Commons Sitting of 15 February 1830

MINUTES.
CHARLES BULLER, Jun. Esq. sworn for West Looe.—Mr. PLANTA moved for a new Writ for Radnorshire in the room of the Right Hon. THOMAS F. LEWIS Treasurer of His Majesty's Navy. —Ordered.—The Marquis of CHANDOS postponed till the 23rd instant his Motion for a Bill to amend the Game Laws.

SUPPLY.—REDUCTION OF ESTABLISHMENTS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved "That the order of the day, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the Supply, be now read."
Mr. Humesaid, he wished, before the House resolved itself into the Committee, to submit to the House what, as it appeared to him, it was their duty to perform before they granted any Supplies whatever. He had, for many years past, endeavoured to impress on the House, that the difficulties which were then weighing on the

481
country, and were likely to weigh on it till a different course was pursued, arose from the scale of expenditure which the Ministers had thought proper to keep up since the conclusion of peace. He had no hesitation in saying, that this country, instead of enjoying all those advantages which the people had a right to expect after the termination of so long a war,—the advantages of peace and plenty,—was on the contrary, reduced to a state of extreme distress. He was aware that what he was saying was not new, for during the last ten years he had unceasingly laboured to point out the evils of the mischievous course which Ministers were pursuing. They had ever since the conclusion of peace kept up a war establishment. It might appear to some gentlemen that the situation of the country could not be relieved by any remission of taxation which it was in the power of the House to effect; but when he called to their attention what might have been done if, at the conclusion of the war, a system of economy had been acted on, they would see at once that a great deal of mischief would have been avoided; and they would likewise perceive, that by adopting a plan of retrenchment now, much good might yet be effected. Taxation, which was at no time light, was, by the change which had taken place in the currency, rendered almost one-half more onerous than it had been. When that change took place, they ought to have insisted on a proportionate decrease in the amount of taxes, which had not been done. In 1817, 1818, and 1819, the taxes were not greater in amount than they were during the last three years. Ministers had taken care to keep up the different establishments to the full means which were at their disposal. He therefore called on the House to do that which the whole people unanimously demanded of their representatives to do—namely, to reduce the taxation and the expenditure. He would ask, under what circumstances Parliament had assembled? His Majesty did not, in his Speech from the Throne, say one word about lowering the taxes, and he could not find, from any thing which had occurred in that House, that any reduction was intended. There was scarcely a Speech from the Throne, since the year 1817, which did not state the wish of his Majesty to reduce the public expenditure; but, notwithstanding these professions and promises, they would find that the Estimates of last
482
year, the fifteenth year of peace, were upwards of 1,000,000 l. greater than the Estimates of 1817. Under all circumstances, he felt it necessary to call on the House to demand, in strong terms, a reduction, and a great reduction, of the expenditure, together with a change in the extent of taxation. In 1821 he had moved an Address, calling for the adoption of a system of rigid economy, which was unanimously carried; but so far from that Address having had the desired effect, the contrary was the result, though at the time attention to the opinion of the House was promised. No sooner did a vacancy in any situation (however useless) occur, than it was immediately filled up;—witness the office of Treasurer of the Navy, which was given to a gentleman a few days before (Mr. F. Lewis). He was convinced, that if they had made proper reductions in the first year of peace, they might, without detriment to the establishments of the country, have reduced the annual burthen of the debt to the extent of between 8,000,000 l. and 9,000,000 l. He had calculated the sum extracted from the industry of the people of England, in the shape of taxes, during the fifteen years which had elapsed since the war, and he found it amounted to no less than 896,000,000 l.,—a sum which, if they could have retained it, would have enabled them to pay off all their debt, or if they could have saved from it a sufficiency to relieve them from the annual charge of 8,000,000 l. or 10,000,000 l. would have afforded the country very great relief. From 1817 to 1828 inclusive, the nett money received was 700,000,000 l., of which to the amount of 56,000,000 l. was raised last year. Now he would ask the House what portion of this gross sum of 896,000,000 l., levied since the peace, was within their control? Looking to a paper which had been laid on their table, he saw, that from the period of the peace up to the year 1829, the sum of 316,500,000 l. had been devoted to the support of the establishments of the country. The House had had, therefore, to deal with this sum of 316,500,000 l.; and there could be no doubt, that if the most ordinary attention had been paid to economy, the one-half, or the one-third of it might have been saved, and the country have kept up, nevertheless, all the civil and military establishments that were necessary to be maintained. By this means, they might have paid off from 130,000,000 l. to

483
150,000,000 l. of their debt, and thus given permanent relief to the country to the amount of 6,000,000 l. or 7,000,000 l. He asked the House to recollect what was stated by the Secretary at War and by the Ministers generally last year, as to the military expenditure. The House was then told that it would be considerably lowered; but how stood the fact? He found the expenditure of 1828 was 17,300,000 l., while that of 1829 was 17,666,000 l., being an increase of upwards of 300,000 l. He hoped the House would excuse him if he very shortly showed them what appeared to him to be, in a great measure, the cause of their present situation. There had been a call in the country, and a very general one, that the landed proprietors should return to the rents of 1792; because in fact their expenses had fallen to the rate of 1792. In his opinion, if they expected that this country should go on, under the changed circumstances of the present period, they must approximate as nearly as possible to the standard of 1792. He said this the more confidently, because the Finance Committee of 1817, with Lord Castlereagh at its head, had laid down in the clearest and most distinct manner, that they ought to approach as nearly as they could to the establishments of 1791, and 1792 which were every way sufficient to maintain the rights and interests of the country. The Finance Committee of 1828 also was of the same opinion, although Government had cut the labours of that Committee short, having first overlaid it with business. Under these circumstances he felt fully warranted in stating, that the establishments of the country might be most advantageously reduced to the rate at which they were in 1792. Government might wish to have such an overwhelming force as to interfere in all the disputes of the Continental Powers; but if such were the case, it was high time for the people and for that House to awake out of their reverie, and to bring the public establishments to the scale which the finances could afford. The country now had to pay fifty-six millions of taxes, and in 1792 it paid only sixteen millions. Five millions three hundred thousand pounds was the average of three years' amount of the Civil List, the Army, and Navy, in 1792, and now the cost on an average of three years was 25,000,000 l. Thus had the charge increased five fold, at a period when the profits of every trade were reduced to the
484
lowest rate, and when the wages of every artizan were reduced to what they had been in 1792. Had not the people then a right to demand, and that House to enforce on his Majesty, such reductions as might at least approximate to that standard from which they had departed. The only reduction yet made was in the interest of the debt, which had been reduced from 31½ to 29 millions. The charges on the Consolidated Fund had been increased from 1792 from 105,000 l. to 1,200,000 l. The Army, Navy, and the Civil List had increased from 4,200,000 l. to 17,666,000 l. The Civil List in 1816, had been raised upon the scale of our expenditure in 1814 and 1815, two of the most profuse years in English history. When prices were rising, the Ministers felt no difficulty in coming down to the House and asking for money to pay up arrears, and, consequently, the people of England had a right to expect a proportionate reduction when prices fell. It was absurd to talk of supporting the dignity of the Crown when rags and tatters covered the land. The people preferred a Monarchical Government because it was calculated to afford them protection and happiness, but if Monarchy were to become the curse of the land, it would be a serious question how long such a scale of extravagance could be continued. From 1769 to 1814 not less than eight different times had the Crown asked assistance of that House, amounting to upwards of three millions. The Regency expenses had likewise been paid in 1818, to the extent of 534,000 l. The Crown had also received 1,653,000 l. from the Droits of the Admiralty, the Scotch Civil List, and the four and half per Cent Fund; and thus the Crown had received five and a half millions over and above what had been stipulated in the Act of Parliament, which directed that all these funds should be paid over to the public in consideration of the fixed sum therein agreed to be paid to the Crown. If the King would not do what he ought, or if his Ministers would not advise him to do it, the House ought to speak out. The Civil List of Scotland had been increased from 29,000 l. to 220,000 l. A century ago, the Crown Lands were calculated to produce from two to three hundred thousand pounds. In 1793 a Report stated that the fee farms would produce 400,000 l. per annum, but the money was allowed to remain in the hands of the Board; it had been frittered

