Colborne informed the House, that the Committee required the counsel for each party to deliver in to the clerk of the said Committee statements in writing of the Right of Election for which they respectively contended: that, in consequence thereof, the counsel for the petitioner, John Halcomb and others, delivered in a statement, as follows: "That the Right of Election is stated to be vested in the freemen and free burgesses, inhabitants of Dover, and in them exclusively:" that the counsel for the petitioner William Luddington, on behalf of himself and others, delived in a statement, as follows: "That the right of voting is in the freemen and free burgesses, inhabitants of Dover, and that the non-inhabitant freemen, as well as the inhabitant freemen and free burgesses of the town and port of Dover, have voice in the election of their barons to serve in parliament:" that, upon the statement delivered in by the counsel for the first mentioned petitioners, the said Committee have determined, that the Right of Election, as set forth in the said statement, is not the Right of Election for the said town and port: that, upon the statement delivered in by the last-mentioned petitioners, the said committee have determined, that the right of voting, as set forth in the said statement, is the right of voting for the said town and port.

Ordered to be entered upon the Journals.

presented a petition from Charles Pitt, of Adam-street, Adelphi, surveyor, and others, against the London-bridge bill. Amongst other matters, the petitioner charged one of the clerks of the House, who attended the Committee on the London-bridge bill, with having exacted larger fees than he was entitled to. On the motion—" That the petition do lie on the table,"

said, if he had the slightest doubt, with respect to the propriety of the conduct of the individual complained of by the petitioner—if there were any grounds on which the charge made against him could be supported— he would be the last man to take the course which, under the circumstances, he felt himself bound to pursue. If there were any just foundation for complaint, he certainly was not the person who would ask the House to pass it over: but he must say, on behalf of the very respectable individual whose conduct was arraigned by the petitioner, that he never met a more well-conducted man, or one who discharged more honourably or more correctly the duties of the situation in which he was placed. Believing the accusation brought against him unfounded, he should move, as an amendment—"That this petition be rejected."

observed, that before any thing further was said on the question now before the House, it might be proper for him to state, so far as he was acquainted with the subject of the petition, of what its allegations consisted. He had never seen the petition nor did he know any thing of its contents until it was read; and it seemed to relate chiefly to certain exactions with respect to fees, which the petitioner alleged one of the committee clerks to have been guilty of. The petition contained three grounds of complaint; the first complaint was against the committee, with respect to the merits of their decision: that complaint the committee could best answer for themselves;—the next complaint was, that a direct communication had been made by him, as Speaker, to the chairman of the committee, as to the right of the petitioner to be heard before the committee. Now, he had not stated any thing about the right; he had had no communication with the chairman; and, indeed, he did not recollect who the chairman was. The third cause of complaint was the exaction, by the clerk, of certain fees. Into that charge he had examined with as much care as possible; and he could only say, that there was no exaction of fees from the petitioner; no fees were taken from him which it had not been the practice of that House for many years to sanction; and, in short, he might say, that whatever was demanded from the petitioner was justified by the practice ever since the institution of the private-bill office. Indeed, so far from there having been an exaction, less was taken from the petitioner than might have been demanded. Having stated these three points, it might not be inconvenient to observe, that the table of fees now on the papers of the House was settled two hundred years ago; and long since that table was so settled, legislation not at that time foreseen—and above all in connexion with the Private-bill office— had grown up. Now it would be more convenient that all persons to avoid making any mistake on the subject, should have an opportunity of seeing what might justly be demanded from them on making application for that purpose; and if it met with the approbation of the House, he would offer this suggestion—that as soon as he was relieved from the pressure of business, he would look over the table of fees that involved every such demand, by the usage or practice of the House, for the last two hundred years on account of any party who might be before the House. He would do this, in order that the time of the House might not be uselessly taken up, and that the characters of individuals who were occupied in carrying on the business of the House might not, from day to day, be liable to insinuations that were groundless, or to accusations which were improper, from any person prosecuting or opposing any private bill.

The petition was rejected.

said, he had to present a Petition from the undersigned Wool-combers, members of an Anti-bread-Tax Association, at Kidder-minister. They stated that they had carefully considered colonel Torrens' "Essay on the external Corn-trade" [a laugh]: "The Catechism of the Corn-laws;" and "An Essay on the Theory of Rent," by a member of the University of Cambridge; and they were astonished at the iniquities of the landowners, the mistakes of the farmers, and the unaccountable, apathy of the public on the subject of the Corn-laws. Now, if instead of reading all these publications hon. members would only look at "The Catechism of the Corn-laws," which they could procure for sixpence, and if, after perusing it, the reasons It contained did not convince them, that the Corn-trade ought to be a free trade then he could only say that they must have some particular bias which prevented them from coming to a just conclusion on this subject.

presented a petition from Andover, praying that some measure might be adopted to facilitate the recovery of Small Debts. The right hon. Secretary had, in the last session, brought in a bill for the purpose of effecting this object, but he had afterwards postponed it. Much anxiety was expressed for the introduction of such a measure. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Secretary what his intentions were, and whether a bill would speedily be brought in, to meet the general feeling of the country?

said, it was with very great reluctance that he had postponed the bill for the recovery of Small Debts last session. The reason he did so was, because there were a considerable number of patent offices that would be affected by the bill; and it was necessary to grant compensation to those who held such offices. It was easy, he knew, to grant compensation; but this might make an alteration in the practice, and occasion greater emoluments to be received by persons holding other patent offices, by which the public would not be benefited. The commissioners for inquiring into the practice of courts of justice had made a number of inquiries on this subject, with respect to the effect which his bill would have on certain offices; and it was found that the provisions of his bill and the objects of the commissioners were very nearly connected. He thought that the only proper mode of proceeding would be, to grant compensations for all at one time, in order to prevent the evil which had arisen in Ireland from granting partial compensations. At the close of last session, he had called the attention of the commissioners to this subject, and they had succeeded in making many valuable inquiries. He therefore thought that until the whole question was introduced, it would be unwise to bring in this bill, He agreed with the noble lord, that some mode for the easy recovery of Small Debts ought to be provided; and as soon as the question of compensation was settled, it should be attended to. He could assure the noble lord, that no press of business should have prevented him from undertaking a measure of that kind in the present session, if that part of the question to which he had alluded could have been settled with satisfaction to the parties immediately concerned, and with justice to the public interest.

said, the right hon. gentleman had admitted that a measure for facilitating the recovery of Small Debts, and for doing away with petty litigation, was one of great importance; but yet, for one small reason, such a measure could not now be carried into effect. And what was that reason? Why, because a number of individuals held what were called patent offices. Now, as a question of principle, nothing could be more absurd than to see a class of public officers standing in the way of such an alteration being made in the laws of the country as might be thought beneficial. Some step ought to be made to establish the principle—which, he believed, prevailed in every other civilized country in the world—namely, that office was not formed for the benefit of the individual, but for that of the public. The opposite principle had been too long acted upon in this country, and it was a most absurd one.

said, he was no friend to patent offices. His fear was, that if a bill were introduced similar to that of last session, these officers would get too much under its provisions. So far was he from encouraging patent officers that, on the termination of the existing officers, provision would be made to render it impossible that others should be appointed in the same way. The principle, he admitted, was bad for the interests of justice; but the uniform practice had been, when great offices were granted for public services, to attach those patent situations to them.

rose to present a petition from the council of the Royal College of Surgeons, against the Anatomy Bill, and praying to be heard in opposition to it. This was a measure so important in its nature, that he hoped the hon. gentleman would not hurry it through the House, but that he would give ample time to have all its provisions considered, and the objections against it fairly weighed.

said, he understood that the objections entertained by the petitioners against this bill did not extend to its principle, but applied solely to some of its details. His reason for coming to that conclusion was this.—He found that the most distinguished name amongst those by whom this petition was signed was also affixed to a petition presented by him the other day; which petition was distinctly in favour of the principle of the bill. It would be recollected, that when, during the present session, he moved for leave to bring in a bill founded on those principles which he had so often expressed, he did not state that he would introduce any machinery in the bill with respect to licensing schools of anatomy, but confine it to the means of procuring subjects. However, on the recommendation of several hon. members, he included a provision for licensing schools in the bill. He understood, that the objection against the bill was, that such a power of licensing was not given to the College of Surgeons as that body would approve of. Now, if there were no objection to the principle, but some objections to the details, he submitted whether the proper stage for offering those objections was not when the bill went to the committee, when the parties might be heard by counsel.

said, that when the bill was introduced, a very reasonable request was made, that between the first and second reading, sufficient time should be allowed to elapse to enable that most respectable body, the council of the College of Surgeons, to examine the bill. Now they question was, whether a reasonable time had been given? The bill was only printed that morning, and surely a fair opportunity ought to be given for considering it. He was quite sure that those gentlemen were actuated solely by a sense of public duty in presenting this petition.

complained of a letter signed "Palestinus," in which it was said that Dr. Knox, of Edinburgh, was guilty of the grossest and most intolerable criminality, and that he was unworthy to be trusted. If Dr. Knox, of whom he knew nothing, did not deserve this, it wastes be reprobated in the highest degree. The character of a man whose reputation depended upon his character ought not to be violated.

begged to observe, that the petitioners were friendly to the principle of the bill, and merely prayed to be heard against certain of its clauses.

said, he must reminder hon. members that this bill came before the House under no ordinary circumstances. A committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and he had felt it his duty to place upon that committee every gentleman who had taken any interest in the subject. No member of that committee had dissented from the principle of the bill; the only variance which existed was upon some of the details. He must put it to the House, whether those details would not be best considered in the committees. He did not see why the bill should not be allowed to pass through another stage that evening, especially as he was willing to give ample time for the discussion of it between committal and the third reading.

hoped the bill would not be allowed to pass through its stages, like some bills, at two o'clock in the morning.

Ordered to lie on the table.

said, that in rising to address the committee on a subject of so much importance as that to which he was about to call their attention, it was impossible, on any occasion, not to be influenced by feelings of anxiety and embarrassment. He rose to address them, on the present occasion, under feelings, in some degree, of a varied and conflicting nature. He was conscious, on the one hand, that the statement he should have to make with respect to the revenue and expenditure of the country could not be otherwise than satisfactory to every one who was capable of making a just estimate of its financial concerns; and, on the other hand, he was equally conscious that there were circumstances in the present condition of the country, which clouded the general prosperity of the past, and which cast a partial gloom over the prospect before them. He did, however, feel the most perfect confidence that the revenue would be adequate to defray all the charges which it might be necessary to impose upon the country; and adequate, moreover, to fulfil the intentions of parliament, with respect to the annual application of a certain amount of surplus revenue to the fund for the reduction of the national debt. At the same time there were circumstances which cast a shade upon the general brightness of the picture. They had, in common with a neighbouring country, suffered from a deficient harvest, from stagnation an commercial enterprise, and from a want in demand for manufactures —events which, more or less, affected the interests of every country in the world. Distress prevailed in some branches of our manufactures—distress which had been move than once brought before the House during that session; and in other branches there was that natural anxiety, and that partial suspense, which always accompanied suffering in any one branch of manufacture. It was not his intention, nor indeed was it his duty, upon the present occasion, to inquire into the causes of this distress, which he was confident would be but temporary. Gentlemen would of course ascribe it to particular causes, according to the bent of their own opinions, and of their own notions of state policy. Some gentlemen might attribute it to the deficiency of the harvest; others might ascribe it to those measures which had been for some time in progress, and which were now brought to a conclusion, and of which the object was, to place the circulation of the country on a firm and solid basis, and to protect it against those fluctuations to which it had hitherto been liable: others might ascribe it to that spirit of overtrading and speculation which had been complained of, and to that tremendous power of production which the increased industry of mankind and the improved operations of machinery had conferred on all the manufacturing countries, and upon none more than our own—a power which, whilst it gave the manufacturer the opportunity of availing himself of a sudden and immediate demand, entailed, at the same time, the risk of producing an excessive supply, and causing at a subsequent period languor and debility. But, whether the distress was to be attributed to one or more, or to all these causes, he thought he should be able to satisfy the House, that there was nothing in the present state of things which affected the national resources, or interfered with the means of calling them into action—that the country was rather in a state of suspense and uncertainty than of positive ill, and that it Called rather for patient forbearance, than for the active interference of parliament.

After this short view of the general condition of the country, the duty which he had to discharge was limited to a very narrow compass. He could conceive no Course of conduct which could be more prejudicial than to take that opportunity of introducing to the committee any measure which could either affect the circulation of the country, or the value of the public securities, or the amount of the revenue; and, therefore, all that devolved upon him at present would be, to present a clear and distinct statement of the circumstances of the country; what had been the financial situation of the country during the year that had now elapsed, and also an estimate—a rational, and not an exaggerated estimate—of what were the prospects of the country for the year upon which we had entered. He should confine himself to this duty with the greater strictness; because he firmly believed that the more plainly and clearly the situation of the country was pourtrayed, the more clearly would it be seen, that whatever there might be of embarrassment was likely soon to give way to a better state of things. He should first bring before the House, what had been the revenue and expenditure of the country during the year 1828; he should then proceed to lay before them what he calculated upon as the income and expenditure during the year 1829; and he should then take the opportunity of explaining to the committee the measures which it would be his duty to introduce, in conformity with the notice he had given in the last session of parliament of his intention to make a permanent provision for the application of the surplus revenue to the reduction of the national debt. He believed that the latter part of the subject ought not in strictness to be included in the present discussion; but as it appeared to him that the reduction of the debt was intimately connected with a statement of the income and expenditure of the country, he thought it was more for the convenience of the committee to unite these questions, which the forms of the House had dissevered, and to treat of them in the present committee; although he was well aware that in moving the resolutions as to the Sinking-fund, it would be necessary for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House. It would be in the recollection of many honourable members that when he brought forward the budget of last year, he had estimated the revenue of the year at a sum somewhat short of 54,000,000l. It was 53,900,000l. It would also be in the recollection of the committee, that he, at the same time, made an estimate of the expenditure, which was calculated to amount to 50,100,000l.; and he had represented to the House the probability that, at the expiration of the year, there would be, to be applied to the reduction of the national debt, a sum of 3,797,000l. He had then taken occasion to state to the House that, in making that calculation, he had endeavoured to keep within the mark, and not to raise any exaggerated expectations of what might be the means of the country. The result had proved that that caution had been unnecessary; for when the House looked at the receipt of the revenue during the year 1828, and compared it with the sum expended during the same year, they would find the result more advantageous than what he had originally contemplated —a result which could not fail to be satisfactory even to the most superficial inquirer. It appeared that the revenue of 1828, which he had calculated to amount to 54,000,000l. had turned out to be 55,187,000l.; and it appeared on the other hand, that the actual expenditure, which he had estimated at 50,100,000l., did not amount to more than 49,336,000l. The result, therefore, had been that, at the expiration of the year 1828, there had been a surplus beyond that which in July he had dared to calculate upon of 2,052,000l., which added to the surplus he had anticipated, made a total surplus of 5,850,000l. applicable to the purposes of the Sinking-fund.

An examination of the causes, or sources, of this increased receipt, would be no less satisfactory than the fact of the increase itself. It appeared to have taken place, with the exception of about 150,000l., upon the two great branches of the revenue—the Customs and the Excise. The House would recollect that he had estimated the Customs' revenue at a sum of 17,600,000l. It had produced, in the course of the year 1828, only 17,200,000l.; but the House must not conceive from that apparent diminution on paper, that there had been an actual diminution in the receipts. The contrary was the fact. The apparent diminution arose out of the arrangement which took place in the last session of parliament, by which the tea duty in Ireland, which had heretofore been received in Ireland, as a Custom duty, was transferred to the Excise in England. He had estimated the decrease in the Customs at a sum of 800,000l. whereas it did not exceed 600,000l. He had estimated the countervailing increase of the Customs at 600,000l.; whereas it appeared to have amounted to a sum exceeding 700,000l.

