The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-22 00:00:00

Majesty's present advisers, the moment they give the coun-
try satisfactory proof that they have any confidence in each
other. (Cheers and laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —Mr.
Speaker, if there be now present any gentleman who, like
myself, have sat in this house to hear this debate, since
half-past five o'clock, I think they will admit that, at least,
it has served one useful purpose, for it has illustrated
more signally than any discussion that I can remember the
truly English principle of freedom of debate. (A laugh.)
Sir, it being my dutyto notice on the part of the Government
the topics that naight come under the view of hon. gentlemen
in the course of the evening, it has occured to me whether
I should not shorten my labour if, instead of trying to
enumerate the topics which have been detailed to-night, I
should take the negative side of the question, and refer to
those comparatively few subjects which have not been
noticed. Why, sir, we have had—and these are only a
few of the principal questions—the right hon. gentleman
says that the hour is still inconveniently early, I am
afraid it would not do for me to act upon that assumption,
but I have a certain duty to discharge—we have had dis-
cussed to-night savings banks and the management of the
great fund connected with them, the constitution of the
national debt commission, the balances in the Exchequer,
the interest on the policy with respect to Exchequer-bills,
the relations of the Government and the Bank, the pro-
per rules with regard to deficiency bills, the plan for the
government of the national debt, the Bank Act of
1844, the mode of establishing a currency free from
the influence of foreign exchanges, the comparative marits
of direct and indirect taxation, the foreign policy of
the Government, and the education of the country. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) And there is yet, sir, one other sub-
ject which has been touched slightly ; here and there, there
has been a faint allusion just perceptible to the amendment
of the hon. baronet. (Cheers and laughter.) The right
hon. gentleman who has just sat down has closed his speech
with an allusion to that amendment, and does not seem to
like to challenge a vote of the house upon the financial
propositions of the Government—(Ministerial cheers),—
more than upon any others of their acts. But the right
hon. gentleman has, in the exercise of his undoubted
right, thought fit to discuss at large the conduct of the
Government ; and here I may refer to the language of the
right hon. gentleman, when he charged me with having
treated him with unseemly and dircourteous taunts. Sir,
I do not think that that was a just charge on the part of
the right hon. gentleman. In replying to the right hon.
gentleman on a former night, I did, as I shall to-night
take the liberty of doing, use the legitimate freedom of
debate ; and I do not think that the right hon. gentleman
is the man, of all others, who has been sparing in his ap-
peal to that freedom and that right, whether in reference
to things or persons. (Loud cheers.) But, sir, if the right
hon. gentleman had cause to find fault with me for un-
seemly and discourteous taunts, arising out of the heat of
temper, why did not the right hon. gentleman do what
any other man would have done, namely, rise in his place
in this house and complain—if he did not think it right,
sir, to appeal to you—why did he not complain of it on
the spot, why did he retain this grievance and this grudge
in his bosom for a fortnight, to make use of it in one of
his thousand declamatory periods ? (Cheers.) Sir, I tell
the right hon. gentleman that if I have been guilty of
such taunts I deeply regret it—l regret it with reference
to him or to any other man, and I am sorry he did not
give me an earlier opportunity of saying so, when I could
tell whether or not there was any foundation for the
charge. Having said thus much, I pass to graver matters.
(Hear, hear.) Now, sir, the right bon. gentleman
says that he guards himself against being supposed to ap-
prove of the financial propositions of the Government. Sir,
there is not much occasion for the right hon. gentleman to
guard himself on that subject. lam not aware of any fi-
nancial proposition—l might say of any proposition—but
at any rate lam not aware of any financial proposition,
great or small, that has been made by the present Govern-
ment, which has had the good fortune to meet the appro-
bation of the right hon. gentleman ; and with, I think,
one exception, I am scarcely aware of any attempt to im-
pose a tax upon the country which the right hon. gentle-
man has not resisted, or of any attempt to remove a tax,
and diminish the resources of the Exchequer, which the
right hon. gentleman has not supported. The right hon.
gentleman sometimes speaks of new policies. Sir, until the
time of the right hon. gentleman, the subject of finance,
during my recollection, has been dealt with in a manner
somewhat distinct from general politics, because it has been
felt that there is a tenderness in the subject of the public
debt, and an importance in maintaining the resources of the
Exchequer, and the consequence of that conviction has been
until within the last twelve months, a general union, as a
general rule, in maintaining the ways and means which
are necessary to carry on the public service. The right