485
away, and the Public had derived no benefit from it. Out of 3,959,000 l. collected since 1798, only 230,000 l. had found its way into the Exchequer. He would next speak of the Palaces; Windsor Castle; according to the estimates, was to cost 794,000 l., and Buckingham Palace, without furniture, the mere shell, had cost 496,000 l. Ministers ought to be impeached for this, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Robinson (Lord Goderich), had said, that he would be responsible, and promise to the House that there should be no mismanagement relating to this expenditure. The proceedings respecting those buildings had been characterized as of the most shameful nature, aggravated by their being carried on during a period of great distress. Besides the 490,000 l. for the Palace, 356,000 l. had been spent for Lodges and other such buildings. They were not to be told that this palace and the other palace were required, for nothing of the sort could be required when the country was distressed and could not afford it. The House ought not to vote the Supplies until his Majesty was brought to his right senses [hear and a laugh]. How were they to do this?—why let the first vote of Supply be refused until the House had a clear view of the time when there was to be an end to this folly and extravagance, and when the people of England, in their distresses, were no longer to be taxed upon such grounds. Could the House concur in reducing the allowances of the lower clerks and junior officers, when the very sum thrown away in brick and mortar at Buckingham Palace swept away all that was saved by such reductions? Could the House trust an Administration that had squandered 2,500,000 l. on the wilds' of Canada, and paid 450,000 l. to the Duke of Athol, for his Bishoprick of Man? What had the people of England to do with this Bishoprick? What was it worth to them? Nothing.
He would next come to the subject of Pensions. Landlords complained of seven millions paid for poor-rates; but when they were shewn million after million thrown away in pensions, sinecures, and useless offices, they made neither complaint nor resistance. He held in his hand a paper laid before the Finance Committee of 772,000 l. paid in pensions, the greater part of which might be saved. The pensions on the Civil List in 1827 amounted to 88,500 l. with 62,600 l. for
486
Ireland, and 31,600 l. for Scotland, whilst the charge for pensions on account of diplomatic services was 66,600 l. The pensions paid out of the Consolidated Fund were 368,900 l. He would only generally allude to a number of items of charge, such as payments to Toulonese and Corsican Refugees, American Loyalists, St. Domingo Sufferers, Dutch Naval Officers, &c. &c.—The whole amounted to 772,700 l. exclusive of Half-Pay and Dead Weight. Lord Castlereagh, in 1817, had procured a vote on the Estimates for 3,200,000 l., for what he called services gone by, that was to say, Half-Pay; but he had said that the House might have the consolation to know that this would annually decrease. And so it ought, but instead of this, it had been increased year after year, until it amounted to 5,302,000 l.; in 1827, which was the last return, the pensions to Naval Officers amounted to as much as it did ten years ago. The country ought to put an end to pensions of all sorts, for no man ought to receive a pension unless he was disabled in the service of the country. This was the case in America. In 1810, the whole of the Civil Pensions amounted to only 94,000 l. and they were now increased to 484,000 l. By the returns of last year, the Civil Pensions had increased by 17 or 18,000 l. The Pensions, Civil, Military, and Naval, amounted to the enormous sum of 6,074,000 l. and his Majesty ought to be advised to revise the whole system. The House ought also to decide whether it would not be proper to reconsider the large allowances made to the Royal Family, which he thought were objectionable in the present distressed state of the country. He would proceed to direct their attention to the Colonial Lists. From this he found that 30,000 l. was expended in pensions in the Colonies— a system to which he was most strongly opposed, because he considered it only a way of evading the superintendence of that House. He wished to make some observations on an item he had omitted in his review of the Civil List: it was an item in the third class; and related to the expenditure on our Diplomacy. And here he thought it might be well to observe that there would be no impropriety in addressing his Majesty upon the subject of a revision of the Civil List. Many hon. Members did not know what the Civil List was. The 1,057,000 l. was not all for the

487
maintenance of the Sovereign, and therefore he thought it would be advisable to distinguish that which actually was for the support of his Majesty and that which was expended for other purposes. To proceed however:—The salaries of Ambassadors amounted to 226,950 l., and, including Consuls' Outfits and Extraordinary Missions (which sometimes cost 40 or 50,000 l. each), the total expense might be estimated at 450,000 l. He objected to those extraordinary missions, which, from the sums of money squandered is them, he contended were calculated to contaminate the world; even the United States could not hope to be long free from the infection. Referring to a paper he had moved for in the year 1821; which was a return of the various diplomatic expenses, under distinct heads, from 1792 to 1821, it appeared that the various charges for regular Missions, Consuls, Outfits, Extraordinary Missions, and Pensions, amounted, in 1792, to 113,000 l. which had been gradually increased since, to 225,000 l. in the year 1806, and to between 400,000 l. and 500,000 l. at present. He thought that this sum ought to be reduced by at least 250,000 l. The great salaries we paid were utterly useless, since 2,000 l. in the United States bought as good diplomatic talents as we were able to procure for 12 or 15,000 l. He believed it could not be denied that in all our negociations with America it had been found that her diplomatists were at least able to take care of their own interest. They had evinced better policy than this country in the reduction of the public burthens. In the year 1816 the American National Debt amounted to one hundred and fourteen million dollars; they had since nearly cleared off that, and they would soon be entirely out of debt, while during the same period we had in fact done nothing. From the Irish Civil List he would contend 100,000 l. might be advantageously taken away by withdrawing the Lord Lieutenant, and breaking up that focus of faction which existed at the Castle. A reduction ought to take place in the Army, because there was peace at home, and we were in amity with foreign powers. By the vote of last year, it appeared that we had ninety thousand infantry, which was double the number we had in 1792, and which might at once be reduced by twenty thousand
488
men. The force of our Artillery, sappers and miners, also was nearly double what it had been in 1792; and our navy had been increased in the same proportion. If the reduction he recommended were adopted, we should then have sixty thousand men, which was more than we ever had before the American war; and he contended that this reduction might be most easily and advantageously carried into effect, because the greater part of the troops might at once be withdrawn from Ireland, where they were no longer necessary; and our force in the colonies might be reduced in the like fashion; of the troops at Malta one half at least might be well spared; and he thought our soldiers might be altogether withdrawn from the Ionian Isles, which he would make a compliment of to King Leopold. It was also his opinion that our maintaining troops in the Canadas was a useless expense; because the United States had no desire to possess themselves of these territories; and if the Canadians were anxious to remain under our Government, they would be at all times able to protect themselves. Having said thus much with respect to the distribution of the Army, he would now state that he considered the Naval expenditure might be reduced by a million and a half. He thought the thanks of Parliament were due to the hon. member for Queen's county (Sir H. Parnell), as well for what he had done as for what he was prepared to do, if Ministers had not shrunk from the inquiry, and thrown the subject overboard. He regretted they had done so, because, whatever might have been the decision of the House of Commons, it could not have failed to have in some degree benefitted by the views of that hon. Member. He was satisfied that by altering as well as reducing the taxes, and by consolidating the Boards appointed to superintend their receipt, the amount might be raised instead of diminished. There were many Boards that were quite useless, and that might have their business transferred to others; and if the Finance Committee had continued, he thought it would have been enabled to have recommended the discontinuance of the Navy Board. There were between 25,000 l. and 30,000 l. a year paid to departments, the duties of which might be well performed for 5,000 l. a year. Why had we Paymasters in the Army, Navy, and Ord-

