of hypocrisy, duplicity, or tergiversation, from the Treasurybench. Mr. Francis Baring could not concur in a proposition which recognised the Income Tax as a permanent impost; and he called. the House to its duty of investigating the votes proposed by Government with somewhat more rigid attention to economy than had been the practice. Mr. Disraeli delivered one of his most animated criticisms on the formidable recurrence of a Whig deficit; on Sir Robert Peel's plausible professions that the Income Tax should only be temporary; on the result of the Reformed Parliament manifested in a constantly increasing expenditure-on free trade, that great principle which inflicted 5 per cent. Income Tax upon us; on Mr. Cobden's vision of perpetual peace, copied from St. Pierre, Rousseau, and Robespierre, that "apostle of perpetual peace," and followed by M. Crémieux's anticipation of "liberty, equality, and fraternity," the motto of the Jacobin banner. Mr. Cobden characterized Lord John Russell's speech as a menace to France, and enforced the policy of reducing the establishments to the level of income by means of sweeping retrenchments. Mr. Bright followed, in the same tone.

Some few speakers supported the Government. Sir Charles Wood defended the Ministerial scheme. Mr. Monckton Milnes extended to them the succour of a good natured apology. Sir Robert Inglis gave his general concurrence.

In his defensive speech, Sir Charles Wood declared his belief that, when the Income Tax was voted in 1845, no man really be lieved that there was any prospect of its being taken off; and as to

the addition of two per cent. now proposed for two years only, he would not make any promise, as he did not wish to be taunted with it hereafter.

Lord Palmerston wound up the debate with a few pacific observations, inferring from the long duration of peace its still longer continuance.

The Committee voted 8,000,000%. out of the Consolidated Fund towards the supply granted to Her Majesty, and ordered Lord John Russell's resolutions to be reported.

The unfavourable reception which the Budget, as first moved, had encountered in the House of Commons attended it also through the country at large, and the proposition for increasing the Military and Naval Estimates excited much unfavourable comment. By a statement which he made on moving that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Supply three nights afterwards, Sir Charles Wood endeavoured to soften down some of the more unpleasing features of Lord John Russell's statement.

Sir Charles stated, that Ministers could not accede to the proposal of which Mr. Hume had given notice, to postpone the Committee of Supply on the Army and Navy Estimates till the House had decided on the proposal made on the former day by the First Lord of the Treasury. This would be a reversal of the constitutional usage, that a vote of supply should precede the consideration of the Ways and Means. The productiveness of the taxes could not rationally be the index of the amount of the vote: the amount should be voted according to the real exigencies of the State, and the "ways" in which that amount should be raised should

alluded to an impression which had arisen both in and out of the House, that the increased taxation was rendered necessary by the increased Estimates he hoped that further consideration of what actually fell from the Prime Minister on the last occasion had shown this impression to be entirely unfounded. There was a present deficit on the past year, over which control was now gone. That must be met. That alone called for increased taxation, with out reference to any additional or prospective demands. These additional demands arose in connection with the maintenance of convicts-formerly a local charge; the fittings of the new Houses of Parliament; the British Museum; the expedition in search of Sir John Franklin; the new scale of payments to certain petty officers, and the new modes of paying off seamen and marines. None of these expenses had a military aim-not even of defence. The Government seriously deprecated any parade of armament. The Ministers in their proposals meant simply to act according to the rule in such cases: a deficiency in a department of public service having occurred, they came with a specific proposal to the House for the addition which would fill up the new want. They had nothing more at heart than that the House should be fully satisfied.

As, however, necessary explanations could not conveniently be made to the House itself, Ministers proposed that a Select and Secret Committee be appointed to examine how far the Estimates of the Navy, Army, and Ordnance might be adopted, and to inquire

generally into the affairs of those departments. This Committee would be distinct from the one he intended to move for next day for inquiring into the expenditure for Miscellaneous Services, and reporting whether any reductions or improvements be practicable under that head.

Sir Charles cited precedents. Sir Robert Peel in 1828 moved for a Finance Committee, and on that occasion recounted parallel cases in the years 1785, 1791, 1796, 1807, and 1817. So again a somewhat similar Committee sat in 1834, on the expenditure of the Colonial Department. Complete information could be laid before such a Select Committee; the statements made to the House at large could only be imperfect and unsatisfactory. The constitution of the Committee would not in the least be influenced by Ministers; and the full discussion, according to usage, would take place in the Committee of Wavs and Means.