As to the Excise, which he had taken at 19,200,000l., in the course of the year 1828 it had reached the sum of 20,759,000l.; but from that sum was to be deducted the sum already alluded to on account of the tea duty, making the actual amount of the Excise, against which his estimate ought to be compared, 20,200,000l., giving an excess of a million above that on which he had calculated. This increase had arisen more or less on all the articles of consumption; but it had principally arisen on malt and spirits. He had in the year 1828, calculated that there would be an increase of malt duty to the amount of 600,000l.; but he was surprised to find, at the expiration of the year, that the increase of the malt duty had amounted to no less a sum than 1,300,000l. This was a striking proof of increase in the ease and comforts of the community, as it was only upon the general consumption of the people that this sum could be raised. It also gave him great satisfaction to observe, that though there had been a considerable increase in the article of spirits, the increase upon malt had been far greater; affording, to his mind at least, a strong proof of a considerable improvement in the habits of the population.

He came now to the other point of difference in the estimates which he had last year had the honour of submitting to the House—that which related to the expenditure of the country. It appeared that the sum expended during the last year had been less than the sum which he had calculated upon by 767,000l. It would not, however, be candid or fair if he were to state to the House that the whole of this was an actual saving of expenditure. It was not. Part of it had arisen from certain payments not having been made in the year, which might justly have been charged upon it; especially in the naval department, where the maintenance of a fleet in the Mediterranean had for a time prevented the payment of the fleet; but there was a portion of saving, which arose from an economical administration of the funds which had been confided to the government by parliament, and was, therefore, an actual advantage, upon which the country might calculate. He did not state this as a circumstance for which either he, or any other persons connected with the government, were entitled to claim merit; for economy in the administration of the public money was doubtless the duty of a government. He knew and felt—yes, he felt hourly—that it was the duty of a person in his situation to take care that the strictest economy that was consistent with the discharge of the duties of the government, and with the service of the state, should be observed in every department. He needed no enforcement of this duty, nor did the government need any; but he stated this circumstance to the House, because he had heard senate hon. members declare, that there existed in the government a disposition to expend prodigally, in proportion as parliament gore liberally. If any hon. gentlemen still thought so, let them at least not shut their eyes to this primâ facie proof, that the government did not so deal with funds intrusted to them by parliament. He stated—and if there were time to enter into details, he could prove—that all the members of the government were continually animated with the desire of embracing every mode of effecting reduction. Large reductions had been made in the collection of the revenue. To those who thought that to ministers patronage was every thing, he would state, that reductions were effected, or only deferred in consequence of the inconvenience of too hasty reductions, in almost every office connected with the government. To give an instance, from one class only, there were either reduced, or in the course of reduction, no less than eighteen commissioners of different boards. The House would judge from this by what spirit the government were actuated, and it was his earnest hope that, as opportunity offered, they would Continue to effect reduction.

The result, then, of the examination of the revenue and expenditure of 1838, was to show that there was a larger sum applicable to the reduction of the public debt than had been available for that purpose during any year since 1822—a surplus, he ought to say, arising from revenue; for they ought to strike out of the accounts of other years the sums which had been received from the Bank on account of the dead-weight, and also the repayments which had been made on account of the Austrian loan. He would not encumber his statement by entering into the details, but content himself with observing that they had an actual bonâ fide surplus exceeding that of any other year since 1822. He said, then, that the revenue of the year 1828 could not fail to be satisfactory to the House—satisfactory, not only as enabling them to fulfill to the letter the recommendations of the Finance Committee, with respect to the application of a surplus of income to the reduction of the public debt; but satisfactory also as indicative of the general prosperity and improvement of the country during that period. If the state of the country, during that period, were considered with reference to our foreign trade—to our exports—he believed it would be found to have exceeded out expectations, and that it was calculated not only to fill us with satisfaction at the present, but to inspire us with encouragement for the future. The exports of the year proved, that in no one article of export had there been any sensible diminution; and, when he stated this, it was because they had to compare the customer-duties of the years 1827 and 1828,—of which the former was a year of extravagant export; and yet in many articles there had been an increase in the exports of 1828 over the exports; of.1827, while in no one article had there been any sensible diminution. In the year 1828, there had been an increase in the export of linen of nine millions of yards over forty-nine millions of yards; which was one fifth of the whole amount of the export during the preceding year. In woollen, hardware, and in other articles, there had been an increase: in cotton there was none; but it must be recollected, that it was almost impossible, any year, to surpass the exports of cotton which took place in the year 1827. This, then, was a proof of general prosperity; which, added to the accounts which the customs presented, afforded them ample ground for congratulation.

He came now to the view of our situation, or rather what was to be our situation, in the year 1829. In dealing with estimates instead of facts, he knew how much difficulty he should have in satisfying the House, that the view he had taken was a correct one; but he could only say, that after giving the statement the most attentive consider action,— after having examined it again and again, in every point of view which had occurred to him—he was prepared to offer his estimate to the House, not as one which was completely satisfactory, nor as one which, could be relied or as confidently as that of 1828, yet as one which, if it was not to be compared with that of 1828, would be considered as a most satisfactory one. He did not mean to say, that we must not look for a great reduction of revenue; but all countries were subject to alternations of prosperity and depression which no power could ward off. It seemed to be a rule in the affairs of mankind that blessings should not be showered down, without a correspondent visitation of depression. Daily experience afforded examples of the pride of prosperity being bumbled by the touch of adversity; and as with individuals, so it was with nations. We had risen to a height of prosperity which no other nation had reached, and there could be as little reason as gratitude in our desponding, because we were now under the cloud, of temporary depression. But this reduction of income, he must observe, would, be partly caused by the measures which the House thought fit to adapt last session with respect to the trus- tees for naval and military pensions. By abstracting the sum paid by the trustees of naval and military pensions from the ordinary sources of revenue, there would in the present year be a reduction of nearly 2,000,000l., of exactly 1,900,000l.; but as they had agreed to depart from the system which had been hitherto pursued, they ought not to repine at the consequences of a measure which, upon full consideration, they had thought it advisable to adopt. With respect to what, strictly so called was the revenue of the year, they must also be prepared for a considerable reduction. If, however, any hon. gentlemen were to estimate the probable reduction by the diminution which appeared in the last quarterly account of the revenue, he would form a very erroneous and exaggerated estimate. The reduction in the revenue of the quarter ending the 5th of April, 1829, as compared with the quarter ending the 5th of April, 1828, amounted to 513,000l., of which 280,000l. arose on the Customs, and the remainder on the Excise. Now it happened that this diminution was capable of explanation,—that part of it only was an actual diminution of revenue,—and that part of it was only a postponement of payments, so that subsequent quarters, would reap the advantage of them. The Excise revenue was collected at periods of six weeks, and, owing to the different times at which they took place, the quarters did not always comprise the same number of weeks; This was the case in the present year, and in that particular quarter. Their Excise collections having been postponed on account of their referring back to Monday, on which day they always began, a whole week's revenue was lost to that quarter. He had procured on account of the sums which would have been paid, if the rounds had been made, as they had been made in the preceding year, and he found that those sums amounted to no less than 205,000l. So also in the Customs it the quarter ending April 5th 1828, bills, were brought to account, because they were at a shorter date than those out in the quarter ending April 5th 1829. These bills did not fall within the latter quarter: but they would have amounted to about 25,000l., thus making a reduction in the apparent, decrease of about.230,000l. But, notwithstanding his anxiety to remove from the mind of the House, any exaggerated apprehension which it might be disposed to entertain, from a review of the quarterly account, he did not pretend to conceal that there must necessarily be expected in the course of the present year, a considerable reduction of the income. He had already stated the deficiency to be anticipated in the Customs at 225,000l. With respect to the Excise, he proposed to make a greater deduction from the amount of last year; indeed, it was not probable after a deficient harvest, that so large a quantity of malt would be made as was made last year. At present there had been no deficiency worth notice; yet, considering the large amount of malt duty included in the October and February quarterly returns, he could not anticipate so great a consumption as that of the preceding year. He should propose that the estimated duty of Excise be less this year, by 600,000l. than it was in the year preceding. Taking the estimates of the Excise and Customs together, the amount was 37,150,000l. for this year, including the reductions for the collection of the revenue. It afforded him the greatest satisfaction to state, that the other branches of the revenue shewed no indication of deficiency. The revenue derivable from the stamps had, up to the present moment, gone on progressively improving. There was no diminution in the amount received from the taxes; and the Post-office furnished a supply of revenue equal to that which it furnished last year. Taking these branches of revenue altogether, he did not think himself called upon, in endeavouring to form a correct estimate for the present year, to make any reduction from the amount which they furnished last year. The general result, therefore, of the proposition he had submitted to the House was, that the Custom and Excise revenue would in the course of the year to come produce a sum of 37,150,000l.

He had stated to the House the grounds on which he estimated this amount. It was deduced from a comparison of the amount of last year; and in confirmation of the estimate he had made, he had also formed it by taking the average amount of this revenue during the six preceding years—a period comprising three years of large receipts, and three years of diminished receipts. He found that the average of those six years gave a sum in some degree exceeding that at which he had fixed the Excise and Custom revenue on the present occasion. He was of opinion therefore, that the House would concur with him in thinking, that as fair means had been taken as possible for forming an estimate of the Custom and Excise revenue for the present year. He had formed the estimate from a comparison of the revenue of last year, and from a general comparison of the six preceding years; and he proposed to take the Custom and Excise revenue at 37,150,000l. He would take the revenue of the stamps at 7,107,000l.; the taxes at 4,850,000l.; being the same amount as in last year; the Post-office at 1,500,000l., and the smaller branches at 200,000l.; making a total rotary revenue of 50,807,000l. To this sum was to be added the amount produced by the extraordinary and miscellaneous resources of the country making together a sum of 350,000l. There was a sum of 60,000l. from the East-India Company, and 255,000l. for impressed money. In the extraordinary resources was included a sum of 100,000l. for the repayment of silver coin issued in Ireland; but that money being once paid, would never appear as an item in future. In the extraordinaries was also a sum of 70,000l. for the Office of the Clerk of the Pleas in Ireland; and 120,000l. for the Canal. This would make the total income 51,347,000l. receivable within the year.

Having thus stated the amount of the income of the country, he now came to the expenditure. The charge on the debt for the present year, with interest exclusive of the Sinking-fund, was 27,053,000l.; interest on Exchequer bills, 850,000l. Total, 27,903,000l. Naval and military pensions, 585,740l.; other charges on the consolidated fund, including the annuities to the Bank, 2,200,000l., making together 30,688,740l. This was the whole amount of the fixed and permanent debt, with which parliament had no power what ever to interfere.

The next point he had to consider was with regard to the grants made during the year. To the army, including the militia parliament had voted a sum of 7,769,178l., which was less by 300,000l. than the grant of last year. To the navy the House had voted 5,878,794l. being less by about 100,000l. than the vote of last year. To the ordnance 1,728,908l., showing are excess of 170,000l., as compared with the grant of last year; but this excess did not arise from any increased demand on the part of the department, but from the diminished application of sums arising from the sale of old stores. For the miscellaneous the vote of the present year was 2,067,973l. being a reduction of nearly 800,000l. from the vote of last year. The whole of the ordinary expenses amounted to 17,644,853l., which sum, compared with the sum of 18,028,040l., showed a saving in the present year of 383,187l., as compared with the last. When the House considered that this saving had been effected on these grants, without impairing the efficiency of any one branch of the public service, he thought they would allow that there had been a vigilant and constant care on the part of the government to watch over the items of which that expenditure was made up. He thought the House would be satisfied that there had been no want of exertion on the part of his majesty's government to keep down the expenditure within such limits as it was safe and proper to confine them. If the House compared the grants of the present year with the grants made in 1827, the House would see, that the estimates had been reduced to the amount of 1,500,000l. But, in addition to the ordinary grants of the present year, parliament had to provide a sum of 200,000l. for an extraordinary and unforeseen event, arising out of the treaty with the king of Spain, by which we had bound ourselves to defray the just claims which the Spanish subjects had on the government of England, in consideration of the payment by the king of Spain of those larger demands, due by Spanish subjects to the subjects of this country. Taking, then, the votes of the year and this 200,000l., the whole expenditure of the year would be found to amount to 48,333,593l., which being deducted from the income of 51,347,000l., left a clear surplus of 3,013,407l. applicable to the reduction of the national debt.

The Committee of Finance, the House would recollect, had gone at large into the consideration of the propriety of having a revenue, for the reduction of the national debt. It was the opinion of that committee, that the individual who stood in the situation in which he now stood should calculate upon, and should bind himself to preserve inviolate, a surplus of at least 3,000,000l. with a view to apply it to the reduction of the national debt, in the possible contingency of a defalcation in the revenue. He anticipated no such defal- cation: the resources of the country were, he was satisfied, adequate to fulfill its obligations. Parliament was only required to adhere firmly to the recommendation of the committee, who proposed what they considered, and what he believed to be, essential to the interest of the country— namely, the maintenance of such an amount of taxation as would give a clear surplus of 3,000,000l., applicable to the reduction of the national debt. In the course of the present year that object had been attained; and he confessed that he saw no reason to anticipate any state of circumstances, which would in future prevent the accomplishment of the recommendation of the committee. It might appear to some gentlemen, that out of this amount of surplus of 3,013,407l., there was to be defrayed the amount on life annuities; and it might also be said, that the reduction of those annuities had an evident tendency to reduce the amount of the surplus; but the committee, in coming to their resolution, had that fact fully before them; and they were of opinion, that it was highly desirable to have a surplus revenue of 3,000,000l., including the revenue payable to annuities on lives. They came justly to that conclusion; for, by the bill now before the House, those annuities in future would no longer be chargeable, as hitherto, on the available surplus revenue, but would be transferred over to the consolidated fund, to be paid in the same manner as the interest On the other portion of the debt In future years, therefore, the individual whose duty it should be to explain the financial condition of the country would take these annuities as part of the public debt, and would make a statement to parliament of the surplus revenue unincumbered by charges. He would have done so on the present occasion, had he not felt an anxiety to make the comparisons with the preceding years more accurate, and afterwards to show the House what would be the effect of a different arrangement on a different occasion. On a future occasion it would be for those who had the management of the financial concerns of the country to make the statement of the debt in a different manner than was done at present. He would recommend then to make the statement in two parts, distinguishing that which was perpetual annuities from that which was temporary and had a period at which it must necessarily expire; and if the House would permit him, he would present the debt in that shape, with the view of pointing out more distinctly, that even after the deduction of 645,000l. for the sinking fund, from the surplus of 3,000,000l., there would still exist a surplus of 3,000,000l. towards the extinction of the debt. The amount of the permanent and perpetual annuities with which this country was charged was 24,184,450l.; the amount for Ireland was 1,158,098l.—making a total of 25,342,548l. The country was also charged with the payment of temporary annuities. The amount of the long annuities was 1,300,000l. The Bank annuities amounted to 585,000l.; the life annuities, created by the 48th of the late king, to 130,000l.; and the Waterloo annuities to 700,000l.—making a total of about 2,700,000l. This was an amount of debt, as he had said before, with which the country might no longer trouble itself: it must, in due course of time, work out its own extinction. When, therefore, we were estimating the amount of surplus which was applicable to the reduction of the debt, we must not forget that a portion of the increased payment which we were making to those annuitants might be taken as a part of the sinking-fund; and it would be an unfair mode of calculating the amount of money applicable to the reduction of the debt, if we did not take much of the temporary annuities as partook of the nature of a sinking fund. In order, therefore, to ascertain what was the amount of income applicable to the reduction of the debt, it was necessary to turn the temporary into permanent annuities, and then to consider its amount. If gentlemen would take the trouble to make that calculation, they would find, that the whole amount of the sinking-fund would completely counterbalance the 645,000l. to be deducted from the surplus income. The reason for his calling the attention of the House to this subject was, because there was a bill upon the table which had for its object to convert the permanent into temporary annuities: and be wished to call the attention of the House to this fact, that an annuity did comprise within it a sinking-fund; and that ought to be taken into account, when they were considering what was to be applied to the reduction of the debt. He contemplated with satisfaction that he had been enabled to fulfill the recommendation of the Committee of Finance, and to fulfill the expecta- tions of those who had paid the most attention to subjects of this kind, in providing a surplus of 3,000,000l. for the reduction of the debt. He confessed that it would have given him unmixed satisfaction if he had it in his power to calculate on a larger amount of surplus, as likely to result from the operations of the present year. He should have been glad, under such circumstances; to have left it to the consideration of parliament how far it might be advantageous to apply part of the surplus to the reduction of some of the burdens of the country. But this he was not permitted to do at present. He trusted the House would agree with him in thinking, that it would not be safe to trench on the surplus now before them. It was the duty of the House to regard it for the reduction of the debt, and to meet any sudden and unexpected defalcation; which, however, he did not at all look for, but which might, nevertheless, arise.