489
nance, to whom we paid large salaries, when one-half the salary of any one of them would be sufficient to procure the regular discharge of the duties of all three? When he was told that the Finance Committee was not to continue, he had been weak enough to believe that the course they had recommended would be adopted, and that, the Government had fairly determined to consolidate the different Boards, and to reduce and alter the taxes in such a manner that the receipt would be more, and the expenditure less. Although he had been ten times deceived, he had been weak enough to believe this for the eleventh time, but for the eleventh time he had been disappointed. He would not be so deceived again. He called on the House to consider the consequences of continuing the present system, and to do their duty in making those alterations which the circumstances of the times had rendered imperatively necessary. In every department too much money was expended. Too many ships were built; a great number lay idle in our dock-yards and were rotting, and surely that was enough to make any man cry out when things were in such a state as they were at present. There were too many store-keepers; and he did not know what our Military, our Naval, and Commissariat storekeepers could find to do, except to look at each other and wonder what they got their money for. The worst of it was, that the first direct expense was not all, but one drew on another, and the expenditure was most alarmingly increased. If, therefore, the House would agree with him in making some of the small reductions he should propose, he believed they would find that in the end a very large aggregate would be saved to the country. It was said that these expenses supported the honour of the country—they did no such thing; they ruined its resources. He wished again and again to press upon the consideration of the House that every thing that diminished the taxation of the country, and the burthens of the people, promoted their comforts, and added to their wealth and happiness. Reduction of taxation would in that way increase the amount of the public revenue, as an increase in taxation had always been found to diminish it. They would find this proved in every article of common consumption; but he would content himself with showing it in the instances of Tobacco and Malt, The quantity of Malt
490
consumed at the present time was not greater than that consumed in 1783. That fact was the more striking, as nearly one-fourth of the Malt then consumed paid no duty, and the calculations were made by the amount of duty only. At present, through the greater strictness of the Excise, no Malt escaped duty free; and the quantity being nominally the same at these two different periods, the fact was, that a greater portion had been consumed in 1783 than at the present time. In the ten years, from 1785 to 1795, the annual average consumption of Malt was 25,721,000 bushels; in the next ten years it was 25,500,000 bushels; in the next, from 1804 to 1814, it was 23,000,000 of bushels, and from 1814 to 1824, it was 25,000,000 bushels. Here, with an increase of population amounting to full one-third, there was an actual decrease instead of an increase in the annual consumption of one of the necessary articles of life. The same thing had been observed in Wine—the consumption, and with it the revenue, decreasing as the duty increased, while both the consumption and the revenue increased when part of the duty was taken off". The article of Tobacco furnished another proof of the argument he was now urging. In the five years from 1800 to 1805, the tobacco consumed averaged about 11,000,000lbs. a year; in the next five years it averaged twelve millions, in the next five years thirteen millions, and in the next five years 14,100,000lbs., thus showing a very limited increase, notwithstanding the great increase of the population. He thought the rates of Postage, if diminished, would produce a greater revenue than at present. He believed that the Post Office revenue had scarcely increased 1,000 l. a-year in the last twenty years, although it had been fluctuating 100,000 l. a-year in the mean time. When he saw the advancement of the people in every thing else, he thought that fact was a proof that the rates of postage were too high. If the rates were only half as high as at present, he believed there would be a greater revenue. He came now to the Secretary of State's Offices. In the Office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he found that in 1796 its whole expenses were 34,400 l., while in 1826 they amounted to 64,000 l., or nearly double; no wonder that there should be such an increase when our messengers were to be seen flying through

491
every country on every petty occasion. Their bills amounted to full 20 l. per cent of the money, and he did not know why they should spend such a sum. He hardly liked to suppose that they could be thus sent about at the expense of the country with private correspondence, and yet he did not know what else they could carry, for the business done by our Ambassadors abroad was not after all so very great. It might be said that each of these things was nothing, but in the aggregate they amounted to a great deal. He would now advert to the expenditure for the Treasury, respecting the reductions in which an hon. Gentleman had taken so much credit to the Government the other night. It was true the Lords of the Treasury only received 1,244 l. a-year, but then there was a variety of well-paid clerks. He gave the hon. Gentleman great credit for the reductions that had been made, but they were not sufficient—they must alter the scale—all must come down a peg or two. There were thousands in the country who had been unfortunately obliged to come down, and the government officers must come down with the rest. What was the reason that the expenses of the country were not put on the same scale now as in 1792? It was in vain to talk of the increase of business since that period—they had had experience to enable them to classify their labours, and the pretence about there being five thousand entries in the Treasury in 1792, while there were twenty thousand entries now, was nothing. But he would tell the House how this apparent increase of business at the Treasury arose. If the Treasury would claim the consideration and determination of all those questions that ought to be decided at the Stamp-office, the Excise and the Custom-house, a large establishment must certainly be kept up; but if that system, which was only resorted to for the purpose of increasing their patronage, was put an end to, the number of persons employed at the Treasury might easily be diminished, and the business would be done, not only full as well, but much better, by being confined to the different offices to which it fairly belonged. The people, too, who had business at these offices, would then no longer be teazed with references backwards and forwards from one office to another. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise were afraid to decide on any question that might
492
be brought before them, because they knew an appeal would be made to the Treasury, and men who were subject to such an influence never could act with proper decision. He would put it out of the power of the Treasury to entertain these appeals, and that would save one-half of the expense. In 1797 the expenses of the Treasury amounted to 40,700 l., while at present they exceeded 80,500 l., so that they were now nearly double of what they bad been. The Colonial Office in 1797 cost 9,000 l. a-year; now its expense had increased threefold. One important item of expenditure was in the Collection of the Revenue. It was now collected at an expense of 6 per cent. He had made an offer to undertake its collection at 2½ per cent. He knew that would be a nice thing enough; but they would not let him have it. They had made some modifications or reductions in Scotland, he believed, and he gave them full credit for what they had done, but they had not done enough. However, any improvement was a benefit; for in Aberdeen alone there had been a small stationer who, as distributor of stamps, had netted from 1,200 l. to 1,600 l. a-year. The receiverships were also good things in the hands of the Minister, and there was a circumstance connected with them which showed how a county Member might be interested in receiverships. A division of each county took place in order that two parties might be appointed to these receiverships, so that each Member could have his friend provided for. But that of course increased the expense. The Finance Committee had recommended that these divisions of counties should be put an end to, and that on the death of either party the whole duty should be performed by the survivor. The Government, much to their credit, had adopted the recommendation, and he would tell the House what had happened in consequence. On a late occasion a gentleman, when thus called on to perform the duty of receiver for the whole county on the death of the other receiver, objected to the increase of labour thus thrown on him, and wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, making his complaint. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was Mr. Hume's Act, and the gentleman then wrote to him (Mr. Hume) on the subject. He would not mention the name of the gentleman, or of the county; but the matter must be

493
perfectly in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. On receiving the Letter, he answered, the gentleman (who had complained to him of the hardship of being called on to receive the taxes of a whole county for his former salary of 600 l. a-year), and expressed his regret that he should suffer from a general measure, intended for the public good; but added, that if the gentleman did not wish to hold the office on those terms, he (Mr. Hume) would be very glad to have the nomination of his successor; after which he heard no more on the subject. He would not be satisfied with the half measure,—he would abolish the whole of the receiver-generalships, by which a saving of 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. a-year would be made to the country. The whole of the taxes could be as effectually received by the collectors of Excise: it would be only adding another item to their collections in their respective districts. A collector of Excise, who was asked what he thought would be a fair remuneration for this additional trouble of collection, answered, that he thought an addition of 50 l. a-year would be a very fair recompense. It was objected to him, when this was proposed, that the collectors could not give sufficient security; but he met the objection at once, by stating that from Lancashire excise revenue to the amount of 1,800,000 l. was sent up, and the highest security given by any person engaged in its collection was 5,000 l., and there was no such thing heard of as a defalcation. He had calculated, that out of 355,000,000 l. of Excise, there was no defalcation, except one of 30,000 l., which was occasioned by the death of a collector, and the circumstances connected with the default were accidental; but from papers on the Table of the House, it appeared that in the accounts of receivers-general of counties there had been defalcations to the amount of 355,000 l. In the Excise, however, great care was taken in the selection of collectors, no man being chosen for that office who was not well known to be trustworthy, and who had previously served as a riding-officer and supervisor, and also been twenty years in the service. He could wish that the same care was observed in all other public departments. He must next call the attention of the House to the state of the Board of Excise, in which, though the department came nearer to perfection, than any other, he
494
would reduce the number of Commissioners to five. He could not see the use of sixteen Commissioners, except to act as relays, while some of the number were absent two or three months for their amusement. He would abolish the Board of Stamps, and unite two or three of the smaller Boards, by which the duty now performed by two or three would be as effectually done by one, with not a greater number of Commissioners than on the smallest of those Boards. By such reductions he contended that a saving of 1,500,000 l. a-year would be made to the country. It might be said, that it was easy to talk of these reductions; but they were practicable. He would reduce the duty on tobacco, and on foreign spirits, and thus get rid of the blockade system, which created so much ill-will with every body, and occasioned a sort of civil war upon the coasts. Seven or eight hundred thousand a year might be saved by that means alone. He would remind country gentlemen that the Sinking Fund of five millions was merely ideal, that it was only paying with one hand, and borrowing with the other, and he was in a condition to show that out of the transactions connected with the Sinking Fund had arisen a loss to the country of not less than four millions and a half. On every hundred pounds there had been a loss of 21 l., and nothing could afford a stronger proof of the necessity for establishing some control over the Finance Minister of the country. The funding of eight millions of Exchequer Bills had turned out a very foolish affair, and the loss amounted to two millions and a half on a sum of eight millions of Exchequer Bills. Such a result, it might be thought, would have been enough to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer reflect; but what had been the loss of the transaction of only last year? There had been a surplus of three millions, and he (Mr. Hume) had pressed that it should be devoted to the reduction of taxes, but the right hon. Gentleman had insisted that it would be much better to apply it to the taking of Exchequer Bills out of the market. The premium on Exchequer Bills must, of course, be paid, and that amounted to 94,000 l.; but what did the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? He said "No, I will not pay the money; I know better than that; I have consulted my friends and coadjutors of the Stock Exchange, whose profits are