hon. gentleman has thought fit to reverse that rule. The
right hon. gentleman will not support the hon. baronet,
who, I know, has made his motion entirely independently,
but he still says that he reserves to himself the liberty of
objecting to the financial propositions of the Government ;
and upon what does he found himself ? He founds him-
self upon this most extraordinary reason, that he does not
consider there is any necessity proved for an increase of
taxation, for he says he does not know whether we are
going to war, or for what we are going to war. Why, sir,
his ignorance for what we are going to war has nothing
whatever to do with the necessity for an increase of taxa-
tion. (Hear, hear.) He knows this—he knows that he has
himself been a party to votes which have raised the
estimated expenditure of the country three millions
above the estimated revenue; and having himself been
a party to these votes, he says that he cannot under-
take to admit that there is any necessity for increased
taxation. Well, sir, the right hon. gentleman is not con-
tented with thatmore limited field of discussion upon which
he entered in the earlier part of his speech, and in which I
am bound to say he expatiated with a skill and a force that
are rarely equalled in debate. The right hon. gentleman,
under the influence I think of some malignant spirit—l
mean malignant as respects himself—must forsooth enter
upon that most ill-omened discussion of the question of
confidence in her Majesty's Government. The right hon.
gentleman, who was not challenged at all in the matter,
must go into a discussion of why ho would not propose -a
vote of want of confidence in her Majesty's Government.
He is entitled without doubt to use his own discretion on
that subject. If he thinks it right not to move a vote of
want of confidence in the Government, I really believe he
has good reasons for refraining—(hear)—but whether he
has good reasons or not—whether he chooses to move any
such vote or not, I am perfectly at a los;to conceive what
could have put it into his head to give such reasons as he
has done to-night for abstaining from proposing a vote of
want of confidence. Why, sir, what reason could there be
better than those he assigns, which should make him move
such a vote ? He says he will move a vote of want of con-
fidence in the Government when he sees the slightest proof
that the Government have confidence in themselves—have
confidence in one another. Ought votes of want of confi•
deuce then to be spared, ought men to continue in office
because they are so totally unfit to discharge public duties
that even among themselves they do not exhibit a tolerable
amount of agreement and mutual confidence. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman says her Majesty's Government
differ upon every vital question—they differ upon the Re-
form Bill—they differ about the Protestant dissenters—
they differ about the Protestant cause—they differ about
their foreign policy—they differ, in short, about every
question of interest. The head of the Government, he
says, has no confidence in the leader of the House of Com-
mons—the leader of the House of Commons has no con-
fidence in the head of the Government—the Chancellor of
the Exchequer has no confidence in any of his colleagues,
and none of his colleagues have any confidence in him.
(Laughter.) And that being the state of the case, and we,
miserable and unworthy men, being here usurping the
functions and aping the character of a Government.
(" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthorp, followed by general
laughter.) The right hon. gentleman says, for these rea-
sons, because you are so miserable, because you are so dis-
united, because you are so degraded, I will at this great
crisis of the fortunes of England leave you in place, where
you are to govern the destinies of the country. (Cheers.)
Why, sir, I tell the right hon. gentleman that, if I pos-
sessed his great powers of mind and oratory, I would rather
have been silent altogether on such a subject, than, after
having made such an argument, have conducted it to such
a recreant conclusion. (Loud cheers.) Sir, notwithstand-
ing the hour, I am afraid I must occupy at rate about
one quarter of the time which the hon. gentleman has
taken up, with some remarks in answer to thosewhich he
has made ; and I go as directly as I can to two points on
which he made charges against my own department. The
right hon. gentleman impugns the policy that I have felt
it my duty to pursue, in lowering at an early period in the
year the interest on Exchequer Bills ; and he says that
there were circumstances that had then occurred that
should have shown me the impropriety of that measure.
How fortunate it is, sir, that hon. gentlemen, so wise
after the fact, did not then take notice of the circum-
stances that had then occurred. (Cheers.) They are now
willing with retrospective finger to point them out. At
the time those circumstances were not so visible, and the
right hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that, although
on this subject, like many other subjects of discussion, he
himself was not indisposed to take objection, he took no
objection himself at that time. (Hear.) Sir, the right
hon. gentleman occupied a long period of time in investi-
gating a matter of no moment whatever. lie stated that I
laid claim to a saving of 20,000/: on the interest on Exchequer
Bills. Why, sir, what I stated was this. I said at the

