wished to put the question of which he had given notice, to the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), respecting the new facade of the British Museum. He wished to know whether the plan proposed had been definitively agreed upon?

said, that he considered there never was any architectural plan which had received more mature consideration than the present, and the decision of the trustees had been always understood to be final and complete. So long ago as 1822, a Resolution was moved in the House that no plan for the British Museum should be proceeded with on, the mere consent of the trustees, but should be referred to the Lords of the Treasury. In 1823, the Lords of the Treasury had approved of the present plan, and not only that, but it had received the implied sanction of two Committees of the House in 1836 and 1838, but that the consent of Parliament should be had. In 1823 all the trustees had approved of the plan now in course of being carried into execution. The plan had been submitted to Committees, one in the year 1836 and one in 1838, and it received the implied sanction of both. Some courses of stone had actually been laid according to the plan, and no deviation from the plan could be made without causing considerable expense; under these circumstances he trusted the hon. Gentleman would see the necessity of not disturbing a plan which emanated from a most eminent architect, and had received the sanction of the Lords of the Treasury, and subsequently of two Committees of the House of Commons.

said,—Sir, I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government to certain recent occurrences. On Friday last the right hon. Baronet startled the House by the answer which he gave to a question put by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, as to the Governor General of India. It must be perfectly clear that the determination of the Directors of the East India Company will be attended by the most important consequences; and I am the more anxious to solicit the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, from the circumstances which I understand attended the determination of the Directors. On Wednesday next a despatch will be immediately forwarded from this country to India, which will arrive in a short time, from the increased expedition with which the journey is now performed, and on the receipt of that despatch from this country the noble Lord now at the head of the Indian Government ceases to be Governor General. On the receipt of that despatch, the administration passes to the hands of the next senior officer in that country, and a change takes place in the Executive Government. The question I wish to put now is this—who is now to be respon- sible for the Government of India? I wish to know whether the Government of the country is to be considered responsible, or the parties who have ordered the dismissal of the Governor General? I want to know that from the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), if an answer is not inconvenient; and I should be sorry to put the question if the answer is as I have not given the right hon. Baronet notice of this question, although he was not perhaps wholly unaware that I was about to put this question to him. I would not put the question, were it not for the pressing nature of the subject. In two days a despatch will be sent from this country which must alter the nature of the Government in India, and any body who knows anything of that country knows that the moment that despatch reaches it, from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas, the greatest commotion will be created. ["Order."] I have been subjected to this species of opposition and interruption so often, that I begin to think there is some meaning in it. I am now, upon reading the Order of the Day for a Committee of Ways and Means, which involves the consideration of everything interesting to the state of the nation consistent with Parliamentary usage, asking a question of the Prime Minister, so that I am perfectly in order, and I am astonished to see so old a Member as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Inglis) make so trifling and unfounded an interruption. I was about to remark, that any one who knew anything about India must be aware that the reception of such news would strongly affect the minds of the native powers, from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas. Now, nothing might turn out more dangerous to our dominions in India than the effect of such a despatch, and I am anxious to know from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether he is prepared to maintain the policy hitherto maintained by the person representing the Government in India; and, if he thinks the Administration responsible for the government of India under such extraordinary and anomalous proceedings, I wish to learn whether the right hon. Baronet is prepared, on the present occasion, to take the responsibility of the consequences resulting from the determination of the Directors of the East India Company.

said,—I did not know that the hon. Member intended to put the questions on the important subject to which he has referred, and I should certainly have wished for a little time to consider the subject. In the first place, the hon. Member has referred to the provision of the existing law which provides for the government of India. The House is aware that the relations of the Government with regard to the Administration of affairs in India are extremely anomalous. The respective functions of the Government and the East India Company are not very well defined. The Crown and the East India Company has each certain powers, but with regard to the nature and extent of those powers, I must refer to the Acts of the Legislature. The East India Company possesses the power of appointing the Governor General of India, but that power can only be exercised subject to the approbation of the Crown— which approbation is signified under the Sign-Manual, counter-signed by the Secretary of State. That is the exact provision of the law with respect to the appointment. The appointment is made, under ordinary circumstances, by concert and mutual understanding between the Government and the East India Company: but the letter of the law is, that the right of nomination is with the East India Company, subject to the approbation of the Crown. The right of the East India Company to remove the Governor General without the concurrence of the Crown, is, I apprehend, unquestionable. In the Act of 1833, which comprises the Charter of the East India Company, and extends it for a certain time, there is a proviso that nothing in that Act shall be construed in any degree to diminish or interfere with the power of the Board of Directors to recall the Governor General of India. Now, all that I am at liberty consistently with my sense of public duty, to state on this occasion, is, that the Court of Directors have, in the case of the removal of Lord Ellenborough, exercised the right which they unquestionably possess, under an Act of the Legislature, to recall, and dismiss, at their will and pleasure, the Governor General of India. The determination to recall has been taken by them on their undivided and exclusive responsibility. The act of recall is an act which has not received the sanction and concurrence of the servants of the Crown, but without that sanction or concurrence the act unquestionably is a legal and a valid act. With respect to the question of the hon. Gentleman, whether Her Majesty's Government considers itself responsible for the government of India, I must, under present circumstances, decline entering into any discussion of that question. All I can say is, that with reference to the fact whether Her Majesty's Government do or do not coincide with the Court of Directors, their sense of public duty will induce them to take that course which shall appear to them best calculated to diminish the risk of embarrassment and danger which they for see from the act of the Court of Directors.

had risen to order when the hon. and learned Gentleman was addressing the House, because, though it was very natural that this question should be asked, he did not think it right to introduce the whole question of Indian policy upon a Motion for reading the Order of the Day upon some other business, and without giving notice.

By the answer which the right hon. Baronet has given, he leaves upon the country an impression that he has been taken by surprise by the Court of Directors. I wish to ask, therefore, whether notice were not given by the Court of Directors of their intentions to the Government?

thought he had not said a word from which any hon. Gentleman could infer that the Government had been taken by surprise. The Government most certainly was not taken by surprise; but they had had the opportunity of stating their views to the Court of Directors, who had certainly given a fair and full consideration to the representations of Government, and had furnished ample information of the intention of the Court before taking the step in question. He was always anxious to give every information in his power to the House, but upon a transaction so recent, and with respect to communications which had not yet been drawn to a close, he trusted he should not be considered acting disrespectfully if he declined answering any further question upon the subject.

said that, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded with his exposition of the Ways and Means, he should beg leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain how it was that money was bor- rowed upon Exchequer Bills, to pay the Opium Compensation, whereas the revenue of the last year exceeded the expenditure by a very large sum?

said that in the course of the financial statement he was about to make, he should have occasion to explain the point adverted to by the hon. Member. Last year he recommended that these charges should not be included in the Ordinary Expenses of the year. The amount of the Opium Compensation was 1,200,000l., and the expenses of the war 800,000l., making in the whole 2,000,000l., which would be repaid by the Chinese Government, and from that fund the Exchequer Bills (as we understood) would be paid off. The loan was made for the double purpose of paying the compensation and defraying the expense of the war.

said his hon. Friend was not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to have a surplus income last year, had borrowed the sum of two millions upon Exchequer Bills. Had his hon. Friend consulted him upon the subject, he could have explained the matter to him. His hon. Friend, however, was quite right in putting his question. He was aware that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer did explain this matter, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out to the House the cheat that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was then putting upon the public. But he perfectly understood at the time the money was borrowed, that it was to be paid as soon as the remittances from China were received.

said, he had another question to put to the right hon. Gentleman. He had been informed that a very large amount of money had been laid out by the Commissioners for Reducing the National Debt in the purchase of Consols. He understood that something like from 150,000l. to 200,000l. per week had been expended for some time past. He wished, therefore, to ask how much money had been laid out by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt since the commencement of this year, on account of Surplus Revenue, on account of Savings' Banks, and on account of money received for the purchase of Government Annuities?

said, he was sorry that he could not give the hon. Gentleman the figures he required at the moment, not having had the slightest expectation that the question was about to be put to him. He would be, however, perfectly ready to give the hon. Gentleman the required information to-morrow.

Order of the Day read.