495
the larger the more the country gambles and loses by gambling, and I will make a different bargain." What bargain did he make? and what did he do with that sum of money which would have saved half the starving people of the country, or repealed several of the most obnoxious and oppressive taxes? He converted the three millions of Exchequer Bills, bought with the three millions of surplus, into four per cent perpetual annuities; he gave the three millions of surplus to the Commissioners for the Sinking Fund, and told them to buy up the Exchequer Bills, to be converted into annuities, and the loss upon that transaction was not less than 900,000 l. It was impossible to explain away matters of arithmetic and calculation; and such a proceeding ought to be reprobated to the latest day of every man's existence. How much better would it have been, then, to have applied the surplus of three millions to the diminution of the weight of taxation! No such power ought to be given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in future, and the House ought not to allow him to purchase one shilling's worth of three per cents at the present price, and in the present circumstances of the country. All that he had hitherto done had been inconsistent with the ultimate and permanent prosperity of the country. He (Mr. Hume) much questioned whether it would not be better to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Queen's County (Sir H. Parnell), to convert the debt gradually into annuities, which, in seventy, eighty, or ninety years, would bring it to an appointed end. In the army he proposed that there should be a reduction of 1,800,000 l. in point of expense—first, by disbanding only twenty thousand men—next, by making the Military Asylum pay its own expenses— and, thirdly, by bringing the staff within its proper limits. Instead of having officers of high rank—Major-generals, for instance—commanding trifling possessions, he would reduce the whole to a condition approximating to the state of 1792. He would recommend an Address to his Majesty, requiring him to reduce the diplomatic branch of the Civil List; and he would not ask it as a favour, but as a right. He would effect a further saving of 500,000 l. by sale of the Crown Lands, or by letting them at rents proportioned to their real value, That whole depart-
496
ment ought to be broken up as useless and extravagant, and it would be easy to wind up the concern by the disposal of all the lands. These sums would make a total of 6,450,000 l. to which he added 1,450,000 l. from the surplus revenue, forming an aggregate of more than 8,000,000 l.; and reduction to that extent, he was satisfied, would be found perfectly easy, if Ministers fairly and honestly set about the attempt. First, he proposed to repeal the whole of the duty on Coals, amounting to 833,000 l. Next, he would take off the whole of the Soap duty, producing 1,414,000 l. Thirdly, he would repeal the duty on Candles, which had been more than usually productive last year, mainly because the poor weavers and other artisans were obliged to work in the night as well as in the day to earn a very scanty pittance; it was only 1d. per lb., but it added 2½d. to the price of every pound of candles, arising from the heavy charge for collection and other causes. And the charges of collection ought not to be forgotten in calculating the policy of their repeal, although this it was probable did not enter into the account of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Another reduction which he should suggest, would be that of the duty on Leather, which amounted to 383,000 l. This subject, he was aware, might occasion some little odium, but the present system was avowedly open to objection. Take place what change there might, there was found to be no abatement in the price of shoes, which might be attributed to the difficulties attendant on the preliminary manufacturing. The profits would be necessarily too small for subsistence at a much lower price when the currying and other preparatory processes were divided among so many hands. If any one tradesman should attempt to unite them in his own person, he subjected himself to a ruinous fine, which coupled with the difficulty of evading the Excise penalties when so incurred, he was given to understand had prevented numbers from entering the trade. If the duty were taken off, he had no doubt that the future price would be forty per cent less than the present. Government, however, would enjoy at the same time a corresponding advantage to the amount of twenty per cent in their purchase of the leather consumed in the military service. In addition, to this he would, withdraw the duty on

497
Beer, which amounted to 3,204,000 l., while the expense of collecting it came to 380,000 l., leaving a difference of about 2,800,000 l. This tax was an especial grievance to the poor, although it did not affect country gentlemen in the same degree; but he felt convinced that they would be the last to complain, if their humbler neighbours were placed on a level with themselves in this particular. It was hard, indeed, that the poor man should be obliged to pay a tax at the rate of 50 s. upon malt, when the rich were required to pay only 30 s. Another tax, to the amount of 37,000 l., on Cider and Perry, in the distress which now existed throughout the west of England, it would be equally expedient to abolish. A reduction of one half in this duty had been accomplished a few years ago, and the relief which was then extended had greatly ameliorated the condition of those who suffered under this tax. A similar relaxation was never more wanted than at present. He would next repeal the Window Duty, which amounted to 1,164,155 l., and the Inhabited House duty, which was 1,295,172 l. The latter tax, he was assured, had obliged many to wander abroad, exiles from their country, being unable to keep up an establishment at home. Removing such an obstacle would, therefore, be an inducement in favour of their return; they would contribute to the employment of the poor in their neighbourhood, and so far conduce to the prosperity of their native land. An Absentee tax would then be no longer required nor necessary, as he had no doubt but that in nine cases out of ten our countrymen who resided in foreign kingdoms were driven thither against their better inclination, for the mere purposes of economy. Hereafter, however, it was to be hoped, that in Devonshire and many other parts of England they would be able to live as cheap as on the continent, and that their return would be compatible with their anxiety for retrenchment. By the removal of those two taxes, they would be enabled to add 2,460,000 l. "to the other reductions, which would take, in all, a sum of 8,835,832 l. off the pecuniary burthens of the country. But he would not stop here; for it would be expedient to pare down the expenditure on the same principle. He would recommend also an abolition of the tax on Corn, notwithstanding the existence of which the importa-
498
tion of this year had been large beyond example. He would beg of those who were opposed to Free Trade, to consider for one moment the necessary effects of the system which they so strenuously advocated. By lessening the proceeds of the labourers, and artisans, did it not render them unable to purchase the butter, cheese, cattle, and other articles of consumption yielded by the estates of those gentlemen themselves? The employment of the humbler classes was at an end, and they were eventually thrown on the poor-rates for subsistence, thus becoming a burthen and dead weight on the properties which, under other circumstances, they might have contributed to enrich. These two disadvantages were surely enough to counterbalance the more direct effect of the protection, and landed proprietors lost more in value in one way than they could gain in another. Reductions ought also to be effected in the duties on Tobacco, Foreign Spirits, Sugar, Glass, and Paper, respectively. There was likewise a tax, which it had been supposed Ministers contemplated last year to remove—he alluded to that upon Insurance. But without dwelling further upon that point, he would recommend generally that taxes upon all raw materials and on manufactures should be very much diminished, as tending to interrupt the industry of manufacturers. It ought to be recollected that taxes to the amount of 27,000,000 l. had already been taken off at the recommendation of the Finance Committee, yet no loss accrued from the abatement, it gave such elasticity to industry, and had so far renovated the energies and resources of the nation. At other and less critical periods Members might often be brought to agree upon half-measures, but now, when the cry for retrenchment and the reduction of taxation was so general throughout the land, it became necessary to do something more permanent in its nature and more decided in point of policy. A Ministerial pledge of such a character had been given in 1821; but that pledge was broken, nor had it ever awakened his confidence. On the Motion which he should have the honour of submitting by way of Amendment, he presumed that there could be but one opinion entertained. He could not imagine that any man in that House was composed of such materials as to be capable of pronouncing such a resolution to be unnecessary. He hoped, that the