time thatit-Was an incidental observation, scarcely touching
the substance of the case. I stated that the actual payment
on Exchequer-bills would be less this year by a certain
sum than the same palment was last year. But I men-
tioned that the number of Exchequer-bills this year was
reined.. And it has been iu dressing out such a subject
as this, and in drawing his conclusions from it, that the
right hon. gentleman, has thought fit to spend the time of

the house. - Now, the payments in the year are no test of
the merits of a policy. Does the right hon. gentleman
mean to say or not, that I am responsible for the state of
things that change the money market, and make it desirable
to raise the rate of Inkrest on Exchequer-bills in the au-
tumn? That really is.the quEstion. He says that there
has been a loss, and thaA I.said on the contrary that the
sum payable- on Exclrequer-bills would be less this year;
but if the sum paid upon them were double it would have
nothing to do with this point, viz., the imprudence of
luweriug the rate of interest iu the spring. What are the
circumstances which the sight hon. gentleman quoted ?
Ho says, What was the state of the funds, what was the
state of the Bank discounts, and what was the state of the
bullion iu the country.? The funds had fallen, the rate of
discount had risen within a fraction from 2 to 3 per cent.,
and the bullion had changed from 22 millions to l 9 ; and
he argues that, because each of these was a little lower
than before, therefore it was wrong in me to snake any
such attempt as I made. Does the right hon. gentleman
mean to lay, down the general principle that no financial
operation aiming at a reduction of interest ought ever to
be tried under any circumstances excepting at the very
moment which is the most favourable—not at a favourable

or even at a highly favourable moment, but at a moment
absolutely more favourable than any other moment, either
before or after it. Look at the consequence of the doctrine
of the right hon. gentleman. The Bank may raise and
lower its rate of interest from week to week—it can do
precisely as it plc ases ; but the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, when he fixes the rate of interest on Exchequer-
bills, must fix it for t.velve months at a time.
How are you to insure, when you determine the
rate of interest oh Exchequer-bills, that the apex of
favourable circumstances will be at a given time,
and neither before nor after it. Now, I proceeded, with
regard to Exchequer bills, upon deliberate conclusions,
and I contend that the measure was fully justified. I hope,
if the right hon. gentleman thinks it was not fully justi-
fied, that, instead of confining himself to discussions and
declamations which are convenient for occupying time,
but which do not tend to any issue, however he rosy be
indisposed to move a vote of want of confidence—l hope
he will try at any rate to bring this matter to a fair issue.
Sir, I proceeded upon deliberate conviction, and I am
bound to tell the right hon. gentleman, what I have never
said before, but in continuance of this discussion I am
compelled to say h-o.d-the right ;hon. gentleman
himself, when he held the seals of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, been in any position of permanance as a Minis-
ter, using the word in the qualified sense which attaches
to an ordinary Government in this country—he ought
himself long before to have done that which I did; and he
would have been guilty of a scandalous waste of the public