Meanwhile, the Secretaries at War and for the Navy would propose the votes necessary for carrying on the Public Service; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer deprecated any partial discussion in anticipation of the general one that would ensue of course on a subsequent day. He moved the reading of the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply.

Mr. Hume strongly objected to the course pursued by the Government. He advocated a reduction of expenditure as the true solution of the financial difficulties. If private men of prudence calculate their means before settling their expenses, the nation should do the like. The revenue of the country, after deducting the cost of collecting, was about the same

amount of 56,000,0001, in each of the two years 1846 and 1848. The expenditure, however, had varied by an amount of 6,756,000l. in those years-there was a surplus in receipts of 3,800,000l. in 1846, and an excess in payments of 2,956,000l, in 1848. Was this no justification of his endeavour to stop Government till some inquiry had been made whether expenditure might not be somewhere reduced? From 400,0007. to 500,000l. annuities had ceased, and Government might have been expected to propose retrenchments: they had instead proposed an increase of the Income Tax. The people would not bear the additional burden. Our navy showed a great waste of national resurces-ships uselessly lying in the Tagus, or engaged in the fruitless squadron on the coast of Africa. Mr. Hume also strongly objected to the proposed secrecy of the Committee.

Mr. Ewart and Mr. Sharman Crawford spoke to a similar effect. Other Members expressed disapprobation of the Ministerial proposal, as tending to shift from the shoulders of the Government their constitutional responsibility. Lord John Russell vindicated the course proposed. He also took occasion to repudiate the imputation that the Estimates, as stated by him, were War Estimates, or that they had been framed in anticipation of a rupture with any Foreign Power. The next evening, the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his formal proposition for appointing two Committees-one to inquire into the Army, Navy, and Ordnance expenditure, the other into the Miscellaneous Estimates, and to report to the House whether any reductions could be effected or any improvements made in the

finanical arrangements of these several departments.

The expenditure for the Navy, Army, and Ordnance had increased from 11,730,0001, in 1885, to 17,340,000l. in 1847. The Army increase was inconsiderable; the Navy increase was 3,500,000l.: but the Ordnance had doubled its cost since 1835. That increase was a very proper subject of inquiry. On their accession to office, Ministers intimated their intention of appointing a Committee to inquire into the Miscellaneous Expenditure. It was convenient to defer the time of appointing that Committee till this Session: in the mean time, Mr. Hume had suggested it should not be confined to a finance inquiry, but should investigate the whole subject of the national expenditure. Such an inquiry would be so wide as to lead to no result; but it was thought very desirable that these Estimates should be submitted to a Select Committee, who should inquire how far our increased expenditure was real or only nominal-how far, for instance, increased by efforts to improve the condition of our soldiers and sailors in actual service.

He was not anxious to adhere servilely to mere precedents; but if instances were demanded they could be found in abundance. Mr. Pitt had appointed three Committees of the kind, in 1791, 1797, and 1801. In 1817 Lord Liverpool gave an example; in 1828 the Duke of Wellington furnished. another; and one was supplied as late as 1831, on a Colonial subject, by Lord Stanley. He thought that neither Mr. Pitt, nor the Duke of Wellington, nor Lord Stanley, were likely to yield too readily to pressure, or to avoid official responsibility. The Committee of 1828

had reported, among other things, the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, and then on the expenditure of the country. Although they failed in carrying out their inquiries to the full extent they contemplated, yet such information was obtained, especially on the examination of Sir Henry Hardinge, as led to the great and important reforms in the Admiralty introduced by Sir James Graham. Since that time, the expenditure had increased again, and fresh ground had been laid for inquiry.

Lord George Bentinck protested against any encroachment by the Committees on the proper functions of the Executive, but offered no further objection to the motion, which was then carried.