499
House would evince alacrity and readiness to vote in favour of his Amendment. Would any Member present be prepared to reply that they were not in a condition to give relief, or that there was any better mode of administering such relief than that which he suggested? Could those who agreed with Ministers in avowing the expediency of reduction refuse to go with him in his extension of the same principle to the relief of the population? He had no object whatever in view,—he could have no object,—except that of seeing the country relieved from its present sufferings and distresses. If the House should refuse to accede to what they were equally bound by policy and humanity to adopt, he would only say that they would work both discredit to themselves, and disappointment to their constituents. He concluded, by moving as an Amendment,—"That this House will forthwith proceed to a repeal and modification of taxation to the largest possible extent which the reductions that may be made in the Civil, Military, and Naval Establishments of the country will admit, as a means of affording general relief to the Country:"—when on the Question being put,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he addressed the House on the present occasion, under feelings of considerable embarrassment, not only from the difficulty of the task of following the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hume) through his various and complex statements, but from a conviction of the almost impossibility of refixing the attention of hon. Members to the question really at issue when they had been so long pre-occupied by the hon. Member. The hon. Member had added to his difficulties by not adopting a new line of proceeding from that usually followed by him: that is, by not refraining from his usual minute investigation of the details of the various items of the revenue and expenditure of the country,—items, a due discussion of which would require each a separate evening, and more time and attention than the House could bestow without a total neglect of its other duties. Nor was the variety of the hon. Member's statements their only objectionable feature— the length of time embraced by the hon. Member's inquiry added to the task of replying to them—a period extending from 1792 to the present year. The hon. Member had thought proper to
500
lay to his account all the charges which he could bring forward, not only against himself, since his accession to the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, but, what was hardly fair, against his immediate predecessors in office. He did not shrink from the responsibility attached to official station, nor from the task of vindicating those who had preceded him, for he knew them too well to doubt the injustice of the hon. Member's censures: he knew them to be men of ability and honour, who had invariably received the cordial support of Parliament. It would be unfair to expect, however, that he should be then prepared to follow the hon. Member through his various statements, the rather, as the hon. Member had spoken from documents and calculations the result of the labours of a series of years, while he was called upon to refute them wholly unarmed and unprepared with the requisite official papers. Besides, so extensive was the scope of the hon. Member's observations, that it was impossible to catch his meaning, save here and there by piecemeal. He was placed in rather a strange position by the hon. Member. It was the usual course for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward that annual statement of the income and expenditure of the country, known by the name of the Budget; but it consequence of the hon. Member's strange course of proceeding, he should have, for the first time, to present himself then to the House, not as the proposer, but as the opposer of a budget. Under these circumstances, therefore, he thought his wisest course would be, not to enter into a detail of the several topics discussed by the hon. Member, but to save the time of the House by at once objecting to the hon. Member's general Motion. He proposed, then, to follow that course, except on one or two particular points, in order, by a refutation of them, to induce the House to believe that the other statements of the hon. Member could and would be equally replied to on the proper occasion. What, then, in the first place, was the object of the hon. Member's Motion? He called upon the House to repeal the taxes necessary to support the public expenditure to the greatest possible extent. If the hon. Member had confined his proposition to a general expression of this recommendation, he for one would not oppose it, and would leave it to the wisdom of Parliament to determine

501
how that reduction could be best effected without detriment to the public service. But as the hon. Member had added to this general recommendation a specific plan for the repeal of taxes, by a reduction of our civil, naval, and military establishments, without waiting for the Estimates of those establishments being laid before the House,—without waiting to see whether any and what reductions might be proposed in them by Ministers—he could not acquiesce in the hon. Member's Motion. If a reduction were expedient, how could Parliament determine its amount or its practicability, till it had inquired into the necessity and general bearing of the several branches of the public expenditure? And how could that necessary inquiry be instituted before Ministers had laid before the House the responsible official statement of the amount of the several Estimates of the year, so as to enable the House to decide upon the economy or extravagance observed in the management of the public money? As a departure, then, from the usual practice of Parliament, the Motion was highly objectionable. Instead of first determining the minimum of expenditure compatible with the efficiency of the establishments of the country, and then adjusting the revenue to that expenditure, the hon. Member reversed the process, and asked the House to lay down a minimum of revenue, to which he would apportion the expenditure. Was this, he would ask, the course most fitted for forwarding the general weal? Was not the usage hitherto followed that best adapted for promoting the public service? And on what grounds did the hon. Member ask the House to depart from its usual practice? Why, said the hon. Member, to take away the power from Ministers of injuring the finances of the country. But did not the hon. Member perceive that by the same process he would take away from Ministers the power of doing good to the country? For how could they venture to entertain views and consider objects in relation to the public welfare, if they possessed no discretionary yet responsible control over the arrangement of their respective offices? What set of honourable men would consent to fill the posts of Government, if, in the spirit of the hon. Member's wild and extravagant speculations, they were deprived of all official control? He called them wild and extravagant speculations, for what did they
502
mean to effect? The hon. Member proposed to reduce the taxes by 9,000,000 l. But how did the hon. Member propose to effect that reduction? Did the hon. Member recollect, that 29,000,000 l. of the taxes annually raised in this country went to pay the interest of the national debt; and that if the Dead Weight and other expenditures to which the national honour is pledged be added to that interest there remained but from 10,000,000 l. to 11,000,000 l. of surplus, from which, forsooth the hon. Member proposes to deduct 9,000,000 l. Did not the very statement of the proposition expose its absurdity? He would not anticipate the discussion which the Estimates (of which those for the army would be very shortly before the House) for the year would give rise to, and therefore would not take up the time of the House by proving that the expenditure which the hon. Member proposed to reduce to the extent of 9,000,000 l. was regulated by the most rigid principles of economy. There was, however, one other point which he could not help animadverting upon, constituting as it did a leading feature in the hon. Member's speech,—one, indeed, upon which he had more than once at other times enlarged. The hon. Member, in his allusion to a high personage, whose name was never mentioned in the proceedings of that House, had not only departed from the usage and order of Parliament, but had made use of language which in spirit and terms could not be too strongly reprobated. The hon. Member proposed in the first place to alter the arrangements made with the Crown for the maintenance of its dignity on the accession of his present Majesty. He held up the Civil List as one of those branches of the public expenditure from which a large reduction should be made forthwith, without a reference to circumstances. Nay, more, he called Ministers to task for not having sooner made the reduction which he proposed. But the hon. Member, before he blamed them on this score, should have considered the relation in which they stood to the Civil List. They found it, in the first place, fixed by a deliberate act of the Legislature. They found that for it, as it now stood, the Crown had surrendered its hereditary revenues,—which revenues, he begged the House to bear in mind, were found greatly to exceed in amount the compensation paid by Parlia-