He now came to what he stated was to be the third point in his statement; namely, the mode in which he proposed to carry into effect the measure recommended by the Finance Committee, as to the application of an annual surplus revenue to the reduction of the debt. He believed that the House had generally, if not quite unanimously, agreed on the principle upon which the bill which he intended to introduce proceeded,—that of applying to the reduction of the national debt no other sums than those which were clearly and bonâ fide surplus revenue after paying all the charges of the country. On that principle the bill was founded also involved another principle, of almost equal importance as the one he had just noticed, with a view to render the measure a practical and beneficial measure. The application of the surplus revenue to the reduction of the debt, would not, of itself, effect that which it must be the object of the House to effect. It was also highly essential to make regulations for the equable application of the amount. He knew of nothing more inconvenient than to have a quarterly application of money, varying from one million to 100,000l.; in one quarter being of large, and in the next of small amount. He should therefore, in due course of time, submit to the House a measure to make the application of the surplus income as equable as possible. The way in which he proposed to effect this object was the following:—It was the custom at the Treasury to make up the account of the revenue of the year to the quarter-day; and he should propose, in the bill he intended to introduce, that on each quarter day, an account comprising the amount of the four preceding quarters should be made up; and that one-fourth of the whole surplus should be applied to the reduction of the debt in the ensuing quarter. By this arrangement a check would be placed upon the excess or deficiency of any particular quarter. The amount of the last quarter would be combined with the three antecedent quarters, and though it might not of itself be equal to the sum which would be applied in the next quarter to the redemption of the debt, yet the application of money for that purpose during the whole year would not exceed the amount of surplus. This plan had the advantage of being regular and more equable than that of applying the money received in one quarter to the redemption of the debt in the next; without taking the averages of the three preceding quarters. The resolution which he should have to put into the hands of the chairman, went to the first point, of laying down the principle of applying the surplus revenue to the reduction of the debt; but the bill would contain the regulations which he had just now submitted to the House. The bill would also contain within it, in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee of Finance, the power of applying to the redemption of the unfunded debt the surplus revenue which was at the disposal of the commissioners; and this point recalled to his mind the necessity of mentioning to the House the subject of one of the resolutions which he should put into the hands of the chairman; namely, the reduction which was now in progress of the unfunded debt, by creating it into a funded debt. The object of this plan was to give to every individual who was the subscriber of 100l. Exchequer-bills, 101l. 10s. four per cents, reducible in the year 1833, uniting the funded debt so created with that which was created in 1826. The premium offered to parties in this transaction was not more than 30s. on every 100l. Thus the funding of the debt was effected with a very small addition to the capital, as compared with other measures of the kind which had been adopted. On the last occasion, when Exchequer bills were funded the parties received 107l. four per cents. He might be asked, why he had thought it necessary to take any measure with respect to the unfunded debt; and he might be further asked, why he had limited the operation of that measure to the sum of 3,000,000l.? He had always felt, and had so expressed himself in that House, that it was desirable to seize every favourable occasion for reducing within certain limits the unfunded debt. He knew that, at the present moment and for some long time to come there might be no reason to apprehend in-convenience from the extent of that debt now outstanding; but we had had severe experience of the consequences of being caught, in a moment of difficulty, with a large and unmanageable debt; and it was because he thought that, at the present moment, there was no risk of being caught in difficulties, and because his plan was beneficial to the public, that he was prepared to recommend to parliament to adopt his proposition. The reason why he had limited the amount of the debt to be funded to 3,000,000l. was obvious. He was unwilling to propose any measure which might materially influence the circulation, or affect the public credit; and he thought, in the proposition he made, that he was fulfilling the recommendation of the Finance Committee, which advised the gradual reduction of the debt. When Mr. Canning, in the year 1827, made an addition to the debt, 3,000,000l. was the sum added; and in now proposing a reduction of the debt, he was taking the amount of the last addition. If gentlemen would refer to what Mr. Canning had said on that occasion, they would find, in his observations on the issue of Exchequer-bills, the arguments and reasons for which he, though increasing the debt, thought it expedient that the addition should not remain permanent. It was for these reasons that he now recommended to the House his proposition for the conversion to four per cents, reducible in 1833, of 3,000,000l. of Exchequer-bills. He had availed himself of the present opportunity for doing that, because he apprehended no danger from the state of things; and he did not intend to make the amount larger than 3,000,000l. because he was desirous not to embarrass the commercial interests.

Having brought before the House the statement of the revenue and expenditure for the year, and the manner in which he proposed to deal with the national debt, it only remained for him briefly to advert to the supplies and the ways and means for the present year. Having already detailed to the House the estimates for the year, it would be merely necessary for him to recapitulate the amount. The amount of supplies altogether for 1829, was 17,644,853l., to which was to be added interest to be paid on Exchequer-bills, amounting to 760,000l., making a total amount of 18,404,853l. The amount of the ways and means was—for sugar, 3,000,000l.; for repayment of poor bills, 120,000l.; on account of the East-India Company, 60,000l.; of the surplus grants of former years, 506,212l.; and on account of the consolidated fund, 14,700,000l.; making a total of 18,386,212l. to meet the supplies required for the year.

He had now brought to a close the ob-serrations he had thought it his duty to make. He had presented to the House, in the best way in his power, the financial state of the country. He left gentlemen to draw their own conclusions from the statement he had made; but he should not do justice to his own feelings, if he did not take the present opportunity of saying, that whatever might be our temporary difficulties, he still saw nothing to lead to any doubt as to the extent of the means and resources of the country; on the other hand, when that cloud which has lowered over the country should pass away—and pass away he was confident it would at an early period—this country would present a picture of prosperity, happiness and wealth, such as had been scarcely equaled at any former period.

He feared he had trespassed too long upon the attention of the committee; but he had felt it necessary to enter at some length into the subject, in order to make himself the better understood. He would conclude with recommending the House to pursue a system of cautious forbearance, as the best means of recovering the country from its present difficulties, and warning them that its recovery might be retarded by an undue attempt to precipitate it. The right, hon. gentleman concluded by moving his first resolution, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, there be issued and applied the sum of 506,212l. 2s. 8½d. being the Surplus of Ways and Means granted for the years, 1823, 1824, 1825; 1826, 1827, and 1828."

said:—Before I proceed to notice any of the arguments of the right hon. gentleman, it is but an act of justice to him to remark, that he has laid before the House a very clear and distinct statement; so clear and distinct, that every man at all acquainted with the subject, must have been able to follow him through the whole of it. This circumstance is undoubtedly a matter of congratulation; because, however important the subject, the statements of a finance minister, on bringing forward the annual budget, have not always been intelligible, even with the most patient attention to the details. I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman gives full credit to the opinions he has uttered regarding the condition of our finances; and I wish I could participate in the view which he has taken of them. I wish I could believe that the country was only under a cloud; nay, as the right hon. gentleman says, under a "passing cloud," which, ere long will leave the land basking in the sunshine of unequalled prosperity. I cannot possibly imaging in what situation he has been, or whence he has derived his information that could lead him to the persuasion, that only parts of the great system are temporally embarrassed; and that we are suffering only a slight inconvenience in a few of the great interests of the empire. Let him review those interests—let him look at our commerce and out manufactures in their various branches, and let him shew me in what respects they are topics of congratulation. He told us, indeed, in the outset, that conflicting views might be taken of the subject—that we are suffering under the evils of a deficient harvest, and of commercial stagnation. He admits that stagnation, and yet, he adds, that he does not think it his duty to inquire into the cause of it. But if it be not his duty, let me ask to whom that duty does belong? I appeal to the House, whether all classes are not labouring under the consequences of that stagnation. And is it for the minister of the Crown, who comes down to expound the finances of the country, to tell us that he will not inquire into the cause? I ask every member who hears me, whether he is prepared to sanction the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, without some attempt at least at a solution of the difficulty? He says, that some may attribute it to the change in the currency, some to over-trading, and others to over-production. He calls it "tremendous over-production," but I am sorry at all times to hear the productiveness of a country brought forward as an evil. If it should turn out that the change in the currency is the cause of stagnation, aided by heavy taxation, let any man get up and assert, in the face of the country, that it is not a subject worth consideration. Are we prepared to continue the present amount of taxes from year to year, if it be established that their pressure has mainly contributed to our distress? Surely no situation can be worse for a country than to be overburdened with imposts of every kind, to have those imposts paralyse trade and manufacturers, and yet for the minister of the Crown to tell us, that he will neither lighten the load, nor inquire into the cause of the distress. Is it fit that, in times like these, ministers should persevere in the same system of taxation that has existed for the last fifteen or sixteen years? I admit the right of the chancellor of the Exchequer to take the contingencies into account; that of the Isle of Man and London Bridge ought not certainly to be left out of the account; but with these, the public expenditure amounts, in the current year, to within between 50,000l. and 100,000l. of what it was in former years. I therefore take it for granted, that it is the intention of ministers that the amounts, both of taxation and expenditure, should hereafter remain the same. Now I for one am not prepared to concur in any such arrangement. I think that the enormous amount of taxation has brought the country to its present condition—that it has pressed upon all classes with the most painful severity. I do not say that other causes have not concurred. I do not attribute our condition wholly to taxation. The change in the currency, and over-trading I admit have lent their aid in producing the admitted stagnation; but I say, that the distress existing, whether partial or general, temporary or permanent, we are bound to inquire into, with a view to ascertain whether relief cannot be afforded. The right hon. gentleman has said, with great correctness, that there has been an evident increase in many branches of our exports, and it was but fair in him to draw a comparison between quantity and value; but if it should appear, that there is an increase of three or four millions this year, yet that the declared value—that is, the price at which the merchant estimates his goods is de- creased in the same proportion—nothing will have been gained. If it should turn out that capital is less productive this year than in former years, and that individuals employed in fabricating the goods have been only receiving half their usual remuneration, it is clear that this apparent increase of exports will have produced no corresponding advantage to the country. If there be a merchant in the House who differs from me upon this point, let him stand up and contradict my statement. Is there any monies individual in the country whose capital last year has returned him even the ordinary profit he might have obtained, without risk or trouble, in the stocks? Perhaps the landed interest is an exception. But their day is coming [hear! and a laugh]. I repeat, their day is coming, and that it will come, and to the landed interest I therefore make my appeal. It is quite impossible that the rest of the community should be deprived of the common means of subsistence, and that landlords should be able to keep up their rents. Sooner or later they must feel the effects of the present condition; and let me ask them, with this prospect before them, whether it is politic to proceed with our present system of reckless expenditure? I say "reckless expenditure;" because it must be so, if no attention be paid to the state of the country, and if the chancellor of the Exchequer will not give himself the trouble even to inquire.

As to the excess of the revenue of last year, I perhaps differ not only from the right hon. gentleman, but from some of those more immediately around me. I have wished, I have prayed, that there might be a reduction in the receipts at the Treasury—not in consequence of any misfortune overtaking the country, but such a diminution as would compel ministers to abandon their expensive system, and prevent them from diving so deep into the pockets of the people, and depriving them of the means of clothing their nakedness and satisfying their hunger. Whether resident or traveling from place to place, all persons are required to make heavy deductions from their hard-earned pittances, and there is scarcely an article under heaven that is not made the subject of taxation, vexation, and annoyance. Therefore, it is impossible for me not to wish for the occurrence of almost any thing by which the people might be re- lived—not by forced measures, such as the diminution of consumption and the means of employment, but by the repeal of taxes. I consider it one of the greatest evils to which the country could be exposed, that, during the last seventeen years, the revenue has been so steadily productive. All history tells me—at least, all my experience tells me—that in proportion as you place funds in the hands of government, they will take good care that it shall all be expended; and the committee has seen that the whole of the three millions confided to ministers was spent, with the exception of only 13l. So much is entrusted to the power of the minister, when the revenue is productive, he is allowed to sanction such a lavish expenditure,—that I contend it is a positive evil that the receipts continue so great. As the chancellor of the Exchequer has not pretended to account for the present state of the country, I will state two important causes which appear to me most applicable. I hold in my hand an account of the receipts of the revenue, exclusive of all loans, since January, 1815. I will begin with the year 1817, which may be considered the first year of peace. It was the year when the Finance Committee sat, and when the peace system began; and I will state the amount of the produce of taxation in this unfortunate country, with such immense powers and capabilities, yet brought to the verge of ruin. In the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, the average receipt of the revenue was 51,762,000l. Now, the House will recollect what in these years was the state of the currency. I ask the merchants, what, in those years, was the amount of their profits? Were they then satisfied with a return of four or five per cent on the most hazardous adventures? Were capitalists then content to obtain three or four per cent upon investments? No such thing: the price of every thing was at that time different; capital obtained its fair return, and labour its due wages; yet, now that every thing is changed, taxation remains unaltered. Every body knows that Mr. Peel's bill, which passed in 1819, made an important change in the value of money; it affected the price and the profitable return upon every article of produce and consumption, and yet, during the next three years, viz—1820, 1821, and 1822, the produce of the revenue was 54,173,000l.; In 1823, 1824, and 1825, it was 52,400,000l., being actually one million more than in 1817, 1818, and 1819. It has been observed by some, and very properly, that we have been expecting that this unfortunate state of things would gradually subside; and—to use the figure of the right hon. gentleman—that the cloud would pass away, and the country emerge from melancholy darkness. The consequence has been, that from year to year, we have been unwilling to reduce and retrench, and when the currency has been reduced to metal—when trade and manufactures are stagnant, and distress general, in the years 1825, 1826, and 1827, the average annual revenue has been 51,100,000l.—being an amount of taxation equal to the years 1817, 1818, and 1819. Now, in my view, the change in the currency, the exaction of heavy taxes, combined with the difficulties thrown in our way by our own fiscal regulations, including the trade in corn, have brought us to our present state of difficulty. I ask, then, whether the right hon. gentleman is warranted in congratulating the House on the prosperity of the country? He talks of an increase in the exports, and particularly in hard-ware and wool, and of the augmentation of active industry, as evidenced by the additional comforts of the population. Good God! from whence does he derive his information? Who furnishes him with his documents? Has he looked at Macclesfield, Manchester, and Paisley? Has he looked at the state of Spitalfields? What places in the country can he point out to justify his statements and anticipations? His opinion is founded on what I contend is a positive evil—a full treasury: he knows nothing beyond the receipts there; he sees the money, and he is satisfied. It is a manifest insult to tell the starving population and the ruined capitalist, that their condition is a convincing proof of present comfort and future prosperity. I confess that the statement surprised me; it seemed to me utterly unaccountable; but it shews that the cabinet closes its eyes upon hourly experience of the real sufferings of the country, and, finding a productive revenue, thinks no change necessary, and makes up its mind to continue to tax to the present enormous amount what it is pleased to call a happy, prosperous, and enviable people.

The right hon. gentleman has referred to the increased revenue upon malt and spi- rits, as if the amount of gin and whiskey consumed was a proof of the improvement of the condition of the lower orders, although it is not to be denied, that thousands have been driven by despair to seek an oblivion of their sorrows in intoxication. As to malt, does not the right hon. gentleman recollect, that in the preceding year there was a decrease in this item of about 800,000l.? It is a singular and not unimportant fact as relates to the consumption of malt, that the returns establish, that that consumption was as great in the ten years between 1785 and 1795, as in any subsequent ten years: it was as great as at the present moment, although the population has been doubled. This establishes the fact, that comparatively little beer is now drunk, and that few of the labouring classes are able to taste it, especially in its pure and unadulterated state. The amount of the duty occasions the manufacture of a quantity of trash under the name of beer; and with that the industrious artisan must be contented. On all accounts the right hon. gentleman should be the last man to mention the consumption of malt as a proof of the increased comforts of the people: if any article could be brought forward to establish the contrary, it would be malt. The whole nation may be produced as evidence against the right hon. gentleman, and I challenge him to produce any one man out of the House, who will concur in his congratulation. What, then, is the duty of this House? Is it its duty to sanction this continued expenditure, and to persevere in taxing the people? I protest against it, and upon me at least the responsibility shall not rest. I think the House is called upon, not only to afford all the relief in its power by the repeal of taxes, but by the appropriation of the surplus in the Treasury. We are told, however—and I could scarcely avoid smiling while I heard it—that something has been done in the way of economy. What has been done? Eighteen commissioners have been dismissed; but it is a question whether half of them have not been pensioned off, and the relief, perhaps, amounts to nothing. It certainly is nothing like the relief which the country has a right to expect; and if an hon. gentleman should be found to agree with the chancellor of the Exchequer that it is sufficient, I hope he will stand up in his place and state the grounds of his opinion. I shall hold it a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the House, if it does not compel ministers to do something more for the relief of the suffering community.

