The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-23 00:00:00

his plan which had hitherto been but little commented upon,
but which he thought well worthy the attention of the House—
he meant the regulations as to the mode in which the tax was
levied on the agriculturist.—( Hear.) He begged distinctly to
state, that he did not, for one moment. imagine that the object
of the Right lion. Baronet, in levying the tax to only half the
amount on persons employed in agriculture, was to give any
unfair advantaee to the agricultural interest. He believed the
object of the Hight Hon Baronet was to get at the profits of the-
farmer. The Right Hon. Baronet took the rent, and assumed the
farmers' profits as one half the rent. He assumed that there
were some given relation between the profits of the farmer and
the rent which he paid. He (Sir W. Clay) denied that any
such relation existed. What was rent ? He thought the Right
Hon. Baronet would admit that the usually received definition
of rent was the right ene. Rent consisted of the surplus pro..
fits derived from the employment of capital in agricultural pur-
suits, over and above the usual rate of interest upon such capital.
For instance, if the rate of interest were 5 per cent., and money
employed in agricultural pursuits produced 15 per cent., the
relit Would be the surplus 10 per cent. It could be nothing
else; and as the general rate of farming profits must be equal,
whether a farmer rents fertile land or poor land, it is clear that
he cannot pay the same amount of rent. If it be true that the
rate of farming profit is three times larger than the profits of
any other pursuit, then the preposition of the Right Hon. Baro-
net was just, and he would not ask the exact measure of profit;
hat that could only be true in a small number of instances,
and in by far the gloater number of instances it would be too
high or too low. The subject was an abstruse one, and to
make his meaning intelligible, he would suppose a case. Let
them take the case of a farmer renting 300 acres of land. If
15s. an acre, then it would be 275/., and the tenant would
escape the tax altogether, inasmuch a; the Right Hon. Gen-
. tlernan proposed to tax farms only of 3001. a year ; but if the
land was let at 31. an acre, that would be a rental of 900/.,
and upon one-half of that 4501. the tenant would be taxed
three per cent., or 131. 101. Now, was it at all clear that he
made a profit of 4501 , or that the other tenant made only
135/. ? On the contrary, there was not the slightest ground
for supposing that the capital employed on the land paying 31.
an acre realised more profit to the tenant than the capital
employed on the land at 15s. per acre. The surplus
profit went to the landlord. Therefore the Right
Honourab'e Gentleman committed great injustice, be-
cause he charged on the farm, which might not per-
haps yield more profit than a farm of less value, a tax of 13/.
or 14/. What was the result of the principle laid down by the
Right Hon. Gentleman? He (Sir W. C.) was quite aware
that the Right Hon. Gentleman was not answerable for that
principle.. The principle was this, it exempted all incomes
under 1501. a year, but the tax was not levied on the real pro-
fits of the farmer. He believed he was justified in saying, at
least he had taken some pains to inquire, that out of the who;e
of the farmers of Great Britain, 'lreland, and Wales, there
were not less than two-thirds under 300/. a year—therefore
they exempted from taxation two-thirds of the farming capital
of, the country. It was difficult to say what that capital was,
as statistical information on the subject was very defective; but,
he believed, if he said that capital was from three to four hun-
dred millions, he should not overstate it; so that two-
thirds of that large amount they exempted from taxation,
and., by so doing, they committed an injustice upon
one class of the country at the expense of another.
He could not conceive that the reason for thispeculiarity as
regarded the mode of reckoning the rents of farming capital,
could be justified by anything in the peculiar position of the
farmer. On the contrary, he could see why it should be
far less objectionab'e to 'apply the inquisitorial process to the
farmer than the ordinary trader. A farmer was in a very slight.
degree subject to credit, or a supposition of wealth. He was
not subject to the bankrupt laws ; his principal creditor must
be his landlord, and his principal debtors his labourers ; and on
the whole it must be easier to arrive at his profits than those of
the ordinary trader. He (Sir W. Clay) considered this pro-
cess, as regarded the fanner, was based on principles which were
false ; he held that the effect of it would be, to exempt a large
portion of the capital of this country employed in agriculture
from the payment of this tax, and that he held to be unfair.
He was quite disposed to give the Right Hon. Baronet full
credit for a large portion of his commercial tariff, and in the
discussion of it the Right lion. Baronet should have whatever
humble support it was in his power to give.—( Hear, hear. )
In some portions of it, however, he thought that Gentlemen had
been ready to give credit for that which he thought did not
deserve it. He should only allude now to one special point,
because the loss of revenue which that position occasioned was
one justification for the impOsition of the Income-tax—he
alluded to the alteration of the tax on timber. That measure was
approved of by the Honourable and Gallant Commodore the
Member for Marylebone, by his Honourable Friend the
Member for Dumfries, and the Member fer Wolverhampton.
Those Gentlemen justified the plan on the ground that it
would be of great advantage to the shipping interest. He
(Sir W. Clay) did not think that that was true. He did not
believe that Canadian timber was used to any great extent in
English commercial ship-building. To whatever extent it
might be useful to build the inferiorclass of merchant vesselsof
Canadian timber, to that extent there was a sufficient supply in
those colonies. Those ships were very useful, and were built
to a great extent in those places, and• it would be quite out of
the question to enter into competition with them. He did not
think the reduction in the duty upon Canadian timber was
large enough to insure any considerable increase in its use
among the poorer classes; and the Right Hon. Baronet had
not, in his opinion, any sufficient motive for throwing away so
large an amount of duty. Of the Income-tax he entirely dis-
approved, under the existing circumstances of the country.
He did not think it was justified by necessity, and he should
therefore vote for the amendment of his Hon. Friend the Men.-
her for Liskeard.
Sir. EWART explained.
Mr. WAKLEY said that, notwithstanding all he had heard
in the course of these debates, he was still disposed to believe
that a Property-tax was the best that could be imposed ; and
he exceedingly regretted to find that the present Bill was so
framed that he could not give it his support. lithe Right
Hon. Baronet had proposed even a graduated Income-tax, he
would sincerely support him, because be believed that no tax
could operate so unjustly in this country as a tax which fell
directly on the working.classes of the community. The Right
Hon. Baronet, in the different speeches he had made, had em-
phatically denounced any taxation of the poor. He denounced
taxes upon industry. But the Right Hon. Baronet was about
to tax industry; he was about to tax incomes derived f.om
labour, when they exceeded 150/. a year. Now, he (Mr,
Wakley) thought that they should not, at all events, tax to the
same amount incomes derived from profs, sional exertions and
iccouns derived from fixed capital. 'that was felt by the public
to be an intolerable grievance, and, he was perfectly
satisfied it would not be endured.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Hon. Gent.then real a letter from an individual who stated
that with a capital of 5,0001. he- employed 34 clerks and la-
bourers, besides horses ; that the gross returns were 25,000/.,
arid that he paid various taxes to the amount of 1001., :Ind
asked, was it fair to tax the profits of his industry, while, it
he had the same in the funds, only the interest of it would be
taxed? But, said the Hon. Gentleman, the Right Hon. Baronet
makes the investigation into his means a secret one. Now he
(Mr. Wakley) thought it ought to be made public. He con-
sidered it desirable that publicity should be a check upon the
proceedings of the Commissioners.
Sir R. PEEL —The party still have the option of going
before the local Commissioners or the special Commissioners
appointed by the Government.
Mr. WA KLEY (in continuation)—What he wished was
that the party might have the power, ifhe wished, of a public
investigation before the local Commissioners. He thought it
very unjust that they had not. The Commissioners would, in
point of fact, decide judicially, and, in such a case, every
judge ought to decide publicly. The case he alluded to was one
out of many thousands. He thought the present tax would end
in a graduated one. He was sure such a demand would arise.

