot I hUnPS, e r 36. t ,, 0/i dt ed int° i°"rt6* :terel..l:l;;Eit::hln-c C s ( 5l at pro ot 1 , 1000 .ii i o r s c the interest of nfraebelleY ''it'l.43; 63; : icr . _ az-e ll: Y e,' O m e:ll : ce r es, l 2l : s , 7 l; °V.e .... frdi:e _ te _;... l2l-I.Bs : e :l :°°llllL i d':l7°li64 . '44IiINE am COUNTRY MARKETS. WAKEFIELD.—DEO. 10. o f obi , The arrivals of wheat report e d t o -d ay i s large, a r grain moderate. Wheat must be quoted is to 25 dearer, but the advance rather checks the osili or barely nearly m a i n t a i ns l as t week's prices, but o :i ier tii:,l meet a slow sale at l ower ra t es . B eans fetch rtb' money. Oats id per stone, and shelling is 11‘ higher. LIVERPOOL.—DEo. 10. s t There was only a moderate attendance of bilie t ol corn exchange this morni ng , an d th e genera l clen 3 0 0 . 4 languid. The recently arrived American wheat ic°,. 0: ( ex ship, at a redu c ti on f rom T ues d ay ' s pr i ces 0' per bushel, without l ea di ng to business. Parcels/ I 0 bolj house firmly held. Some of the speculative lots ( j )t. 0 09 flour were brought on the market for re - sa l e , an iv 0 1 ) at 6d to 9d p er b arre l un d er T ues d ay. No c h a ng e value of any other article, but the tone of the tj, by no means so g oo d as m i g ht h ave been expel"' weather is again very wet. BRISTOL —DEC. 8. . fl er!" 0 4 , 11( C; English wheats of g oo d quality have again elr an advance. Foreign is very firmly held, and an ro ce ef of 2s, and in som e i ns t ances 3 s per qr. has b ee n ty „ Flour partook of the improvement, and is deare r , s o 131 ,„ e 4; sack, and 2s per barrel. Malting barley is 1 101 ,'„,t inquired for, and is from is to 2s lower than ' l ' i : 3 r s `l l r , grinding parcels are quite as dear, being I I pe r supply. Oats are in request, and bring about more money. Beans are the same as last week. EXETER—DEo. 10. tier Fat bullocks fetched f rom 7 s 9d t o 8 s 3a S v0; 1 sheep, 5d to kid ; lambs 6d ; calves, 5d t o sr. co ' l O keeping sheep, 25s to 30 s : l am b s , 15 s to 18 s to calves; 91 to 131; barreners, 4s 6d to 5s 64.1 rtig Wheat, Os Od to 6s 2d ; barley, 3s 6d to 4a ; oats) 2s 9d per bushel. {ET—DEo. 10. ho close of the m arkt"' • 0. 1 6 , ' 1 Russell's Hett0n..•.•••' ... 1; Hetton ............... 6 Haswell ................ •••'l6 Russel's Hetton • •••••'' . l , , Pensher .............. ••••' .. IP Stewart's. ........... ''''' ..l6 Caseel3-_. .. „ ............ ••• •• 0 d Heugh Halt ......... ••••''l6, 0 Whitworth .. . ...... . .. Hetton Hartlepool ••''''l 6 Adelaide Tee 5.......... •• • •"14 6 Pease's West ......... •••"16 0 Tees... . . ...... . • ••," .. 0 Powell's ljuiryn Stelo"0 Cwm Garuant Stone."' ;6 Sold, 61. A.NGE—YESTRRDA I " / 0 Gibraltar 5 0 0 Leghorn yb Milan ...„ • • • / 1 $ Venice 4 i Naples ...... • ▪ •"• 15 4 1 1 Palermo Messina ......• -••••••• Lisbon ••'' • • ° Oporto Rio Janeiro ••••• • • • :; Buenos Ayres ...• • •.,'"dis New York, 60 days • of' Philadelphia .. •• • •,• • VO,, • PRICES OF SULLI O L . 'O I , 0 Foreign Gold In Ball 0 0 0 Portugal Gold Coin •• 0 °. 