Sir, the Motion which I shall have the honour to put into your hands will be for an amount of Exchequer Bills required for the exchange of those Exchequer Bills which will come in the ordinary course of business to be exchanged in the course of the next six weeks. I think it advisable to avail myself of this opportunity of bringing under the consideration of the House that view of the financial condition of the country which the House has an undoubted right to expect, and is always anxious to receive at this period of the year. It will be in the recollection of the House that when, in the course of last year, I had occasion to make a similar statement, there was, on the part of some hon. Gentlemen, an expression of great anxiety as to the actual state and future prospects of the country. We were told that the country was labouring under the severest distress, and depression, and that notwithstanding the imposition of heavy additional taxation the year had closed with a deficiency of revenue. The explanations given by the Government with regard to the deficiency were not deemed satisfactory, and there were those who argued that a similar deficiency would be observable in the coming year. On my own part, I was not disposed to indulge in rash expectations as to future prosperity, but I took the liberty of stating to the House that there were to my mind in the state of the country at the time I was addressing them, indications of improvement, which led me to anticipate a revival of industry and an extension of commercial enterprise; and that that revival and extension would of course lead to an improvement in the financial condition of the country. I am happy to announce—and I am sure those hon. Gentlemen who took an opposite view of this question from me, will participate in my feelings of satisfaction— that the views which I then entertained have been since realised, and that the gloomy anticipations which my estimates on that occasion called forth, have turned out to be groundless. I am anxious, Sir, not to enroach unnecessarily upon the time of the House, and I, therefore, will not detain you by further prefatory observations. I will proceed at once to state the Revenue and the Expenditure of the past year, and then will lay before you my Estimate of the Income and Expenditure of the coming year. It will be necessary, however, before I do so, to call the attention of the House to the situation in which we stood when this question was last before us, and more particularly to explain to the hon. Member for Coventry the particular circumstances with respect to the China opium debt and the debt to the East India Company, on account of the war with China, to which the hon. Member has adverted. The appearance of those items in the balance-sheet of the year has created in the minds of those not conversant with the subject the difficulty under which the hon. Gentleman seems to labour. It must be borne in mind, that the balance-sheet comprises all the actual payments made within the year, and all the monies received within the year. Therefore, on the one side, necessarily appear the 2,000,000l., which has been paid to the East India Company and the opium claimants, and on the other side is the sum of 2,000,000l., which has been borrowed for those two objects. But the House will recollect, that in the estimate of the finances of the year I excluded those two items, and stated the reasons which induced me to do so. And the hon. Member from Montrose, will, I doubt not, recollect that I was then charged by him with having done so for the purpose of making the appearance of a surplus when there was no surplus in fact. The estimate which I made of the Public Income during the course of last year has undoubtedly been very greatly exceeded. I stated at that time to the House, that after the depression we had been sustaining, and the disappointment of three years' expectations with respect to that income, I had endeavoured to make my statement of such a character that at all events it should not err on the score of being beyond what was likely to be produced. The error which I committed indeed, lay quite in the contrary direction. The estimate which I then made of the amount of revenue from the Customs for the year to come was 19,000,000l., taking as my guide the Customs of the preceding year, after deducting what had been received for corn. But the amount received for the past year has been 21,426,000l., instead of the 19,000,000l., at which I estimated it. This arose in a great degree from the following circumstance. I had not anticipated that there would be any considerable importation of corn; that article, however, has produced 800,000l. I speak in round numbers, in order to save trouble to the House. A further sum, beyond what I anticipated, was produced by the great improvement in the wine duties, arising from the termination of those negociations which had so long paralysed the trade. The amount derived from this source was 350,000l. Other items of the Customs show that a general improvement has taken place in the condition of the country. The most remarkable items in this increase are the duties upon sugar, amounting to 200,000l.; upon tea, to 300,000l. in excess of the estimate—both being satisfactory indications of the revived power of consumption on the part of the labouring population of the country. Lastly, there has been an augmentation of the duties on cotton wool, amounting to 200,000l., an indication of increased activity in that department of industry on which the happiness of so large a portion of the manufacturing population of this country depends. In addition to these items, which make together a very large proportion of the excess on the Customs revenue, there have been several minor articles, which have exhibited, generally speaking, a uniform augmentation, keeping pace with the extension of our commerce and the greater employment of the population. The estimate which I made with respect to the Excise has turned out to be as accurate as it is possible for an estimate to be. It was 13,000,000l., and the amount which the Excise has yielded is 12,900,000l. That, therefore, appears to me to call for little observation, further than this, that as upon all the leading articles of the Customs there has been an increase of revenue, so on all the different articles of Excise, also, there has been an improvement, not equally early, but as surely indicative of the improving state of the country. In the year ending with the last quarter, as compared with the year ending with the preceding quarter, there has been an increase on every article, both of Excise and Customs. The House will therefore perceive what the increase has been, and that it is hitherto progressive. With respect to the Stamps, the calculation which I formed is, as nearly as possible, accurate. My estimate was 7,000,000l.: the amount received has been 7,011,000l. The estimate for the Assessed Taxes was 4,200,000l.; they have produced 4,192,000l. The only observation which I have to make on this branch of the revenue is this; that there was an apprehension expressed that the effect of the imposition of the Property Tax would lead to a considerable diminution in the other taxes, and especially in the Assessed Taxes. But it will be found, from a comparison of the receipts with the estimates, that those anticipations have not been realised, and that there has not been that degree of pressure which was expected, from the imposition of the Property Tax on those on whom it was supposed that it would fall most heavily. With respect to the Post Office, I am happy to say that the increase from that source exceeds the amount of the calculation which I made by 28,000l. The estimate which I made was 600,000l. The receipts have been 628,000l. With respect to the Crown Lands, there has been a similar result. The revenue from that source I estimated at 130,000l., the receipts have been 147,000l. The Miscellaneous Estimates I calculated at 250,000l., the sum produced has been 268,000l. The China money I estimated at 870,000l., the amount received has been 803,000l. The total result is, that the Revenue which I estimated for the year at 50,150,000l. has produced an Income of 52,835,125l. being an increase to the extent of 2,700,000l. beyond that at which I calculated it. With respect to the Expenditure of the Country, it will be found that my estimate has not been exceeded. In the charge for the Debt, there is a difference of 50,000l., but that is a casual reduction arising from the amount of annuities which have fallen within the year. The estimated expenditure on account of the Army for the year was 6,619,000l.; the actual expenditure, as appears by the papers which have been lately in the hands of hon. Members was 6,118,000l., being a reduction of about 500,000l. in the military expenditure of the country. But it would be unfair in me if, in stating the expenditure at the actual sum, I were to leave the House under the impression that it has been possible during the year to save that sum. The difference arises from another cause; it arises principally from this, that in the course of the year that is passed the India Company made large payments on account of the debt they owed to the Crown for different military services which the Crown had discharged, and also from the further circumstance that, tranquillity being restored, there has not been the same necessity for keeping funds in the commissariat chests abroad; and drafts upon this country have been rendered unnecessary, by applying part of the cash in the military chest to the current expences of the Army. The expences in the course of the year, as compared with the estimates, are reduced therefore by 500,000l. The reduction on account of the Navy is not to be taken as a reduction of the expense, for in that service, as is well known to every one, the payments are made at uncertain periods, which it would be impossible to calculate upon; and therefore it cannot be said within a given time what payments may be required for the naval service. It turns out, however, that, as my estimate was in error with regard to the amount of revenue that was likely to be received, and actually produced 2,700,000l. more than I had calculated, so, also, by the decrease in the expenditure to which I have adverted, my estimate has been subject to another error, leading in the same direction, and, consequently, 650,000l. less has been expended than I calculated would have been required when I made my statement to the House last year. Taking this sum, therefore, it will appear that (I having calculated upon a surplus of 700,000l.) the total surplus arising on the year will have been a sum of no less than 4,165,000l. It will be in the recollection of the House that, at the close of last year, I had to announce to the House the fact of a very considerable deficiency of income to meet the expenditure, amounting to upwards of 2,400,000l.; and, having stated to the House that I believed that that deficiency was rather an apparent than a real one, I recommended to the House to make no provision whatever for the payment of that deficiency, not to raise money by loan for the purpose of getting rid of it, but to leave it to be defrayed out of the surpluses of future years, as circumstances from time to time might allow; and I am now most happy to announce to the House that the deficit for the last year, amounting altogether to 2,749,000l., has been cleared off and discharged out of the produce of the revenue for the present year; and, after the discharge of the debt incurred in the course of last year, will enable me still to present to the public a surplus exceeding 1,400,000l. on the 5th of April just passed. So that, I think, as far as the year now elapsed is concerned, the House will agree with me, that the statement is satisfactory. We will now proceed to the consideration of the Estimates, and the prospects for the year upon which we have entered. [Mr. J. Collett: "What is the amount of Income Tax?"] The amount of Income Tax which has been collected, is 5,356,887l., a sum larger than the estimate I made, in consequence of a larger arrear in Scotland than I was aware of, which has been brought into the account. The estimate for the Income Tax will be 5,100,000l. Now, Sir, in making the estimate for the year on which we have entered, I adhere to the rule which I laid down for myself on a former occasion, and that is not to be betrayed by too sanguine an expectation into making estimates which the future may not, perhaps, bear out I, therefore, content myself with taking the Customs at very little more than the amount they have actually produced in the course of the last year. I take them at 21,500,000l.; and, remembering, that in the course of the last year we derived 800,000l. from corn, and as it is uncertain at this period of the year what may be the state of the harvest in this country, I have thought it better to take the estimate of the probable increase of the Customs as not greater upon the whole than what they will produce without the assistance of the revenue derived from the importation of corn. I take the estimates of the Customs, therefore, at 21,500,000l. From the accounts which I have been enabled to derive from those who are best conversant with the affairs of the Excise, I do not apprehend that there will be just grounds for fixing the Excise at a higher rate than that at which I estimated it for the year just gone by, namely, 13,000,000l., which will be the amount of my estimate. I take the Stamps at 7000,000l., the As sexed Taxes at 4,200,000l., the Property Tax at 5,100,000l., which is about the amount it will produce in a year. I add to these the Post Office, which I take at 600,000l. only, for this reason—the revenue of the Post Office made some progress in the course of last year; and I doubt not that in the course of the ensuing year it will, in a similar proportion, make a certain progress in the next; but at the same time, there are several arrangements making at the present moment with respect to the postage of foreign letters, and particularly, negotiations are going on with foreign countries, in reference to the conveyance of letters in those countries, that will necessarily lead to an increase in the expenditure. I will not, therefore, take the Post Office estimate on the whole at a higher sum than 600,000l. he Crown Lands I take at the same amount as last year—viz. 130,000l., and the Miscellaneous Estimates at 250,000l., making the estimate, therefore, amount to 51,790,000l. With respect to the Expenditure of the country, the first thing the House will naturally expect me to direct its attention to is the payment required on account of the National Debt. That payment within the last year was 29,132,784l. I take the payment for the present year at27.697,000l.. But it is necessary, in stating this, that I should guard the House against the delusion of supposing that there really was this decrease in the expense of the National Debt. The difference in what will be paid in the present year as compared with the year just expired is 1,400,000l., but the House will be in error if it conceive that that is altogether a saving of expense. It arises principally from this cause. The House will remember when I recommended a reduction of the Three-and-a-Half per cents that I suggested, with the view of equalising the payments that were to be made in the different quarters, that the new stock, which was previously payable in January and July, should be made payable in April and October. The consequence, therefore, is, that by paying up to October only what has been reduced, we pay in the present year one quarter less interest upon that stock than we should have had to pay if it had been to be paid in the ordinary course. The quarter will fall due in April in the succeeding year, consequently the sum to be paid this year is not a saving on the present year, but only the postponement of a payment. The real diminution of the Debt in the present year will be one half the benefit derived from the reduction of the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., or 313,000l. I am anxious to impress this upon the House, lest it might think that the surplus is greater than it really is by 1,100,000l.; if, however, they bear in mind that this is a postponed payment, they will take a view of the subject which will lead to a correct result. The charges for the year, therefore, on account of the Debt, and the charges on the Consolidated Fund, amount to 30,097,000l. [Mr. Hume: Does that include the Exchequer Bills?] It includes the Exchequer Bills and the interest thereon. The Estimates for the year have been for the most part already before the House, and the House is sensible that there has been, not a considerable, but a certain reduction in the total amount for the year—a certain reduction as compared with the year preceding,—a reduction which I am far from saying is carried to the extent which, if peace and tranquillity continue, the House has a right to expect; but it is carried to the utmost point to which at this present moment, upon a most careful review of the circumstances of the country, I believe it is practicable to be carried with safety and propriety. With respect to the Army, the estimate for the present year will be 6,616,868l., being somewhat less than the previous year. The estimate for the Navy is 6,250,128l., instead of 6,382,000l.; and in that sum there has been an extra provision made for works of great national importance. The Ordnance estimate amounts to 1,840,064l., and the Miscellaneous may be calculated as before, at 3,000,000l. That, Sir, will be the "ordinary" expenses. But there are some "extraordinary" expenses to which I must call the attention of the House, and which it appears to me necessary that the House should be aware of as swelling the expenditure for this year. The first item of this description is one connected with the late hostilities in China. The papers I presented to the House in the course of last year carried the account up to a period of six months short of the time at which the winding-up of the accounts and claims of the East India Company takes place; and though I have not yet been able to obtain from that country an account of the sum that will be absolutely required to meet the outstanding expense, yet I think upon the best calculations which I can make, founded on the expenditure of antecedent periods, that I must necessarily calculate upon having to pay the East India Company a sum not far short of 400,000l. on account of the balance of that expenditure, and I have accordingly included that sum in my estimate of the expenditure for the current year. Another item of expenditure that we are called upon to defray is one arising out of the Measure which I had some time since the honour of submitting to the consideration of Parliament. I mean the reduction of the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. The House will bear in mind the large amount of Debt upon which we at that moment operated; and I am bound to return my thanks to the House for the cordiality with which it expressed its approbation and supported the views I took on that occasion, and which I believe mainly contributed to produce the happy results which have ensued —namely, a saving to the public of a considerable sum of money, with, I believe, the almost universal satisfaction of the parties who are interested. It was naturally to be expected that there would have been a considerable body of dissentients who would have required to be paid off. That expectation, I am happy to announce, has been falsified; and, considering the amount of the Debt which is affected, the number of those who dissent is extraordinarily small. With respect to those who have not assented in England, the amount of their stock is only 60,994l; and in Ireland 13,280l.; and with respect to the holders of the stock of 1818, the amount held by the dissentients is but 172,841l. The total extent of the dissentients, therefore, upon a question involving the conversion of 250,000,000l. of stock, amounts to the trifling sum of 247,115l. Of this a certain portion may be expected to be in the hands of persons who are resident abroad and in the Colonies, and who may within the time limited avail themselves of the opportunity of signifying their assent. Now, Sir, it has been customary in effecting former reductions of this nature, where the amount to be paid off is considerable, to raise money by loan for the purpose of paying off that amount; but I think, considering the small amount of the charge to be defrayed—considering also the state of the revenue—that on every account it is desirable that we should make provision in our annual charge for a sum necessary to pay off these dissentients, and I therefore propose to take in my estimate a sum of 250,000l., which I conclude will be about sufficient to defray the charge, and will consequently form an item of the expenditure which I have now to lay before the House. There is another matter, Sir, which requires some immediate expenditure, which, as it is likely to result in future and beneficial economy, I am also anxious to provide for in the course of the present year. The House is aware that in the year 1815 an engagement was entered into with the South Sea Company that they should continue to receive an annual interest from the Customs, together with an annual payment from the country, on account of their establishment until the guarantee fund of that society was completed. The history of that society I need not go into at any length. I may shortly state that it was originally invested with peculiar and extensive privileges connected with trading to the South Seas; that those privileges were repealed by the Act 55 George III., to which I have referred, and that by that Act they were assured that they should receive from the public an addition to the capital of their stock, as the price of the surrender of their privileges, equal to one-sixth of the stock which they at that moment possessed, being about 610,000l. In order to provide for the formation of this guarantee fund a sum was annually paid by the Customs to the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, and invested with a view, in the process of time, to its accumulation and discharge. That has produced about 300,000l., and there is now a deficit of about 239,000l. required to make up this guarantee fund, for which the public are, in fact, paying an interest of 11,868l. a year. But, Sir, there are other advantages beyond this saving of interest which may result to the public from making an arrangement at present with the South Sea Company. So long as the Funds were low, it was, in fact, nearly impracticable to make any useful arrangement with the Company, which might relieve the public from those extraordinary charges which they paid to the Company for the management of the debt that had been entrusted them to pay, for whatever terms you might have made with the proprietors of that stock they could only have been made upon the condition on which that stock was created, and they would have been entitled to demand from the Crown the full amount of 100l. for every 100l. of stock which they possessed when a new arrangement was contemplated with them. And, therefore, so long as the Funds were at a lower point than that of par, so long was it impracticable to effect that further reduction which, in the event of funds continuing at par, may be beneficially adopted. Therefore, I think it is important to put ourselves in such a position that, if the opportunity should offer for effecting this further reduction, we may be able to avail ourselves of it; and I recommend, therefore, to the House to make provision for the payment of the remainder of this guarantee fund, by which we may save an immediate amount of interest, and, moreover, lay the foundation of a future considerable saving. 239,000l. is the amount of the deficit. The total amount of the Expenditure for the year, therefore, will be, for the "ordinary services" I mention 17,707,000l.; and for the "extraordinary," to which I have latterly adverted, 839,000l., making a total of 18,546,060l.; which added to the interest of the debt—viz., 30,097,1102., will leave the total Expenditure for the year at 48,643,170l. Deduct this sum from the amount of the Income which I have already stated at 51,790,000l., and (subject to that reduction for the Debt which I have before alluded to) it will leave an apparent surplus of 3,146,830l. From this, however, is to be deducted that portion of the Debt which will really become payable in the course of the next year, and which amounts to 769,900l.; thus you will have the estimated surplus for the current year at 2,376,930l. In a country like this, Sir, where every one has the means of informing himself with respect to public affairs, it was to be expected, that the result of this year's] Revenue and Expenditure should have been generally anticipated. In consequence of that anticipation I have undoubtedly been assailed by communications from various parties in this country recommending to me, upon the strength of a surplus, that there should be large reductions of taxation upon almost every article of consumption. These representations are pressed eagerly on behalf of those who pay a small proportion of the taxes, but with redoubled vigour on behalf of those who contribute in the greatest proportion towards the revenue of the State. I can assure those hon. Gentlemen, many of whom are now present, and some of whom I have had the honour of seeing upon the subject of these statements, that nothing would be more gratifying to me than to yield to that which is always a popular course; and, in answer to those applications, surrender a portion of the revenue of the country. Nothing would be more agreeable to my feelings if I could feel it consistent with my duty to make those large and general remissions of taxation which have been recommended to me from various quarters. But when considering the remission of taxation, I must consider also the nature of the funds out of which that remission is proposed to be made. I must beg the House to bear in mind, when it is stated we have in hand at the end of the present year a surplus revenue of 2,370,000l., that that surplus is not the permanent annual excess of the regular revenue over the constant expenditure of the country; but that it is the result for one year of the receipt of the revenue of the country over the expenditure incurred in that year; that it is a fund on which we may rely for the present year, hut must not calculate on it as of constant and annual recurrence. The House will also bear in mind that this surplus fund has been produced by the imposition of an extraordinary tax imposed in 1842, and which, having produced upwards of 5,000,000l., is the main source of the surplus which I have this evening had to announce. I will now call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which this tax was imposed. It was imposed at. a period when for several years the revenue of this country had failed to equal the expenditure, and there was consequently a necessity for great exertions to make the revenue sufficient to bear the necessary charges of the country. It was imposed also with another object—to give relief to the trading and commercial interests of the country, by reducing the amount of taxation on a variety of articles, and by trying a great experiment—namely, whether, by immediate reduction and relief, we might not bring round the revenue in a short period to the same amount as before the reduction was affected. It was imposed therefore with the double object of supplying during an interval the previous deficiency of the regular revenue of the country, and giving time for the reduced duties to recover and become as productive as before the reduction. With that view it was stated by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) as his opinion, that the endurance of that tax for five years was calculated to answer the proposed object. [Hon. Members: "No for three years only."] My right hon. Friend stated five years, but he took the tax for a shorter period. He took it for three years; and he did it on this ground—that if at the expiration of that period the result which he anticipated at the end of five years should have occurred, the House should have an opportunity of exercising their discretion whether they would continue the tax for the remaining period, or would take another mode of affording relief to the Country. Sir, I have no hesitation in saying, that at the present moment I cannot form an estimate of the result of the reduction of duties which was made in 1842. Undoubtedly if we look at the list of articles we may see that increased consumption has taken place upon almost every one of them. Of thirty-three of the principle articles on which the duty was lowered, there are but five in which the consumption has at all decreased, there being an increase, more or less, on every other article. When I consider this, therefore, I am sanguine of the ultimate and not very distant success of the experiment. But the House must bear in mind, that on some of the main articles of trade, owing to the necessity that arose of giving indulgence on account of stocks in hand, particularly of timber, the reduction did not come into full operation until the middle of last year, and therefore the experiment was not fairly tried until that period. I am not, therefore, enabled upon so short experience of the result to conjecture what may be the result, and still less what view the House may be disposed to take in the course of next year. In that year, the Property Tax will necessarily again come under consideration, and it will be for the House then, upon consideration of all the circumstances, to determine what course they will pursue with respect to its continuance. Such being the circumstances, I think it must be obvious to every one that I should not act a becoming or even an honest part, were I to induce the House on the present occasion to consent to large reductions of duties, which could only have the effect of preventing Parliament from coming next Session to an unfettered judgment on this subject; because if that reduction so far diminished the Revenue of other branches, the House would have no alternative but to continue the Property Tax, or to take refuge in national insolvency. These are some of the reasons which have induced me to think that this is not a period at which the House ought to entertain the proposition of reducing to any considerable extent the taxation of the country. But there is another reason which, even independently of the Property Tax, would have operated on my mind to induce me to pursue the course I have recommended. We have, as the House is well aware, for a series of years been exposed to the misfortune of having a deficiency of Revenue as compared with the Expenditure. That deficiency continued for six successive years, and although in the course of the present year, we have been able to clear off the deficiency of the last, we are still suffering from the consequences of those of the previous five years. These deficiencies of income were in a great degree met by drawing largely from the balance in the Exchequer, and reducing it below the amount necessary for the exigencies of the country. When I addressed the House last year the balance in the Exchequer was only one million; but from additions in the present year, the balance has risen to two millions three or four hundred thousand pounds. When, however, the balance in the Exchequer was only one million, what was the state of the account with the Bank? Two millions seven hundred thousand pounds were drawn in anticipation of the Revenue, and in addition there were nearly five millions deficiency bills issued, on which we had borrowed money to pay the public creditor the interest to which he was entitled. I therefore think we should not act wisely, nor honourably nor safely if we did not make some efforts in time of recurring prosperity to place the balance in the Exchequer in such a state that when the period for payment of the dividends arrives, the demand on the Bank and the issue of deficiency bills may be brought within some limited compass, or, at all events, that the Government may be so far independent of that assistance as to have at its disposal a considerable portion of the sum required for the quarterly expenditure. The April quarter is at all times one in which there is a great pressure on the finance, and henceforth that will be greater in consequence of the additional payment on account of the National Debt to be made in that quarter for the purpose of equalizing the different parts of the year. Consequently it will require larger balances in the Exchequer to enable the Government to act, to a certain degree, independently of the Bank, in the conduct of the financial affairs of the country. So strongly do I feel the importance of this, that even if there were no question coming on next year, involving the continuance of the Property Tax, I should, on this ground alone, think that I was not acting the part of an honest man, or a conscientious Minister, if I forbore to advise the House to apply the surplus of the present year in augmentation of the balance in the Exchequer. I feel confident that on this subject, the House will not be backward to act on the principle which it so readily recognised on a former occasion. I cannot forget that when I brought forward a short time since the proposition for reducing the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., the House at once cordially concurred in the prin- ciple not to relieve ourselves at the ex-pence of those who are to come after us. Sir, it is on that principle that I now call upon the House not to give themselves that temporary relief which we might derive from a large remission of taxes, but while they have the opportunity, to place the finances of the country on a footing which will enable them hereafter to follow their inclinations and give relief to their constituents without endangering: our credit or affecting the payments which we are bound to make on account of the country. Such, Sir, are the reasons which have induced me to resist the large demands for a reduction of taxes which have been made upon me from various quarters; but at the same time I have felt that there are certain items of taxation, not large in amount, but important in their consequences, to which our attention may be drawn without the danger to which I have adverted. With respect to these, therefore, I shall propose either partial reductions, which, within a limited period, may be presumed to repay the country for the temporary loss of revenue, or (total reductions, which will be calculated to remove great impediments to trade and industry, and thus increase other sources of revenue. The articles I propose to submit to the House for this purpose are of various degrees of importance. In the first instance I will mention one which forms part of our Excise Revenue. I allude to the regulations respecting glass. I have had applications to repeal the whole of the glass duty. That is not the course I am about to pursue, but I think that there is one portion of the duty on glass which may be repealed with advantage to the trade and without any serious loss to the Revenue. What I allude to is the present differential duty between flint glass and bottle glass. The present duty on flint glass is 2d. a pound, and on bottle glass ¾d. a pound; but if either of these articles is exported, it is entitled to a drawback equal to the amount of the duty. In order, however, to guard against fraud, the law enacts that no one shall receive a drawback upon flint glass exported unless it be of the value of 5d. a pound. This is necessary, because if the drawbacks were allowed on inferior glass, the drawback claimable on flint glass would be paid on bottle glass, and the public would be thereby defrauded. Now, owing to modern improvements, our glass manufacturers are able to make it cheaper than 5d. a pound; and, therefore, because they must either lose the drawback or make it of the value of 5d. a pound, they are excluded from making cheap glass for the foreign market, or go there in disadvantageous competition with foreign manufacturers, who are able to bring into the market glass of inferior value. There is also another reason. The same improvement in the manufacture which has enabled them to make flint glass cheaper has also enabled them to make bottle glass better, so that it is difficult to distinguish which class it belongs to, and consequently disputes continually arise, whether it should receive the one duty or the other drawback. Having stated these circumstances, I think the House will agree, that the differential duty should be removed, and that flint and bottle glass should pay the same duty. I find this can be effected at the limited expense of 45,000l. a year; in the present year it is only 35,000l. It is proposed, therefore, to take off the differential duty, and leave the duty on these two kinds of glass at ¾d. a pound, that the reduction shall take place from the 5th of July next, and that our manufacturers shall have power to bond their glass in the interval, so that they may avail themselves of the reduction of duty without the necessity of applying for repayment. There is another article to which also I wish to call the attention of the House, with a view to a repeal of the duty—it is the article of vinegar. [A laugh.] The mention of such articles naturally excites laughter, and is the subject of ridicule on the part of those who are not quite aware of the bearing they have on the manufactures of this country. But being obliged myself to look into these points, I am not to be deterred by such considerations from dealing with them. With respect, then, to vinegar, this is not the first time it has been brought under the consideration of this House. If hon. Gentlemen will read the Report of the Excise Commissioners as far back as 1833, they will find that this, among many other small Excise Duties, was recommended to be repealed. The rate of duty upon vinegar appears to have been reduced from 4d. per gallon to 2d. in the year 1826, the average annual produce of the duty prior to 1826 having amounted to 46,301l., whilst the produce in the last year (1833) was 23,850l,. for the due collection of which a code of regulations, established by the 58th Geo. III. c. 65, was in operation; in reference to which the Commissioners observe that