He w7as ready to acknowledge that there was no strong feeling
against the Income-tax out of doors.—(Loud Ministerial
cheers.) His impres_ion, was that the opinion out
of doors was that the tax was the most just
that could be imposed. He thought the Right
Hon. Baronet bad made a gigantic effort to meet the present
difficulties.—( Cheers. ) It would be unfair, and unmanly,
and ungenerous to deny that.=(Cheers.) It might make him
unpopular, but he was there to do his duty, and he was bound
to state that he considered no, system of taxation so fair and
just as a direct tax on the property of the country. The Hon.
Member for List:eard objected to direct taxation. He really
did not know where he could have learned his political eco-
nomy. Ile preferred direct, taxation; he liked to see the tax-
gatherer come and make his demand openly ; then the tax-
payer began to ask what it was applied fur, and thus every
mars gradually became a political Reformer. But the sum
they were about to collect by the tax was inadequate to its in-
quisition ; is was only one-fourteenth of the whole revenue.
Had it been one-half, he should have been delighted with it.
He contended that the sliding scale, applied to Income-tax,
was just and inevitable. If ever the sliding scale was justi-
fiable, it was in reference to this tax. He wanted to know
why it could not be applied ? They had the sliding scale ap-
plied to horses, carriages, servants, and windows, and
why could not they apply it to income? Those who
advocated the sliding scale applied to corn, ought to be
gratified at seeing their political opinions carried out,
for he was confident, from the general opinion, that the people
would not rest satisfied unless the tax on income was made a
graduated one. The sliding scale was also applied to receipt
stamps, inland and foreign bills of exchange, securities for
money lent, and promissary notes. According to the plan of
the Right Hon. Baronet, a man with 2001. a year would have
6/. withdrawn from his income, while the man with 6,0001.
would have 180/. a year withdrawn from his income. In the
ease of the former you deprive the man of the value of a suit
of clothes, but in the case or the latter, what deprivation was
there whatever ? If he could have no pleasures from 6,000/. a
year, minus 1801., he must be a very avaricious fellow, and
the more they taxed him the better for himself and for hl3
country. A constituent of his (Mr. Wakley), who was a
clerk, had told him that his salary was 160/. ayear, and that last
year, alter having observed tt.e strictest economy, he still found
himself 11/. in debt at the close of the year. In consequence,
he and his wife came to the resolution of snaking some sacrifices
to keep out of debt; but now cause the Right Hen. Baronet
with his tax, which would deprive them of 4/. 103. per annum.
Under those circumstances, he had asked him (Mr. W.) what
he was to do. The operation of the tax would, he said, leave
him quite destitute. His family consisted of a wife and four
ciiiidren, and a little servant girl. The servant he should be
obliged to discharge, and the 6/. wages which he had paid to
her, would go as his contribution to the tax. There was an
instance of how the poorer classes would be affected by the ope-
ration of the lion. Baronet's measure ; and the poor servant girl
whom he would be obliged to discharge, was a member of a
family of 7 children, the father of whom was a cripple. There
was another point to which he would refill.. How was the
Right Hon. Baronet to guard against frauds in certain instances
—suppose a man had 40,000/. in the funds, and he divided it
amongst his family into ten parts, how could they guard
against fraud in such a case? The Right Honourable Baronet
had also laid a great stress upon his plan of taxing the
Irish absentees. Now he (Mr. W.) wanted to know how they
were to tax Irish absentees residing in France, in Faly, or in any
other part of the Continent? The farmers in England had often
asked, why it was that they were taxed, and the Irish farmers
were not ? For these reasons, he felt himself bound to vote
against the Hon. Baronet's measure, though reluctantly. He
believed that an Income-tax would, in some circumstances, be
just, and that a Property-tax, in the present circumstances of
the country, was the very best that could be impo,ed.
Mr. D'ISRAELI said it was admitted on all hands that new
taxes roust be imposed to meet the necessities of the country ;