503
ment. So far, then, from wishing to adopt the hon. Member's proposition, and restore the hereditary revenues of the Crown to it, and reducing the Civil List, Ministers consulted the public benefit by appropriating the former to the public service, as it was decidedly the best method of meeting the public exigencies. If, indeed, the Civil List exceeded in extent or amount the revenues of the Crown which were exchanged for it, there might be some sense in the hon. Member's proposal; but as the reverse was the case, he was sure the House would not, for a moment, follow the hon. Member's recommendation. He, for one, would always oppose and protest against such a proposition, and had no doubt of being-supported by the House. But the recommendation was in keeping with the tone of scorn and contempt in which the Crown was invariably spoken of by the hon. Member. If he objected to the principle of mentioning the name of a personage which should never be heard in the debates of that House, how much more should he protest against the terms in which the allusion had been made by the hon. Member. He would not take it upon him to question the hon. Member's predilections in the abstract for particular forms of Government, nor his right to assert those predilections on fitting occasions; but he would most emphatically protest against Monarchy being spoken of in a British House of Commons only in terms of scorn and contempt. The hon. Member might expatiate as long as he pleased on the blessings which flowed to America from her republican institutions, and on the advantages or disadvantages which this or that country might derive from a democracy or an aristocracy; but he was sure he would fail in inducing a British House of Commons to adopt his sentiments respecting our free Monarchy. Connected with that part of the hon. Member's arguments, were his declamation against the amount of the Pension List. There, contended the hon. Member, is 770,000 l. of the public money annually expended in order to enable Ministers to command majorities by bribes and pensions to their supporters; reduce, therefore, the amount, and by so far lessen the official means of corruption. But the hon. Member seemed to forget that 446,000 l. of this item was embodied in the Consolidated Fund—not at the will of corrupt Ministers, but dis-
504
posed of by Parliament—as the reward of the highest naval, military, and judicial services that were ever entitled to the gratitude of the country. Therefore, if the item were to be reduced, Parliament, in its full Legislative capacity, and not a corrupt Minister, must effect the reduction. The hon. Member seemed to place little reliance on the statement which his hon. friend the Member for Derry (Mr. G. Dawson) made a few evenings before, of the disposition of the present Government to reduce the Public Expenditure to the lowest point compatible with the public welfare. But how were the hon. Member's doubts supported by facts? A vacancy occurred in the Board of Taxes a short time since; the noble Duke at the head of the Government was asked to fill it up. What was done? Why the noble Duke ordered the office to be abolished, it being suggested that the number of Commissioners might be lessened without detriment to the public service. Another vacancy occurred in the Board of Stamps. What was done in that instance? The very same thing—the office was abolished. In the Board of Excise, in the same way, the number of Commissioners had been reduced two in thirteen, and it was intended to effect a similar reduction in the Board of Customs as soon as the experiment could be practicable. This showed the disposition of Ministers to effect every possible reduction that the efficiency of the public establishments of the country could permit. But perhaps the hon. Member might ask, are these all the reductions you mean to attempt? He answered him no, though he would not then anticipate the detail of those intended; which he should give on a future evening, agreeably to his promise. Did not these facts show that there did not exist the shadow of a shade for the hon. Gentleman's imputation against the economical spirit of the present Government? The hon. Member had called the attention of the House to the works in Canada, with a view to creating an impression of the improvident wastefulness of Ministers. He told the House that the expense of those works amounted to two millions last year. What, however, was the fact? The House voted, as the hon. Member ought to have known, but 500,000 l. last year for those works. How, then, did the hon. Member make up his two millions? Simply by putting

505
in one item of 500,000 l. voted by that House, with the cost of works which had been postponed for the present, and of others which had been postponed altogether; and this he did for the purpose of swelling his charge of Ministerial extravagance. Then, with respect to the taxes, the hon. Member's statements were equally open to animadversion. The hon. Member correctly stated that the debt now amounted to 890,000,000 l. but argued that if the 890,000,000 l. of taxes raised within the last fifteen years had been properly expended, the debt would now be extinguished. [No, no.] He understood so from the language of the hon. Member; for if such were not his meaning, what could be his object in contrasting the possible effects of a certain course of economy with the actual condition of the public expenditure? Then the hon. Member stated that the population had advanced in a larger ratio than the consumption; owing, he said, to the increased amount of taxes having diminished the command of the large mass of consumers over the necessaries of life. But how did the hon. Member prove his assertion? By selecting one year in the height of the war, when the necessarily isolated condition of the country, so far as foreign imports were concerned, tended to increase the consumption of domestic commodities, and comparing that with the estimate of a year of peace, when the home market was open to the world. To prove his statement, the hon. Member should have compared the ratio of consumption and population before the war with that now existing. If, for example, he had selected the article of tobacco, he would have found that the consumption amounted to but 9,500,000lbs. in the year 1791: while it amounted to about 15,000,000lbs. last year; showing a greater ratio of increase of consumption than that of population could account for. In conclusion, he begged the House to consider whether the hon. Member's Motion would tend to the general advantage if forthwith acted upon. Those that thought so would of course vote for it; while those who were inclined to await the detailed statements of Ministers of the reductions intended to be made in the several branches of the public service, would vote against it, and for the Order of the Day. He could not consent to it—though he was ready to acknowledge that the
506
House would, after a discussion of the several details of the subject, be better able to appreciate the suggestion he should hereafter make—without consenting to abandon the station to which he had been raised by the favour of his Sovereign, and thereby implying an admission of his inability to preside over the financial arrangements of the country.
Mr. Maberlywas of opinion, that the right hon. Gentleman had over-stated the proposition of his hon. friend the Member for Montrose. He had not contended that they should forthwith—namely, tomorrow for example—proceed to repeal taxes to the amount named; nothing, he was sure, could be further from his intentions—nothing of which the House would be less likely to accuse him—no; his object was, that as soon as possible the House should proceed to fix some period from which the repeal of those taxes might commence. He (Mr. M.) begged to call the attention of the House to the real question before them; the country was in distress, that was not to be doubted, and his hon. friend proposed that there should be a reduction of eight, or six, or four, or two millions: he demanded that there should be some great reduction, and he thought that in the name of the country he had a right to demand that a great reduction should take place. His motion, he thought, was entitled to the support of the House; for though the speech of the Mover embraced a wide field, and though there might be much in it from which many Members would dissent, yet that did not affect the merits of the Motion, standing as it did upon the strongest grounds. Doubtless many of the topics to which his hon. friend had adverted were such as had much better be referred to a Committee, but it would be in vain that the hon. Member should seek to have a Committee to which to refer them. When the Finance Committee was appointed, the right hon. Secretary eulogised it in the highest terms; but the moment it began to do any good, the Government turned round upon it and put an end to its labours, and by that act did one of the greatest injuries to the country which it ever sustained. It was perfectly certain that the various details of the public expenditure could never be advantageously discussed in that House—a Committee was the only place in which the charges

507
of the Army, Navy, and Civil Departments, could ever properly be gone into. But it was scarcely to be hoped that a Committee would soon again sit upon such a matter; for so soon as the Finance Committee exposed the fallacy of the Dead Weight and other fallacies, its existence was put an end to. As a further indication that nothing like considerable reduction was intended, he called the attention of the House to the manner in which the subject had been treated in the Speech from the Throne. If the Ministers chose to persist in rejecting all advice, he did not see how the House could do otherwise than pledge itself to make reductions in every possible way. The conduct of the Ministry left it no alternative; and if the right hon. Gentleman chose to persist in answering their call in the way that he had that night adopted, all that they had to do was, to require a specific redaction of taxation. When it should come to this, he had his own view of the subject; and if the present Motion should be lost, he should certainly state to the House what taxes might in his opinion, be got rid of with peculiar propriety; and he thought that he could offer one to their notice, the existence of which was most oppressive and unjust. In the Fourth Report of the Finance Committee, which had been drawn up by the Master of the Mint (Mr. Herries), than whom no one better understood the finance of the country, the expenditure of the country was divided into three parts: that on which but a small saving could be effected—that on which more saving could be effected—and that on which a considerable saving could be effected. In the present state of the country, he thought that they were bound to look most scrupulously at every one of these departments. The rent of land might not as yet, perhaps, be depreciated so low as fifty per cent, but, in his opinion, it very soon would be; and why, then, was an expenditure still to be persisted in, even higher than that recommended by the Committee of 1817? That Committee, it should be remembered, had come to their task without that experience of times of peace which they now possessed, and therefore, in the recommendations they had suggested, they had rather looked at what had existed during a time of war, with the feeling that, with each succeeding year, a gradual reduction should take place, than at what was permanently suited to a state
508
of peace. He did not think that it would be wise in him to enter into any minuteness of detail on the present occasion—and even if he did, he supposed that he should only have his statement denied—he would therefore state generally that, under the existing state of things, he was ready to assent to any motion that went to the reduction of four millions of taxes tomorrow. But it was not to the taxes only that they had to look: the mere collecting of them was performed in a manner that was exceedingly onerous to the country. The whole, however, presented a state of things which every calculating man might have expected: he himself had long anticipated it—even before the panic—he might say, from May 1825; and he therefore had long felt that it must sooner or later come to a reduction of taxes. Without this, he did not believe that rents (even if they had reached their lowest ebb) could rise; and without this, it was impossible for the lower classes to bear up against the distress which surrounded them. If the House looked at the list of taxed articles, they would see how completely the general system of the country was depressed beneath them. Let them look at the tax on Beer, which amounted to 3,200,000 l.; nor was this the only duty levied on that article of general consumption, and because the Ministers would have both a beer and malt tax, the expense of collection was double; to which was also to be added, that it entailed upon the country a still more vexatious burthen—that of a monopoly. There could be no doubt that the whole of this tax gave a monopoly into the hands of the Magistrates, by which they were enabled to limit the number of public-houses. What was the consequence of this? Why, that the few who were in the trade were obliged, from the circumstances in which they were placed, to adulterate the article they sold, so that the customer never obtained what he expected to have for his money. The honest publican probably only lowered his beer about five and twenty per cent; while others, not so scrupulous, brought it down thirty, forty, and fifty per cent. He therefore thought, with respect to this tax, that the right hon. Gentleman would not do his duty unless he put it under revision, and made some important alterations on the subject. Another tax which forced itself upon his attention was that upon Spirits—not that he intended to advocate its reduction: on