With one expression of the right hon. gentleman I confess I was pleased. He told us that, in a great commercial country like this, we must expect alternations, which, in plain words, means ups and downs, as regards prosperity. Now, I ask him, or any man, whether it is common prudence for an individual to live to the utmost verge of his income, when he has reason to expect reverses? What would be folly in a private man is folly in a nation; and, with these threatened alternations, ought our expenditure to be calculated at the highest average of the last six years? We must provide against those ups and downs; and if government will not yield, we must exact from it the large reductions of expenditure, demanded by the circumstances of the country. The right hon. gentleman referred to many other items; and with regard to them I have only to admit, that the estimates of last year were fully warranted by the result. The right hon. gentleman, therefore, instead of overstraining, understated his calculations. Whether he will be equally correct as to the current year remains to be seen. I hope the House will at least pause before it permits the chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed in his career. Taxes are about to be proposed on sugar and some other articles; but I trust they will be refused, and that ministers will thus be driven to the alternative of reduction. They know nothing but the receipts in the Treasury, and, poor honest souls! they do not seem to be at all aware of the deplorable condition of some of the manufacturing districts.

There is another point on which the right hon. gentleman slightly touched, I refer to the manner in which, he proposes to appropriate the surplus revenue. He says that he feels warranted in increasing the permanent debt of the country by the funding of Exchequer bills. In my mind, nothing can be so lamentable as the wholesale manner in which we proceed to injure ourselves. Year after year we persevere in the weakest and most unwise course, even in the management of our surplus revenue. We are called upon to keep nominal amounts of Sinking-fund; and then we fund Exchequer bills at an extraordinary and most needless loss. The chancellor of the Exchequer says, that he has selected the amount of three millions, because Mr. Canning thought fit to augment to that amount the unfunded debt. I am one who, at the time, protested against that proceeding. I contended, that it was most unfair to take credit for the facility and cheapness of raising money, as if the amount was never to be brought to account when it was funded. What has been the result? It is grievous to think of the lavish manner in which the public money has been thrown away, for the purpose of keeping up the delusion of a Sinking-fund. The right hon. gentleman did not fairly tell the House that, from the close of the war, we have been borrowing every year, and losing by borrowing to an extent scarcely credible. I regret that the Finance Committee of last year had not time to go into the statement laid before it, to shew that four millions had been lost upon thirteen millions borrowed from the Bank The whole of it arose from a nominal Sinking-fund, so long supported, but which is now abandoned, and does not meet with a single advocate. We are still proceeding in the same heedless and ruinous course. I object, therefore, to the funding of these three millions of Exchequer bills, by which so considerable a loss is sustained to the country. The right hon. gentleman thrusts three millions into the funds, in order to raise them that he may buy them back at a higher price, and thus throw away the public money. The House ought not to agree to so inconsiderate a bargain as these funding of Exchequer bills by the right hon. gentleman and the first lord of the Treasury. These three millions are to go into the market at a premium of two per cent against the public. This is a proof of their care and wisdom in regard to the public interest! It is done, no doubt, by the right hon. gentleman merely to give an appearance of doing something. But who benefits by it? The broker who buys and sells, and gets the turn of the market—he alone profits by these transactions. Ought the public to be so treated? Are tens of thousands of pounds to be thrown away after other tens of thousands, and is there to be no end of this wasteful system? Would it not be better to repeal taxes, than to squander them in this way? I thought I had the House completely with me in regard of the ruinous transaction, some years ago, as to the finding of 8,000,000l. I allude to the year 1826, when that amount of Exchequer bills was funded, which had been issued during the three preceding years. By that operation it was brought to our knowledge—the money having been advanced on the issue of Exchequer bills; and here I must say, that this is too dangerous a power to give to any government. This circumstance brings to my recollection a fact that has been stated to me, but which I will not now repeat. I have no hesitation in saying, that it is a proceeding open to the greatest possible abuse. Any individual holding the offices of chancellor of the Exchequer, or Secretary of the Treasury, may, any morning, put 50 or 100,000l. into any body's pocket whom he chooses to favour, if he only gives him an intimation of the transaction the means to perform that day. I could prove this to the right hon. gentleman's own satisfaction, if it were necessary. The right hon. gentleman proposes to ground this funding on the average amount of the price of stock; and for that purpose, he says, he will take the three last quarters. He proposes, that the Sinking-fund shall still be applied to the current quarter; because it is improper, he says, to make large purchases in any one quarter. Very improper, say I too: and there we are agreed. But, what do I find? That in the quarter ending in September, 1827, the amount of 2,600,000l. of Exchequer bills was sold in one day. This may be nothing as it regards private individuals; but it affects the public interest very differently. By the right hon. gentleman's own sewing, it is not in the power of the minister to issue Exchequer bills, without lowering the market price. I am speaking on the authority of an official paper which I hold in my hand. In the following quarter there was another sum of 728,000l. of Exchequer bills sold, making a total of 3,328,000;. thrown on the market in six months. I will ask the right hon. gentleman whether it does not affect the market? Must it not put those who are not in the secret, or on the spot, in a different situation from what they ought fairly to be in? I complain, that we advance the public money by issuing Exchequer bills, and thereby give individuals a power over the money market which no man ought to have. The right hon. gentleman does it, according to his own account, to create a trade in stock; it being well known, that every time government go into the market and purchase 100,000l. or 200,000l. of stock, it raises the price in proportion to the purchase, and so the public lose by every transaction of this nature. If the House will attend, hon. gentlemen will find that this was the result of the very last funding of Exchequer bills. So it was also in the ruinous transaction of 1826, to which I have referred. In that instance, there were 8,000,000l. advanced on Exchequer bills issued in 1824, 5 and 6, to purchase three per cents at the rate of 4l. 4s. per cent per annum. These Exchequer bills were funded at 3l. 6s. 9d. per cent. Now, when they were so funded, is the House aware what the produce was to government? They funded Exchequer bills at 3l. 6s. 9d. per cent for which they had paid 4l. 4s., being a loss of 18s. per cent for ever on the whole 8,000,000l., which is a perpetual annuity of 75,333l., and equal to a capital of 2,500,000l. of stock.

This is one instance of the effect of an inconsiderate issue of Exchequer bills, which are afterwards funded at a lower rate than they are issued. Let us see what will be the result of the 3,000,000l. which is now funded. The right hon. gentleman says, "I have only given a bonus of 30s." What right, I ask, had he to give it at all? The public money is surely not to be so wasted. I say he ought to be left to take the money himself, and lose not only the bonus, but the difference. The House will excuse me, while I shew that we lose by funding these Exchequer bills the amount of a dividend, which, if applied to the Sinking fund, might have been used to reduce the debt at an interest of 3l. 10s. 7d. Honourable gentlemen are not aware, perhaps, what is the operation of Exchequer bills in their issue. They are sent, in the first instance, to Mr. Rothschild, or some other broker, and by him sold in the market for whatever premium he can get for them. The money so obtained goes to the commissioners of the Sinking-fund, and they go with it and buy three per cents, and the price they give will afford them a dividend of 3l. 10s. 7d. per cent. Now, the right hon. gentleman finds this money by giving 4l. 1s. 10d. per cent, and thus loses 11s. per cent on 3,000,000l. for ever. Are we to continue to throw away the public money thus? These Exchequer bills, when issued, are sold at a premium of 94,000l.; and the final result is, that it leaves the country the loser of an annuity 6f 14,000l. for ever. Hon. gentlemen will never understand these transactions, unless they accustom themselves to look into those proceedings. I cannot call them profligate, because that term has been objected to; but I will call them wasteful; I know no phrase stronger that I can apply within the rules of the House. What would hon. gentlemen think if a private man should agree to borrow 100l. to be paid by instatements of twenty percent every two months, so that, in five successive payments, the whole sum will be completed by a certain day; and that, in order to render the loan worth while to the lenders, he agrees to allow them interest for it from the day on which the first instatement is paid, instead of postponing the interest until the whole capital is advanced? This is precisely what the chancellor of the Exchequer does in regard to these 3,000,000l.; for the Exchequer bills are to be funded by instatements; at equal periods, between 19th of June, and the end of October. But the interest is to commence on the stock from the first day; and as the interest is paid on the Exchequer bills until they are cancelled, the parties will be receiving double interest. This is a wasteful expense, to which I trust the House will not agree. I say that we ought to leave the chancellor of the Exchequer and the first lord of the Treasury in the lurch, to pay the debt themselves, and if the House will support me, I will oblige them to do so [a laugh.] I say that no minister ought to fund Exchequer bills until he has brought in a bill to regulate how it shall be done. The right hon. gentleman should, a month ago, have come down to the House, and inquired of us whether we would allow a surplus revenue; and if we did allow it, he should then have asked how it should be applied? In the present state of the country, I think there ought to be none. Suppose there was a surplus, would it not be better to remit taxes to that amount, and thereby relieve the people, than apply it to be played with in brokers' hands? It was, I know, generally expected that there was to be some wonderful financial transaction. "Depend on it," people said, "the duke of Wellington will produce something to astonish the world. You will be surprised; it will be a masterpiece of financial address." But when it came forth, I never knew any thing so perfectly ridiculous; it was nonsense, and empty vaunting. Instead of borrowing and funding on equal terms, an annuity of 14,723l. is lost to the public for ever by this profligate transaction. All I wish is, if possible, to make the right hon. gentleman himself pay it; and if I can satisfy the House as to the facts of the case, as I have no doubt I can, let us read the prime minister and the right hon. gentleman a lesson which they will not easily forget. We ought not to be placed in this situation, by which we are called upon to sanction the loss of half a million to the public. There never was such uncertainty and mismanagement as in this instance. It is really an insult to ask us to agree to such a transaction. The only thing in consistency with it is the high state of prosperity in which the right hon. gentleman described the country; every individual contented and living in abundance, in every part of the country.

Before I go further, I must notice a statement of the right hon. gentleman in unison with the ignorance he displays as to the state of the country. He speaks of it as if happiness and content were spread throughout the country. Now, I must tell the country gentlemen, that they are about to come back to the golden times of 1792. I know that the produce of the estate of an hon. friend of mine is reduced to the rental of 1796; and it will not be long before the rental comes down generally to the level of 1792, as regards prices. Let us divest ourselves of all party feelings, and look at the state in which the country is really placed, and examine the difficulties we have to contend with. This is our duty: it is the duty of ministers to ascertain the causes of the distress, and apply effectual remedies. As to out burthens, I have in my hand a little bit of paper, stating the comparative expenditure of the years 1792 and 1828; and I beg the House to attend while I read only five items. The first item is the interest of the debt. That, in 1792, was 9,577,000l.; in 1828 it was 28,095,000l. just three-fold greater. The next item is the civil-list and other charges on the consolidated fund; this, in 1792, was l,033,000l.; in 1828 it was 2,204,000l. The third item, is for the Army, Navy, Ordnance, Militia, and Military and Naval Services in general: in 1792, it was 4,357,000l., and in 1828 it amounted to 19,000,000l. The aggregate of expenditure in 1792, was 14,969,000l. and it 1828, 49,781,000l. There is another very weighty item to which I desire the attention of the House. I hold a paper showing the amount of the dead weight, and other charges, which we are told cannot be meddled with. Before we agree to take that amount upon us, we ought to see whether, with it, we can keep the wheels going, because, at all events, that is absolutely necessary, whatever may become of everything else. We are told that we cannot touch the dead-weight or pensions. Is it possible we can be told that the country shall not take this subject into consideration, when three-fourths of every man's labour is taken away from him in taxation? Can I conclude better than by quoting the right hon. gentleman's words this evening, when he said, speaking in terms of exultation: "this is the amount of the expenditure and of the income; this is the evidence of our internal prosperity, and of the contentment, ease, and comfort of the population: there is ample ground for congratulation in our present happy state."

said, he did not rise to follow the hon. member through his several misrepresentations of what he had said, and which had been cheered by some hon. members who were not in the House when he had spoken, but he was anxious to set himself right as to one point. The hon. member had said that he had not alluded to the distress of the country. Now, he was in the recollection of the House, and he would ask any honest man whether the contrary was not the fact? When he had talked of the great increase in our exports, and the great improvement of our Excise, which was a fair criterion of consumption, and of the ability of the people to purchase those articles on which Excise was paid he appealed to the House, whether he had, not referred to the year 1828, and not to the present year. But the hon. member applied that to the state of Spitalfields at present, and, in a speech which was more fitted for that neighbourhood than for that House, and which was calculated to create an excitement against him personally, he had wholly misrepresented him by applying what he said of the prosperity of one year to another. He begged to protest against such misrepresentation. He had distinctly stated, that the country was distressed; but in comparing the estimates of one year with those of another he could not have entered fully into detail as to the nature of that distress.

said, he should regret much that it could be supposed he would willfully misrepresent what the right hon. gentleman had said. Such certainly was not his intention; but he had heard him speak of the distress of the country as a passing cloud, which, when it had gone over, would leave it in a state of transcendent prosperity.

said, that the very phrase which the hon. member had quoted, was an admission that he had adverted to the distress of the country, which he certainly hoped and believed would be temporary. The word "transcendent" he had not used. That was the hon. gentleman's own; and he did not wish to rob him of it.

rose, but was for some time indistinctly heard. He regretted that the chancellor of the Exchequer had not thought it necessary to refer more particularly to the existing distresses of the country, or to trace the cause of those distresses. He had referred to the present state of the Spitalfields weavers, which was a subject well deserving of his consideration. Now, he had taken some pains to inform himself of the real situation of those poor persons. In all his communications with them, he had always deprecated their throwing any imputation on their employers, and had contended, that what the employers had done was no more than necessary for them to do, under their peculiar circumstances. He professed himself the ardent advocate of those unfortunate persons, and was most anxious that they should be restored to a state of prosperity; but at the same time he was bound to say, that he considered it as a most unfortunate circumstance, that they should have resorted to any act of violence. He hoped, however, that the misconduct of some of them would not prevent the indulgence of humane feelings with regard to the Spitalfields weavers in general, who had endured aggravated distress with most exemplary patience. He gave credit to the right hon. gentleman for the clearness of his speech: he threw no fault on the present administration, who did pretty much like their predecessors, and, indeed, were treading in the beaten path much more than he wished them to do. He did not wish for any change of administration, for he frankly owned he did not see how the country could be benefited by it. The right hon. gentleman had certainly given a very flourishing description at the end of his speech, as to the state of prosperity he anticipated. Now, he had lately, as a matter of curiosity, waded through the King's Speeches to that House, and had found passages in every one the same tone as to the eternally increasing prosperity; and if there was a little distress, it was treated as a passing cloud, and as a temporary matter. This was so remarkable that the tail of any one speech would fit to any other just as well as to the one to which it belonged. The right hon. gentleman had described the year 1828, as one of prosperity. Now, that certainly was not the case, and he proposed to make out his case, by documents. His hon. friend had said something on the situation of the landed proprietors; but his hon. friend had not come to the point. The landed proprietors were the persons most deeply interested in those discussions. They had a stake in the country, and if its wealth was lost its constitution could not long stand. It became every member of that House, therefore, to examine into, and point out the distresses of the country; and it was the duty of his majesty's government, backed by that House, to point out a remedy for the case. The evils had now become so complicated that he confessed he did not feel himself competent to point out a remedy; but, nevertheless, it was his duty to refer to those evils. Much had been said about the system of free trade; but government seemed to forget, that almost every branch of our trade and manufacture was the child of prohibition. The linen trade and the silk trade had grown up and flourished under a system of prohibition. There were some manufactures, perhaps, which might exist without it, and to which the principles of free trade might be beneficially applied; but there were others from which protection could not be withheld without sacrificing the interests of those concerned in the manufacture, as well as the prosperity of the country. That the cotton trade had flourished without protection was not, perhaps, owing so much to the applicability of free-trade principles to that particular manufacture, as to the extraordinary inventions of Mr. Arkwright: so that the exception which the cotton manufacture might seem to furnish was no argument in favour of withholding protection from other manufactures differently circumstanced. How could it be expected that the country could be in a thriving state while ministers admitted the produce of foreign countries to compete with the manufactures at home, while there was no reciprocity in the system pursued by other countries. He held in his hand a paper which he had drawn up from the official returns that had been made to parliament.