and in his opinion, therefore, the only question properly was as
to the causes which had rendered new taxcis necessary. No-
thing eou dbe more the duty of the House of Commons than

to investigate the causes of the present state of things. The
present deficiency was not confined to this country alone; a
great deficiency existed in our Indian empire, and the wars
which had been carried on in India were to tc regarded as the

wars, not of the Eait India Company, but of the English nation.
II was a matter of notoriety that the deficiency in England and
India commenced at the same time: Was it aristocratic legisla-
tion that had caused the revenues of India and England to
vanish ? Ile would not enter into the policy or impolicy of
Corn-laws, but no one could say they had decreased commerce,
because it had not declined. The revenue of the country had
not declined, but its expenditure had increased. The foreign
policy of the late Government had destroyed the surplus, and
produced the present great deficiency, What was that ?obey ?
Why, it was engaging in a war that had never met v‘ ith the
sanction of the Sovereign, had never been developed by the
Minister, or sanctioned by Parliament. That war had brought
disaster, and occasioned ruinous expense—such expenses as
had rendered it necessary on the part of the present Ministers
to propose an Income-tax. By that war the surplus of two
great empires had been extinguished, and yet the Ministers that
had occasioned it had been allowed to escape without inquiry.
M hen a Noble Lord came down to that House, and said he