"It is difficult to conceive on what grounds it could have been considered necessary to provide for the collection of so small an amount of revenue by a series of provisions of so complicated and vexatious a nature. The Act in question contains twenty-nine Clauses, the infringement of any one of which is punished by penalties varying from 100l.. to 500l.,., and amounting altogether to 2,500l."

The circumstance of vinegar being used by calico-printers, and that our manufacturers would consequently be benefited by the repeal of the duty, as well as the benefit which the public will thereby derive from the reduction in price in an article of such general use, are adverted to by the Commissioners as additional arguments in favour of the repeal of the duty. This was the opinion of the Excise Commissioners in 1833 and the following years. The House will observe also that vinegar only pays duty when it is made for sale, and therefore, as in the case of the former beer duty, it falls on the labouring classes, who have not the means of making vinegar for themselves, and are obliged to purchase it from the manufacturer, while those who can best bear the tax are exempted. It appears also that the Revenue has but little increased in amount since the period I have referred to; and, under these circumstances, I think it is a tax which undoubtedly ought to be repealed. Acid of a peculiar kind is essential in some manufactures, particularly in calico-printing; and in order to give the manufacturer an advantage, the law provided, in the following peculiar language, that "Pyroligneous acid, in a crude, impure, and unrectified state, might be made without payment of any duty at all." This, at the time was a considerable concession, because the manufacturers then used pyroligneous acid in the state which the Act described. But, as the discoveries in chemistry and manufactures progressed, it was found that it was better to use it rectified and purified, instead of using it in what might be called its Parliamentary state. The consequence was, therefore, that they became obliged to pay the duty on the purified acid, being essential to their manufactures. Considering, therefore, that the amount of revenue is only 25,000l.,, I think the House will not consider this an improper reduction. The next article is one of more considerable importance, both as regards the commerce of the country and the amount of revenue derived from it. I propose to the House a considerable reduction of the duty on marine insurances. I apprehend that by making a considerable reduction, we shall not, after a short period, lose much revenue. To those who know the nature of marine insurance it must seem obvious that it should centre itself in Great Britain, it is a branch of business requiring a large amount of capital on the part of those who conduct it, and perfect confidence in the honour of those by whom it is transacted. If there be any country in the world which furnishes these requisites beyond another, it is Great Britain. Yet, notwithstanding this, marine insurance has been for some time past on the decline in this country— the duty was originally imposed in time of war, and was during the war on three successive occasions, raised to a large amount. At that time it was only in this country that insurances could be effected with safety; and this circumstance of course rendered marine insurance a fit subject of taxation. For some time after the peace, and while the country was suffering under the heavy contributions for the war, there was no alteration of duty; but in the year 1834, a proposition was made by Lord Althorp, who, acting on the principle on which I am now acting, proposed to reduce the duty on marine insurances by one-half, and Lord Althorp, at the same time, calculated upon the loss of a corresponding amount of revenue. But these calculations were disappointed; for in two years after the reduction was made the duty on insurance rose to the amount which it had previously attained. This rise, however, was mainly caused by the reduction of duty inducing a greater number of British subjects to make insurance the subject of their attention rather than from taking away from the foreign insurances any part of that trade which had grown up since the war. By returns of the amount of insurances effected abroad it is clear that the home business is in a disadvantageous position. I believe the trade with respect to marine insurances in foreign countries has rapidly increased. Hamburgh, for instance, insures under a small duty; and this enables that town to insure a great deal of property. But if we look at our insurances we find the amount of duty has decreased; and I can only account for this decrease in England, and a corresponding increase abroad, by attributing both circumstances to the operation of our heavier duty. One peculiar circum- stance makes the duty heavier now than at antecedent periods. I refer to the fact of insurances on steam-vessels being less than insurances on goods by sailings vessels. Therefore those shorter trips from France, Holland, or Germany, and the neighbouring countries, where the insurance is small, are particularly exposed to the disadvantage of the present comparatively high duty. It is necessary, then, with a view to revenue, and also to secure to this country the advantages of this trade, to make a considerable reduction in the present amount of duty by altering the scale of rates as they now exist. The present scale is, for every 100l. insured, where the premium does not exceed 15s., a duty of 1s, 3d. is charged; and when the premium exceeds 15s. and is under 30s. per cent., then 2s. 6d. is charged; when the premium is above 30s.. a duty of 5s. is imposed. I propose to make some variation in this scale, I propose that for every 100l. when the premium does not exceed 10s., the duty of 3d. shall be imposed.

The difference to the Revenue which I think likely to arise from these alterations in the first year will be about 130,000l., but I think on the data which we have arising from the previous alteration, I am justified in believing that after the change has taken place we shall find an increased disposition among foreigners to insure in this country, and thus if we do not reap advantage in point of revenue, we shall, at least, reap the advantage of an increased trade in this branch of commerce. There will, also, be some trifling alterations in the article on stamps, or agreements which are particularly exorbitant, and the duty on proxies for voting on railway companies will undergo some alteration, but I did not think it necessary to take these small matters into the account of Revenue or trouble the House with any calculations concerning them. The next articles to which I shall advert are articles connected with general consumption. The first of these articles is currants. At present currants undoubtedly produce a considerable revenue, but there are many arguments in favour of a reduction of the existing duty which appears to me to have great weight. Besides the amount of Revenue obtained from this article, I am of opinion that it is entitled to consideration on account of the countries which produce it, and which owing their wealth and prosperity mainly to the article in question. The price of currants is 40s. at present, and the duty is 22s.. Now what are currants? They are but small grapes; but they enter largely into the consumption of the lower and working orders of society, and afford them a luxury which is most agreeable to them, and is also conducive to good health. Raisins are also grapes, but they are, perhaps more generally consumed by the more wealthy classes, and on raisins there is only a duty of 15s. per cwt. I therefore propose to reduce the duty on currants from 22s. to 15s., being the same duty as on raisins. Sir, there is another argument also in favour of this reduction—currants are the main produce of the Ionian Islands, whose intimate connection with us affords an argument in favour of our promoting their interest by promoting that branch of industry from which their resources are chiefly derived. Those which do not come from thence come from Greece; and whatever may be said of that country in other respects it must at least be confessed that it treats Great Britain, as regards commercial intercourse, with the mast perfect fairness. For these reasons—and I could mention others if it were necessary—I think we are justified in making a sacrifice even of 90,000l. of revenue, which is the amount which I calculate will in the first instance be lost on this branch of the Customs, on behalf of those classes of society who look upon this article as a luxury, but who are now in a great degree debarred from its consumption by the price at which it is sold The next article to which I would call the attention of the House is that of coffee. The House will recollect that when the general arrangement of duties took place in 1842, the distinctive duties upon foreign and British coffee were fixed at 8d, and 4d.; that is, there was duty of 8d. upon the one, and 4d. on the other, and that extent of discriminating duty being extremely large, with respect to the value of the article on which it was imposed, was only maintained on the ground that we were then engaged in negotiations with Brazil, which made it extremely difficult and injudicious at that time to reduce the duty on foreign coffee to the amount to which we should have thought, under other circumstances, it ought to have been reduced. I think it right, therefore, to avail myself of the opportunity which the termination of those negotiations has given me, to recommend the House to reduce the duty on foreign coffee from 8s.. to 6d., leaving a protection in favour of colonial coffee which I am satisfied, from the best examination that I have been able to give the subject, will secure the fullest admission of coffee for consumption in this country, without injury to the interests of the colonies. The effect of the high duty has been greatly to reduce the amount of foreign coffee consumed in the course of last year—indeed, nearly 30 per cent.—for the reduction has been from more than ll,000,000 lbs., to something more than 9,000,000 lbs., and it being most important to extend the use of a beverage which is a great luxury to the poorer classes, and which at the same time that it is a luxury to them, supersedes those other beverages which are prejudicial to their health and morals—I therefore take this opportunity of calling the House to place the differential duty on this article upon a footing which will admit of its most extensive use. At the same time it appears to me, that it is but justice, that concurrently with this alteration, a provision should be introduced into the Customs Bill, increasing the duty on chicory root. In consequence of the reduction of the duty on that root in the last tariff to 1l. per cwt., chichory root has been introduced to a great extent—it is ground in this country, and mixed with coffee. I do not say that the coffee is deteriorated by the mixture, for that is a matter of taste; but the Revenue has been defrauded to a great extent in losing the duty upon the coffee, for which the root has been substituted. From these changes in the differential duties, I calculate that the loss will not be more than 50,000l. There is only one other article to which I have to advert, and many may consider it as the most important of all—I mean the duty upon wool, which I propose to take off altogether. Upon the merits of that particular question, it cannot be necessary for me to enter at present. In two successive Sessions they have been ably detailed to the House by the hon. Member for Halifax, who has taken the greatest pains with that department of trade. And, Sir, I may here say, that when I have resisted the claims which were alleged for the reduction of this duty, I did so only on account of the necessity of keeping up the Revenue; and I never denied that wool was a raw material of the utmost importance to the manufactures and trade of the country; and that it was of great importance to admit it freely, even for the sake of British wools, for the purpose of enabling them to be worked up. I never concealed from myself that in the article of cloth there has been a considerable decline in our trade, although of late there has been a partial revival consequent upon the general revival of trade. There has been great competition between the British cloth manufacturer and the foreign cloth manufacturer; and the least advantage given to the English manufacturer, of course, would place him in a better position than the foreigner. Sir, I do not intend to follow the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of merely partially reducing the duty on wool; but I have thought it better to remit both the duty on export and import of wool, and to leave the trade open. That duty produced last year altogether about the sum of 100,000l. and we must take that amount as the loss which will be sustained on that particular article. But I cannot avoid saying that, although we shall on the article itself sustain a loss, yet we shall give an additional stimulus to the industry of the community engaged in that branch of our manufactures likely to be benefited by this arrangement, which I believe will more than compensate for the loss we shall directly sustain. This is the last article upon which I propose to make any reduction. The total amount of reduction will stand thus for the present year:—

or in round numbers somewhere about 400,000l. is the whole amount of those reductions which can be made, and which I propose to make made on articles that will best allow of such a proceeding. Having made this statement to the House, I should, perhaps, here close my observations; but there is one other article, which though not immediately under the consideration of the House, yet as it must necessarily form at no distant period the subject of a separate discussion, and respecting which great anxiety exists to learn the intentions of Government—I refer to sugar —I should not act fairly towards this House, nor fairly towards the persons engaged in the produce and sale of this article if I did not openly state the course I intend to pursue when I move the question of the sugar duties. The House will not think it necessary for me now, as I shall shortly bring the whole matter before them, to enter into the details. I will merely state the principle on which we shall proceed, and defer the details until the subject comes regularly before the House. I allude to the subject now, only because I know the immense importance to those connected with the growth and manufacture of sugar in distant countries, to be apprised before the next mail for the East goes out, what is the determination of the Government with respect to that article. Sir, the House is aware that the Treaty with Brazil will come to a termination in the month of November next, and with that Treaty with Brazil will terminate the right which Brazil now enjoys of importing her produce into this country upon the footing of the most favoured nation. The obstacle, therefore, which previously existed to the admission of sugar, the produce of free labour will expire by the conclusion of that Treaty in November next, which now enables Brazil to introduce her slave-grown sugar into this country on the footing of the most favoured nation. It is my intention, in moving the sugar duties, to recommend to the House, from and after November next, during the continuance of this Bill, to admit into this country at the differential duty at which we think it ought to be admitted, the sugar produced in those countries which are exempt from the taint of the slave-trade, and that do not raise sugar by means of slave-labour, or prædial slavery. By this means we shall throw open, under certain regulations, to countries eastward of the Cape of Good Hope, and which are capable of sending us a large supply, a valuable trade, and shall most especially encourage the growing commerce with China, with which country, hitherto, our relations have been extremely confined. And this will be done, without any departure from that principle we have hitherto maintained and acted upon in respect to the slave-trade—thus affording an additional supply of sugar, which will greatly add to the comfort of the people, and extending our trade with these sugar producing countries, and give an additional spur to the industry of colonies in which we have the greatest possible interest. In thus speaking of countries eastward of the Cape of Good Hope, I must impress upon the House that I refer only to such with which we have relations, and wherein the sugar is not raised by means of slavery. We must, of course, except those countries where the slave-trade and slavery still exist, for those are not included in our regulations. Sir, the differential duty which I shall propose on sugars from countries free from the taint of slavery will be 10s. per cwt—that whereas British colonial sugars pay a duty of 24s. per cwt., the sugars from the countries I refer to shall pay 34s.. per cwt. I am quite aware it may be said that although the Treaty with Brazil is brought to a conclusion there is a Treaty with another slave-holding country, the United States of America, which contains a similar clause to the other, and entitles America to the rights extended by us to the most favoured nation in the admission of her produce. Nothing can be further from my intention than to infringe in the slightest degree the letter of any engagement existing with that or any other country, but I think when we take the discussion on the sugar duties I shall be able to show that the sugar produced in the southern states of North America, is not calculated, from the circumstances of the country, to be brought into competition with the sugar the produce of free labour, which I have now been speaking of. It would be most satisfactory if the state of the Revenue admitted some arrangement to be made with respect to the sugar duties generally. But at present this proposition cannot be entertained with any hope of a satisfactory result. Until the expiration of that Treaty existing between this country and Brazil in November next, it will not be in our power to act upon a general and uniform principle with respect to foreign sugars. The effect of such an attempt now would be to paralyse the whole of the trade in that article. After that date it will be the duty of the House to take into its consideration at what rates of duty sugars of foreign growth and sugars from countries where slaves are engaged in their cultivation shall be admitted by us. In making these observations I beg to disclaim, on the part of the Government, any hostility to the particular state alluded to, or any intention to prejudice its commercial interests; and I trust that the proposed reduction of the duty upon coffee of the growth of foreign nations and countries, including that of Brazil, will be a sufficient pledge of the sincerity of our intentions in that respect. As to the amount of such differential duty, I am only anxious that we should take such an amount as will give an advantage to our own and to free-labour sugar in the market over slave-cultivated sugar. I think I have now gone through such of the financial details of the last year as seem to me to be necessary for the present statement, and for comparison with the financial system of this year; and I trust that, without any arrogance, I may be permitted to congratulate you and the country upon the generally-improved condition of the country at this moment. I feel that we have strong reasons for congratulation in respect of that which is, of all that we have had to contend with, the most difficult, namely—the arresting the downward course of a continually increasing deficiency. Upon this circumstance I feel I may fairly congratulate the House and the public, as well as upon our having fulfilled the pledge given to the Crown, that we would use our utmost endeavours to equalize the Public Expenditure to the Revenue of the country, of which we have already witnessed the salutary effects produced upon the national credit. If, Sir, we shall persevere in following the safe course which I have ventured to recommend to you to-night, and, refraining from seeking any great and immediate advantages, take care to provide such an amount of Revenue as will suffice, not only to meet the annual expenditure, but also those occasional demands that arise from vicissitudes to which a country like this must be exposed, I sincerely believe that we shall, with the blessing of Providence, secure a long continuance of national prosperity and wealth, and promote the permanent interests and happiness of the people of this country. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that there be voted to Her Majesty, for the service of the year, 18,740,300l. to be raised by Exchequer Bills.