0., Spanish Doubloons • • 0 g Ir New Dollars •• • • 0 Silver in bars ••• • '" ON TI: 2251. t i . lal 1 4 4 .t a h il e! hare sel I p p O nce, and 'N' 4 l)l: -. ‘ t ° B l p ' artiel 1) 4 tiler of a nd the Glob , St t6,,° l lr t ; I to insure 50 t t l t sun Yea - 1: o ni ut: at 1. 114 ‘ 4 t `'S)n a ,., , R k 'son of t syster `st , cer -, es. Viz. 14 , iitirri in eas 1. till thin Sl it C oto event of 4 1 1 'th h . Pally, by °f much lnisslo• b 4i ttly hh - value as tt,„ "telber of y e 4 thly ti`at et h . •• ho 'tli c /lu g I ' Policy likti)lt fOrtnighe i„Mthd lin t Of his hie raw,. f 0 Or k " Part r izne r I ' 3 ' time a: 6 4, k alrai m a theUnt ; u Of , '4Vi ngB b 3 eatUabk haul a I th t 11, 1 . h,,swith this t4 eh 44 ' t allt 4'cn ' t Y , a thin, ,et his sa Ili4 i t aaa m 'Leut.his i thc t s ' t" , ) t oa y '' ay his ko r l t elst . , aid ki N 4 b l 4 4e i c i a lis tl 4 ? b4 4 o :YStern assurat coq ea,ri,a.reeogni gr "ta . ari h,inTiterp.tteter advl ett 4 : l l .. or the n c .. !se 0 omp lq TAGE, of A b\r rn A.,. kr e BM' w' —..ect Ti AG ~ S to 0 5 th j) ,Nt 'y' e'ho te . f ly. s ° i ' „rY kr 1 4t 4 , 1 Lut titseloellitr boi Apgn~rsonofa " 'tril 4.tr feilur ev t44,1 4 n5, the e jj ; t est or I I))Ehrres,ona, t hav e , b 44_ tenF n. Pros t , -14 %1 ur f r n, and „, e Age N. /3,,. COAL MAR hiees of Coal per ton at t] s. d. Carr's Hartley 15 6 Hasting's Hartley 15 6 Holywell Howard's West Hartley Netherton 15 6 Pelton Main l5 0 Ravensworth W. Hartley 15 6 Taufleld Moor l5 0 Tanfield Moor Butes 14 9 Smith's West Hartley l5 6 Wall's End, Ste. __ Brown _ 14 0 Lawson l4 .6 Morrison l4 9 Riddell l4 9 Eden Main 16 0 Ships at market, 12 COURSE OF EXCH. Amsterdam .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 163¢1 Ditto. three months ll 18' Botterdam ...... 11 18 Antwerp ....... 25 40 Brussels 25 40 Ilamburgh l3 6 Altona ...• •-• • • 25 17% Marseilles.. Dlttthreeo . . . . months . . 25 40 25 40 Rourdeaux ... • •• • • • • • • Frankfort-on-Maine .. • • 119% Berlin ..... — Vienna .. Trieste .. 11 36 Petersburgh.• •••••• •• •• 38 Madrid 497,E Barcelona ....... Seville 111 461 A LONDON : Printed and Published by 3 1171w — of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 17a Sun 0164 3 % 0 00.0 Strand, in the Precinct of the &yelp in the Middloaax, Saturday, Decombor 11, WS. ~.,~"..` - AI.. -1 111106 01 BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 10th inst., at Camberwell-grove, MO* Step'' OF A DAUGHTER. t Ste On the Bth inst. OF at South sea , th e wife of C 3 P of the Royal Regiment the MARRIED. tioO s th ° On the 9th inst., at St. James's-church, 11 1 ( r 00 0,101 Li eutenant-Colonel the Hon. A. Gordon, sec o . n ilis"" Right Hon. the Earl of Aberdeen, to Carolina eldest daughter of Sir J. F. W. Herschel, Bitry .1 0 V DIED. On the Bth inst., at 4, Albert-terracej ratell'i—' Brett, E s q., o f th e Stock-exchange, aged C. On the 9th inst., at 5, Park-place, Padding w 00 Piesse, Esq., aged 68- R . Ma ol4e 7;l l ' On 7th inst., at Old Aberdeen, Dr. one of the physicians of St. George's 1100P 1 ' 4 " .4A