would divide the House on every opportunity oft, this subject,
he (Mr. D'lsraeli) was surprised that no Member On that (the
Opposition) side of the Muse never came down to inquire into
the cause of these deficiencies. The first duty they had to per.
form was to inquire into the causes of these deficiencies, and
to have thrown the responsibilities of those deficiencies on
those who had caesed them.
Mr. CHRISTIE, as a young Member, claimed the indul-
gence ol• the House while he explained his reasons for sup-
porting the Hon. Member fur Liskeard. He objected to this
tax for its direct nature. He objected to this tax be-
cause it was the most hurtful of all taxes that could
be imposed. Its inquisitorial nature must be attended
with the greatest evils ; it was calculated to engender
deceit and demoralisation amongst the people. This tax
was unequal, harassing, and mischievous, revolting to the
feelings of individuals, and only to be resorted to in cases of the
last emergency—( Hear, hear)—and even then, when resorted
to, it entailed a most serious responsibility on the party proposing
it. The Right Hon. Gentleman, some years ago, said that it
was most unwise to establish such a disgusting imposition for
the purpose of raising three or four per cent. Now this was
the very per centage the Right Him. Baronet proposed to raise.
—(He;r, hear.) He (Mr. Christie) was aware that the cir-
cumstances of the country were different now, but the Right
Hon. Baronet might have adopted the proposition of the Noble
Lord, the Member for London, to place a tax of no importance
to individuals—a small tax upon articles of general consumption
—which would have raised the amount required, or even
have resorted to the house or window tax, which, though in
themselves direct taxes, did not possess the hurtful and inqui-
sitorial character of an Incomes tax. ' The Hon. Member for
Northampton supported the Right Hon. Baronet, on the
ground that the Income-tax was a price paid for important
concessions made by the Right Hon. Baronet. Now, he
(Mr. Christie) did not know what those concessions were. Did
the Hon. Member see them in the Corn Bill, or did he see
them in the tariff, beginning with a differential duty of 109
per cent. on coffee, with a heavy tax of 30s. per load on foreign
timber, and a nominal duty of Is. a load on colonial timber 2
( Hear, hear.) Certainly, if these were the steps taken by
the Right Hon. Baronet towards free trade, the price which
the Hon. Member for Northampton would pay for these con-
cessions, was a very extravagant one indeed.—(Cheers.,) The
Hon. Member for Bath, who was another of the Right
Honourable Baronet's supporters on that (the Opposition)
side of the House, supported the Right Honourable Baro-
net from another consideration. He thought that the
deficiency ought to be made up by economy in the
Government establishments. but the Honourable Member
said there was no possibility, in the present state of the House.
of his view being successful. He (Mr. Christie) thought it
would be a long time before they saw that economy. The
Hon. Member for Bath said, that seeing there was no pro-
bability of his views being carried out, he should support the
proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet, in the hope that he
would ultimately adopt that economy the Hon. Member
wished to see practised ; but he (Mr. Christie) thought it would
be a long time before the Hon. Member wrung from the Right
Hon. Baronet this economy. He confessed that this ground
for supporting the proposition looked very like inconsistency.
The Bill would go into Committee and would come out of it
with what the Hun. Member for Bath called a gross and
palpable injustice. If the House would bear with him he
would mention one other reason why he opposed the proposi-
tion of the Right Hon. Baronet; and which he thought had
not been mentioned before._( Hear, hear.) The man who
could command only 2001. or 300/. or 40.1. a year, earned
from some trade and profession, with a large family to
support, would suffer a great deal more than the
single man with 150/. a-year. People whose claims
were under 150/. a year, were those who were probably ac-
customed to humble desires and humble eccupations; but go
a little higher and you would find those who, besides having
to pay something for the sake of appearances, had large ex-
penses to pay for the education of their families, from whom,
perhaps, might rise those vche might yet be a lustre to the Bris
tish nation. To allow those whose profits were under 150/.
a year to escape, and to make these men pay the tax was a
gross and palpable injustice. He considered this measure was
the last exigency of a Government. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman's agricultural supporters would not allow him to impose
a fixed duty upon corn.-4 Hear, hear.) And then with re-
gard to the tariff, no good was done to the manufacturers of this
country by it ; but the colonial producers were allowed to go
unscathed, and in order to do them the least possible harm and
to do the consumers the least possible good, he inflicted a great
loss upon the revenue.—( Hear, hear.) These were the rea-
sons which should lead him to give his hearty support to the
amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard ; and
be could not sit down without expressing his thanks to the
House for the attention with which he had been heard.
Mr. SMYTHE said there was one principle in which
he perfectly agreed with the Him. Member for Liskeard, and
that was, that we were not called upon absolutely, and, in the
abstract, to discuss whether the Income-tax were a good mea-
sure or a bad: one, because, he believed, that Hon. Members
might consider this measure inquisitorial, as it hail been called,
and yet vote for the Income-tax. When Mr. Pitt entered
office, he found the . country involved to the amount of
4,844,0001., and what did he do? Why, he, issued Exchequer-
bills to the amount of five and a half millions. He considered
this to be entirely a question of confidence.—(Oh.) Their
opposition he believed to be a mere opposition of formula and
faction. Hon. Member's on the other side had said, that this
was no question of Caubul or Affghanistan ; the Noble Lord,
the Member for Liverpool, justly asked what would be the effect
of this intelligence when proclaimed in China, and in Nepaul.
They must all remember the overthrow of the British Legions,
and the disgrace of Matthews. The inevitable tendency of affairs
in India would be to create unquiet. If they should lose their
markets in the New World, they might yet have to repair to
the Old World to compensate for their loss. They might have
to repair to India for that sugar which the United States •and
the Brazils might withhold. He could not therefore, under-
stand the reason of deprecating our relations in that quarter of
the globe. Ought not this to be a consideration in the e) eof
a far-seeing statesman? If he wanted further elements of justi-
fication for the tax prOposed by the Right Hon. Geatleman, he
would remind the House of what the Right Hon. and Gallant
Commodore, the Member for Marylebonee said that a British
fleet in 1840 meeting a French fleet would not have been.vic-
torious, followed up as that was by what he said, that never did
he remember such a crisis ae the present, in the course of his
long arid renowned career, with the exception of two occasions,
in which he was perhaps biassed hy his professional feeling—
the mutiny at the Note, and the mutiny at Portsmouth. For
this reason he supported the tax, though he d d not con-
sider it a; a perfect measure--" that foul less monster
which the world ne'er saw." Admitting that this measure was
repugnant to the spirit of the constitution, and to a large por-
tion of the public, admitting that it partook in the character of
the dictatorship of Rome, he still supported it as a just, a suf-
ficient, and an honourable' safeguard.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said lie hoped, that when the
tariff came to he discussed, the Right Hon. iiaronet would be
induced to modify in some degree that portion of the tariff
which related to coals and copper, as he believed the effect of
it would he to throw some hundreds of miners out of work,
and upon the landowners: He did not wish to occupy the
attention of the House any longer.
Mr. SCOTT said though he had a very she feeling of
the inexpediency of the measures brought forward by the Go-
vernment. he did not mean to throw any opposition in their
way.—(Hear, hear.) . The question before them was, whe-
ther this was the time to impose such a tax? It appeared to
him that the origin of the tax was to be traced to a wish to
maintain monopoly.—( Hear, hear.) If the measures pro-
posed by the late Goverment were carried they would have
a far less deficiency to provide for, and the interests of trade
would be materially benefited. That was hit opinion, and he
also thought that those great advantages were set aside for the
sake of the landed interest.—( Hear, hear.) That being his
opinion he thought. that a land-tax was the best to be
proposed; and if that were the tax, it would have his
cordial support. If the tax were proposed to relieve
the consumers, it would be another thing; but the Right lion.
Baronet proposed it for a temporary purpose, not for the sake
of relieving the people from the taxes on consumption. The
tax he proposed was not a tax on proporty, but it was an In-
come-tax, which was the worst that could be resorted to. If,
instead of taxing trades and professions, the Right lion. Baro-
net taxed property, he would give him his cordial support.
With regard to tl e time the tax was to continue, he
thought that the difficulties and inquisit , whi ;41
attended it, would prevent any fear as to •its being
borne for aay considerable time by the people. In its
own nature the tax way unjust, but in its- practical work-
ing out it was rendered ten times more unjust, and, therefore
it was one which the House ought not to press. The measure
gave a temptation to dishonesty which the House oughtnot to
sanction. Upon those grounds, and believing the Right Hon.
Baronet had not made out a case to justify the imposition of
the tax he should enter his protest against it.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
For the amendment
Majority for the second reading
The Bill was then read a second time, and was ordered (as
we understood) to be committed on Monday next.
WAYS AND MEANS.