509
the contrary, he much desired to see this tax so raised, that it should not be producing, by its low price (as it was at present) the demoralization of the lower orders; the lowering of the duty had been proposed to prevent the operations of the smuggler—and certainly, as far as they were concerned, it had been effectual—but, unfortunately, for the sake of obtaining this point, a general demoralizing influence had been put within the reach of the whole of the lower classes of society. His opinion, therefore, was, for the sake of the people, that this duty ought to be doubled, because if this course were not pursued, the demoralization would spread more rapidly than ever; and he said this because it was an admitted fact that those families who indulged in ardent spirits were continually labouring under a state of distress, while those who avoided it were bringing up their families in comfort and comparative prosperity. The Ten Tax was another of those taxes of which not only the rates were too high, but which had added to it the curse of a monopoly, the consequence of which was, that a double tax in effect was imposed upon the public; so that, instead of having to pay only two millions, the real amount of the tax paid into the Exchequer, the whole duty levied by the Government and the monopoly amounted to four millions; or, to make it more generally intelligible, each person that purchased a pound of tea paid for it 3s. instead of 1s. The next tax to which he had to advert was that upon Coals, which was burthensome in every possible way. It was likewise a most unjust tax, owing to the very unequal manner in which it was levied. What was the reason that the greater the distance it was brought, the higher was the imposition placed upon it? Coals bought in the Metropolis were charged with a duty of 6s. the chaldron, while at the mouth of the pit no duty at all was levied upon them. What, therefore, he had to propose, with respect to this tax, was, that a small sum should be levied upon them at the pit's mouth, and he was convinced that that would be sufficient to produce as ample a revenue as the burthensome and partial duty which at present existed. The tax upon Tobacco was another of those which appeared to him to be exceedingly objectionable; it not only kept up and promoted smuggling, but was likewise the cause of a body of two thou-
510
sand five hundred, or three thousand men being retained. With respect to the Assessed Taxes, he thought that the system was bad—it was a direct tax; and if it were wise to have such a one at all, he thought it would be more wise to have a Property Tax to that extent, because in that case they would be able to reach the absentees, who now avoided the assessed taxes by quitting the country. He was certainly as anxious to support the public credit as any one could be; and if the hon. Gentleman's Motion appeared to him to trench at all upon that credit, he would not vote for it. But that was not the ground upon which it proceeded: it did not propose the taxation of any particular class of individuals or interests; it only went the extent of saying that they were bound to relieve the country in the best way within their power, and that best way appeared to be by reducing the expenditure. He, therefore, hoped that the House would not be arrested in its course by the Speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but adopt a Motion that only pledged it to reduction as far as might be deemed expedient.
Mr. Westernsaid, that in the abstract, he was ready to give his hearty concurrence to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. As far as it went in general he did not see how it was possible for the House to do otherwise than adopt it, for all that it contended for, was the necessity to reduce the expenditure to the lowest point, consistent with the safety of the country. He, however, apprehended that the House was already pledged to the full extent of the proposition which had been introduced by the hon. Gentleman, and he thought that the next step should be for one of his Majesty's Ministers or for some hon. Gentleman to propose the reduction of any specific tax that appeared most feasible or desirable. The universal decision of the House the other night on the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Dawson), undoubtedly pledged the House and the Ministry to turn their attention to every possible reduction; and for himself he was disposed to give some degree of confidence to the disposition evinced by the Ministry to redeem their pledge, though there might, perhaps, be some difference of opinion as to what portion of reduction ought to take place. When they brought forward their reductions should such a difference arise, then would be the right time for debate. In his opinion, it was

511
not the taxation of the country which caused that unprecedented condition of distress which pervaded the whole kingdom. He would ask any hon. Member to tell him if there ever was a period before the present, when, in this country, there was such a general stagnation of trade—such a depression of the agricultural, the commercial, the shipping, and, in fact, every interest? What he repeated, was the cause of this? He answered, that they had so narrowed the currency of the country as to make the amount of taxation press on every interest in the country with a weight never known before in the whole course of its history. How else was it that, with a reduction of twenty-nine millions of taxation within a short period the pressure of the remainder was felt to be greater than the whole amount? He should propose that a Committee be appointed to inquire how far those who altered the currency in the year 1819 had gone beyond the value of the currency at the time of their return to cash payments, and to inquire how far the narrowing of the circulation of this country had tended to decrease the general circulating medium of the world. In his opinion the reduction of the amount of currency of this country had affected that of every country that traded with us, and deprived them of the power of carrying on the same extensive trade or purchasing-manufactures to the same extent as before. His conviction was, that all the distress was owing to the contraction of the currency and must, be relieved by enlarging the currency, and that no reduction of taxation would or could effect it.
Lord Althorpsaid, it had been argued by the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Western), that the Motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen was nothing but a repetition of the Amendment moved on a former evening by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. G. Dawson). To a certain extent this was true; and he (Lord Althorp) was disposed to place so much confidence in the profession of the present Ministry, that he should have felt it right to give them an opportunity of fair trial before he pressed them any further; but then the Motion of his hon. friend also went to this extent, and was so far different from that Amendment that it desired a pledge of a reduction of taxation as well as of a reduction of the establishments,
512
The hon. Member for Aberdeen thought it right to call on the Government to pledge themselves to an extent to which he did not understand, from any thing he had yet heard from Ministers, they had pledged themselves—namely, to make a reduction of taxation accompany a reduction of the establishments, and to that Motion he (Lord Althorp) was willing to give his assent. His hon. friend the Member for Essex seemed disposed to attribute all the distress to an alteration of the standard of value, and had in effect called on the Government to reduce it by a recurrence to the paper currency which had been abandoned. Now his hon. friend desired to obtain that which, of all others, the Government derived the greatest credit for refusing, and he trusted most sincerely that they would resist every proposition which had for its object any abandonment of that sound system which we had reached through so many difficulties, and after so long a struggle. He confessed, however, that he felt no hope of the country obtaining any relief from its present difficulties, unless they had a great reduction of taxation. That distress was great and general, seemed now to be acknowledged; and no measures had yet been mentioned or promised which could give a hope of relief. The enhancement of the value of money might be partially the cause of some of the distress, but he could not be brought to believe that an issue of paper would afford it any mitigation. A great cause of evil was a want of confidence; and he could not but think that a diminution of the amount of taxation on the industrious and productive classes would give such a start to commerce, as must ultimately greatly benefit every other class in the country. He did not, however, think that quite so much could be done in the way of reduction as the hon. Member for Aberdeen proposed; but, at all events, he conceived that a revision of the taxes might and ought to be undertaken with the view of striking off every tax which pressed heavily on the class to which he alluded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had assigned as one reason for giving a negative to his hon. friend's Motion, that it required the reduction of taxation to be made forthwith. Now he really did not understand the hon. Gentleman as requiring the reduction to be made in that haste which would afford the right hon.