With respect to the document to which he was alluding, it was honorable members own fault it they were not acquainted with its coregents, as he had adopted means to place it in the hands of every member, in order that he might be acquainted with the subject. Some of the statements that were put before the House required explanation to understand then correctly; it

The worthy alderman then proceeded to contend, from the items contained in the following document, that there was nothing in the result of the free-trade system to justify ministers in pursuing the same course; and that as long as it was persisted in there were no hopes of the prospects of the country improving:—

was made to appear that the official value of the exports had increased from thirty-six to fifty-two millions; but the fact was, that the real value of those exports had diminished from forty-seven to thirty-six millions. As it could not be denied that the country was at present struggling with dreadful difficulties, the argument that was used to lull the inquiries of House was, that we were at present under a cloud; but that before any very long time elapsed, it would again be sunshine, and every thing would be going on prosperously. But how did they attempt to make out this? There were three millions in quarters of corn, and two millions in silk goods imported into this country; but we were assured that the money for all this would come back again. He could tell the House that no such thing would be the case; for whatever we might import, our exports would not be found to increase in consequence. It might be contended, that the distressed state of the manufactures of the country arose from a glut in the market; but even if it did, could they stop the masters from working their looms, or the artisans from continuing their labours to fill their mouths with food? In the course of the last twelve years there had been a loss of one hundred and twenty millions in the export trade. Nor did the matter stop here; for in the colonial produce also, there had been a falling-off during the last eight years: the cause of all this was, that the ministers had been holding out all sorts of delusive hopes to the people, while the real fact was, that not one single point of commerce had proved favourable to the manufacturer. It was very clear to him that the country could not go on in the way it was now going on in. Taxes kept their station, while all property, and capital, and produce deteriorated; so that the effect was, that we had double taxes to pay, while the prices of commodities remained the same. There certainly was no knowing what favourable turn Providence might bestow upon the country; but at all events it could not be denied that they were living upon hopes and chances, which appeared very little likely to be realized. He should be extremely sorry if he were to say any thing that might tend to add to the difficulties of the country; but the only way by which they might be conquered, was for the House to shew a disposition to inquire into the causes of the distress, and to provide the best remedy they could devise. As to the revenue of the country, he would frankly confess it would have been no satisfaction to him even had the chancellor of the Exchequer been able to state that he had got five millions more than he wanted. He should have known that the money had only been wrung from the pockets of the people, and that there was nothing it the fact to pre- pare the way for a more wise or a more prosperous policy. [During the course of the worthy alderman's observations the committee were very inattentive. The chairman had frequent occasion to call it to order, and to request hon. members to take their seats.]

said, that though he agreed, in a great measure, with what had fallen from the worthy alderman, he could never recommend to that House, the adoption of further prohibitory duties. It was, however, impossible not to entertain the most gloomy anticipations for the future from the actual state of the country, and from the extraordinary indifference which the House had manifested towards a question of this important nature. He asked whether the inattention which had prevailed in the committee for the last two hours was not sufficient evidence of the fact? Whatever hon. members might think, he could assure them that the question was one of the most vital importance: the credit of the country was annihilated those who had formerly been noted as men of large property found themselves unable to meet their engagements; but if such was the condition of the capitalist, how much more wretched was that of the artisan? He had death before him, despair around him, and no prospect of any amendment of his condition. In his opinion, the chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted to mention the primary cause of the excessive taxation under which the country was labouring. If the right hon. gentleman was right in his statement, how was it that the foreigner, after having to contend against the duties levied upon his goods, or the risk he ran by smuggling, was able to come into England and undersell the manufactures of the country in our own market? Instead of gaining ground, this country had been gradually losing it ever since the peace. At that period, there was a prejudice all over the continent in favour of this country; but now the foreigner, by strenuously working up hill, had put himself on an equal footing with us, and would, no doubt, soon be able to outstrip us in all competition. They were bound to recollect, that England occupied a place in the scale of Europe for which nature had never intended her. They were also bound to recollect, that she would never have occupied that place if it had not been for her commerce and her manufactures. Keeping this in view, if a man were to look at the proceedings of parliament for the last fourteen years, the least he could think was, that it had systematically shut its eyes to all that was going on in every other part of the world. So long as the nations of Europe were enthralled by despotism, or spell-bound by superstition, this country enjoyed great advantages over them. But, at present, other countries had free institutions as good in theory, and better in practice, than our own. France, Holland, and Bavaria, had all representative governments; and in Prussia, and in other states where there was no representative body, public opinion had acquired such a force as rendered property secure, and consequently manufactures and commerce were making rapid progress in them all. He would contrast with our taxation, the taxation of France and the United States,—two states which were our most formidable rivals, and which entertained the strongest jealousy against us. The population of France was thirty millions; and its taxation amounts to forty millions sterling annually. This sum included not only the government expenses of the country, but the provision made for the clergy, for schools of primary instruction, for roads, &c. The assessment was at the rate of 1l. 6s. per head on the whole population. In the United States, the population was between ten and eleven millions, and the taxes were rather more than five millions sterling; so that there the assessment did not amount to more than 10s. per head, on every man, woman, and child. General Jackson, in his late inaugural speech, had declared this to be too large; at the same time expressing his intention of embracing the earliest opportunity of reducing it. He wished that this country would take a leaf out of the book of the American President; for though he did not wish to see any republican institutions in this country, he should be very glad to have a few of their republican taxes. The taxes in this country amounted to sixty millions, to which were to be added twelve millions for the poor-rates and parish rates, besides the receipts of the established church, and what was paid by Catholics and Dissenters to their clergy; so that he was not overstating the amount when he said, that the taxes of this country amounted to eighty millions, or in other words, 4l. per head on the whole population; being eight times more than the amount of taxation in the United States, and three times more than the amount in France. But this was not all; the amount was going on increasing at a rate sufficient to appal the stoutest heart. In 1764, the amount of taxes was 7,759,000l. in Great Britain and in Ireland, about 1,000,000l. of which, after deducting what was required for the debt, there remained 4,000,000l. for the current expenditures of the country. In 1790, the taxes amounted to 17,000,000l., of which 6,423,000l. went to the current expenditure. But what was our present situation? The total amount of taxes was 63,604,000l. of which nineteen millions and a half went to the military, naval, and miscellaneous contingences, the civil list, &c. It was no answer to this statement to say that the value of money was changed; for though it was true that the money-price of articles was enhanced, yet that was itself owing to the enormous amount of taxation; and he would venture to say, that if they went to the continent they would find that the money-price of the necessities of life was not materially altered. In the year 1822, when there had been a great pressure upon the country, parliament had effected a reduction in the expenditure of the country; but all this was now again done away with, and we were in as bad a state as ever; for the expenditure for the army, navy, &c., which, in that year was reduced to 16,647,673l. last year, amounted to 19,548,500l. The principle of all the demands of those who were suffering under the present depression, was nothing less than this; "tax our neighbours, because we ourselves are taxed." As long as the distressed trades maintained this principle, they could have no hope of relief; but he would recommend them not to petition the House, either for the reduction of their own taxes or for the imposition of taxes on their neighbours, but at once openly and manfully to call public meetings, and pass resolutions instructing their constituents upon the course they desired them to adopt. This was the way to get rid of the evils of their condition; and until they adopted some such course, they must continue to suffer.

said, he approved, to a certain extent, of the system of life annuities which the chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed, although he feared that the funding of the Exchequer-bills would absorb the whole amount applicable to the Sinking-fund. He had heard with surprise the statements of the right hon. gentleman, with respect to the additional revenue he expects from the duties on malt and spirits; and he was the more surprised to hear that statement, because he understood, that the bill which passed to regulate the malt trade, had been found to be so oppressive and inconvenient, that it put a stop altogether for a time to the trade of malting. According to the statement of the right hon. gentleman, the duties of the malting from the harvest of 1827 were paid for in 1828; he should therefore like to know how the right hon. gentleman calculated his increase? The maltsters complained that the duty levied was greater than any ever taken before. They said, "If the chancellor of the Exchequer feels himself compelled to levy new taxes, let him come down to the House and say so at once, but do not let him levy 300,000l. more than he is entitled to by consent of parliament." At that moment the malt trade was carried on, not under the act of parliament, but under the orders of the Treasury. He wished to know what was the amount of the sum offered to the chancellor of the Exchequer that morning on the funding of Exchequer-bills?

, in answer to the hon. baronet's question with respect to the life annuities, begged to state that it was not the intention of government to carry the plan of life annuities to any great extent, although he believed it was a very popular mode of investing money. Referring to the hon. baronet's objections upon the subject of the Sinking-fund, he did not think that its operation would be materially affected by any of the present financial arrangements. With respect to the malt duty, he was aware of the great indisposition on the part of the maltsters to carry on their trade in the years 1826 and 1827; and he had, therefore, thought it better, in taking his average, to include the year 1827 with the year 1828, which two years yielded, when taken in this manner, an excess of 700,000l. He was aware, however, that from peculiar circumstances, this sum was very high, and that the average of the preceding years reached only about 600,000l. Although, therefore, he fairly anticipated an increase, he had thought it fairer to take it at 500,000l.

said, he did not think, in considering the budget, that the House could fairly enter into the discussion of that greater and still more important question to which the document of the worthy alderman referred; namely, the cause of that distress and gloom which pervaded all branches of our trade and manufacture. He would just say, with reference to that part of the subject, that the alterations connected with the transition from a state of war to that of peace—the circumstances connected with the change in our currency—the difference in the value of the raw material of our manufactures at the two different periods, cotton being in the time of war one-half dearer, and wool two-thirds;—that these things, when fairly considered, might go far to account for much of the embarrassment which they now experienced, although he did not think the question could be fairly mixed up with the budget. To the chancellor of the Exchequer, who had laid before the House their financial condition, he was disposed to give every praise. His statement had been clear and satisfactory, when compared with some of those which the House had frequently been compelled to listen to, and which resembled more the effusions of the poet laureate than the explanations of a financier. The right hon. gentleman, in that statement, seemed to wish it to be believed, that the surplus of the year was upwards of three millions; but he apprehended that the 500,000l. for the Deadweight must be deducted from that sum, and that the available surplus was, therefore, little better than two millions and a half. He confessed, when he heard the right hon. gentleman express a disposition to remit taxes, he regretted the smallness of this sum, and the impossibility of his indulging his disposition in favour of the people: for he was now and always had been of opinion, that without an efficient Sinking-fund, the country had no chance of relief from the difficulties which oppressed it. Much, indeed, as the measure of a Sinking-fund had been laughed at, it had always appeared to him as a very wise measure, and one which, if resolutely persevered in, afforded the nation its best hope of relief. He had always, therefore, thought that the expression of a late marquis of Londonderry, upon the "ignorant impatience of taxation," with reference to the money required for the Sinking-fund, did not deserve the ridicule applied to it; and that it was upon a steady support of that fund that the nation was to rely for its salvation; for with a debt equal in cost to the whole amount of the ordinary expenditure, it was impossible to look at the condition of the country without apprehension. The hon. member for Montrose had observed, that the paying off the Exchequer-bills was attended with a loss, for they were exchanging a debt which bore an interest of 3 per cent for a debt which bore an interest of 4 per cent, and at the same time purchasing this debt at a premium of 70s. per cent. It must be admitted that this was true; but, at the same time, there were circumstances connected with the large amount of the unfunded debt which were well worth consideration. In peace, this debt might do no mischief, but if we were to be engaged in a war, the effect of a great unfunded debt might prove ruinous to the operations of the government. When an individual had a sudden call for money, he applied to his banker until he could make his resources available; so it was with the government, if any sudden armament became necessary the government must, to set themselves going, apply to the Bank, and if it had its capital locked up in Exchequer-bills and in thirteen millions of the Dead-weight, it would of course be unable to render the assistance required. Under these circumstances, it was highly expedient to reduce the amount of the unfunded debt; and although the sum of three millions was small, he thought the effect would be good, and that the pecuniary sacrifice ought not to be considered.—Upon the subject of the unfunded debt, which consisted of what were called Deficiency-bills of the debt due to the Bank and of Exchequer-bills, he had a suggestion to make, which he thought deserved attention. By a paper laid on the table, it appeared that the sum on the hands of the Accountant-general of the court of Chancery amounted to nearly 40,000,000l. In making an observation on this, he meant to cast no reflection on that court or its delays. This money was principally the property of minors and suitors, and was invested, according to the invariable rule of the court, in the consolidated 3 per cents, the suitors having no choice of the fund in which their money was to be invested; although he believed sometimes, although rarely, the money had been in- vested in Exchequer-bills. After the war, and when the funds were daily advancing, this system gave satisfaction; because those who had money in the court of Chancery made fortunes by the rise. In the case of the Queensberry property, to take an instance, money invested when the funds were at 57 and 60, was realized when they were above 90, increasing the capital two-thirds. This told well when the funds were rising; but what would be the consequence resulting from a war, which might reduce the property of those who bought at 96 down to 56? Without talking of the distress it would produce to some, many entitled to residues would get nothing at all. It was, therefore, very desirable that they should now, in the time of peace, take some steps to put an end to a system of gambling—for gambling it was—as injurious to minors and to families as that carried on in the celebrated house in St. James's-street might be to other persons. Without meaning the slightest imputation upon the profession, he did not think it proper that the large sum to which he had alluded should be under the sole management of a body of lawyers. What he proposed, therefore, was this:—That government should take the money belonging to the suitors of the court of Chancery into its own hands, and give them a steady regular 3 per cent for it. If any great alteration should occur in the value of money, it would then be just that that money should be advanced to 3½ or 4 per cent, according to circumstances. There would never be backwardness in that respect; on the contrary, there could be no doubt that there would always exist a disposition to allow the suitors too much rather than too little. Thus the suitors would have more than the ordinary interest on Exchequer-bills; and he confessed he could not see any possible harm in taking, in this manner, the whole of the forty millions in question: of course keeping a regular account respecting it with all the various proprietors. The effect of this would be, to withdraw so much from the unfunded or floating debt. But, as to sweep all this amount of forty millions away at once might be attended with some inconvenience in the money market, what he proposed was that all money here after coming into the court of Chancery should be so employed; which in the course of eight or ten years would in all probability realize the forty millions in question.—With respect to any scruples that might arise, as to trusting the money of minors and infants to the State, the fact was, that it was so trusted according to the present practice. And if, which God forbid! any thing should occur to place the debt in a hazardous situation, it would be much better that this property should be in the distinct shape which he recommended than in its present condition. At present there was also a fund to a large and unknown amount in the hands of the court of Chancery, unclaimed by any one. Whatever sums existed of that nature, ought unquestionably, in his opinion, to be in the hands of the responsible government. Not that he doubted that that fund was perfectly safe in the hands of the court of Chancery: he had no doubt that they kept more of it in an available state than there was any probability would be called for: nay, he was quite sure that if the court of Chancery erred in that respect at all, it erred on the side of safety. But when it was considered what an accumulation there was of unclaimed dividends on the national debt, it might be well believed that in such a court as the court of Chancery, where in many cases the suitors could not be expected to outlive their suits, a great sum must be accumulated which would never be called for. At all events, whatever sum there was of that nature ought to be placed under the responsibility of government. It was impossible but that under the present system abuses must exist. Of one, for instance, he had been apprised by a friend of his, a banker. The court of Chancery received the money of the suitors in various forms. If in Exchequer-bills, the court, instead of keeping the money in that state, received the amount of the bills and bought stock with it. By that means they sacrificed 70s. per cent of the suitor's money; and in the case which his friend had mentioned to him, the loss exceeded 400l. He had thought it his duty to describe this plan, which, if the Finance Committee had been revived, he should have submitted to its consideration; and he recommended the chancellor of the Exchequer to institute an inquiry into the benefits which might be derived from its adoption.