It very soon became evident that the proposition which Lord John Russell had made of increasing the unpopular Income Tax to 5 per cent was highly unpalatable to the public. The general depression of trade and reduced circumstances of almost all classes, consequent upon the late commercial crisis, had indisposed the country to bear patiently any increase of taxation. Besides this, a keen sense of the inequality of the mode of taxing incomes, according to the uniform 3 per cent. scale, generally prevailed; and, however the existing grievance might be endured, the aggravation of it, as now proposed by increasing the per-centage, was vigorously protested against. Petitions poured in from all the principal towns in the country, constituencies instructed their Members to oppose, on pain of forfeiting their future support, the Ministerial measure, and it became evident, from a variety of symptoms, that a formidable agitation was rising up in the

country, which if resisted might sweep away the Income Tax and the Ministry together. The Government quickly perceived the danger of persevering in their project, and took the resolution to retract. On the 28th February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House with an amended budget, and announced the abandonment of the increased Income Tax. In making his statement the right honourable gentleman traversed exactly the same grounds as the Premier had done in introducing the budget, contrasting the ordinary income of the country with its ordinary expenditure, and pointing out the amount of the deficiency. He then adverted to the prospects of the year, commencing on the 5th of April, 1848, and ending on the 5th of April, 1849, and in the course of his observations explained the nature of our expenditure, and the small chance there was of making any great reductions in it. The Government had not proposed a larger amount of force for the military service of the country than it deemed indispensably necessary. He would not allude, except cursorily, to the external circumstances which had occurred since the Estimates were first proposed; it would be enough for him to say, that it would not be expedient for the Government to propose at present any reduction in the amount of our force. He then went through the different resources from which our income for the next year was to be derived, estimating it at 51,250,000Z., and showing that there would be a deficiency in it of 3,200,000l. to meet our expenditure in case the Income Tax at 3 per cent. were continued, and of 8,000,000l. in case it were not.

In looking to the best mode of providing for this deficiency, he concurred with Mr. T. Baring in thinking that we should not be justified in resorting to a loan. He had, therefore, turned his attention to the financial proceedings of the last few years, and had considered the measures which had been sanctioned and approved by Parliament. In 1842, when there was a deficiency, Sir R. Peel had proposed an Income Tax, partly to meet it, and partly to relieve the lower classes from the pressure of indirect taxation upon articles of general taxation. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's,) opposition to the Income Tax in 1842 was grounded on the argument that it was not worth the price which we were then called on to pay for it; but he had then stated that, if the Corn Duties, the Timber Duties, and the Sugar Duties were taken off, he should have no objection to vote for the tax which he then opposed. Those taxes had since been taken off; and he therefore felt himself justified in proposing in 1848 the very same law which he had opposed in 1842. He then reminded the House of what had occurred in 1845, when Sir Robert Peel proposed the continuance of the Income Tax for the sake of persevering in the commercial policy of 1842, and of taking off further duties on the raw materials of our manufactures, and on articles of general consumption. Various propositions were then made for the purpose of amending the Act, but no one got up and opposed it altogether. The House of Commons sanctioned it; and it would be a most extraordinary course for the Government to come forward now and propose to reverse it. The Government had, therefore

proposed to renew it. Whether it should be renewed for three or for five years was a point to be considered in Committee; but the Government had proposed to renew it for five years, because it was of opinion that the country could not thoroughly recover its financial prosperity until the expiration of that period. Still, if the Income Tax were passed at the same percentage as at present, there would be a deficiency. It therefore became necessary to consider how it was to be supplied. The Ministry were of opinion that the deficiency would only be for a time. The Caffre war was already at an end. The expenditure in the dockyards would cease in eighteen months or two years, when the country would reap the benefit of the permanent works which had been erected. A reduction of expenditure might also be effected by the Committees recently appointed by the House. It would be hardly wise to impose a new tax for a time, as such a tax must have the effect of deranging trade without any corresponding benefit. A percentage on the existing taxes would in all probability fail in producing increased revenue. Under such circumstances, the Government, knowing that the Income Tax could be increased immediately without any increased expenditure in the collection of it, had determined to propose an increase of it to 5 per cent., to continue for two years. Having stated that it would not be politic to extend such a tax for so short a period to Ireland, and having further added that, if it were a tax for more than a temporary emergency, it would be just to make Ireland pay it, he replied to the question whether he would pledge himself to take it off from Great