funds if he had renewed Exchequer bills at the same high
rate of interest as they bore in June, 1852. In June, 1852,
Exchequer bills were at 755., and they fell to 558., and
therefore the rate of interest was lowered. These are bills
running for twelve months, and the interest was lid. per
day, or 455. as the interest for the whole of the year, which,
after deducting income tax, came to 435. Well, then, the
premium on these bills—which you will recollect are re-
deemable at par at the expiration of the year—was more
than equal to the whole interest, and yet the right hon.
gentleman says that that was not a state of things which
called for my interference. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I say it is
the right of the public to borrow upon the best terms that
it can; the necessary restraints of law place the public at
great disadvantage in its dealings with the Bank and
other parties ; and on account of these great advantages
inherent in the nature of their position, it is still more
the essential obligation of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to borrow for the public en the best terms
that he can. Now, I say that the time I made the re-
ductioneto id. a day was the proper time for doing so,
and I prove it by saying that I did it. The honourable
member for Peterborough, with less attention to accuracy
than I should have expected from his position, says that I
reduced the interest to ld., and the bills then fell to a dis-
count. Well, was there anything that intervened between
those events ? Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that
they fell to a discount when I reduced the interest ? Sir,
the reduction of the interest was announced in the second
week in February ; and here are the prices of Exchequer-
bills on the business day of each month, and tim Ist of
June is the earliest of the days on which there is the
slightest mention of a discount. Therefore, I say the hon.
member is seriously in error on this matter, because
for three months after the reduction of the interest the
Exchequer-bills remained at a premium, and therefore the
fair inference is, that when they came to a discount the
change took place on account of the increasing pressure on
the money market, and not on account of the reduction.
I propose to adopt what I think is a fair mode of dealing
with this question. The right hon. gentleman, who was
so large and full on such a multitude of points of perfect
unimportance, which he dressed and decked out with a
finery belonging to himself, passed over in total silence
and oblivion those other matters that were not so conve-
nient for him to notice. I made a reference when we dis-
cussed this subject before, which I think a fair reference,
and one calculated to bring this question to an issue ; be-
cause the charge made against me, if I understand it, is,
that by an imprudent reduction in 'the rate of interest on
Exchequer-bills last spring I caused a violent reaction and
an increase of expense. Well, then, if that be the case,
what I say is, that I will look to a neighbouring country.
You say I produced a violent reaction that 1 am now
paying (and it is true) double the rate of interest that I
was paying twelve months ago ; and the reason you
give—which is not true—is, that the reduction I made
was too low. Well, Jnow, what was the state of the
case twelve months ago in France? Twelve months
ago the rate of interest on one class of French
Exchequer-bills was 1i per cent. ; and I think I may
say, with all due respect, that it was not a hope-
less case for the English Government to expect that
their bills should float for longer dates, at the same rate of
interest, with tho Exchequer-bills of the Government of
France. You say I would net have required to double the
rate of interest unless I had first reduced that rate of in-
terest too low. Well, but look at the case of France. The
Exchequer-bills, which were at the rate of 1i per cent.
twelve months ago,only a few days ago were raised to 4
per cent. So that while I have to double the rate of in-
terest on Exchequer-bills, the French Government had
to treble the rate of interest on their Exchequer-bills.
Now I shall trouble the right honourable gentleman for
an explanation of that fact, when he next sets him-
self to complain of my imprudent, reduction as having
doubled the rate of reduction on the rate of interest on the
Exchequer-bills. (Cheers.) Sir, it is not necessary for me
to enter at great detail into these matters. The right hon.
gentleman spoke in the most alarming terms of the formi-
dable accumulation of deficiency bills. He said it might be
very true that we had saved 10,0001. or 20,0001. on Ex-
chequer-bills ; but what was that to the very serious loss
which the country would sustain on the deficiency bills
which that saving rendered necessary? Sir, here are the
returns of the deficiency bills for the three last quarters,
being all that have yet been made up. The cost on defi-
ciency bills for the first of these quarters was 62/. ; for the
second, 770/4 for the third, 4811. (Great laughter and
cheering.) A sum amounting to between 1,0001. and
1,2001. is the whole amount of charge caused by these
tremendous and overwhelmingdeficiency bills. (Renewed
cheering.) The right hon. gentleman, I confess, some-
times appears to me, in the heat, or, at least, in the force
which he brings to bear upon these discussions, to dilate
upon these subjects in a manner which might tend to cause
great alarm in the public mind. I remember, sir, on former
occasions, when questions relating to the public credit were
discussed, it was done with great reserve. At a time when
not more than 900,000:. remained as a balance in the Ex-
chequer, to meet the demands of the next quarter day, the
fact was alluded to, indeed, but the allusion was made in
grave and sober terms, by no means in those orations which
we are now accustomed to hear night after night ; and I
must confess that at first serious alarm entered my mind,
when I heard, and admired while I heard, the brilliant
oratory of the right hon. gentleman ; but at the same time
serious apprehensions entered my mind, lest, knowing the
high authority of the speaker, alarm should seize upon the
public mind. I said, here is my predecessor in office tell-
ing the public that it is impossible for the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to meet his engagements.next quarter day.
Sir, that might have caused great alarm among gentle-
men in the City. The last time when the right honour-
able gentleman favoured us with these displays—l know