was not satisfied with the prospect of continued taxation held out by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the revenue, he did not wish such a large amount to be collected; he was rather of opinion that the lowest amount ought to be raised from the people. He was sorry to find the right hon. Gentleman use such language, when the revenue of this country was nearly the same as it had been for the last three years. To show, then, the cause of their financial difficulties, and the way they might afford relief, he would take the expenditure of the years 1835, 1836, and 1837, a period of peace. The aggregate cost of the Army, Navy, Ordnance, and Miscellaneous, in these three years, was 43,424,000l., whilst in the last three years of 1841, 1842, and 1843, the amount on these heads was 55,500,000l. being an increase of 12,000,000l. The expense of the Army, Navy, &c, voted by Parliament, as shown by the Finance Acts, was as under:—

Average of three years, £18,508,866.

Average excess in 1841, 2, and 3, over 1835, 6, and 7, £4,028,276.

The late Government in 1837 and 1838 had by increasing the expenditure of the Army and Navy, managed to convert what had been a surplus revenue into a deficiency. He agreed in the propriety of the reductions of the taxes now proposed, for though small in amount, yet their collection was accompanied by a degree of vexation and annoyance far beyond the actual produce; but let them consider well the reduction of their establishments, and which had been increased during the last three years, and then they might get rid of the Income-tax altogether. The lowest amount of the establishments was in the year between 5th January, 1835, and 5th January, 1836, when they cost only 11,657,000l. That was the whole amount of the votes for Army, Navy, and Ordnance. The votes for those three items was now increased to 14,511,000l. or by 4,000,000l., an increase against which he had always protested. The right hon. Gentleman might keep on the Income Tax if he would reduce an equal amount of other taxation. He wanted to take off the duty on soap, on paper, and on glass. If there were no excise duty on glass there was no branch of British manufacture which would rise more rapidly than the manufacture of glass. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of taking the duty off glass altogether. America imported glass into this country, and after paying the duty, could sell it at 20 per cent. less than our manufacturers. Bohemia, although the materials were dearer, could supply glass cheaper than this country could, and of much superior quality. The glass manufacturers of this country were prohibited by the Excise from making the experiments which they ought to be allowed to make; and with all the advantages which we possessed with refer- ence to the materials for making the article, we were only a fourth or fifth rate country in the manufacture, and it was much to be regretted, that the duty was not entirely abolished. He could not understand the necessity of keeping up such an immence force in the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Departments. There was now a Standing Army of 100,000 men. There were at least 30,000 men in the Army, and the same number in the Navy, more than the country required. Ours was, in fact, a war establishment in a time of profound peace—a peace, too, which was likely to continue; and he would put it to the House whether the time was not come when this enormous establishment ought to be reduced, and the saving effected thereby applied to the repeal of the taxes on glass, soap, paper, and other articles of general use. Again, he would ask why the right hon. Gentleman had not included cotton wool in the list of articles, the duty on which he proposed to reduce. A treaty had been concluded by the United States of America with Germany, by which cotton was to be admitted into that country free of duty. This would certainly tend to injure the cotton manufacture of this country, and place us in danger of losing our markets. It was necessary to give employment to the people, and the only mode of doing so was to increase the manufactures and commerce of the country, and that could not be done but by repealing those restrictions which at the present moment lessened the ability of this country to compete with foreign states. The duty on marine insurance, notwithstanding the reduction proposed, would still be far too high; it ought not to be above 2s. 6d. per cent., varying rather, he would say, from 1s. to 20s., or 2s. 6d. per cent. on foreign voyages. The import duty on vinegar was extremely high, it amounted to a perfect monopoly. The price of vinegar in this country was higher than in any other part of the world, and he did not think the reduction proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was sufficient. With regard to currants, he wished all the duty could be taken off an article which was considered almost a necessary of life; the reduction proposed, however, would be of great importance, and he felt confident that the right hon. Gentleman would not lose anything like the amount he calculated on, as there would no doubt be a great, increase in the consumption. As to coffee, he thought the proposed reduction was a very wise one. With reference to the sugar duties, it would be found, upon the evidence of a Committee up stairs, that many West-India proprietors had stated, that with a discriminating duty of 50 per cent. they might hope, provided, too, they could get a sufficient supply of labour, to keep the market; such was their notion of the protection they would require. The proposition not to admit the sugar grown in slave countries was a most mistaken view. Were they to say that they would not take cotton, rice, and tobacco, which were all cultivated by slaves, on the same principle? By such a determination they were quarrelling with the Brazils, and it was a matter of the most serious importance to the whole manufacturing population of this country, for they were about to exclude from the shores of Brazil 4,000,000l. of British manufactures; and this must produce an effect in England which did not seem to be sufficiently estimated. He, therefore, condemned the principle which the Government had adopted. Our goods would no doubt be charged by that country with double the rate of duty which would be imposed on the manufactures of France, America, and other nations; and he thought this was but the beginning of the evils which would result from our restrictive policy. The repeal of the duty upon the import and export of wool was certainly an important step; but the duty on wool only amounted to from 98,000l. to 100,000l. whilst the import duty on cotton wool was 780,000l.; and surely the duty on that most important article ought to have been reduced. He hoped a further reduction would take place in the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Establishments, so that the Government might be able to take off the Income-tax, or remove some of the odious duties of Excise which pressed so heavily on the people. No country in the world had borne such heavy taxation with so much patience, and he trusted that some further effort would be made to relieve the people of a greater portion of the burthen which they had to bear.

was greatly disappointed with the propositions which had been brought forward by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he must admit the clearness with which the right hon. Gentleman had made his state- ment. After an increase of 8,000,000l. on the amount of taxation during the last four years, the right hon. Gentleman was only prepared to propose a reduction of 400,000l. He must say, that this was a result which afforded neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the country any ground for congratulation. He had expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have made extensive reduction in the duties on numerous articles which entered into the consumption of the working classes—duties which had more than once been admitted in that House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be unjustly levied, especially upon soap, sugar, tobacco, tea, and beer. These duties pressed more upon the lower than the higher classes. He would not now repeat that which he had so often stated on the subject; but he must observe, that experience proved in the present state of the finances of the country a very extensive reduction might be made in the duties upon those commodities, without any risk of a material diminution of the Revenue. He joined in the regret which had been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that the article of cotton wool was not included amongst those upon which it was intended to abolish the duties. He expressed this regret because the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government out of office had repeatedly admitted the impolicy of continuing the duty on cotton wool. His only justification in office for continuing it, being that the state of the Revenue could not afford its abolition. Of all other imposts, this he (Mr. W. Williams) held to be the most impolitic. He believed there was no other country in the world which imposed a tax upon that most important raw material—a material with which all nations aspiring to manufacture first made the attempt to compete with this country, and which in this country employed a larger capital and a greater number of artizans and labourers than any other branch of manufactures. The duty on this raw material last year amounted to 8 per cent., and this, coupled with the amount of freight, gave to America an advantage in manufacturing of not less than from 15 to 20 per cent.; an amount of great importance, when year after year it was seen that the manufactures of the United States were increasing. He (Mr. W. Williams) had also expected a reduction of the duties on tea—or at least an alteration of the present duty of 2s. 2d. into an ad valorem duty. At present the same duty was charged upon the lower class of teas consumed by the poor man as was levied upon the better class of teas consumed only by the rich and wealthy. If the Revenue did not suffer from reduction of taxation, why should it not be reduced? If the House would look to the reduction of taxation which had been made from the year 1815 to the year 1836, they would see that it amounted to 28,500,000l., and that during the same period there had been imposed new taxes amounting in round numbers to 6,000,000l., leaving the amount of the reduction within that period 22,500,000l. And what had been the result of this upon the Revenue? In 1815 the Revenue amounted to 58,600,000l., and in 1836 to 48,800,000l., leaving only a deficiency of about 10,000,000l., even after 22,500,000l. of taxes had been taken off. This was a most important consideration; for if the working classes could now be relieved of one-third their present amount of taxation in the same way, the matter was deserving the careful attention of the Government. It was perfectly clear and evident that the Income Tax was to be a permanent tax. The country had no hope held out in the statement of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of seeing itself relieved from that tax while the present Government maintained any thing at all approaching to its present expenditure. How did the question stand? The Income Tax had produced last year, according to the financial statement, 5,350,000l.; the balance of revenue over expenditure was 2,370,000l. This (supposing the Income Tax was taken off) would leave a deficiency of revenue to meet expenditure of about 3,000,000l. sterling. This, the country might take for granted, left no hope of the Income Tax being taken off. Therefore it was that he urged upon the Government that they ought to apply the surplus revenue in making large reductions in the duties upon those articles of consumption used by the working classes of this country. What were the circumstances of the country which now required an expenditure of 3,500,000l. more than was expended in 1835 in the three branches of expenditure —the Army, the Navy, and the Ordnance? If our expenditure in these branches of the public service was reduced to what it was in 1835, relief might be given from the Income Tax, which to many was so obnoxious from its inquisitorial character, especially as it affected trades and profes- sions. If our expenditure in these three branches of the public service was compared with what it was in 1790, the difference was most striking. The Army, exclusive of the Commissariat Department, cost in 1790, 1,840,000l.; last year its cost was 5,984,000l. The Army, Navy, and Ordnance cost last year 17,700,000l.; in 1790 they cost 4,380,000l., the cost last year being just four times more than it was in 1790. The whole expenditure of that year was 15,500,000l., whilst last year it was 48,600,000l. If to this last amount were added the cost of collection, the amount of taxation taken from the pockets of the people would be 56,000,000l. sterling. After above twenty-eight years' peace, the amount of taxation had been last year greater than it had been during any year of the war, taking into consideration the difference in the value of money which was then a depreciated paper currency, now standard gold. What was their resource in case of war? They had no resource whatever, except a heavy tax of some kind upon property. They had dried up all their other sources of taxation. It was a consolation that the amount of the taxes received had not diminished; but he must say that he had not heard the financial statement of the right hon. Gentleman with any satisfaction.

had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have afforded some relief to a large portion of his constituents, who were engaged in the coal trade. He heartily wished the right hon. Gentleman had shown some compassion to the impoverished and suffering working population of the coal districts. The impolicy of taxing the export of coals was shown in the greatly increased consumption of coke abroad. If reference was made to the returns on the Table, it would appear that the deficiency in the export of round coals from this country, in 1843, as compared with the quantity of coals exported in 1842, amounted to not less than 480,794 tons. The deficiency in the export of small coal, exported in 1843, as compared with the quantity exported in 1842, was not. less than 370,300 tons. This made a difference in profits to the coal owners of between 60,000l. and 70,000l. If they did not get rid of this duty altogether, within a short time, many mines, which were chiefly worked for foreign markets, would be thrown out of work altogether. Small coal bore the proportion of 33 per cent. to the round coal, and a large proportion of this was now destroyed at the mouth of the mines, in consequence of the operation of this tax. At the period that this tax was imposed, the proportion of the small coal exported for the foreign market was greatly increasing, and if the tax was at once removed a large proportion of it would again be exported. The coal-owner was not the only person who suffered by this duty, for the shipowners felt its operation most severely, and it was notorious, that since the operation of this tax the freight of vessels in the north of England had fallen 2s. a ton. He was glad that his right hon. Friend had reduced and taken off some of the taxes which he had mentioned, but he confessed that he should have been much better pleased if he had taken off the export duty on coal, which pressed so heavily on the coal and shipowners, and which did not produce to the revenue above 80,000l. or 90,000l. a year. He trusted, that on reflection his right hon. Friend would still be able to make some arrangement, so as to take this duty off without delay.