On the motion of Sir O. CLERK; the House resolve.
tself into a Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. GREENE in
he chair.

Sir G. CLERK having moved a vote (~f 9,100 0001. to be
raised by Exchequer Bills for the service of the year,
Mr. BLEW ITT, who roseamidst the laughter of the Op-
position benches, said he wished to take that opportunity of
asking any Member of. her 'Majesty's Government who might
chose to ansvier him, Whether it was the intention of the present
Government to make any alteration in the law with respect to
Savings' Banks, which enabled the Government of the time to
do what was called " tamper with the Savings' Banks funds."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
no intention of proposing any alteration in the law. He cer-
tainly did not approve, as he had stated on a former occasion,

of any tampering unit the Saving's Banks funds as a perma•
nent resource for the financial service; but. he should add,
at the same time, that the practice had not the slightest.ten
dency to impair the interests of the depositors.
The vote was then. agreed to ; the resolution was reported
to the House ; and tho House having resumed, the report was
ordered to by brought up on Monday next.
EXCISE DUTIES' COMPOUNDS BILL.
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, this Bill was read a
second time, and was ordered to be committed en Monday next.
ROASTED MALT BILL.
On the motion of the HON. BARONET the Bill was read a
second time, and was ordered to be committed on Monday.
SOAP DUTIES' DRAWBACK BILL.
On the motion of the HoN. BARONET the Bill was read a
second time, and was orderer! to be committed on Monday.

• ..-
R AILIVAYS BILL.
On the motion of Mr GL ADSTONE the House resolved
itself into a Committee of the whose House for the further
consideration of the Report on the Railways Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to take that opportunity of sug-
gesting, that it would be convenient that the House should
know beforehand the course of business to be pursued each
evening. There were many gentlemen who felt an interest in
the Railways Bill, and who wet e absent, because they di.l not
expect that it would be brought on on that occasion.
Sir R. PEEL said that he would take care, as far as he could,
that the orders of the /louse should be gone through in future,
in a definite order. Ile would urge as his excuse for not
pursuing that course that evening, that, after the formal an-
nouncement of the Nab! Lord with respect to the Income-tax,
he had hardly expected the debate would 1):._ over at half-past
nine o'clock, and that only 76 members would have voted upon
the other side.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches. )
He had anticipated that the great debate would have taken
place on the Principle of the Bill,
on the second reading
After a few wo, ds from Mr. V. SMITH, and 111 r.-.
GLAD-
STONE,

Lord J. RUSSELL said,he imagined the closing of the debate
hadin some degree arose from Gentlemen opposite preventing
Members on this side of the Houle from speaking, even those
%%Ito would, perhaps, have argued in favour of the principle of
the Bill.

Sir R. PEEL said he certainly had opposed no obstruction
to any Honourable Alembers speaking, but. he was afraid the
House at one time would be counted out. —( Hear, and a laugh.)
'1 he convei sation then dropped,
The clauses of the Railway Bill, up to clause 10, were agreed
to without a division.

On clause 11 being proposed,
Sir W. JOLLIFFE proposed that the clause be expunged.
A discussion of some length ensued, in which Mr. Gladstone,
Mr. Russell, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Henly took part.
Major VIVIAN hoped the Hon. Member would persevere
in his intention of dividing the House on the expunging of
this clause.

Capt. BERKELEY complained of the Bill being brought
on in the way it had been, as many Members wished to ad-