not how it may be to-morrow—(laughter)—but the last
time he so favoured us was en the 6th of March. On the
7th, I was curious to know what was the effect of his
speech, and I found that the Consols, which on the 6th
stood at from 901 to 91, stood on the 7th at from 91 to
ola. (Roars of laughter.) After all tho dark anticipa-
tions I had formed, sir, I confess this proved to mo no
inconsiderable relief. (Cheers.) I come now, sir, to the
main %nest-ions on which the right hon. gentleman has
challenged me—the two main topics in his speech—one of
which was the abortive action upon the funded debt, and
the other the state of the balances in the Exchequer. Here
the right hon. gentleman marshalled against me a great
array of premonitory sentences, and after a long accumu-
lation of epithets, he wound up with the declaration that
it was absolute madness—l think those were the words—
absolute madness to present any plan for the reduction of
the interest on the national debt last March. But the
right hon. gentleman forgets that I referred him before
to his own opinions. (Expressions of dissent from Mr.
Disraeli.) No, he remembers that, but he forgets what
the opinions were to which I did refer him. He comes
down here in March, 1854, full of wisdom, after the
fact. But he forgets what was the state of opinion in
March and April, 1853. Sir, I was curious to know what was
the state of public opinion at that time ; what was its action
upon the funds ; what were the general sentiments among
those interested in money matters ; and those who will
take the trouble to refer to that period will find that all
who censured me on that occasion, censured me because I
had secured too little for the public. (Cheers.) I referred
to that opinion expressed by the right hon. gentleman -
and he says, what a wretched thing is the argumentum ad
hominem. Bat, sir, I did not use it as an argumenturn ad
hominem. I used it, because at that time, in his objec-
tions, the right hon. gentleman represented public opinion,
and because he knows that public opinion has varied,
therefore the right hon. gentleman has also altered his
tone. But the right hon. gentleman did then make
that objection. We did not hear a word then about the
prospects of a bad harvest, or of the state of the funds, but
the right hon. gentleman went into a long and imposing
detail of the state of the public debt. He showed how one
Minister after another had reduced, some one million,
some one million and a half; and what do you mean, he
said by your paltry reduction, which even at the outside
cannot amount to more than half a million a year. It will
not do that he should say, what any of us may say, that
we have learned samething from the experience of the
past. Oh, no, he says, all the facts where then in exist-
ence. But he entirely forgets to allude to the fact—
though I reminded him of it the other night—that both
he and his learned brother in finance beside him united in
warning and censuring me, not because I proposed a re-
duction, but because that reduction was so insignificant.
Sir, I must now refer in a few words to theepestiote. of
the balances of the Exchequer ; and in doing so I must
refer to the speech of the hon. member for Peterborough.
Far be it from me to complain of the speech of the hon.
gentleman. I regret that in subsequent allusions to the
, speech of the hon. gentleman he was described by several
members as the Bank director ; not because I do not think
that he is a most useful and worthy Bank director, but lest
the impression may be produced out of doors that he spoke
in his official character of Bank director. But, sir, I think
the house will see, from the speech of the hon. gentleman
that the relations between the Bank of England and the
financial department of this country, though of an intimate
Are still of a most independent character ; and I fear,
moreover, the impression may be produced that the rela-
tions existing between him and me are not eminently
favourable to the fortunate conducting of our financial
affairs. (Hear,) Sir, I find no fault with the speech of
the hon. gentleman, but I think it may be inferred from
what he said that I had recently been to the Bank more or
less as a suppliant, asking for loans at less than their mar-
ket value, and putting upon the Bank a pressure, on the
assumption that it was bound to have regard to the inte-
rests of the Exchequer, apart from its own interests as a
standing corporation. Sir, I disclaim any such intention
or act ; and, moreover, I think I may say, though I was not
present at the meeting of the Bank proprietors held a few
daps ago, but I have been informed that a question was then
put to the Governor of the Bank by one os the proprietors,
who wished to know whether a proposition had been made
which was favourable to the interests of Government, but
at variance with the interests of the Bank, and the Gover-
nor, as I am informed, replied distinctly that he had re-
ceived no such proposition. Sir, it is perfectly clear that
the Government have no right to demand a pecuniary ad-
vantage of a single farthing in their transactions with the
Bank. It is the. business of the Bank to charge the Go-
vernment—and it would be perfectly compatible with the
most friendly relations between them to do so—the fair
value for any accommodation which they may afford. Sir,
the honourable gentleman also dwelt upon the history of
the deficiency bills in a manner which I think may cause
serious public misapprehension. What is the state of the
case ? Is it a question of principle or of degree ? Is it the
opinion of this house that deficiency bills are an illegiti-
mate means of supplying the public exigencies ? If they
think so, let those who think so repeal the act of Parlia-
ment by which the power is committed to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to negotiate the issue of deficiency bills.
I contend for directly the contrary. The act was passed
forty years ago,sand they have been in use ever since.
The hon. gentleman quoted the state of the balances dur-
ing the last six years ; and it is true that they have been
less used during that time than during the thirty-seven
years before. And why ? Because, for the last six
years, the excess was the other way. The deficiency in
the revenue was so great in 1841, tho deficieno bills had
attained such a height in combination with a deficient re-
venue, that they exercised a pernicious influence upon pub-
lic credit. Is that a reason why we should not reserve a
reasonable and a moderate amount of deficiency bills ?
What is the opposite doctrine ? It is that the finance