must ask the indulgence of the Committee in following the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the detail of his figures which it was difficult to comprehend merely on hearing him state them for the first time, and not having any documents before him. The right hon. Gentleman had apologised for the incorrectness of his estimates. It was scarcely necessary for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to apologise for an error of having promised too little. Last year, the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman made was considerably under the result, but this year his mistake was on the right side, and he had under-estimated the Revenue to a very large extent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would permit him to observe that for some years back the calculations on which the Budget was founded had always found their way to the public papers, but this did not happen to be the case last year, and therefore some inconvenience had arisen. He trusted this would not be the case in the present year, but that the old practice would be resumed. In considering the financial state of the country, it was right to ascertain what would have been the state of the finances, supposing that no Income Tax had been imposed, and that the subsequent changes in the Tariff had not been made. He had framed this calculation, supposing the right hon. Gentleman had continued with the Revenue which was left him from the various resources existing in 1841; but of course his calculations might be liable to some error, as he had not all the information which he required before him. In the first place, for the state of the Revenue when the Income Tax was imposed he had taken the figures given by the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury. He should take the Revenue as stated by the right hon. Gentleman in 1842, supposing nothing had been done in the shape of imposing and altering taxes, as the groundwork of his calculation for the probable subsequent Revenue. This estimate, he had no doubt, had been framed with great care by the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction and with the aid of experienced persons. Now, although this had somewhat failed in amount in the year 1842, yet it as a general estimate might be regarded as tolerably accurate, and, he might add, that it came close to the estimate which he had framed himself. The estimate of the Revenue was not exaggerated, and it was stated by the First Lord of the Treasury in his Budget Speech of 1842, 48,350,000l., and if they added the Chinese money which had been received this year, and which amounted to 803,000l., the Revenue would have been 49,153,000l. The actual Expenditure, as appeared by the balance-sheet amounted to 48,669,000l. being a surplus of Revenue of 484,000l. This would have been the result in the last year, supposing nothing had been done to affect the revenue as left by the late Government. With respect to the coming year, as far as he could make out the right hon. Gentleman's estimate the Expenditure of the year was put at 48,643,000l., to meet this there would be the estimated amount as before of 48,350,000l., and if there were no China money there would appear to be a small deficit; but his own feeling was that the Revenue would have risen from the ordinary sources. The right hon. Gentleman calculated it would rise during the present year, and this would have occurred without the imposition of the Income Tax, and to such an extent as to have left a balance over the actual expenditure of the year. He did not, however, mean to say, that the Government had not been called upon to make a movement in the state of the finances. He agreed that some movement was necessary; the Government were bound to raise a further sum to meet any risk—the difference had been as to the manner in which the money had been raised. He was, however, satisfied that if the Income Tax had not been imposed, the Revenue last year would have been so great as to have left a surplus; of course, in saying this, he went upon the presumption that the reduction of duty had not been made in many of the chief articles in the Tariff. While dealing with this subject he would ask for some information on one of the leading alterations of duty made in 1842, and on which the First Lord of the Treasury had particularly prided himself—viz. timber. In consequence of the manner in which the accounts had been given, he found that he could not tell what had been the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's alterations in the timber duties, but it appeared to him that the Revenue from that source was not in conformity with the right hon. Gentleman's calculation when he proposed that change. As far as he could form an opinion from the papers which had been laid on the Table, he did not find the great expectations which the right hon. Gentleman had formed of a great increase in the importation and consumption of timber had been fulfilled. He might have been mistaken on this point, hut as the right hon. Gentleman had the details before him, he could correct him if he were wrong; but the result he was about to state was accurate, as far as he could calculate from the documents before him. The effect of the change in the timber duties confirmed what he expressed at the time,—that the change would ultimately, as to any reduction of duty on an article of raw produce give relief, but that it would be the longest in producing that effect of any article that the right hon. Baronet could have chosen. The right hon. Baronet took the estimate of the actual revenue from the timber duties, when he proposed the alteration in the Tariff, at 1,565,291l., and he concluded his calculation as to the effect of the change which he proposed, by saying, that if there was no additional consumption of timber, he did not anticipate a greater loss to the Revenue than 601,491l, but he observed that the probability was, that the loss would be much less than he anticipated, in consequence of increased consumption. Now he found, according to the Finance Accounts, that the duty derived from the timber duties last year was only 667,000l., which showed that the loss to the Revenue was 899,900l. It was not only a loss to the Revenue, but it was clear that there had been a diminution in the consumption of timber, and that none of those advantages had resulted from the change in the duties which the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated. The calculation of the right hon. Gentleman was, that there would be a loss to the Revenue on this article to the amount of 601,431l., if there was no increase in the consumption of the article; but the effect had been a loss of 899,000l. being 298,000l. more than was calculated on by the right hon. Gentleman. There was one important deficiency in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have told the House whether he intended to continue the Income Tax for more than three years or not. It appeared to him that the financial arrangements and the state of the Budget for the few next years must depend upon this consideration, and the House ought to know, not as a matter of curiosity, but of business, whether the tax were to be retained. If the right hon. Gentleman intended to get rid of the Income Tax next year, he should have told the House, and the whole of his financial arrangements must have reference to that point, and, on the other hand, if be had come to the opposite conclusion, he should have so said, and taken a line in conformity with such decision. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given them any information on the subject. He, however, could not help feeling, from the tone of his statements, that the right hon. Gentleman would come down next year and say, that it was essential to his financial arrangements, that the Income Tax should be carried on for two years more. This was a most important consideration, when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with minor matters. He thought, therefore, that there was a deficiency in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman when he avoided alluding to a matter which must be the turning point in his financial arrangements for a few years to come, whatever might be his intentions. The right hon. Gentleman had not told the Committee that he intended to continue the Income Tax for a period of five years; now he conceived that the right hon. Gentleman ought frankly to have done so, if he intended next year to make such a proposal. It appeared from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he calculated on a surplus for next year of about 3,000.000l.; but with such a surplus he could not take off the Income Tax, producing 5,000,000l. a-year, without leaving a deficiency. Under these circumstances there was left very little probability of their taking off the Income Tax next year; and he thought that it would have been a more manly course to have explained the step that he intended to take with respect to the Income Tax next year, for it was obvious that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government must have come to some determination on the subject. All however that the right hon. Gentleman chose to do was to observe that he would leave the House next year to settle the matter as to the continuance or not of this tax. He, however, strongly suspected that the matter was settled, and that the Government had determined to continue the Income Tax for two years longer. In that case they might have made such reductions of duty as might have been of essential service to the country, and in such manner as that the Revenue might have secured itself before the expiration of the five years. He thought Government ought to have taken this more comprehensive view of the finances. He now came to the particulars of the Budget. He understood the right hon. Gentleman, by the reductions which he had that night proposed to make, there would be a falling-off in the Revenue to the amount of 400,000l. This would arise from the reduction or the removal of the duties on several smaller sources of revenue. The first two articles to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were glass and vinegar. He entirely approved of the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and in doing so, he did not so much take the amount of the taxes, as the beneficial effects that would follow from relieving trade. He was glad to see the alteration proposed with respect to the article of glass. They had heard of late years much of the duties on importation, but he felt strong objections to the duties of the Excise, not so much as regards the amount of the tax, as the restraints and checks which encumbered and injured the traders and were of necessity imposed in order to levy the tax; he was glad, therefore, to see an alteration in the glass duties which would simplify the law to the manufacturer as well as reduce the duty to the consumer. With regard to vinegar, he hoped that when they took off the Excise duty on this article, that he would also reduce the Customs duty on foreign vinegar, for if he did not, the consumer would not receive the whole benefit of the reduction. With respect to the alteration of the stamp duty on marine insurance he was very glad to hear the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. Again, with regard to the duties on currants and wool, he thought that the arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory. With respect to coffee, the proposed arrangement was not only a reduction of duty, but it was a step to get rid of those differential duties, to the principle of which he had repeatedly expressed his objection. He thought, however, that there was something objectionable in the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with the article chicory. He could not see what possible advantage would arise from imposing a heavy duty on foreign chicory. He recollected that at one period the Board of Trade prohibited the importation of this article, on the ground that it injured the revenue, as it was used in adulterating coffee. If the right hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to look into the Revenue Returns he would see that the effect of this proceeding of the Board of Trade had been to give a protection and premium to the chicory growers in this country. This was the case in the years 1835 and 1836, when an increase took place in the cultivation of chicory at home. He, therefore, very much doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman's proposal with respect to chicory would do him much good. It was a mistake to suppose that the consumption of this article prevented the consumption of coffee. The fact was, that chicory was mixed up with bad coffee. It was found that when Lord Spencer proposed the reduction of the duty on this article, that it so far became an article of consumption, that when it was mixed with bad coffee which could not have been sold before when so mixed, the bad coffee was readily got rid of. He hoped, however, hon. Gentlemen did not labour under the impression that chicory deteriorated coffee. He believed that the coffee which was so much admired by Englishmen when across the water was mixed with chicory to the extent of one-third. These however, were comparatively small matters; and he now came to a question of considerable importance. He alluded to the alterations which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice he intended to propose with regard to the sugar duties. It was a very tempting subject for party observations. The late Government had proposed a change in the Corn Law—in the Timber and Sugar Duties and in the Tariff. They were turned out by the Gentlemen opposite—since then what had happened? In previous years they had proposed changes in the Corn Laws, and in the Timber Duties, and in the Tariff, all changes which they had so strenuously opposed, he had ventured to say that the time was not distant when they would come down with some proposal with respect to the sugar duties. Had the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues forgotten the Resolutions on which they had turned their predecessors out of office? At that time even it was obvious to every sensible man, that although Gentlemen opposite might interpose some little delay, that the time would come, sooner or later, when they would come down and propose some alteration in the sugar duties. It had been curious to watch them and to speculate on the course they would ultimately take to swallow that unfortunate Resolution; but bitter as was the mouthful, whatever difficulties they might make, the leek must be eaten at last: here then was their proposition. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the object he had in view in his proposed arrangement was to take care not to admit slave-grown sugar. The mode was by what was now called a preferential duty. The right hon. Gentleman might be anxious to be very pure and honest in dealing with this matter in the way he proposed, but the question was, whether he would succeed in his object, and whether other results than he anticipated would not follow. The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt on the difference which he proposed should be made between the duty on free-produced sugar from foreign possessions, and that on Brazilian slave-produced sugar. Now he could not help feeling that when the Brazilians heard of this, they might be inclined to make a differential duty between the manufactured cottons of this country and that from other countries. He did not believe that the Brazilians would do themselves much good by adopting such a course; but he did not think that this country would have any right to complain if they did so. The next point for consideration was, whether the proposed course, when carried into effect, would effect the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. First did the right hon. Gentleman confine the importation to free-labour sugar. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the Treaties with the United States, by which the duties on the produce of that country were to be put on an equal footing with the duties on the produce of the most favoured countries, and had observed that there could not be expected to be any importation of sugar from the United States. If he was not much mistaken, this country had similar Treaties with Sweden and Denmark. Now, if such Treaties existed, sugar, the produce of the colonies of these countries, must be admitted, although slave-grown, at the same rate of duties that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to levy on free-grown sugar. [Mr. Gladstone: Not Denmark.] He had looked into those Treaties, and he thought this was a matter worthy of some consideration. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on this subject, and they might have told him that the Treaty with Denmark did not bind him; the right hon. Gentleman must have better means of deciding the point than himself; but as they would have future opportunities of discussing it, he would not go into it at present, but he still entertained an opinion that that Treaty was binding. There, however could exist no doubt as to the Treaty with Sweden. They might be told that a very small quantity of slave-grown sugar would come in from the Swedish colonies or from the United States. But this was not a very valid answer when they came to the question of right or wrong as to the admission of slave-grown sugar. There was no doubt that this might be an answer to the West-India grower, so far as regarded the commercial question. As regarded protection the argument would be good, but when they came to the consideration of the moral question of right or wrong, it was a very different matter. He recollected when the late Government made its proposition on this matter, they were told that if they admitted one single ounce of slave-grown sugar in this country, they would be acting contrary to the Gospel. They however were now told that only a very small quantity would come in for consumption. Such a palliation of this departure from the principle formerly so strongly laid down, reminded him of the story of the poor girl, who being taken taken before a magistrate for a deviation from the path of virtue, on being questioned, admitted the fact, but urged that her's was a very small bantling. But would any man tell him who entertained such strong and conscientious objections to slave-grown sugar, that if they took out of the European market for consumption in this country a quantity of free-grown sugar, that it would not act as a stimulus to the production of slave-grown sugar? It was difficult to know accurately what was the amount of free-labour sugar, but he would take the statement of Mr. Macgregor Laird on this point, to show the fallacy of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Laird's figures might not be quite accurate; he did not affirm they were, but he thought it was sufficiently correct for argument. He found, according to this Gentleman, that the whole of the sugar brought into Europe for consumption amounted to 673,000 tons, and of this 204,000 tons was the produce of the West-Indian Colonies and other British possessions; so that there remained 469,000 tons for the other European markets. The amount of sugar which it was calculated was brought into the European markets from Java, Manilla, Siam, and Cochin China, was 95,000 tons, the whole of which sugar was the produce of free-labour. Now, if they took the whole of that out of the continental European market for consumption in this country, what would be the effect? If they took this amount which was about one-fifth of the whole consumption on the Continent, out of the European market, the result would be that the supply there would be less than the demand, and this gap must be filled up, and would be filled up with sugar from the Brazils and Havannah. It therefore became a matter of indifference whether this country at once took slave-grown sugar, for the gap would be filled up with slave-grown sugar. When, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman congratulated himself on his consistency in not going back from his principle, but that the proposition which he had that night made would tend to carry it into effect, everybody who would consider the subject for a moment, must laugh at their thus only keeping to the determination in words, and departing from it in principle. Such a clumsy contrivance to preserve the appearance of consistency would be fully appreciated by the people. As to the details of the plan, and as to the statements respecting slavery and the slave-trade, he would not go into the question, as he should have future opportunities of discussing those points. The strong argument, however, on which he rested his objection, was, that the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman intended to propose to the House was based on a new and objectionable principle creating a difference between the produce of countries on account of their municipal institutions, and at the same time would give just the same excitement and encouragement to slavery and the slave-trade in the Brazils, by taking 95,000 tons of free-labour sugar from the European market, as if you at once took 95,000 tons of Brazilian slave-produced sugar.