declared, he had never, until that evening, heard a chancellor of the Exchequer describe the supposed balance of the Sinking-fund in its proper colours. That which was, in fact, fictitious, had, in all former cases, been boldly pronounced to be real. With respect to the eulogy of his hon. friend, (the member for Callington), on the Sinking-fund, he admitted that the principle of Mr. Pitt's Sinking-fund was excellent; for, on that principle, the annuities were annuities terminable; but afterwards government laid hold of them, and converted them into annuities interminable. In the way in which the Sinking-fund had been actually managed, it had been proved by accounts for which he had formerly moved that a loss to the country of no less than twenty-seven millions had arisen from the hugger-mugger system of buying and selling, to keep up this juggle and deception. Among other causes of this loss, great sums had been sacrificed by the redemptions having been made in the three per cents instead of in the three and a half. Indeed, the manner in which government usually made their money contracts was injudicious. The system was bad. There ought to be more of competition. As an instance of the vice of the present system, it was only necessary to advert to the operation of this morning, when government wanting a subscription of only three millions of Exchequer bills, above eighteen millions were offered; thus showing that the terms were disadvantageous to the public.—There was another point on which he wished to say a few words. For whatever might happen to the country, or for whatever might require an extensive reduction of taxation, government were now solely answerable. The late Mr. Canning thought it expedient, that a committee should be appointed to investigate the finances of the country. In that opinion he understood at the time that the right hon. gentleman opposite concurred. The committee had, however, no sooner finished one year's labour (the benefit of which had been rendered apparent that night in the clear and honest statement which, for the first time, had been made in that House by a chancellor of the Exchequer), than its existence was terminated. That committee had pronounced the Sinking-fund in its present state a fallacy; and now, as if by magic, the whole House saw that it was a fallacy. Yet, for how many years had he and some of his friends in vain endeavoured to impress the House with that fact! The Committee of Finance had declared, and declared with the greatest truth, that there could be no Sinking-fund, except the surplus of the public income over the public expenditure. If it had been revived many other advantages would, no doubt, have been derived from it. It would have examined into the manner of keeping the public accounts. It would have suggested alterations in the Exchequer. It would have recommended specific diminutions of the burthen of taxation. It would have pared down all the estimates of the public service. The government, however, had determined that the committee should no longer exist. The government had declared, that they would do what the committee would otherwise have done. If they really did so, they would deserve well of their country; but he confessed he was sceptical on that point. By their proceeding, however, government had placed themselves in a situation of peculiar responsibility, for by putting an end to the committee, they had undone what they had formerly thought it expedient to do. The country was at present in such a state, that if things did not mend, government would be called upon, from one end of the kingdom to the other, materially to reduce taxation. He would not stop to inquire what was the cause of the existing distress; whether it proceeded from over-production, or want of demand. What was perfectly clear was, that there was a redundancy of capital, producing a diminution of the rate of profit on capital, and a redundancy of labour producing a diminution of the wages of labour. Under such a state of things, was it possible that the great body of the people could buy corn at its present high price? There must be a change, therefore, in our policy on that point. He understood the chancellor of the Exchequer to state, that there was a surplus of above three millions applicable as a Sinking-fund to the reduction of the debt. Now, he had no objection to the operation of a Sinking-fund; except as it was abused, and as it sometimes induced ministers to abstain from reducing the estimates, and to maintain them at what was properly the war establishment. If, in the year 1817, a searching inquiry had been made into our financial condition and resources, he had no doubt that we might have reduced our taxation three millions a year more than we had done. But we had not adhered even to the recommendations of the Fi- nance Committee of that period. By gross mismanagement we had increased our debt, and had imposed on the country a long-continued and unnecessary taxation. It was evident, that we could not go on as we were now going on; but that we must greatly reduce both our taxation and our establishments. He would seriously advise government to set about a real and effective reduction of the establishments. He believed they were more disposed to do so than any ministers of whom he had ever had any experience: but still he was apprehensive that they would not go about it as they ought. There was the navy, for instance. Could any man read the report of the Finance Committee and not feel convinced, that a large reduction might be made in the naval expenditure? Much might also be done by a consolidation of establishments. He could point out two or three establishments, the consolidation of which would be attended with great saving. He allowed that there was great difficulty attendant on the task of retrenchment; and that unless it was fairly and substantially set about no real advantage could be accomplished. It was on that account that he considered the act of throwing the Finance Committee overboard more injurious than any measure which government could have adopted.

, adverting to the plant recommended by the hon. member for Callington, expressed his hope that the day would never arrive when government would feel itself at liberty to make use of the money belonging to the suitors in the court of Chancery, for the chimerical purpose of clearing off the unfunded debt. If such a proceeding were attempted, he was persuaded it would occasion a ferment in the country which would not speedily subside. If he understood the argument of the hon. member for Callington, it divided itself into two points: first, as to the expedience of investing the money of the suitors of the court of Chancery in the three per cents; and secondly, as to the propriety of allowing government to apply that money to the reduction of the floating debt. With regard to the first point, he believed the hon. gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the funding of the money of the suitors in the court of Chancery was confined to the three per cent consols: it was as frequently invested in the reduced three per cents. When the court of Chancery first began to receive the money of all persons coming into the court, and more especially the money of minors and others who were unable to protect themselves, the propriety was evident of selecting some fund for the investing of that money; not a fund which was not invariable, for that could not be expected, but which, bearing the smallest interest, and therefore yielding the smallest immediate profit, was most likely to increase the capital ultimately. The reason why the court of Chancery did not invest the money of the suitors in any other stock than the three per cents was, that all other stock were liable to be reduced. The other funds were a redeemable debt. For instance, the five per cents had been reduced. What a great inconvenience would that have been to suitors, had their money been invested in that stock. For, in that case, the court of Chancery must either have taken upon itself the acceptance of the terms offered, or it must have allowed the money of the suitors to remain unappropriated. Besides, were the money of the suitors invested in a stock bearing a large interest, the tenant for life would have a greater advantage than belonged to him, to the injury of his successors. As the money must be invested in some fund or other, he should be glad to know why it should not be invested in the fund in which it was at present invested? The court of Chancery was considered as the parent of those whose property was placed under its protection; and he would ask, where was the father of a family who would think of investing all the property of his children in Exchequer-bills, instead of in the three per cents? It should also be considered that a great proportion of the property brought to the court of Chancery was brought thither because it was expected that it would remain there a long time. Ought it to be invested in any but the safest security? Exchequer-bills were convertible. They might be stolen; they might be burnt. Where was the man who, being in possession of forty millions of money would dream of investing it in Exchequer-bills? Would the court of Chancery be justified in making any experiment with the money intrusted to them? Would it be justified in speculating in the funds with money which did not belong to it? To invest the money of the suitors in the three per cents was to invest it in a stock which was more likely to rise than to fall. Suppose that, if the money of the suitors was laid out in Exchequer-bills, those bills should become depreciated; in that depreciated state, according to the plan of the hon. member for Callington, government would appropriate them to the reduction of the unfunded debt; and the loss occasioned by that depreciation would fall upon the suitors. The hon. member had deprecated the trusting of lawyers with the management of the fund in question. He, (Mr. Sugden) would not only not trust lawyers — he would not trust any one. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that no lawyer, as an individual, had the slightest control over the money of the suitors in the court of Chancery. He was in the habit of being in that court as frequently as any body, and he knew of the fund in question only by reputation; having no more control over it than the hon. member for Callington had. The hon. member had said, "Don't trust lawyers." Without meaning any incivility, he might in return fairly say, "Don't trust merchants;" for it was not impossible that, on the part of the commercial interest, there might be a disposition to get rid of the incumbrance of the unfunded debt, at the expense of the unfortunate suitors in the court of Chancery.—Another evil that would attend the hon. member's plan was the impracticability of paying the parties in the court from time to time; weekly, daily, hourly, as the court might direct. For instance, a trustee for 10,000l. might be called upon to pay the money into the court of Chancery. Was that money, which might be required again almost immediately, to be laid hold of by government and made a book-debt? And if such a principle were once admitted, where was it to stop? If government were to be empowered thus to seize the money belonging to the suitors in the court of Chancery, why were they not to be empowered to seize the money belonging to the Equitable Assurance Society—a large sum, and only a small portion of which could ever be suddenly wanted? Why not enter the funds of such a society into the books of government, and call it a book-debt? He had been taken by surprise on this subject, and had therefore not advanced all that might be said upon it. At the same time, although he might not have spoken wisely, he would say that he had spoken sincerely. As to the larger sum in the hands of the court not claimed, or likely to be claimed, he agreed with the hon. member for Callington, that it might fairly be disposed of in the manner the hon. gentleman had described, with a guaranty for its return, in the event of an owner appearing. But, to the other part of the hon. gentleman's proposition he would never consent, and he hoped parliament would never listen to it for a moment [hear, hear].

rose and said: — The worthy alderman who spoke early in the debate, has been charged by my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Baring) with digression, because he entered into a discussion upon the general condition of the country, and the causes by which that condition has been influenced. In my opinion my hon. friend himself, on whom it rests, that a discussion on the court of Chancery has been brought into this debate, is more justly to be accused of digression than is the worthy alderman. The prosperous or adverse state of the country, with all that explains the causes of either, is essentially connected with the state of the finances. I wish that this connexion was more intimate. I would to heaven, Sir, that the public revenue were made to depend so immediately and essentially on the prosperity of the country, that no degree of general distress could befall the people, which should not be immediately felt in a corresponding reduction of the receipts of the Exchequer. That the ministry were thus compelled by necessity to proportion their expenditure to the lessened resources of those by whom it is supplied; and that we should cease to witness in this country a prosperous revenue and a distressed nation: a profuse and extravagant government amidst a beggared and impoverished people. But the chancellor of the Exchequer gave the example of discussing the general state of the country on this occasion; and his views of that condition were founded on tables and documents, of a character precisely similar to those which have been examined by the worthy alderman. The right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer has shewn by such tables, that a great increase has taken place in our exportation trade; to this he appeals as a proof of the flourishing condition of the country; and has done so in the face of the fact, known to the experience of every man, that all the great interests of the nation are suffering under overwhelming distress. The worthy alderman has, in my opinion, done much service, by explaining to the committee the character of these tables; and by his exposition of the false views to which they are calculated to lead. Nothing is more common in this House, than statements drawn from those parliamentary accounts of exports and imports; of consumption and taxation; of the amount of tonnage and shipping; all of which are susceptible of leading to the most erroneous conclusions, unless examined with great attention, and with some practical acquaintance with the interests to which they refer.

The chancellor of the Exchequer says, there has been a great increase of our exports since 1826; and on this he founds his proof of general prosperity. In the same spirit, a few evenings ago, the right hon. member for Liverpool read to the House a table, by which it appeared that the quantity of goods exported, had increased in three years from forty millions to fifty-two millions; and this he quoted as satisfactory evidence of the prosperous condition of manufactures and commerce. But it is evident, that if this table be a proof of the prosperity of our merchants and manufacturers, it is a proof also, that their prosperity is so great, as that the whole commerce and manufactures of the country have been enlarged no less than one third or one fourth, in the short space of three years: for this is the proportion which fifty-two bears to forty; a conclusion too absurd to be maintained. Either the table itself, or the inference of prosperity deduced from the figures it contains, must be plainly false. The House was misled on the question of the silk trade by statements similarly fallacious. It appeared clearly, when that question was discussed, by official tables and accounts, that an increase had taken place in the quantity of the raw material imported, and thence the government derived a conclusion highly satisfactory to them, that the silk trade was necessarily prosperous, though in the face of the distress and the ruin, which the petitions of the silk manufacturers themselves brought under our view. So has it been with regard to the shipping interest. The House has heard from time to time long speeches and elaborate arguments, professing to prove by appeals to tables of shipping and of tonnage, that it was fit to consider the shipping interest in a flourishing condition; when the whole body of ship-owners unanimously assured us of the contrary. We neither listened to the ship-owners, nor believed them; but answered their statements by a reference to our own tables and returns. I will endeavour to explain to the committee the danger of relying on the results which such tables as these appear to give, by a reference to the condition of one particular branch of trade, the iron manufacture. The present condition of this manufacture is, beyond all contradiction, one of great depression. No period can be pointed out, in which the capital employed in the iron trade has been more ruinously occupied than it is at this time; and yet, if we refer to our parliamentary returns, we gain satisfactory evidence; such evidence as passes current in this House, of the present prosperity of this trade. We shall find a great increase in the exportation of iron to have taken place, and an addition to the whole quantity manufactured. But in the face of this supposed evidence of prosperity I assert, and I make the assertion in the presence of several hon. friends of mine, themselves largely interested in the iron trade, and who will contradict me if I am in error, that the condition of this trade is ruinous—that it yields no return for capital—that it is carried on with a loss and a destruction of capital; and I would say to his majesty's government, and to members of this House, disposed to view our manufacturing interests through the medium of their official tables, that if they are satisfied with the result they thus obtain, and can succeed in rendering permanent that rate of return which the iron trade now yields for capital, let them effect this, and in less than five years this great branch of manufacture will be entirely annihilated, and disappear from the face of the country. Whence then this apparent inconsistency—this condition of actual ruin, and apparent prosperity—this contradiction so often witnessed between traders and political leaders? The explanation is, that the distress and ruin of any particular branch of trade, of necessity leads to those very results which we have been accustomed to look on as evidences of its improvement and advancement. With respect to iron, as the price of iron has fallen, the manufacturers, burthened, with fixed payments of various kinds, which undergo no reduction, are compelled to carry larger quan- tities of their production to market, to enable them to meet those engagements. If one hundred tons of iron, will not produce in the market the sum the maker of iron requires to discharge any particular payment, one hundred and fifty tons will be carried to the market, or his trade will be exposed to immediate ruin. And from what source is this increased quantity drawn? From capital and stock. The process now in operation in the iron trade is, that in every stage of manufacture,—from the digging of the ore to the rolling of the bar,—the stock of materials is reduced, without the means being provided of future supply: new levels are not driven, new shafts not sunk, reparations are not effected; all materials are worked up; large quantities of iron appear in consequence in the market; large exportations go on; a temporary activity prevails; the precursor of destruction and ruin, which we view with triumph and complacency, and consider as the proof of security and advancement.

The House will readily remember the period, which was denominated that of agricultural distress. One circumstance which particularly marked that period, was, the appearance in all our markets, of an unusual abundance of agricultural produce. The new theory of "over-production" had then its origin, and was resorted to, to explain this anomalous state of things. The farmers, said some amongst us, have ruined themselves by bringing too much land into cultivations; others told us, (it was the particular theory, I think, of the hon. member for Bridge-north below me,) that they had over-cultivated and over-manured the land previously occupied. But the plain state of the case was, that parliament had, by Mr. Peel's bill, which was passed a little before, raised the value of money, and consequently reduced the price of agricultural produce; without accompanying that bill with any measure for effecting a corresponding reduction in the farmers' rents and taxes. By this operation, therefore, a larger proportion of the produce of the land than before, was required to discharge its engagements and burthens; the over-production that we saw, consisted of the contents of the farmers' stack-yards, and cattle-stalls, exhausted and emptied into the markets. His stock and his capital converted into rent. An examination of our tables of exports at that time of agri- cultural distress, would shew us the extraordinary circumstance of a considerable exportation of grain to the continent. Oats were sent to France, I believe, in considerable quantities. With as great reason might this circumstance have been relied on as a proof of the prosperity of agriculture, as a large export of manufactured goods could be taken as a test of the success of our manufactures. Our agriculture, it might have been said, is prosperous to so great a degree, that it supplies not only all the demands of our home consumption, but the English farmer is actually driving out the French cultivator from his own markets. This very mode of reasoning, this argument, to the letter, has been repeatedly made use of in judging of our shipping interest. We have seen the English ship-owners driving out by the lowness of their freights, the cheaply-navigated and untaxed vessels of Russia and of Prussia from competition with them; and have relied on this fact, as proof that our shipping interest flourished. This was our interpretation of a condition of things, in which the British ship-owner, exposed to ruin himself, spread embarrassment and distress amongst his rivals and opponents.