minister ought to have a constant accumulation of money
in the Bank throughout the quarter, beginning by low
balances of half a million or a million, and running up at
the end to nine or ton millions. Ido not believe that is a

very good course to be taken, either fortgq;ade of the
country, for the Bank, or for tho Government. You wait,
then, to hear what is the opposite doctrine upon this sub-
ject. My doctrine is,as I have said, that a moderate and
. .

reasonable use of deficiency bills is not only compatible
with the welfare of the country, and consistent with the
maintenance of public credit, but that it is the most con-
venient for all parties. (Hear.) The hon. member for
Peterborough accedes to that doctrine; but then ho says
that the.present amount of deficiency bills is an excessive
amount,.

Mr. HANKEY-I did not say excessive.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I do not
mean to quote the exalt expression used by the hon. mem-
ber, but rather the effect of what be said ; and, as I under-
stood his meaning, it was that the Government had issued
chore deficiency bilis than, they ought. My own view of

the amount of deficiency bills which will be brought to
chargecomointhet.l aextn(2 a
quarter
I haveterist said uponhatitwill a be
fforormme4r occasion,,ooo,oool
to
I consider this to be a larger amount than it is desirable
to have permanently. I should say that if the amount
called for permanently was 2,000,0001. or 2,500,0001., it
would be a very good arrangement. Then, of course, it
would be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
made use of such means as he has at command to reduce
that amount from quarter to quarter 2 • and it would be in
his power, if the finances of the country are kept in a state
of soundness, as I believe they will be by the care and wis-
dom of the House of Commons, to effect that purpose in 3 or
4 quarters. Ido not wish it to be understood by any means
that the amount of deficiency bills now called for is either
unprecedented or rare. If I look back to the years from
1840 to 1843, I find the amounts during that period com-
monly varied from 4,000.0001. as a minimum to 7,000,0001.
and 8,000,000/. and even more. This, being combined
with a deficit, is an impolitic, an undue, and a dangerous
practice. But Igo farther back. You seem to think
• that there can be no deficiency bills except as an indica-
tion of an unsound state of the revenue, of weakness in
public credit, and of deranged trade, But I will take the
years 1832, 1833, 1834, and 1835, to show the fallacy of
that opinion, because every one of those years was pro-
sperous ; they were each a year of surplus revenue, of a
sound state of public credit, and of a prosperous state of
trade. 1n1832 the smallestamonnt of deficiency bills brought
to charge was 3,353,0001., and the largest 7,7562000/. ; in
1833 the minimum was 4,880,0001., and maximum
7,230,000/. ; in 1834 the minimum was 4,480,0001., and
the maximum 6,757,000/. ; in 1835 the minimum was
3,500,0001. and the maximum was 6,500,000/. The ave-
rage of the minimum was 3,878,000/. • the average of the
maximum 6,967,0001. Is then, 3,750,000/.,ywhich is about
the total amount brought to charge in this quarter, to be
considered an alarming Amount, being less than the mini-
mum of these sound and prosperous years ? I think not.
Sir, we must go to book upon these subjects. It will not
i do to declaim upon them the vague and amusing generali-
ties. We must look at these things as practical men, and
doing so, I say that the amount brought to charge is not an
excessive amount. The hon. and learned member for
Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had been pleased to say he will
not be hard upon meant that he wishes me to understand
that matters of finance are very important and delicate
• operations. Sir, I am deeply indebted to the hon. and
learned gentleman for a lesson of a nature so far removed
from my common education that I never could have hoped
to have attained to its possession except through his
kindness. (A. laugh.) There is, however, one point
more, which appears to have been one that hit the fancy
of the right hon. gentleman. It was not a question of
the argumentum act hominem ; but he said these are
opinions merely," and then he proceeded to draw a
strong and glaring contrast between a man's opinions
and his conduct. Opinions are nothing; conduct is every-
thing. Then what is the use of opinions ? I apprehend
they are intended to have some influence. I take it for
granted that the man who stands in the place where I now
stand, occupying the office of minister of finance, and giv-
ing an opinion upon finance, is not to be allowed subse-
quently to evade the consequences of that opinion by say-
ing that he did not act upon it. It was his opinion; and I
will suppose it was his sincere opinion. If it was his sin-
cere opinion, it had the weight of his authority, and I am
entitled to presume that when opportunityoffered he would
be prepared to act upon it. (Hear.) How can he evade
the consequences of it ? I find myself, .sir, at a late hour
(ten minutes to two o'clock) after such observations as I
have thought if, necessary to make to the house in the po-
sition of having todeal with the motion of the hon. baronet.