I would wish to postpone the discussion with respect to the sugar duties until a future period, when the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of entering fully into the question. I think that the charge which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward against the consistency of the Government is totally without foundation. I do not apprehend that Her Majesty's Government ever made any statement that they would be opposed to the introduction of sugar—the produce of free labour— into this country as soon as the termination of the treaties with Brazil should admit that introduction, without giving to Brazil the power of the admission of slave grown sugar. Now, the right hon. Gentleman must remember that in former discussions on this subject it was constantly said to us, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, "You say, that you object to the admission of slave-grown sugar, but why, then, do you not admit sugar, the produce of free labour, into competition with the sugar of your own colonies." I recollect that the hon. Member for Wigan made use of that argument; and I also recollect that the hon. Member for Dublin gave notice of his intention to propose the admission of sugar the produce of free labour, into competition with sugar the produce of our own colonies. Now, supposing that we refused to admit sugar the produce of free labour into our markets on the grounds stated by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that by admitting sugar in this way, we were encouraging the admission of sugar the produce of slave labour into the continental markets, would it not be charged against us that we enjoyed a monopoly of the continental markets for the produce of our West-India colonies, and that by refusing to admit into competition sugar, the produce of free labour, we were looking to maintain that monopoly? It would be said that our objection in reality was not to the admission of sugar the produce of slave labour, but that we desired to maintain the monopoly of the continental markets for our West-India colonies. That was the reason why we would not admit sugar the produce of free labour, into competition with the produce of our West-India colonies. I am sure that that argument would be urged against us if we had not taken the earliest opportunity, consistently with the principles we have already avowed, to admit into competition with the produce of our own colonies, sugar the produce of free labour. I will not now enter into any observation of the details of the question, because I think, that they can be much more satisfactorily discussed at a future period. Some observations have fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose and the hon. Member for Coventry to which I will briefly allude. Those hon. Gentlemen have laid the chief stress of their argument upon the amount of the public expenditure, and they say, that we ought to notice the amount of the Estimates, in order that we may get rid of the Income Tax. Now, on this subject, I repeat what I have always said, that without reference to any particular duty, it, the Government, ought to reduce the whole expenditure to the lowest possible amount competent with the permanent interests of the country. No matter whether or not you wish to reduce any particular tax, but the maintenance of any expenditure not called for by the necessities of the country is in itself a positive evil. It would be the duty of the Government to make that restriction, no matter whether that restriction enabled them to reduce the Income Tax or not; but, looking at the immense colonial empire which we are called upon to govern, I confess myself unable to discover how it would be possible for us to have fixed our Estimates at a lower amount. In general, it has been found the most expedient plan to place in the Executive Government for the time being a certain degree of confidence, for this among many reasons, that they are supposed to possess and always do possess, better means of information than the House at large. The House and the country, then, are willing usually to take something upon credit, and therefore they appeared to be all but unanimous on the Estimates for the great services of the year. An hon. Member told the House—and it is quite true—that when I was first Lord of the Treasury in the year 1835, the amount of the Estimates which I proposed for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance was 14,000,000l.; and then he contrasted that sum with the gross amount of the Estimates for the present year, which are 17,300,000l. Now, I beg the House to remember that some portion of this, and no inconsiderable portion either, is to be expended on the improvement of prisons, and on judicial charges. Again, when hon. Members tell us that we ought to do away with the Income Tax by reducing the expenditure of the country, I request of hon. Members to remember what has occurred to us since the year 1835? These things have occurred:—there has been a rebellion in Canada; there have been hostilities in Syria, and a war in China. It is true enough that these events did not take place during our administration; but, it is, nevertheless, our duty to provide for their consequences. Let us not, then, be told, that we ought to reduce, or that we can reduce, the Income Tax. It is very easy to talk of making reductions, but the difficulty is to show that in the end these reductions will consist with true economy. The question before the House is not that which might be suitable or expedient in the year 1835, but that which may be fitting, convenient, and just in 1844. It has been sought to censure us heavily for the amount of those Estimates, as if we could have any motive for inflaming their amount. What interest can we have in maintaining a system of extravagant expenditure? There is, perhaps, a vulgar notion prevalent in some quarters that we have a motive for proposing excessive Estimates, on account of the patronage which they are supposed to yield; but a more unfounded and erroneous impression it is hardly possible to imagine. It would be far more agreeable to us to show to the nation a surplus revenue than to press upon their resources with superfluous expenses. When hon. Members call upon us to give up the Income Tax, I invite them to look at the state of our army. I ask them to recollect the number of regiments which have been abroad beyond their proper period. I say it does not consist with true economy to tax human strength and human life beyond the ordinary regulations of the army. Look at our army in India and in the West Indies, and let us not be told that their strength can be taxed any further. Look at them in every part of the world, and tell me if the strain upon them can be carried beyond its present limit. It is impossible that the reasonable reliefs of the army can be diminished, or that we can manage to carry on the business of the country with a smaller amount of military force. In reply to this, however, the advocates for a reduced taxation, tell us, that we ought to reduce our colonial empire. This is very easily said; but I believe no one whose authority is of any value will attempt to say that we can with any degree of safety disturb the relations at present subsisting between the mother country and the Colonies, and least of all do I think that we should be induced to disturb those relations on account of the pecuniary expenditure. If the House were to come to the conclusion that it would be our duty to diminish instead of extending our colonial empire, I do apprehend that the effect would be, to engender feelings which, so far from creating, it would be our earnest desire to remove, and, if possible, prevent. I do dread that feelings most to be avoided would inevitably be engendered if there were the least thought of abandoning any of our Colonies for a moment entertained. It is said that the Navy of 1843 and 1844 is greater than that of 1835. I admit that it is so; but I do at the same time ask if any rational man ought to be dissatisfied with such a state of things. The hon. Members for Coventry and for Montrose, in the earnestness of their zeal to get rid of the Income Tax, tell us that we must go back with our establishments to the scale of 1790. [An hon. Member: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry said 1792.] Well, I have no objection to take it as of 1792. The one is just as impracticable as the other. The hon. Gentleman, then, wants us to go back to 1792, and he tells us that, allowing for the difference of our population in that time as compared with the present, we should regulate our expenditure according to the model left to us by the statesmen of 1792. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me if Mr. Pitt agreed to the reduction effected in the year 1792? He held, as I do, that the amount then fixed was not consistent with true economy. [Mr. Williams: 1792 was not the year to which I referred.] I thought so, and I mentioned 1790, but an hon. Member behind me corrected my statement, and said, 1792. But, whether it be the one year or the other, I appeal to any man—excepting the hon. Members for Coventry or Montrose—to say, if he believes it to be consistent with the safety of the country, that the Naval Estimates of 1844 should be the same as the Naval Estimates of 1790, and that the only difference between the one and the other should be merely a variation founded upon the difference between the population of the country at the one period and its population at the other. I ask, would it be consistent with the interests of this country that we should be blind to the state of our Navy—that we should overlook the efforts that are being made by other countries in this respect— that we should permit other countries now on terms of friendship with us to lay the foundations of a great Marine—that we should see them expending enormous sums on the preparation of armed steam-boats and of new implements of warfare, and of resources which, unless timely provided, could not be immediately supplied upon a sudden emergency—if we should subject our commerce to the risk of being attacked by a powerful fleet—if we should remain inert and not guard against such risks by necessary and due precaution—I say, if we were to do this, that nothing would be more unwise or more inconsistent with wise and rational policy. The hon. Member says that we should go back to 1790, and overlook all the circumstances of the present time—and if we should be overtaken by some unexpected calamity—if our commercial Marine, returning to the channel, should be assailed, and that we, acting on economical principles, should have no greater Naval force than this country possessed in 1790—if we overlooked the great change effected by steam navigation—I say, that if, having overlooked those prudent and wise precautions which a Government is bound to take, we came to be tried for our neglect by this economical House of Commons— we would be condemned and justly condemned, as the greatest dolts that ever undertook to manage the affairs of a great country. I speak not now of the Army. I speak especially of the Navy, and I say that if this country resolved to treat with disregard the efforts made by other Powers to establish great Naval forces, this country would commit a great and irremediable mistake. With respect to the Ordnance, the amount of that estimate chiefly depends on the necessities of the service of the Army and the Navy. In the House of Commons, even at times when the greatest heats of party feelings have prevailed, there has always been a disposition to show confidence in the Executive Government which has means that the House of Commons does not possess, of judging of the necessities of the public service. They had the opportunity of examining the details of the military service of the country—they knew the demands made by the Colonies—they knew the state of each regiment, and they knew that it was true economy to allow regiments after a considerable period of service to return home instead of keeping them for long periods at great distances from home and exposed to the vicissitudes of various climates, without the opportunity of the regular rotation of reliefs. I do not see that any great saving would be effected from a reduction of the Estimates for the Army and Navy; at the same time that I am prepared to admit that to place one single 1,000l. on the Estimates more than is called for by the exigencies of the service is an evil, and to do so would be unwise and improper. My hon. Friend the Member for the county of Northumberland has entered upon some discussion with respect to the coal trade, and expressed some disappointment that, as the state of the Revenue was so encouraging, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken the opportunity of relieving the coal trade. I will not at present enter on the subject; but I must say, that the amount of coal exported last year does not show that the coal duty has operated with so much pressure on the coal trade as my hon. Friend has urged. I find that the entire amount of coals exported in 1843, including cinders and small coals, amounted to 1,866,000 tons. I admit, certainly, that there has been a diminution in the amount of coals exported, if we compare the exportation of last year with that of 1842; but in the course of that year (1842) it was known that the new duty would come into operation, and during one quarter of that year there was an increased exertion made to send coals abroad. It consequently happened that there was a considerable increase in the export of coals in 1842, on account of the expected addition of the new tax. But Jet us now compare the exports of 1843 with the exports of 1840, when such motives to increase the export did not operate. [Viscount Howick: Take 1841.] The noble Lord was not present when the subject was alluded to, but I will take 1841, as he is entitled to the benefit of any impression that may be produced by the comparison. In 1840, the whole amount of coals exported was 1,686,000 tons; in 1841, it was 1,848,000. This was the exportation in a year when there was no expectation of the new tax, and when the export of the year might be taken as a fair indication of the natural amount of traffic. But last year, notwithstanding that the duty was in operation, the export of coals exceeded the amount exported in 1840. Well, then, in 1841, the export was 1,848,000 tons; in 1843, it was 1,866,000 tons; so that, notwithstanding the operation of the duty, an increase has taken place in the quantity of coals exported. Now, let it not be said that I am vindicating the tax—it was imposed under circumstances when new taxation was rendered necessary; and all I can say is, that the apprehension that a considerable diminution in the export of coals would be the consequence of the imposition of the tax has not been realised to the extent anticipated by those who objected to the tax. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last complained that the Government had not come down to Parliament with a distinct proposition with respect to the renewal or discontinuance of the Income Tax. The Income Tax, as the House is aware, will not expire until next year, and I roust say it appears to me more conformable with common sense to wait until the period when the Income Tax is about to expire, and when we will have increased experience of the effect of the reduction of duties, and that the House should take an enlarged and comprehensive view of the financial position of the country next year, than that a year before the tax expires, and before you have an opportunity of seeing what will be the effect of a reduction of duties, you should come to the House and ask them whether they are prepared to continue the Income Tax or not? We shall be, probably, in a better condition to take that enlarged and comprehensive view of the finances of the country next year—we shall lose nothing by the delay, and we shall gain nothing by the premature discussion of the question. Supposing that the propositions should be met with a difference of opinion—supposing that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he thought it would be necessary at the end of the next year to continue the Income Tax, see by what formidable arguments we should be met. It would have been said, "Your estimate last year for the service of the present year was 50,150,000l., and your income is 52,835,000l., so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself at the end of the financial year with a surplus of upwards of 2,600,000l. on which he never calculated; and yet, having that surplus, you ask us to concur in enabling you to continue the Income Tax." It would be said how do you know that your income in 1844 may not exceed your expenditure, and leave you a surplus of a similar amount of 2,600,000l.; in that case there will be no necessity for the Income Tax, so that you who were so agreeably deceived this year, may be similarly agreeably disappointed next year, and it will be better to postpone the consideration of the Income Tax until you see what will be the state of your Revenue next year." After the proof that has been shown that there is that elasticity and buoyancy in the resources of the country that produced a surplus of more than 2,600,000l. for the present year more than was expected, I doubt whether it would be possible for any Government to anticipate the period of the termination of the Income Tax, and ask the House to consider the expediency of continuing that tax. When my right hon. Friend mentioned that I originally contemplated the Income Tax not for three years but for five years, he was met by hon. Gentlemen opposite with that sort of incredulous laugh which evidently indicated some doubt of the accuracy of the statement. I will, therefore, with the permission of the House, read to them what I did say on this subject in the month of March, 1842. On that occasion I addressed myself to the House in these words:—

"I trust that Parliament will confirm the duration I am about to propose; and I trust that Parliament would not be unwilling, in case of necessity, to continue the duration of this tax for a period of five years. But still there may be, as there have been before, and of which I do not despair, those revivals of commercial prosperity, coupled with the measures which I am about to propose, that may make Parliament naturally anxious to have an opportunity of reconsidering the subject at an earlier period than that which I name: they may wish to have the opportunity of considering the operation of this tax at an earlier period than five years; and although I must contemplate the possibility, for public interests, of that duration, and although I trust that, in case the experiment should not be complete, Parliament would not hesitate to prolong it, yet I think, upon the whole, it is only just, in the first instance, to limit the experiment to a period of three years, in order to give Parliament an opportunity of continuing it at the end of that time, if necessary." (Hansard, lxi. 444.)

If I proposed at the end of two years to get rid of the tax, would not my own words be quoted against me? I am sure the House will agree with me that next year we shall be in a better position to deal with this question. In the course of that period we shall have the advantage of a more enlarged experience; and I think therefore it would now be highly inexpedient, by proceeding prematurely, to fetter the judgment of the House. In the next year trade may be in a more flourishing condition; our Estimates may be falsified in a manner as gratifying as they were in the last year. Let us then postpone any decision on the subject till we possess an opportunity of regulating that decision by the known amount of the Revenue, and suspend our consideration of the question until it comes properly before us. Then if we made any considerable reduction of taxation in the present year to the amount of some 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l.—if we were to reduce the duty on glass, to reduce the duty on tea, to abolish the excise duty on soap, and to reduce the duty on tobacco—all of which would be most valuable reductions in themselves, but accompanied with much uncertainty as to their consequences on the Revenue, that we should in consenting to make those reductions now be virtually deciding the question of the duration of the Income Tax in the present year, instead of waiting for that purpose until next year. It is therefore, I think, better that we should postpone the consideration of that question altogether until we come to take the essential view of it in another year; but, at the same time, while we decide upon doing so, we are not to forget that there are some taxes which press more particularly upon industry, and which it is therefore most desirable should be removed, if possible, at once. One of these is the duty on the importation of foreign wool. We had several interviews with the manufacturers of Yorkshire on this subject, and we contented ourselves with listening respectfully to their statements in silence, without stating at the time what course we were disposed to adopt. I confess, however, that their views had very great weight with us at the time, and that we felt a strong wish to relieve them as soon as circumstances would permit us to do so. When those Gentlemen last waited upon us they appeared to think that, even if a portion of the wool trade were relieved, there would be considerable satisfaction felt by the trade. An attempt was made to draw a distinction between the coarser wools and those of a finer quality, and they would be perhaps satisfied if a reduction were made in the duty on the inferior wool. But when we were touching the wool duty at all we thought it would be much better to leave the import and export of the raw material free altogether than to grant relief in a particular branch of the trade on which the duty was felt to press more heavily than others. With respect to marine insurances, I do not think that we shall suffer any loss by the reduction that we have recommended. I think my right hon. Friend has shown, when speaking on this head, that this country may in future very justly expect to become the chief state in which marine insurances will be effected, and that there is a prospect of drawing from other countries those insurances which were effected in them in consequence of the high rate of duty on such policies in England. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree with us in this,—that if a sum of 400,000l. of Revenue only is to be reduced, that it would be difficult to make a better selection of duties to be reduced than those which my right hon. Friend has brought forward. Though the amount to be reduced may be small, I think it will be generally agreed that a good selection has been made of the articles to be affected by that reduction,—always of course assuming that we are agreed in the amount of reduction to be made. Some will say that the reduction ought to be 2,000,000l.; but, without entering into that question for the present, and assuming that the reduction for the present year, and in the present state of the revenue, should be no greater than the amount at which we have fixed it—namely, 400,000l., I think it must be admitted that we have selected those articles for a reduction of duty that will be considered most generally advantageous and most in conformity with those principles which we laid down at the time of the introduction of the tariff. And this is the advantage of laying down general principles on an occasion of the kind; for, though we should not be enabled to carry them out to the full extent at the time, still when we have an opportunity of doing so afterwards we are enabled to act up to them. I was saying these reductions are made in conformity to those general principles that we laid down when we introduced the tariff; in other words, according to the extent and in the amount most likely to relieve industry and enterprise; and, though this may appear to some Gentlemen to be slight and trivial, still I think it will be found on inquiry that they are all articles most likely to affect the comforts of that class of Her Majesty's subjects who depend for their support on manual labour. That being the principle on which we have acted, I trust the amount and the nature of the reduction which we recommend will also meet with the concurrence of the House.