But the most striking proof, perhaps, of the fallacy of that mode of proceeding on which I have remarked, is to be found in the example of Ireland. There is one period at least in the history of Ireland which, by no tables however detailed, nor by any arguments, however confidently urged, we can be made to believe to have been prosperous. This was the year 1822; the year of famine, and, as it was called, of Irish distress,—that year in which no less a sum than 500,000l. was collected from the voluntary charity of England; itself suffering under the severest calamities, to assuage the still more urgent sufferings of Ireland. That very year was a year of unusually large Irish exportation. The exports of that year, and of the one which preceded, and that which succeeded it, exceeded in quantity, as is proved by returns on the table of the House, whatever was exported before or since, in any other three years, in the history of Ireland. I shall do no more now than state the fact, as one that bears on the question I am discussing: I shall not now inquire whence it arose. But the state of things which that country then exhibited is one of an extraordinary character, and had its origin in causes influencing then, as they do now, the fortunes of England as well as of Ireland. The spectacle which Ireland then exhibited has inflicted an indelible stain on its government, it is a reproach to all government; and is one of which I doubt if a similar example can be found in the history of any civilized community. Wherever the seasons fail; wherever famine exists, and the supply of food is unequal to the demand of the people; there merchants from views of interest, governments from motives of prudence or humanity, are uniformly seen carrying supplies, and bringing relief. But amidst the famine and distress of Ireland a monstrous and unnatural apathy prevailed. No merchant swayed by motives of interest, no government from fear or policy, interfered to provide for her wants; no vessel was seen to approach her shores, except to carry away the necessaries of existence from a perishing population: and, whilst famine raged amongst the people, and amidst the extremest sufferings of want, and despair, and death, this unhappy country witnessed from all her ports, an exportation of all the productions of the earth, and all the necessaries of life, in quantities unusual before, and in unprecedented abundance. Our returns of exports would shew us, according to official reasonings, extreme abundance and prosperity existing in the country, whilst its inhabitants were perishing. These exports were poured into the English markets, not scantily supplied, but already overstocked, and suffering from over supplies, and over production. This state of things, incredible almost, without example, disgraceful to the government, to parliament, I recommend earnestly to the consideration of those members of this House, who devote their attention more particularly to promote the interests of Ireland. These difficulties remain yet without investigation; these sufferings, and this injustice without redress. The source from whence they spring, has influenced the condition of England then and now; it is intimately connected with the past interests of Ireland, with her present interests, and future prospects; and he who shall contribute effectually to the investigation of those evils and to their cure, will render a service to Ireland, and confer on her an advantage, greater than has he done, who gave to Ireland the doubtful boon of Catholic privileges; a gift which, whilst it has rendered unstable and insecure much of what was most valuable in England, will achieve little for the permanent tranquility, or prosperity, of Ireland; unless it be accompanied by other measures, framed to give security both in England and Ireland, to the exertions of industry, such as neither country has recently possessed.

This extraordinary position of Ireland in 1822, had its origin in that same cause which involves at this time the productive community of both England and Ireland, in one common state of embarrassment and difficulty. The hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly) has just said, he cannot explain what this cause is; but he witnesses, he tells us, both redundant capital, and a redundant population; and he believes that in some way or other, our difficulties arise from one or both of these sources. But with an industrious population, anxious for employment, and with a capital adequate to give full employment to the people, what natural obstruction presents itself to the prosperity of the country? It is, that we have broken the connecting link between those two main sources of national prosperity. Our own measures have carried derangement and disorder into the system, by which capital and labour supply the wants one of the other. When has a redundant capital been a source of distress? where has population appeared redundant, except where capital was wanting? It is in poor countries, deficient of capital, that we find evils from an excessive population. Evils such as we experience, and explained as we explain their cause, demand, if by any state of the country they can be demanded and required, the labours and exertions of parliament to be directed to their investigation. But my honourable friend, the member for Cornwall (sir R. Vyvyan), has called its consideration to the subject; and I shall abstain, till his motion for inquiry into the state of the country, comes before the House, from entering further into this, the most important question with which we can be occupied.

said, he had been unfortunately absent during the early part of the debate, and did not intend to take any part in it, if he had not been alluded to by the hon. member for Callington; and he must express his surprise, that that hon. member, who had begun his speech by referring to the digression of the worthy alderman, should have himself digressed from the subject before the com- mittee in such a manner as hardly to have alluded to it. He appealed to the committee whether almost every part of the hon. member's speech might not have been delivered on any other occasion, and whether a large portion of it might not have been appropriately, introduced in the debate last night, on the subject of the Poor-laws in Ireland. The hon. member had said, that in 1822, there was great distress in Ireland, and that during the same year there had been a great exportation of corn and cattle. This was possibly the case; and what had been the cause? Why, in Ireland, in that year, the chief food, the potatoe-crop—on which the great bulk of the peasantry subsisted—had totally failed, and they had done then as they must always do under similar circumstances—sold whatever else they had to pay the dues of the landlord—sold that other produce which, in general, they were not in the habit of, consuming. The hon. member could surely shew in this nothing extraordinary; it was one of the unfortunate results of that state of society which would occasionally arise when there was a redundant population, and little or no capital to set them to work, and particularly when that population were already reduced to subsist on the cheapest and lowest-priced of all species of food. The distress had been caused by the failure of the potatoe-crop. And this ought to make the House take into its consideration the state of pauperism in Ireland; for if something were not done, England would speedily be reduced to the same state; and when it was so reduced, property would be exposed here to the same danger, and, the public tranquility to the same uncertainty, as it was in Ireland. The hon. member had also referred to what he (Mr. Huskisson) had argued, on a former evening, from the exports, and in repeating that statement he would challenge the hon. member to tell him what other documents he could refer to ascertain the condition of the country, but those which were published by the authority of parliament to shew the state of the commerce of the country. In the finance returns, the account of the exports for the year 1827 was stated at forty millions, and for the last year at fifty-two millions; and he had stated the last as a proof that the foreign demand had not decreased, and that that could not be the reason for the want of employment for capital and labour He had taken the official in preference to the real value, because that was estimated by rates settled, not, as the worthy alderman seemed to Suppose, in 1814, but during the reign of king William; and because, therefore, it expressed quantity not value, and shewed that the quantity exported in 1828, was greater in the proportion of fifty-two to forty, than it was in 1827. He had argued from that fact—and the argument had not been met—that the want of employment did not arise from any decrease in our foreign demand. He had also stated what he trusted could not be denied, and he had proved the fact by the Excise returns, that a greater demand and consumption of various articles existed in 1828 than in 1827. He had also inferred from this, that it could not be want of employment which occasioned the pressure which was generally felt. He went farther, and in answer to the gloomy statements put forth by the hon. member for Callington, he would restate his proposition, that no better criterion could be found of the improving condition of all classes of the community, than an increase in the consumption of the articles which formed the necessaries, the comforts and the luxuries of life. If the people consumed more tobacco, more beer, more spirits, more tea, more cloth, although there might be a momentary depression, he was entitled to infer, that the country was in a state of progressive improvement. With regard to the silk trade, to which the hon. member had alluded, government could not guarantee to that, or any other branch of industry, the same profits it had formerly enjoyed. Distress in the silk trade was no novelty, as the hononurable member seemed to suppose.

.—I spoke of the present state of the trade. I made no allusion whatever to its former state.

.—That was precisely what he said. The hon. gentlemen had spoken of the present distress as if it was the first instance of the kind; but the slightest historical investigation would satisfy any person, that trade had always been subject to fluctuations which produced distress and irritation in the sufferers. Let any person turn to the "Annual Register," and the index to that work he would find, under the word "Riot," the annals of outrages in Spital- fields nearly engrossing the whole of its references. The hon. member and others compared the present state of trade with the exorbitant profits obtained during the war, and by that comparison with the depression which now existed, he drew his conclusions that trade was ruined. It had always been found that there were periods when production surpassed consumption, and which were followed by periods of stagnation. As long as prices were falling, persons looked for a still further fall; and they would undertake nothing which they could avoid, and would buy as little as possible; but directly prices began to rise, then all the speculators rushed into the market. He would not say that we were yet at an end of the first period; but whenever prices began to rise, trade would recover. He could not indulge in those gloomy anticipations, founded on false assumptions, in which the hon. member for Callington had indulged, and which did not appear to have been very well calculated to alleviate the pressure on the labour and industry of the country. Having done with this digression, he would, while he was on his legs, refer to what had fallen from the other hon. member for Callington (Mr. Baring). He agreed entirely with the latter observation of the hon. and learned member for Weymouth on this subject. If there was in the court of Chancery any fund similar to the unclaimed dividends in the Bank, not likely to be called for, or only called for at a specific time, parliament might deal with that fund, giving a guarantee to the court, as it gave to the Bank, to pay it when called upon. Parliament could not recognise a higher protecting authority than that which it owed to its own creditors. In fact, no higher protection for any property could be given. It did not appear to him that the hon. member for Callington intended by his proposal to sacrifice the property of the suitors of the court of Chancery, for the sake of extinguishing the unfunded debt. Nothing was further, he was sure, from the thoughts of that hon. member who only looked at it as every man of common sense would look at it. If parliament dealt with that property, it would deal with it on the principle of a guardian, who made the most he could, preserving it from danger, as the property of his ward. In many cases, it must be im- proper to vest much of the money in the hands of the court of Chancery in such a fluctuating stock as the three per cents; and it would be better to vest it in the more steady security of Exchequer-bills. The hon. and learned member asked, could the House convert all the property vested in the hands of the accountant-general into a book debt? Why, the whole national debt was nothing but a book debt; and it was as sacred as any debt in the kingdom. There was no authority for it, but that it was inscribed in the books of the Bank of England. Exchequer-bills had, at least, a tangible existence; and, bearing a receipt from the Exchequer, had at least as Valued an existence as the debt inscribed in the books of the Bank. The hon. and learned member said, that Exchequer-bills might be stolen; but the Bank of England would at any time take charge of the Exchequer-bills of individuals, and of course they would be more ready to do this for a public company. The Bank of England would take charge of Exchequer-bills for any man. From the nature of the case, upon due consideration any man acting as a guardian would vest his money in Exchequer-bills, in preference to vesting it in the three per cents. Let public trustees not be placed under the necessity of vesting their money in the three per cents, or in Exchequer-bills; but let there be some officer, who in each case would best fulfil the spirit of the trust, and the true intention of the parties whose interests were to be guarded, and the result would be, not the sacrifice of the parties in Chancery, by the absorption of the unfunded debt, but that a considerable portion of that debt would be chosen for investments, in preference to the three per cents. Being so vested, it would not expose the state to those hazards and difficulties and fluctuations to which a country was exposed that had a public debt.—He had heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, that, amidst all the pressure upon the country, and making every allowance for that pressure, as affecting the public income and diminishing the resources of the country, he was offering to the House the satisfactory statement, that there would be a surplus revenue equal to what the committee of last year had declared ought to be the minimum of balance of receipt over expenditure. That was the surplus which his right hon. friend anticipated he should have at the close of the present year; and it was indeed a highly gratifying announcement. He should not now enter into the discussion as to the terms upon which the 3,000,000l. of Exchequer-bills had been recently funded. It would have been on that occasion, perhaps, more desirable not to have specified the terms of the contract, but to have let the parties offering for them bid against each other. It appeared, that offers were made to the extent of 18,000,000l.; and if the course to which he had just alluded had been adopted, it was more than probable that the competition would have been still greater, and that better terms might have been obtained for the public. He rejoiced, however, that there was a reduction to be made in the unfunded debt to that extent; and he rejoiced that there was reason to think, judging from what had fallen from his right hon. friend, that the reduction would not stop here, but that the system would be continued by applying the surplus revenue, whenever it amounted to 3,000,000l., to the reduction of the unfunded debt. He was glad that there was such a prospect before us; for he had always considered the unfunded debt as one of the dangers of the country. In any country, but more particularly in a country circumstanced as this was, the existence of such a debt would be always the source of weakness, danger, and embarrassment. He could wish that, as his right hon. friend had ascertained that there would be 3,000,000l. of surplus, he had withdrawn from the market a greater amount of unfunded debt; and he would once more repeat, that he looked at the state of the unfunded debt, which was held by the Bank of England, with concern. He most seriously wished that that portion of the unfunded debt should undergo a diminution. If had been the fruitful source of those difficulties and sufferings to the country, of which it was now bearing the lamentable consequences. They still felt the effects of the Bank Restriction measure, passed in the year 1797, and which was passed because the amount of engagements which the Bank was under to the government obliged it to stop its advances upon the unfunded debt. In the year 1819, when that restriction was repealed, the Bank made advances to the amount of 10,000,000l. in the un- funded debt, and it was afterwards able to advance 13,000,000l. more upon a species of security less available even than Exchequer-bills. It advanced 2,000,000l. in addition to that upon mortgages, and it bid for Exchequer-bills to a considerable amount. The panic of 1825 succeeded, and the utmost distress prevailed throughout the country. He would therefore earnestly request the attention of his right hon. friend to the amount of unfunded debt in the hands of the Bank of England. The consequences which had occurred at former periods might occur again. Indeed, it was highly probable that they would again occur; and, under such circumstances this great banking concern could not possibly make all their property available to meet such a sudden contingency. Should, any great change suddenly take place in the political world, the Bank could not possibly render its properly available to carry the government and the country through the dangers which might arise. If such dangers should again menace this country—and they might not be as far distant as some might imagine—the Bank would be obliged to call upon the government to grant it another restriction, for the public interests and for public purposes; and though it was possible that he might live to see the day when such a restriction should be imposed, sure he was, even if his life should far exceed the ordinary period of human existence, he should not survive to see the day when that restriction would be removed.

said:—The right hon. member for Liverpool complains of digressions, from the question before the committee. If any one subject has been introduced into this discussion, alien to the question before us, and which may properly be called impertinent to that question, it is the discussion in which the right hon. gentleman himself has indulged, regarding the nature of funds in the court of Chancery, and the manner in which it is best for the suitors that they should be invested, drawn out, or retained. But as the right hon. gentleman has made the grossest misrepresentations of what I have said, it is necessary to state, that I did not contradict him on any question of consumption; but referred to a statement of the right hon. member himself, in which, he gave an official account of our exports in the years 1826, 1827, and 1828, as a test of the increase of our commercial transactions during those years, and of their present prosperous condition.—That I correctly represented the argument of the right hon. gentleman, I find confirmed by a statement of what he said, taken from one of those organs of public information sometimes referred to in this House, in which the right hon. gentleman is thus represented to have spoken, "Honourable gentlemen had stated that the commerce of this country was in a state of decay. He begged leave to ask them where was the evidence to bear out their assertion? What did the official accounts say in relation to this alleged decay? He begged the House to attend to one or two unquestionable facts derived from a very satisfactory test of the decline or increase of the commercial dealings of the country,—namely, its exports. In 1827, the exports amounted in value to, in round numbers, 40,323,000l.; in 1828 to 50,000,000l; and to the 5th of January of the present year, to 52,000,000l. Shewing an increase of no less than 12,000,000l. sterling in the exports of 1829 over those of 1827; and of 1,000,000l. over those of last year."