To that motion I have not yet made the slightest allusion.
In that respect I have followed the example of all who have
gone before me—(a laugh)—l have been equally vicious in
principle, but I trust it will be allowed that I shall be
more moderate in degree. In a very few sentences I will
say why I cannot agree to the motion—a motion which has
been made:the battle-field for all sorts of subjects, though
the honourable baronet brought it forward in a straight-
forward way, and with a proper and earnest conviction
that in doing so he is only doing his duty. It is impossible
to accede to the motion, because the object of the Govern-
ment has been to reconcile together several purposes that
might be considered in conflict with one another. We
might have attempted to form an estimate of the year's ex-
penditure. If we had done so—if we had taken a year's
estimate of war expenditure—we must have asked the
house for a very large sum ; and if we had asked for a very
large sum, we might have asked for a sum greatly beyond
that which the exigencies of the,war may require ; for I will
not pretend to say, looking at the powerful combinations
that have been formed, that it is impossible to bring the
ar to a close within a short time. We have thought it
wise to take warning by the experience of our predecessors;
and to come to this house and say, " We will leave the
power in your hands by asking only sufficient for a
limited term." We say, " You are going to sit for four or
five months ; and wo will reserve to ourselves the oppor-
tunity andjto you thepower of considering towards the close
of that period the appearance of public affairs, and the
probable demand that will be_ made upon the Exchequer expenditure on the war." But by taking the other
course we must have asked for a sum that would have been
deemed extravagant, and then we should have been told
we were calling for money which we were not sure we
should want. What did Mr. Pitt do ? He brought in his
budget early in the year—the first year of the French war.
He produced a budget for the whole year ; and he took for
his extraordinary expenditure, 1,250,000/. For the period
of a whole year no more was hoard upon the subject; and
in the next year Mr. Pitt informed the house that, besides
having absorbed the 1,250,0001., ho had laid out 6,000,000/.
and that there had been extra expenses, unprovided for by
the votes of Parliament, amounting to about 5,000,0001.
Sir, that would not be a satisfactory state of things for this
house at this time of day. It was, therefore, felt to be our
duty to inform the house of the demands made upon us. In
I order that we might deal with the house in freedom and
confidence, we put thom in possession of our present wants,
leaving it to the house to provide for further emergencies.
It was, therefore, necessary to ask the house, as we
are now doing, to make provision for six months' expendi-
ture by six months taxation. If we had asked for the
expenses of six months' war upon twelve months' taxation,
the hon. baronet will see at once the position in which we
should have been placed in relation to the great object of
making the expenses of the year to be paid within the year.
Much has been said tending to disparage the principle of
raising the supplies for the year within -the year; and
words have been used which seemed to indicate an inten-
tion—perhaps not yet formed, but which may grow into
substantive and distinct development—of endeavouring to
induce the house to depart from that most sound principle.
I do not intend now to discuss the obligations of the house
in that respect. All I will say is this—that I trust the
house will, both upon moral and prudential, as well as eco-
nomical considerations, adhere to the very utmost of its
powers, and in the most rigid form, to this valuable prin.
ciple, of raising the supplies within the year. And I think
I may venture to promise, on the part of the Government
and of myself, that, so long as there is upon the part of
the house a disposition to do justice to the country in this
respect, we at least shall be ready to fulfil our part.
Colonel SI3THORP said the right hon. gentleman had
alluded to the moral and prudential considerations which
act:stated himself and the Government. Their intentions
were to be economical. Now, having an experience of
26 years in that house, he had learned this—never to rely
on the statements and promises of Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer. (A laugh.) Re had no opinion of them at all.
They were all full of duplicity. (Laughter.) He would
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if he should
like the Emperor of Russia to have a good licking—
(laughter)—he would remit the additional income tax
which he now proposed to impose ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he was afraid he could not promise not to call for the ad-
ditional income tax, even if there was no declaration of
war, because this modicum of taxation would in fact be
the expenses of the present expedition
tnoectehsesaEryast defray

The amendment was then withdrawn; the original re-
solutions were agreed to, and a bill founded upon them
was ordered to be introduced.
The house then adjourned at fire minutes past two.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS.