believed the general impression on that side of the House was favourable to the proposed reductions. With regard to the Income Tax there was no one opposed it more strenuously than he on its first imposition; but, the House having assented to its introduction, he did not think they now stood in the same position with regard to it, as when it was first proposed. He came down to the House rather inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would announce to them that he had made up his mind respecting the continuation of that tax for the entire five years; and he should say that if the right hon. Gentleman had made such a declaration, and had proposed to take advantage of the favourable position in which that tax had placed the revenues of the country, in dealing largely and wisely with the taxes that press on the poorer and industrious classes, he for one would have been inclined to question whether it would not be good policy for the House to make such an agreement with the right hon. Gentleman as would leave the Income Tax undisturbed to the end of the five years. If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to deal largely and liberally in reducing the duty on such articles as sugar or other matters of general consumption which might involve a present sacrifice of revenue which might be expected to recover at the end of three years, he, for one, would think it would be wise on the part of the House and of the country to allow the Income Tax to be continued on condition of such important reductions being made. With regard to the proposed reductions which the right hon. Gentleman had made, he should confess that he heard some of them with much satisfaction. He agreed with the Gentlemen who had spoken on his side of the House as to the value of the proposed removal of the import duty on wool, and also of the diminution on the duty on coffee, and he would go so far as to say, that if the right hon. Gentleman had only that sum to deal with, he was not prepared to deny but that he had made as prudent and as wise a selection as, under the circumstances, he could have adopted. There was one point alluded to by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Portsmouth, to which he wished also to refer—he alluded to the duty on vinegar. When the right hon. Gentleman reduced the Excise duty on vinegar, he ought also to have removed one of the most objectionable items in the entire Tariff—namely, the prohibitory duty on foreign vinegar— which forced the people of this country to use the detestable vinegar manufactured at home, instead of the good article that they might procure from France. He recollected calling the attention of the House to that matter when the Tariff was first before them, and the President of the Board of Trade opposite so far agreed with him as to stand up and make a speech in favour of his proposition until he was checked and pulled back by the tail of his coat by the First Lord of the Treasury. He should also say, at the same time, that he could not conceive why the Government should delay any longer from considering other articles in the Tariff which, when it was first proposed, were postponed only in consequence of this country being at the time in treaty with France. That Treaty was now as completely over as the Treaty with the Brazils, and when the right hon. Gentleman had said that the reductions which he proposes in the duty on coffee, and which are now practicable, could not then be made, in consequence of the latter Treaty, his argument applied with equal force to other articles, such as brandy and silks, which were no longer affected by their Treaty, which then alone prevented them from being included in the reduction. He did not speak of wines, from which a considerable revenue was raised; but he confined his remark to those articles that might be treated without any loss to the Revenue, and which had been formerly kept back solely on account of the pending negotiations with France. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not any longer postpone dealing with duties of that description. But turning from that matter he came to an announcement which had been made that night by the Government, and which was of infinitely more importance. Though other opportunities would offer for discussing it, still he could not refrain at the very earliest occasion from expressing his deep concern and regret at the statement which they had all heard, that the Government were prepared to take a step which would have the effect of placing a commercial ban on the intercourse between this country and a great nation that was intimately connected with Great Britain by the ties of commerce, and that extended over a vast and important part of the habitable world. The Government were about proscribing and placing a ban on their articles of commerce by the course which it had been announced would be taken with regard to the sugar duties. He had not been without apprehension that something of the kind would have been attempted from the statements that had been made from time to time; but he had hopes that when the Government came to examine the immense difficulties that appeared in the way of such an attempt, and how completely impracticable it would prove in advancing the object which it professed to have in view, they would see the necessity of abandoning it. He would confess he had clung to that hope up to the last moment, and he should also admit that he had been not a little surprised at the few words which the First Lord of the Treasury had made use of on the subject. It was true the time had not arrived for entering into details on the point, but he thought the right hon. Baronet might have availed himself of the opportunity of saying something in answer to what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth. The reply of the right hon. Baronet was merely, that if he had objected to admit sugar, the produce of free labour, on the ground that the supply required to replace it would be brought from Brazil and Cuba, he would be taxed with insincerity in looking for objections to serve as an excuse for postponing the introduction of foreign sugars; but he did not tell them whether he did not think that answer, supposing that he had given it, would be valid and sufficient The objection of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Portsmouth, was perfectly sound, because if they took sugar from Java to supply the English market, Germany and other countries that are now supplied from Java, would then take sugar from Brazil and Cuba, and thus they would be practically stimulating the slave-trade with those countries just as directly as if they were allowed to introduce their sugar into this country. He considered the veil that was thrown over this matter was too transparent to hide its real effect from Brazil, and, he would add, from all foreign nations, and that they would in future be inclined to disregard that claim to the sacred name of humanity, which England so long assumed in consequence of her efforts to extinguish slavery. There would, to be sure, be other opportunities of discussing this matter; but still he confessed he was anxious to hear how it was alleged the principle could be carried into effect at all. How, for instance, in the case of a ship coming from New Orleans, could they tell whether the sugar which she had on board might not have been grown in Cuba and not in Louisiana? Did they mean to rely on the certificate of origin coming from those countries, though it was well known they were not always to be depended on, even when coming out of their own customhouses at home. He feared the plan, if carried out, would but open the door to an endless system of evasion and subterfuge, and of fraudulent trade, which would be deeply injurious to the commercial character of this nation without, at the same time, affording any check whatever to the progress of the slave-trade. They would be also raising up a hostile feeling against their manufactures in Brazil and other countries, where, unfortunately, the prejudices of the people still bound them to slavery. He detested slavery as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he would go, by fair means, as far as any man could in attempting to put it down, but he should add that he believed the present plan of the Government with regard to the admission of free-labour-grown sugar would only tend to promote not to discourage the slave-trade. Before he left the subject he wished to express a hope that as the right hon. Gentleman opposite must feel that under these circumstances the discussion on the sugar duties would be of unusual importance, he would consent to introduce it at a period of the Session that would afford hon. Members an ample opportunity of considering the point maturely before they came to any decision upon it; he would also add that he thought the aspect of the present times was such as to render it particularly unfortunate that under any circumstances whatever they should establish a system of differential duties towards any country, considering that there was at this moment a great jealousy of English commerce and manufactures throughout the world, and that several countries were endeavouring to persuade other nations to admit their products to the prejudice of those of England. He would remind the House of what had fallen some nights ago in a conversation between the hon. Member for Bolton and the First Minister of the Crown, respecting a treaty between the United States of America and the Commercial Union of Germany, having for its object the introduction into the former country of the products of the German manufacturers. No one deplored those proceedings more than he did, but he feared they would not strengthen their position by such a course as that now about being taken with regard to the important article of sugar. In conclusion he would take the liberty of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intended to bring the subject of the sugar duties under the consideration of the House?

said, he would bring the question forward at an early day, but he was not then prepared to state the precise dale.

could not allow the opportunity to pass without expressing his satisfaction and thanks for the important boon that the Government had declared their intention of conferring on the part of the country with which he had the honour to be connected in the proposed reduction of duty on the importation of foreign wool. He had always done Her Majesty's Government the justice to believe that the only ground on which they had considered themselves justified in refusing to repeal the tax on the raw material of such great importance as wool was because the state of the revenue would not admit of the loss which would be incurred by it, and the principles admitted by them on that evening to the House proved that he was fully justified in the opinion that he had formed of them. He confessed he should feel much less gratification in accepting the repeal of these duties if he thought that the relief would be followed by any loss to other classes in the country, but it was his firm belief that such would not be the case, and that the importation of foreign wool would, in no degree whatever inflict an injury on any other interests. His hon. Friends near him who represented Lincolnshire and other districts where long wool was grown, might be satisfied that they would not be injured by the alteration, for he had no hesitation in asserting, from previous experience, and from the opinions of those most thoroughly acquainted with the subject, that so far from the admission of foreign wool having the effect of diminishing the use of the long English wool, it would increase the demand for it by the more general manufactures of cloths requiring the admixture of foreign wool with the wool of this country. The hon. Member, in conclusion, complimented the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the manner and substance of his able statement, which was in every way worthy of the Financial Minister of this great country, who, three years ago, found the revenues in a state of the lowest depression, and in that short period had brought them up to their present prosperous condition.

said, that it was not his intention to trespass at any length upon the indulgence of the House. He was anxious, however, to say a few words with reference to the financial statement which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had that evening made to the House. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was characterised by great caution. What was the result of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The right hon. Gentleman said, that the surplus revenue amounted to 3,300,000l., and they only proposed to remit duties to the amount of 400,000l. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his statement of reductions by proposing a reduction of the duty on glass, then on vinegar, coffee, and the right hon. Gentleman ended with currants. The articles to which he referred composed the principle subject of this little episode of a budget. He much regretted, that neither the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor the statement of the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, contained the slightest allusion to that great article of cotton, which had formed the subject of so much anxiety, interest, and discussion. He told the right hon. Gentleman that it was his duty to have included in the Budget the article to which he alluded, viz., cotton. The whole duty upon cotton was between 600,000l. and 700,000l. When they considered the duty imposed upon the raw material—the importance of the article to the British manufacturer, he thought the Representatives of the British manufacturers had a right to hear from the Government some apology for the omission contained in the financial exposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He was not influenced by any feeling of jealousy with regard to those hon. Gentlemen interested in the contemplated reduction of the duties upon wool. But let the House bear in mind, that the revenue derived from wool was puny in amount, viz., 90,000l.: nine-tenths of the raw material was imported. There never existed a clearer case for the immediate reduction of the duty upon cotton; but it appeared exceedingly strange to him that not one single word had been breathed upon the subject by any hon. Gentleman in connexion with the Government. Not long since a deputation on that subject waited upon Her Majesty's Government. The Members of that deputation certainly departed after their conference with the impression that the Government intended to do something with regard to the duties upon cotton. The statement made that night in the House of Commons by the right hon. Gentleman would create great disappointment in the country. He had the highest authority for saying that the tax upon raw materials ought to be the first to be removed: such was the opinion of the late Mr. Huskisson, who in 1827 asserted, that it was most unjust to impose and continue a tax upon raw material. The small amount of revenue derived from such a tax certainly did not for one moment justify its imposition. At that period the revenue from the tax in question did not amount to more than 400,000l. There then existed a large deficit in the revenue, not a surplus as at present. They were entitled to know why this subject was omitted from the Budget. With regard to the contemplated alteration in the sugar duties, none of the colonies could now entertain a doubt as to the proposed new arrangement. It must be clear to them (the colonies) that they were about to be placed in competition with other colonies with regard to the article of sugar. But what was the state of the British colonies, owing to the foolish system of legislation which had been pursued at the Colonial-office for some time past? In the year 1833, when they abolished slavery, the House passed a law most hostile to the interests of the British colonial possessions. They at that period opposed and prevented a contract being made which would have had the effect of securing to the West-India colonies an abundant supply of labourers. Nothing could be more injurious or detrimental to the interest of the colonies than those unnecessary restrictions and obstructions which interfered with the introduction of labourers into those colonies. He put it to the sense and justice of the Government—he put it to the sense and justice of the House of Commons—whether these colonial possessions were not entitled to have some relaxation of these restrictions? Why, he asked, should such restrictions be imposed upon our colonies. They, with the view to facilitate the importation of labourers into the colonies, passed what was termed the "Passengers' Act;" and why should the present restriction and obstruction exist? When the noble Lord, the Member for the city of London was connected with the Colonial-office, he wrote a letter to the Governor of Sierra Leone, quite a model of regulations, relating to the emigration of hill coolies from Africa to the West-Indian colonies; but, instead of carrying into effect the noble Lord's instructions, every impediment had been thrown in the way of the emigration of these hill coolies. After travelling 600 miles, they often remain for a period of six weeks or two months at Sierra Leone before they embark for the West-India colonies. Every encouragement ought to be afforded to the emigration of labourers from Africa to the West-India colonies. Every means ought to be pursued to effect that object. At present there existed an absolute prohibition with regard to the importation of hill coolies; they could not be imported into the West-India colonies. Since 1832, 40,000 had gone to the Mauritius, and they had been well and profitably employed. He wished to call the attention of the Government, and particularly of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial-office, to the probably injurious, because obstructive, effect of the regulation with regard to the supply of labour from China. There was, he regretted, at the Colonial-office a secret influence exercised upon every Secretary placed at the head of that Department, which had a most injurious and anti-colonial effect, which made itself manifest in the utter futility of any regulation which issued from that office. He thought they ought to enter into a consideration of the probable effect of the new regulation with regard to the sugar duties on the colonies. He could not see how any person was to benefit by the alteration in the sugar duties. He saw that the noble Lord was about to address the House. It was his object to call up the noble Lord. With regard to the proceedings of the Colonial-office, he trusted that the noble Lord would take the matter to which he had especially referred into his own hands, and promote the introduction of labourers into the colonies, and extend to them that protection and encouragement which alone could enable them to enter into anything like a successful competition with foreign colonial states.

said, that the hon. Member had called the attention of the House to the question relating to the importation of labour into the West-India Colonies. It was quite impossible for him, after the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just addressed the House, to be wholly silent on the subjects which that hon. Member had brought under the consideration of the House. He did not regret that the hon. Member had afforded him an opportunity of stating what, in his opinion, would be the effect of the alterations proposed by his right hon. Friend on the West-India Colonies. There was, however, he must observe, a time when the hon. Member opposite entertained very different views with regard to slavery and the introduction of labour into the West-India colonies.

—Never! Let there be an immediate abolition of the foolish regulations by which the supply of labour was obstructed, and our Colonies stinted in their capacity.

—With that of course, he had nothing to do. He was happy to be able to say, that so far from acting as a discouragement to our Colonies, in connection with speculations or tamperings with the Sugar Duties, the announcement now made, was eminently calculated to encourage and reassure the Colonies as to the steadiness of the intentions of Go- vernment with respect to its dealings by those duties. They had never contended so much for Colonial Protection as for protection in favour of free-grown as opposed to slave-grown produce; but the proposal of a formal and solemn recognition, now for the first time, of the principle of dealing differently with free-grown and with slave-grown produce, might have so far satisfied the right hon. Members for Portsmouth and Taunton, as well as the West-India Proprietors, that while Government was not prepared to give the Colonial interests more than a just and fair differential duty in competing with foreign free-grown produce, it was determined at all risk and hazard to maintain a positive and substantial difference in favour of the free-grown as against the slave-grown article. He trusted that this principle, now for the first time announced, when it went out to the West Indies, would show the planters, that while they would have to compete at once, on not unfavourable terms, with a limited amount of foreign free produce, showed them also that it was the intention of Government to protect them against unfair competition with those who used labour obtained from notorious and iniquitous sources, which it was their (the Government's) determination to put down. His hon. Friend who last spoke told the Committee, that foolish regulations at the Colonial-Office only prevented the Colonies from competing with any part of the world, and that the noble Lord who bad preceded him (Lord Stanley) in office left, with regard to emigration into the West Indies, a model plan of regulations for emigration from Africa for his (Lord Stanley's) admiring imitation. Now, he would tell that hon. Gentleman if he had read the regulations in question, that every step taken by the present Administration had been the relaxation of restrictions, the removal of obstructions, the abolition of impediments, and the increase of facilities of immigration. He defied the hon. Member to point out any one step by which the difficulties were increased; he defied him to point out one step in which facilities were not enlarged. He took no credit to himself for this; but he thought it not fair to talk of the model regulations of the noble Lord opposite, having been barred by subsequent acts, when all these subsequent acts had been in every instance to remove obstructions. He should like to know what were these model regulations which he found in the House when he came into power, and he begged the hon. Gentleman to listen. The hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to attack him, and he begged him to attend to his answer. The hon. Gentleman had not confined his remarks to emigration from Africa. The hon. Gentleman told them of restrictions imposed on the emigration of Coolies, but these restrictions were not laid on by him. He had been attacked, on the contrary, a year or two since, by an hon. Member sitting near the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, for doing away with obstructions, and facilitating the Emigration of Coolies into the British Colonies—for facilitating that Emigration which had been obstinately prohibited, under all circumstances whatever, by that Government of model regulations which preceded him-[Mr. V. Smith—Immigration only into the Mauritius.] Immigration, I said, into a British Colony—and I well recollect how jealously watched, and how severely attacked was that first experiment of introducing into our Colonies, labourers from Asia. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) cried out "the Mauritius only." The right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware, from the very last Papers, which he (Lord Stanley) had presented to the House, that he had taken the first step to remove obstructions to the Emigration of Coolies. He had been the first to take this step—with caution, certainly, for he knew the jealousies—the reasonable jealousies and prejudices that existed even to Emigration to the Mauritius. He looked first to see what would be the result of the experiment in the Mauritius. This was his first step; and the right hon. Gentleman might see, by the Papers, that in his last regulations he had referred to the Governor-General of India to say whether, in his judgment, it would be compatible with the interest of the Slaves for us to extend to the West Indies the system of Immigration that the present Government had for the first time permitted to the Mauritius alone. The hon. Member again talked of impediments in the way of Emigration of Labourers from China. Now, the present Government was the first to mitigate these obstructions. For the first time notwithstanding that invisible influence which always hovered about the Colonial Office, endeavouring to prevent the fair supply of labour, for the first time the present Government succeeding the late one of model regulations, gave permission to import Immigrants, not indeed from China, but from Singapore and places adjoining, where persons from China came to seek employment. Thus, with respect to all three places, Africa, the East Indies, and China, the present Government was the first to relax or remove restrictions, and yet on this Government the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, contrasting them with their predecessors, turned round and charged them with preventing Emigration to the West Indies, and stinting the natural capacity of the Colonies. The hon. Member spoke, as if legal restrictions existed to prevent the free introduction of Labour into any quarter. Now, there was no Law in any country except India, that he knew of to prevent any person going to the West Indies and entering into any contract he pleased for the disposal of his labour. The particular Law in question was, that persons in the West-Indian Colonies could not, unless on certain terms and conditions, enter into long contracts with persons in the East Indies, who, from ignorance, were unable to know or fairly judge of the real nature and result of the agreement—that they should not enter into such contract for a period so lengthy, that on the arrival of the parties in the Colonies it should amount to virtual slavery for a considerable time, and cause well-founded discontent amongst the Immigrating Labourers when they discovered that they had bound themselves for half the fair and customary wages or remuneration, for half what they might have claimed and received if their contract were made on the spot. That such an Emigration might not take place was the only restriction he knew of; and those restrictions were now in progress of relaxation, as far as they could be relaxed consistently with safety. And he would venture to tell the hon. Gentleman, without fear of contradiction, that the whole course of the present Government, as far as related to Immigration to British Colonies, had been, not restriction or limitation, but relaxation and remission—a relaxation cautiously used, he would admit, but still a relaxation only limited by the necessity of providing against abuse, and not at all calculated to encourage unfounded and exaggerated expectations. He (Lord Stanley) would venture moreover to add, that the whole course of the present Government had been, and would be, addressed to the removal of all restrictions upon Immigration which were not absolutely necessary, and to the encouragement and promotion of free labour in Her Majesty's Colonies.

was sorry that he had excited the noble Lord so much. The noble Lord charged him with swerving from his former principles. The noble Lord seemed to have forgotten the battles they had fought side by side together. He thought he once had the honour of taking part in a Bill which the noble Lord himself brought in, upon which the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool could refresh the memory of the noble Lord opposite. He had not swerved from his principles; he had always upheld the principle that if due justice were done to the Colonies they would be able to compete with the rest of the world. The noble Lord, in the heat into which he had worked himself, had made this a party, instead of a national question. He had instanced one Letter of the noble Lord the Member for London, addressed to the Governor of Sierra Leone; that Letter the Colonists held to be a model of instruction for that district. The noble Lord said, he had acted upon those instructions up to the present day. But he was attacking the Colonial-office. Every Colonial Minister had allowed himself to be made, more or less, the puppet of some secret influence, so as to become hostile to the interests of the Colonists. He would conclude by asking the noble Lord to apply his own good sense and sound judgment to the question, and then there might be a hope of deliverance from all restrictions.

denied that he had made this a party question, but the hon. Gentleman had stated that the noble Lord who preceded him in the Colonial-office, of whom he had spoken with the greatest respect, had issued model regulations for Emigration from Africa to the West Indies, which were not at present in force. He stated, and now repeated, that those regulations had been in the main acted upon ever since. And moreover, that whatever alterations had been made were in the shape of relaxation, and not of restriction. The hon. Gentleman had stated, and the accusation was rife, that there was some secret influence which ruled the Colonial Department. He did not think the noble Lord was one likely to have his judgment set aside by an anti-colonial influence; and for his own part he could only say, that no Paper passed through the Colonial-office of any sort or kind which did not come immediately under his own eye, and become subject to his own examination. To this particular question of Immigration in the West Indies—of the supply of labourers—since he had the honour to be in the Colonial-office he had given the most constant and unremitting attention, and examined every part of it, with an earnestness, not inferior, he trusted, to that of the noble Lord who had preceded him.