This is the absurdity which I imputed to the right hon. gentleman; the preposterous assumption, that the commercial dealings of the country were so prosperous, that they had increased one third or one fourth in two or three years, in the face of all we know of the ruinous condition of our commerce; and I explained the manner in which an increase in the quantity of goods exported, from one year to another, becomes no criterion of prosperity, but has frequently its origin in low prices and distress. The right hon. gentleman has stated, that the famine and destitution which existed in Ireland in 1822, was occasioned by a failure of the potatoe-crop in that country. But, from whatever cause that year of distress originated, the distress is admitted, and it was accompanied by a great export of commodities. The right hon. gentleman's test of prosperity, therefore, is found to be of no value. A further review of the table of exports from Ireland will give additional information on the character of this question, and will present views to us highly important to be considered. In 1814, the last year of war, the exportations of Ireland to Great Britain, amounted to 5,100,000l. of official value. Official value, is a measure of quantity. This account exhibits the gross quantity of the corn, the cattle, the linen, the salted provisions, and other commodities sent out in every year of which the account is given, and of consequence shews the proportionate quantity exported in different years. The quantity and number of all these in 1814 exported to Great Britain is therefore to be taken as marked by the figures 5,100,000l. It appears by the tables of real as distinguished from official, value, that the whole of this produce yielded in Great Britain 10,500,000l. of money in 1814. From that time the price of Irish commodities commenced to decline in the English market: and in 1816 the exports of Ireland to Great Britain, still amounting in quantity to 5,100,000l. of official value, yielded no more of actual money than 7,100,000l. being a reduction of 3,400,000l. The Irish farmers and manufacturers sent here still the same quantity of their productions; but they received back only about two thirds of the money they looked for, in return. The same rents were to be paid in Ireland, the same engagements of every kind, when 7,100,000l. was received for their exportable produce, as were payable when this produce yielded 10,500,000l. The impossibility of making these payments, with means thus diminished, is evident: there we see explained the embarrassments in which the productive population of Ireland became then involved; and the real causes of the distress disturbances, discontents, and conflagrations which distinguished that Unhappy period. The peace had brought with it an act of parliament for substituting gold money of a high and ancient value, in the place of the cheap and depreciated standard of the war; in this different description of money, commodities sold at a low price; prices fell with the increased value of money, but monied engagements remained fixed. The year that ensued, 1817, was marked by an increased quantity of exports; no criterion of the prosperity of Ireland, but the result of poverty and distress. It was the effort of the Irish farmer to save himself from immediate ruin by the sacrifice of his stock of corn and cattle, necessary as capital to the cultivation of his land. The distress of England, as well as of Ireland, compelled the Government to abandon at that time their gold payments; the Bank Restriction, which set loose again a flood of cheap paper money on the country, was renewed for two years; and by the year 1818, we find that the productions of Ireland in Great Britain marked in the table of official value, as 5,700,000l., yielding in money 10,300,000l., being a trifling reduction only from the money and the prices of the war—Ireland and England were then alike prosperous and tranquil: but Mr. Peel's bill followed, which introduced again the old gold standard, money of a high value, and with that, low prices. From that period to 1822, the year of famine, the price of Irish productions is shewn to have fallen in the English market. The quantity of these productions is marked in that year as 6,100,000l., and their price at 7,000,000l. Ireland, then, in this disastrous year, sent here one fifth more in quantity of her corn and her cattle than was exported to us in the prosperity of 1814; and received one third or one half less of money in payment and in return. I shall not further detain the committee in the consideration of these facts, but they will lead to the full and complete exposition of all the difficulties which both Ireland and England have experienced, and of those in which they are now involved.

said, that if the expectations and deep feelings of the country were objects of solicitude to the House, honourable members could not but conclude that the course taken by government on the present occasion would greatly disappoint the public hopes. For three or four, evenings the House had been occupied by the Silk-trade; almost every possible subject had been introduced for discussion, except that to which the public mind was, with the most intense anxiety, directed. They nightly saw gentlemen of great talents discussing the currency, the effects of the potatoe economy in Ireland, every species of question, except that practical question in which the public mind took an intense interest. The country had been led to expect that it was the serious intention of government to investigate the financial condition of the country with a new to a substantial reduction of expenditure. The public feeling had been composed under the expectation that a Finance Committee, consisting of all parties would be established for the purpose of probing into the expenses of the country. That was the expectation held out in the first session of the present parliament. In pursuance of that promise, the Finance Committee was appointed last session; but the moment that committee was about to apply itself practically to the reduction of expenditure, the government announced its extinction. From what had come out during this discussion, from some of the members of this committee, it was plain that the committee was extinguished because it was about to recommend something to be done with the funds that remained locked up in the court of Chancery. As to the reduction of taxation, not a word had been said about it that evening, though the people of this country had every right to look for such a reduction. The House had been led to expect, by the advocates of Catholic emancipation, that no sooner should that great measure be carried, than the military in Ireland would be reduced and millions saved. As far as he could learn as yet, they had not disbanded even a corporal's guard. Easy as it was to reduce the expenditure from eight to ten millions, still greater relief might arise from an alteration of the taxes. It was to reduction and alteration of taxes that the attention of the country was directed; and he did not believe that there were six hundred and fifty parsons in all England who did not believe that the only way of relieving the country was to take from the shoulders of the poor the chief part of their burthens, and to alter the nature of what was left them to bear. He would repeat, that from eight to ten millions of taxes which oppressed the labouring classes might be removed, and others substituted. He would recommend the substitution of a well-regulated and equitable graduated property-tax, commencing at one, and rising to thirty or forty per cent [a laugh.] Honourable members of course laughed at the preposition He was quite sure they would never sanction such a proposition, as he knew very well that they would not consent to tax themselves. But it appeared to him that, gentlemen possessed of 30,000l. or 40,000l. a-year in the country should pay in proportion for the benefits which they enjoyed; and if forty per cent would be disagreeable he would be willing to compromise for a tax of twenty per cent upon their property. The time was fast approaching, when the people would invade that House with petitions to remove the load of taxation with which they were oppressed. The Silk-trade had been under discussion, and he would say, that never was there any thing so barbarously unjust as to give Free-trade with one hand and the Corn-laws with the other. It was a line of conduct quite unparalleled in any age or country. He had, perhaps, thrown out some things that might be difficult of digestion; but he thought a few direct sentences better than a speech of two or three hours, intended merely to cloud the views of the speaker. In conclusion, if they proposed to go to work practically and tangibly, they ought to reduce taxation, and, above all, to alter its character. The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, "That towards raising the Supply, the sum of 13,438,800l. be raised by Exchequer-bills for the year 1829,"

inquired whether it was intended to make any addition to the Exchequer-bills already in circulation, or merely to replace the bills at present in circulation?

said that this grant was merely for the purpose of re-placing the bills now in circulation, and that the government would have no power to issue new bills.

The resolution was agreed to.

On the resolution, "That the several persons who have engaged to subscribe towards funding the sum of 3,000,000l. in Exchequer-bills, and who have made deposits of twenty per cent on the amount of their respective subscriptions accepted at the Bank of England, should be entitled, upon the completion of their subscriptions, for every 100l. so subscribed in Exchequer-bills, to 101l. 10s. capital Stock in Annuities, bearing interest at the rate of four per cent per annum, the said interest to commence from the 5th of April, 1829, and to be payable by half-yearly dividends on the 10th of October and the 5th of April in every year.

moved, that the Chairman be instructed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Government had made, in this instance, a most improvident bargain, and he could not therefore consent to this resolution. The right hon. gentleman acknowledged that he had 3,000,000l. of surplus revenue, and he should have applied that surplus to withdraw these Exchequer-bills out of the market.

said, that under all circumstances the best bargain that could be made had been made for the public. It was an economical one, too, if compared with the terms in which Exchequer-bills had been disposed of on former occasions, and under similar circumstances. The subscribers in this instance would be only entitled to one and a half per cent interest, and the premium was only 30s., while in all former instances the premium had never been under 2l. The hon. member said, that the surplus revenue should be applied to this purpose; but if the government were to withdraw these Exchequer-bills now, they must have the means of doing so; and it should be recollected, that the surplus revenue of the year 1829 would not be available till the end of the year. Besides, if government were to go into the market daily, as the hon. member would recommend, to fund Exchequer-bills, the consequence would be, that the premium on them would rise. The present system was far more advantageous to the public.

saw no difficulty in reducing the unfunded debt. The government would have only to pay off those Exchequer-bills, as they would have a right to do, when they fell due; for they advertised them upon such conditions, and upon such conditions they were subscribed for. The best way to pay off a portion of them, was to put the whole of them into a wheel, and to draw out the 3,000,000l. which were intended to be paid off. There would be no necessity, if such a plan were adopted, to give a large bonus upon the funding of these bills. The government had a right to pay them off at its pleasure; and why not adopt that plan in doing so?

contended, that the machinery suggested by the hon. member for Abingdon had been tried already, and was found not to work as was expected. He considered the measure of his right hon. friend to be the most unexceptionable he could adopt; for it not only secured to the public creditor his moral claims, but did not interfere with any future plan for the redemption of the Exchequer-bills.

said, he should like to know in what Exchequer-bills differed from other species of government security. He saw no difference.

agreed with the hon. baronet, so far as that the government was at liberty to take Ex- chequer-bills to the Bank on the same terms with their other financial securities, but contended that they differed in other respects.

was anxious to know upon what grounds ministers could justify the present system of buying up Exchequer-bills at a price three per cent above par. In 1827, he had shewn to the chancellor of the Exchequer that his then buying up in the same way would he a heavy loss to the public. Nevertheless, the right hon. gentleman persisted, though a great deal of the public money had been wasted. The proper course would be to give six weeks' notice, that of the 13,000,000l. unfunded Exchequer-bills, which would shortly fall due, only 10,000,000l. would be renewed, and that the remaining 3,000,000l. were to be bought up at par, by lot, or some other fair arrangement.

said, the hon. member mis-took the nature of the hardship which his right hon. friend pointed out with reference to the holders of these bills. How was he to say to one set of holders, you shall receive 103l. for your bills, and to another set you must be content to part with your bills at par?

again protested against the doctrine laid down by the chancellor of the Exchequer. The persons who advanced 103l. for an Exchequer-bill did so with an understanding, that at the end of a certain period it might be called in at par; and beyond that he could have no claim on the government.

the understanding amongst merchants in the city was, that the bills might, at a given time, be called in at par; and they expected no return of the premium advanced on them.

said, he was sorry to be compelled to disagree with his hon. friend, the member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Martin) on this subject: but he thought it was quite plain that the government had acted rightly, in paying back the premium they had received on these Exchequer-bills. When the government issued the bills, they received a premium from the holders, upon each bill; and when the government paid the bills off, at all events as the case now was, after a short circulation, they could not justly, or in policy, expect to do so, without paying the premium back as well as the principal. It was fit that the government should act towards the holders of these bills on fair and liberal principles.

It was to their interest to do so, as the best means of securing a circulation of this description of floating debt. The circumstance that fifteen millions of Exchequer-bills had been tendered to the government, when no more than three millions were proposed to be taken, was not a proof that the terms offered were more advantageous than was necessary. This would be perfectly clear to every one who considered the nature of the Exchequer-bill market. It was of necessity that the government should propose terms, which would give some advantage to the holders of the bills. If they held out no advantage, not a single bill would be offered. But the advantage proffered, whatever it might be, would operate on the whole thirty millions of Exchequer-bills which were in circulation, as effectually as it would, on any particular part of the thirty millions. Whatever offered a profit to one holder of Exchequer-bills, offered a profit equally to all such holders. The nature of the operation occasioned, either that no bills at all would be offered, or that ten or twenty millions would be offered. If no decided advantage was given, no bills would be brought in; but if a decided advantage, however small could be obtained, such advantage was equally open to all Exchequer-bill holders, and large offers would be made. But it was a great mistake to imagine that the circumstance of these large sums being offered, was a proof that the advantage to be obtained was extravagantly great.

repeated his objections to this extravagant waste of the public money, money said that the House would stultify itself if it agreed to any such stupid proposal.

hoped the House would act towards the public creditor as they would towards their private ones. The question before the committee stood thus:—the government was constantly in the habit of issuing Exchequer-bills, the holders of which took them on the implied condition that, on a particular day, they might be bought up with interest. Now, that being the case, he conceived that the government first making a selection of a certain number of those holders, and then giving them but a 100l. note for every 103l. advanced on their bills, would be nothing more nor less than a fraud.

said, he never before heard such an argument used by the head of a public department. Why, there was not a clerk in the right hon. gentleman's office who could not set him right upon the subject. It was no longer ago than 1826, that 2,500,000l. stock had been lost to the public by this mode of funding 8,000,000l. of Exchequer-bills. By the present course there would be, upon these 3,000,000l., a loss of from 150,000l. to 200,000l., which he pledged himself to prove if the adjournment took place.

contended, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to pay Exchequer-bills in any other way but at par. An Exchequer-bill was like any other bill, which was to be paid at a certain time with the interest due upon it. Where, then, was the fraud in the one case more than in the other?

said, that there might be a moral as well as a legal fraud, and this moral fraud government would be guilty of if they refused to pay those bills according to the understanding upon which they were taken. There might have been a notice that such would not be the case; but it was a question with him, whether there had not been an implied notice the other way.

said, he could never consent to pay the public creditor a greater sum than had been stipulated for with him. When those Exchequer-bills were taken, it was with an express bargain, that government might call them in after a certain period, at 100l. He did not wish to use hard words, but he considered it a profligate waste of the public money. He would take every opportunity of opposing a measure so dangerous so expensive, and so profligate.

said, he was surprised to perceive, this most unfounded and fallacious charge against the government, so pertinaciously persisted in. The government had taken the 3l. premium from the holders of these Exchequer-bills, and was bound to give it them back again. Hon. gentleman said the debt is only for 100l., and why should government pay 103l.? The answer is, they received 103l. of the creditor's money Doubtless it would be a gain to government to pay only 100l. but suppose the payment so recommended to be adopted, did hon. gentlemen think that this system of circulating Exchequer-bills could be continued, and that money could be permanently gained by the circulation in this manner? It would doubtless be a very easy method of raising annual supplies for the public service. The hon. member for Dover said, an Exchequer-bill is in the nature of an acceptance to a bill of exchange; and who ever heard, said he, of a party paying more for his acceptance than its amount. Let the case then be taken on the grounds on which the hon. member for Dover puts it. The government issues an Exchequer-bill of 100l., which is in the nature of an acceptance to a bill of exchange, and the engagement which the government thus comes under, is, no doubt, one to pay 100l.; let the 100l. be paid, says the hon. member, and the engagement is discharged. But there may be an implied engagement, as well as a written engagement, which it is equally necessary to discharge. What is the original inducement and consideration which the holder of an Exchequer-bill had to advance his money to government upon it. Doubtless to make interest of his money. Suppose then the government to issue an Exchequer-bill of the nature of an acceptance to a bill of exchange for 100l., bearing interest after the rate of three per cent per annum, (which is the present interest on Exchequer-bills) and to find a person willing to pay down 103l. of money for that bill. If the government at the end of a twelvemonth pays this bill off, interest included, for 103l. and no more, what advantage has the holder of the bill had? He has lost his year's interest. The government has had his money for a year and paid nothing for it. The government has a right so to act, says the hon. member for Dover, and therefore ought so to act. I am sure he did not see the real nature of the case. He (Mr. Attwood) would not say it would be direct fraud on the creditor; but it would be very sharp practice. It would be fulfilling its engagement on the part of government in a manner very different from that in which it is plain the creditor, at least, must have understood the original bargain. The creditor would be careful that he was not so taken in again. No more money of his would go to such a debtor on such a contract. It was fit for the government to act with fairness and liberality to the creditors who held Exchequer-bills, and was their policy; and he highly approved the fair, open, and liberal course which government had adopted. It could not be doubted, but that when the holders of these bills took the bills and paid 103l. for each 100l., bearing three per cent interest, these holders did not calculate that at the end of twelve months, or of any other short period, the government was to give them back payment in 100l. only. That was not, and could not be the understanding between the borrower and the lender. At the same time it was equally clear, that the holders of the bills knew they were subject to certain contingencies; such as the breaking out of a war, by which they would lose the premium. It did not follow, therefore that at whatever time these bills should be paid off, and under whatever circumstances, the premium must be paid back; but whatever was the real bargain, and understanding between the parties, must be fulfilled and no more.

said, a fact had not been stated, which tended to remove from the chancellor of the Exchequer the blame which had been cast upon him. The Exchequer-bills were sold in the market by a broker, on account of the government: if any other course had been taken, it would have operated so prejudicially on the market that there would have been no premium at all. He conceived, therefore, that the chancellor of the Exchequer did not deserve the severe reprobation with which he had been visited. He thought it but right that there should be a return of 103l. to the holders of those bills.

said, it was clear from this statement, that the government was ashamed of the transaction, when a broker was thus sent into the market. In fact, the object was effected by means of a fraud. ["No, no."] Why, was it not a fraud when persons did not know with whom a they were dealing? Was it not of some importance to know whether for were purchasing a bond from Mr. Rothschild, or from the Finance minister? In point of fact, the more they heard of the transaction, the more objectionable it appeared to be.

The resolution was agreed to, without a division.

said, he wished to ask the chancellor of the Exchequer a question of great importance. He wanted to know whether there was or was not any money in the Treasury? Because he had heard that bills had been drawn on the public Treasury from Parts at eight months. Since the navy bills were put an end to, he was not aware that such long dates were admitted.

said, he did not what the hon. member alluded to.

said, he had seen bills drawn in September 1828, and payable in May this year. Surely it was not right to have our credit thus disgraced, and our paper thus hawked through the market at discount.

The other resolutions were agreed to.