,

• ,
° LI RPOaOL; MARem 21.
STOCK EXCHANGE. The share market has been dull and
depressed again to-day, but closed rather better than at the
lowest point. Caledonian, 264 ; Eastern Counties, 12 ;
East Lancashire, 15; Lancashire and Yorkshire, 61 ;
Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport, 10i; London and
North-Western, 974 ; Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln,
20$ ; Midland, 574 ; Birmingham and Derby, 33 ; North
British, 7g ; South-Eastern and Dover, 18 ; York and
North Midland 22i.

MANCHESTER MARCH 21.
STOCK EXCHANGL—There MANCHESTER,
some fluctuation, but
with the exception of London and North-Western, which
sold at 1/. lower, most of the principal stocks were rather
firmer at the close than the opening, with a considerable
business. Manchester and Birmingham, C Quarters, 1-16
Pm, ; Sheffields, 201 ; Ditto New Pref., 1-16 pm.; Mid-
land, 576 ; Dovers, 18 ; Leeds, 618 ; London Stock, 98} ;
East Lancashire, 15 ; Ditto Prof. Quarters, ; Eastern
Counties, 12b ; Caledonians, 264.

LEEDS, MancH 21.
STOCK ka.PRANGE.—The share market is dull to-day,
and prices are lower, the heavy stocks having declined
since morning. The transactions to-day are :—Midlauds,
57$ ; Caledonians, 26j ; North-Western (Skipton line), 7 ;
and Lancashire and Yorkshires, 61g.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. 1 st

VESSELS SPOKEN WITH.
The Bosphorus, from London, Feb. '23.
The Usk (brig), bound south, Feb. 26.
The Express, Liverpool to Melbourne, Jan. 22, let. 19
S., long. 30 W. 61 days out, with loss of foretopgallant
and foremast heads. The Great Britain steering south,
same day.
The Alceste Liverpool to Port Adelaide, Jan 26, lat 1
S., long. 21 W.
The Frans, Canton to London, Feb. 26, let. 38 N.,
long. 19 W.
The New Orleans, Nov. 24, let. 32 S., long. 89 W.
The Bucephalus, standing to the south, Jan. 2, let. 28
S., long. 22 W.
The barque No. 2853, Dec. 17, lat. 25 S., long. 65 E.
The ship No. 9,638, from Canton, 80 days out, in sight
of st. Helena.
A ship, No. 7,926, Bombay to. Liverpool, Jan. 31, lat.
14, long. 9 W.
The Eleutheria, Clyde to Melbourne, Oct. 12.
The Eclair, Bordeaux to Sydney, Oct. 27, lat 38 S.,
long. 23 W.
The Hampden, Bombay to Melbourne, Nov. 25, let. 34
S., long. 129 E.
The Adelia, from Liverpool, Dec. 4, let. 40 S., long.
135 E.
The Benares, London to Melbourne, off Cape Otway.
The Ilerefordshire, London to Melbourne, Sept. 13
The Carnatic, for New Zealand, let. 44 S., long. 63 E.
The America, Amsterdam to Melbourne, let. 4 N., long.
22 W.
The Dominion, for Sydney, let. 4 N., long. 14 W.

- -
[ADVERTISEMENT,J—HoIIoway's Pills the greatest
wonder of modern times.—They correct bile, prevent
flatulency, cleanse the liver, purify the system, renovate
the debilitated, strengthen the stomach, increase, the
appetite, invigorate the nerves, promote health, and re-
instate the weak to an ardour of feeling never before ex-
perienced. The extraordinary daily sales of these in-
valuable pills in all parts of the globe astonish everbody,
convincing them that there is no other medicine in ex-
i:tence equal to Holloway's pills for removing the com-
plaints which are incidental to the human race ; they
are, indeed, a blessing to the afflicted, and a boon to
those who suffer from any disorder, internal or external.
--Sold by all druggist, and at Professor Holloway's
Establishment, 244, Strand, London,

25
25
18
20
St.

50
161
St.
194

50
20
11i,
101

50
40
25
25

812s1

25
50
20

20
20
10
10

St.
10
St.
25

20
20
50
20