Sir, I think my hon. Friend was quite justified in putting the questions to the noble Lord that he has done, as a large increase of experience has been brought forward on the subject, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With respect to my hon. Friend's observation on the subject of a covert influence in the Colonial Office, I can only say, while I was in that office I paid, on all occasions, the best attention I could command to every point that came under my notice; but while I entertained the greatest respect for the opinions of those gentlemen who were already in office, and I must here bear testimony to the willingness with which they furnished me with every information in their power, I hope I always decided those questions that came before me on my judgment. With respect to the emigration from Africa to the British Colonies, when I was in office I wrote a despatch to Sir John Jeremie on the subject. That despatch contained certain regulations in reference to it; but these regulations were only intended to be temporary, and applicable to that immediate moment. I am glad, however, to find that the noble Lord has extended them. As no emigration had taken place from that quarter previously, it required a great many regulations and checks that there is no need for now: and I am gratified to see that this is the view of the question, as it stands, taken by the noble Lord on the present occasion. With regard to the introduction of Coolies into the Mauritius, I confess I was surprised at the statement made by the noble Lord, that the present Government had intro- duced them, for the first time, into a British Colony. [Lord Stanley: First removed the restriction imposed on their introduction.] Lord Glenelg proposed an Order in Council, while he was Colonial Minister, admitting Coolies into British Colonies; But that Order was overthrown in this House by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of whom are now Members of Her Majesty's Government. In the year 1838, the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary suggested that the best mode of proposing it was to introduce a Clause into a Measure then before the House; but on that occasion the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House came down in force, and defeated him on the Clause. I am glad, however, that they have changed their minds on the question, though I believe that they had no difficulty on that point. I believe that their object in defeating it then was to overthrow the late Government, and, not being scrupulous as to the means so they reached the end, they considered that question would do as well as any other. No doubt the present Government were in a position to introduce Coolies into British Colonies for the first time, because, being then the assailants of the late Government, they could not meet with any opposition from them now on a question which they themselves had originated. But this discussion has formed an episode in the business of the debate—and I shall now allude at once to the great subject of the Budget—namely, the introduction of Foreign Sugar into this country. I quite agree with all the objections urged to the plan of the Government by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) near me. If Her Majesty's Government have made up their minds as to the introduction of Foreign Sugar, it would be far better for them to say so at once, broadly and boldly, than attempt to draw distinctions between Slave-grown and Free-grown Sugar, which are absurd in theory and impossible in practice. It is, besides, vicious in principle. If I wanted a proof of that fact, I should not require any other than that furnished in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman said that he had no hostility to Brazil; but on the contrary had given facilities for the introduction of its Coffees. Now, Sir, I cannot understand that nice and timid morality which shrinks with horror and dismay from Slave-grown Sugar, and yet which admits, without squeamishness or scruple of any kind, Slave-grown Coffee. What is the difference, in fact or in morals between them? It may be said, that the labour employed in the production of Coffee is lighter than that on Sugar. But that is not the point. You wish to discourage Slavery and the Slave Trade; and Slave-labour is quite as objectionable in one form as in another. It is likewise objectionable in principle to draw distinctions between Slave States and Free States; but how much more so to draw any distinction between employments. This, would, indeed, be a most intolerable interference on our part, and one which would raise up a host of enemies to us. Besides it would be impracticable. We shall have Sugar from Brazil and Havannah, introduced by way of America or other States, in the same manner as Coffee, which, by the statements of the Import Committee, made the voyage to the East Indies and back to England to avoid the Foreign Duty, and came in paying the duty levied on East India Coffee. Some Sugar might be easily sent beyond the Cape of Good Hope, and then it could come in as East India Sugar. As to competition with the West Indies, the idea was absurd. There were 200,000 tons and upwards from all the British possessions imported annually into this country, and there were 90,000 tons, or thereabouts, subject to foreign duties. That being the case, I can come to no other conclusion than that the Government are introducing a Measure which they are conscious cannot hold water. The consumer will be benefitted to some extent, however, by it; but having made one step in the right direction, the Government will ultimately take the others—and finally introduce the Bill proposed by me in 1841, with this difference, that instead of 34s. and 36s. as I had it, they will have 24s. and 26s. I foresee that this will be the case, and at no very distant period. The plan they now propose may be useful to them when that time arrives. It may cover their inconsistency for a year or two — but the House would find that all their plans would finish in admitting Foreign Sugar at only a small differential duty. And then they would have the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury announcing his great principles of 1842; and stating that they were then to be brought forward and applied to the case of the country. These great principles enumerated by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion were very convenient ones. Some of them were applied in 1843 to the tariff; and when at no distant day they shall also be applied by him to sugar, timber, and corn, he will only have occasion to remind the House of his axiom, to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest, and to tell them that as we applied them to herrings, spice, and onion seed formerly, so now he should apply them to sugar. I hope that this will be the case, and I believe it. With respect to the financial statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I congratulate the House and the country on the gratifying surplus it has exhibited—a circumstance at once provocative of pride and pleasure on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the country. Not agreeing with the criticisms which have been passed on the military expenditure of the country, I must say, that I think the votes of this year do not go beyond the necessities of the State. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Portsmouth, stated, that the conclusion to which he came, from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, that it was the intention of the Government to keep up the Income Tax for the five years originally mentioned by the right hon. Baronet; and he rightly argued, that if such were the case, the Government should have made greater reductions. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should certainly have taken one of two courses in this matter. If he saw that the Income Tax could be safely taken off next year, he should, notwithstanding the unpopularity of the Act, take off very little taxation this year. But if, on the contrary, he saw reason to continue it—and the Government must have formed a decided opinion on the subject by this time—then he should propose such larger reductions now as would benefit trade and commerce, and enable the country to pay that tax for the additional time. However, the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing dangerous to the country in the reductions he has proposed. With regard to wool, it is gratifying to find a reduction; and also with regard to coffee. Independent of the advantages to the consumer, it is gratifying also, because it proves that the principles of the tariff of 1842 are not abandoned, but that there is every probability they will be extended so as to embrace free-trade in the fullest sense of the word.

believed, that if an angel came down from heaven to take the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not be able to please all parties in that House. It was not, however, for the fallen men on the other side to taunt the right hon. Gentleman who filled that office in the present Government. That right hon. Gentleman had not held out promises of a repeal of the Income Tax; but when they were in power they promised everything and performed nothing. Discretion, he had heard as a military man, was the better part of a general; it was also the better part of a Minister; and his right hon. Friend did well to ascertain his ground before he built castles in the air. There had been many reductions made by his right hon. Friend that were not necessary, while some things that were had not been touched. He did not support the reduction of the duty on balsam capivi, because he did not need it. He was glad at the proposal to reduce the duties upon marine insurance, but he should have been more pleased if the principle had been extended to fire insurances, for this was a tax of a most burthen some description, amounting to no less than 200 per cent. upon the premiums, and consequently proving a discouragement to the practice of prudence. The tax originally was only 6d. per cent., then it was raised to 1s., and now it was 3s. per cent. The net produce was 900,000l., and he undertook to say that if the duty were again reduced, the practice of insurance would so much increase that there would be actually no loss to the revenue. With regard to the article of wool, he felt bound in justice to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, to say that he (Colonel Sibthorp) had received a letter from his agent in Lincolnshire, one of the most extensive farmers in the Kingdom, who stated, that at their late April fair, there had been a great improvement in the sale of farming stock.

after the speech of the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire, felt bound to say a few words. He could assure the House that he felt no jealousy of the wool trade. He rejoiced to think that in the reduction of the duty upon the article of wool, some progress was being made in the right direction; but when he considered the extensive use which was made of raw cotton in an important branch of the manufactures of this country, he could not but express his regret and disappointment that the same liberal principle had not been applied to it also. This article was chiefly grown in the United States, where also it was manufactured very largely. He believed that they consumed not less than 400,000 bales; and it should be borne in mind that the duty which the manufacturers of this country had to pay upon the raw material was saved to the American manufacturer. The freight also was saved. And this saving was not only upon the quantity of the article which was actually converted into manufactured goods, but upon the waste incurred in the process, which he believed was not less than one-eighth of the whole. The proportion of the manufactured goods retained for consumption in this country was not very large; and in disposing of the remainder, which was exported abroad, they were exposed to a very strong competition from foreign manufacturers. With regard to the scheme of legislation now in progress in reference to factory labour, he could not help remarking that he thought that the whole subject of our manufactures and manufacturing interests ought to be taken together in one view, before any legislation upon the subject should be attempted. They should not look at any one branch or feature of the case, they should look at the whole state of the trade, in all its different branches, cottons and printed calicos, and he was sure that upon doing so it would be found that there was nothing which we could afford to lose. In his opinion a very great boon was conferred upon all who were engaged in this most extensive branch of our manufactures by taking off the duty upon the raw material of cotton. It appeared by returns before the House that we carried on our manufactures in this article at a disadvantage of 20 per cent. at least, in comparison with the Americans; and the duty incurred an additional disadvantage of not less than 7 or 8 per cent. It was only by the extraordinary cheapness of the rate at which our manufactures were carried on, that we were able to compete at all in the foreign markets. He repeated, therefore, that he thought it most important that this duty should be removed, and he must confess that he had entertained a sanguine hope that her Majesty's Government would have proposed its reduction at the same time that they did that upon sheep's wool. It had been said, that if we took off the duty upon raw cotton, the Americans would add the amount to the price in their markets. He must say, however, that if there were those who believed that such could be the case, he was not of the number. With respect to the proposed alteration in the article of vinegar, not being aware of the details of the matter, he should not offer any opinion. With respect to the duty on marine assurances, he must congratulate the country upon the reduction of what he had always considered a most injurious and improvident exaction. Under the existing system he had seen, with pain, many of our merchants compelled to insure their ships and cargoes at Hamburgh and other foreign towns, in consequence of the oppressive nature of this duty. For one, also, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, when he expressed a wish that the principle of reduction had been carried to fire insurances also. He hailed with satisfaction the reduction of the duty on glass, as one well calculated to be of service to the trade of this country. With respect to coffee, also, he was glad at the reduction proposed to be made, being favourably inclined to a reduction upon articles of consumption generally. But he must say, that when he applauded this reduction in the matter of coffee, he was disappointed in regard to the article of sugar. He really was at a loss to understand the principle of morality upon which the duty upon coffee should be reduced, and that upon sugar retained. He did not think it could be done upon grounds which would at all satisfy the country. He could see no morality nor consistency in the grounds upon which our protective sugar duties were continued, particularly in regard to the Brazils. It was a mere pretence to say, that we would not trade in slave-grown sugar, nor exchange our goods for it, when the Brazilians could send their sugar to any market on the Continent, and receive bills in return, which they gave to us for our goods. We were thus still receiving the produce of slave-labour in return for our manufactures, though in a roundabout way. He believed, that the sooner we gave up these props to particular interests, concealed as they were under the guise of morality, which was no morality at all, the better it would be for our manufacturers and the country at large. He trusted that this vicious principle would be abandoned before long, and then he was sure that we should see our commercial relations with foreign countries established upon a firmer and more profitable footing. With respect to the Income Tax he had told his constituents that he was anxious to adopt any measure of the kind which would remove part of the burthens from industry to the shoulders of those who could better bear it. He thought that the surplus which at present existed in our finances, might be made use of to effect a reduction in many duties which pressed upon the industrial classes, and with much more advantage than it would be if locked up in the cellars of the Bank of England.

said, he partook very largely of the satisfaction which the Committee had very generally manifested on the gratifying and very cheering statement of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and would, at that late hour of the night, have contented himself with joining in the acclamations with which the Financial Statement of his right hon. Friend had been greeted, did he (Sir Howard) not feel called up by the deep interest which he took in the welfare of the Ionian Islands, and the Greeks generally, whether of the Islands, or of the Monarchy, to express the very great pleasure and satisfaction at the boon announced by his right hon. Friend to both those interesting countries. From his (Sir Howard's) long and intimate connection with the Ionian Islands, he felt himself, in his position in this House, a sort of virtual representative—at all events, a faithful and stedfast friend and advocate of their interests; and, accordingly, heard this announcement with infinite satisfaction. Should the Committee be pleased to sanction the proposition, he (Sir H. Douglas) might congratulate his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the very agreeable and important communication which the noble Lord will have to make to his (Sir Howard's) noble and gallant Friend, the Lord High Commissioner, and which will arrive at an opportune time, considering the great depression in which the affairs of the Ionian Islands have for some time been involved; and afford that distinguished person additional means and facilities for discharging his important duties, for the improvement of the Ionian Islands, in a manner due to his high reputation—to the honour and credit of this country—promoting the prosperity and deserving the gratitude of the Ionian people.

expressed his satisfaction at the reduction of the duty upon wool. He believed that there was no article of raw produce upon which reduction could have been made with more advantage to the manufacturers of this country; and he had no doubt that the Government would find that they would reap an equivalent advantage in the increased consumption of Exciseable articles which would be the consequence of the increased employment of the industrious poor. At the same time he concurred with the hon. Member for Manchester, in regretting that the principle of reduction had not been extended to cotton. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that night, that it was even now difficult to judge of the effect of the reductions of duties which had taken place in 1842—and if further reductions were now to be made, it was clear that at the expiration of the five years during which it was understood the Income Tax would be continued, they would be in the same difficulty, and the same argument would be urged that sufficient time had not been given to ascertain the result of those reductions permanently upon the Revenue of the country, and, until that was done, it would be dangerous to give up the Tax upon Incomes.

wished to say one word as to what had been the result of the export duty on coals. It was impossible at that moment to discuss the question satisfactorily, for although last year a Return had been ordered on the Motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Swansea, as to the amount of coals shipped to foreign countries during that year, distinguishing their several sorts, that Return had not yet been presented. At the present time, only a partial Return had been made, and the House had, therefore, no means of judging of the operation of the duty. He could, however, state that that duty was operating most unfavourably to the coal trade of this country, and was one of the principle causes of those difficulties which had led to the unfortunate state of things now existing between the coalowners and their workmen. He would only further, on the present occasion, express his perfect concurrence with his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland, in regretting that the Government, with such a surplus, should have determined to continue a tax producing an amount comparatively so paltry, but which affected materially a large and important branch of our trade.

was one of the few persons who were discontented with the right hon. Gentleman's Budget. He thought, with such a surplus in their hands, the Government might have taken into their consideration the window duty, which pressed most heavily upon the middle classes, with a view either of repealing or reducing it.

while congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the fact of his having a surplus income to deal with, must express the satisfaction he felt that the surplus arose from property, and not from the oppression of the poor.

regretted that the expor duty on coal had not been repealed. The coal trade and the shipping interest had suffered materially by that duty, and he hoped, at all events, Government would take it off next year.

Resolutions agreed to. The House resumed.

House adjourned at a quarter to twelve o'clock.