513
Gentleman any objection to the motion on that ground, and he was sure it would not have any weight with the House. Another reason stated by the right hon. Gentleman for resisting the Motion was more extraordinary still; for he intimated that, if the motion were carried, he must resign his office. Now really this was a reason for resistance to a motion which he never heard before. If the House of Commons yielded to it, it would recognise a new doctrine. In his opinion it was the duty of that House not to think of the right hon. Gentleman or his office, but of the course which it was right to adopt with respect to the country; and he hoped they would consider themselves bound to adopt the motion, and take all the consequences which might ensue from it.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he felt himself called on, whatever might be the consequence, and however much he might differ from those hon. Gentlemen he saw around him, and whose opinions he respected, to state boldly and conscientiously that he agreed most fully with the hon. Member for Essex in all he had stated with respect to the operation of the currency in producing the distress under which the country was acknowledged to be labouring. He was convinced, and he felt bound to declare it, that if the currency was not the cause of all the distress, it had at least produced nine-tenths of the whole of it. With respect to the motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen he would say he believed there were few Gentlemen on that side of the House who did not agree that some reduction of taxation and of public expenditure was necessary, and that if it were necessary at all times, it became more imperatively required from them when the working classes on whom it bore hardest were labouring under so many difficulties. There were two objects to be at all times kept in view, as affording a ground for the reduction of the public Establishments. The first was, to save, to the utmost extent of their power, the property of the public; and the second was, to diminish that mass of patronage connected with taxation, which necessarily devolved on the Government, and which operated so much to the prejudice of the best interests of the country. He feared, however, that no reduction of taxation, even if carried to the extent proposed by the hon. Mem-
514
ber—although no Gentleman had yet spoken who seemed disposed to go so far—but even supposing it was carried to the extent of the eight millions proposed by the hon. Member, still he thought that it would do little, very little, to counteract the effect of the pressure of the present distress. So little had been thought of the contraction of the currency, so lightly had it been spoken of, that hon. Members were little aware of the extent to which it went in depressing the energies and cramping the industry of the people. At the time when the alteration took place, and the paper was called in, the whole currency of the country was estimated at the sum of about seventy millions, while the whole of the income of the productive industry and labour of the country was calculated, in the currency of the time, to amount to seven hundred millions. In that case, the House would see that the currency, in the year 1819, was just one-tenth of the whole productive industry of the country. Now, if they altered the currency, they affected the whole income of the country in the same proportion. Thus if they diminished the currency five millions, they altered the whole income of all the farmers, landowners, and manufacturers of the country, to the extent of fifty millions. This was the consequence of the alteration of even five millions. For, since all prices depend on the currency—and it surely could not be denied that all farmers, landlords, manufacturers, and merchants, made their incomes by prices—it followed that any contraction of the currency, on which these prices depended, contracted to the same extent all the income measured by them. Now, he would ask, was it possible for a reduction of eight milions of taxes, or any reduction, to reinstate the productive interests of the country in the same state as before prices were altered by the alterations in the currency? He would say boldly, and with a perfect conviction of its truth, that no means were left them for relief, but by raising money to the same state as it was before their distresses arose. A great deal had been said about keeping-faith with the public creditor, and the preservation of that faith was urged as one of the reasons for adhering to the present standard; but, in his opinion, there was a faith to be kept with the farmer and the landlord, and the productive classes, as inviolate as that required by the public

515
creditor. It made no difference whether a man lived on the interest of money in the public funds, on the income derived from land or on the produce of labour. The income of the one ought to be as inviolate as the income of the other. He would contend, therefore, that the legislature, in adopting measures which so seriously affected all the prices from which the farmers derived their income, had been guilty of precisely the same injustice to them as that which they would practise towards the public creditor in reducing the interest of his debt; and that the limiting the amount of the currency was as much a breach of faith, as an attempt to pay the public creditors a smaller sum than they were entitled to; and sure he was, that if the Legislature could have contemplated at the time they passed that Act, all the evils which had since arisen from it, and which were now fully acknowledged, they never would have taken such a step for the sake of obtaining that gold currency which they now possessed. The only question now was, whether they could honestly persevere in such a course, or whether, having by a kind of legislative mistake, adopted a course from which all were, more or less, suffering, they were, because they had reached a certain point and endured a degree of evil to arrive at it, not to tamper with the currency—or in Other words, that all were to go on suffering because they had, by a mistake, which was acknowledged, placed themselves in a situation which must produce still greater mischief? Some Gentlemen had a peculiar partiality for a gold currency, and were willing to suffer any evils to obtain it; but, in his opinion, a well-regulated paper-currency was preferable in many respects, and not subject to the same disadvantages. Besides, whatever grievances could be sustained from it had been got over at the time it was abandoned, and now none were felt which could not be compensated by its superior cheapness and convenience. The difference between the adherence to a gold currency and the return to the paper currency seemed to him to be this: In the one case, that of gold, they would affect the interests of persons, for whom God forbid he should not feel all respect, and whose comforts and happiness demanded every attention, but they formed a very unimportant part of the whole, and their interests were not so vitally connected with the well-being
516
of the country. In the other case, that of the return to paper, the whole of the interests of the productive classes of the country were at stake; and were they to say that the country was to be cast down, —perhaps he ought not to say the country, for it was not possible to cast down a country like this—but were they to cast down those classes on whom its wealth and its prosperity depended, and to subject them to rapidly augmenting evils, purely because they were ashamed to abandon what was admitted to have been an error? The country seemed to be one of abundance—it ought to be one of happiness. All the productive powers of its industry were greater than they had ever been known to be at any former period. Could any one doubt, then, that there was a something which required revision? The climate was not altered; the industry of the country was not altered; its energies were not altered; but one thing was altered—the currency was altered. How strange, then, was it that they clung to an evil which all acknowledged; and that they seemed inclined to alter every thing except that which experience had told them they ought not to have altered at all. With a pertinacity wholly unaccountable, they continued to cling to the evils which preyed on all the interests of the country, and nursed the disease which was consuming its industry—
—"æternum servans sub pectore vulnus."
Nothing which the hon. Member for Aberdeen had proposed would adequately relieve the country; and he proposed twice as much as any other man. The faith of Parliament was as much engaged to all the productive classes in England as it was to the public creditor; and if by altering the currency they had materially reduced the incomes of the former, there was no principle of honesty which stood in the way of their retracing their steps in order to restore the incomes of these classes to their original amount. He would assert further, that the Corn-Laws which the Gentlemen of England seemed to value as counteracting the effects of the change in the currency, were in fact a bitter aggravation of all the evils arising from that change. Other occasions would present themselves for the discussion of these subjects, and he should not have risen at all but that he conceived he was bound in justice to his hon. friend,

517
the Member for Essex, who had so manfully avowed his sentiments, to express his (Sir F. Burdett's) entire concurrence in them.
Mr. Charles Woodbegged to state that he differed from the hon. Baronet and the Member for Essex in their views on the subject of the currency, and hoped they might never be able "to carry them into effect. He thought, however, that the manner in which the Government met the Motion of the Member for Aberdeen was well calculated to increase the dissatisfaction felt as to the manner in which the distress was mentioned in the King's Speech. The quibble resorted to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought not to influence the House, and he advised the House not to consider the feelings of that right hon. Gentleman, but those of the country.
Mr. Herriessaid, he should not detain them long. [There had been some calls for "Mr. Baring," and "Mr. Grant,"] but he could not help observing that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, after having promised to tell them nothing new, had, in a speech of three hours, most religiously kept his word. He did not mean to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen through all the topics introduced into his speech; but he should hold himself ready, on some future occasion, when the topics were separately discussed, to consider and reply to them. There were many things stated by that hon. Member in which it was impossible for him to agree, and others in which he did concur with him. He was persuaded that the only way to get at any profitable results was, to confine their attention to particulars; and in this too he concurred with the hon. Member for Aberdeen. In those parts of his speech in which he eulogized the Finance Committee he also thought the hon. Member was perfectly correct. But he thought that the hon. Member had not done his Majesty's Government justice, who had participated in all the labours of that Committee, and had shown no backwardness in promoting its labours. Of the labours of his Majesty's Ministers neither he nor the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberley) had spoken with approbation. If they examined the matter fully, they would find that those who sat on his (Mr. Herries's) side of the House had had their full share in suggesting and promoting the measures
518
adopted by that Committee. The Ministers had done a great deal in preparing the measures and in carrying them into execution, and they had acted with great zeal and in good faith. There were some facts which the hon. Member should bear in mind, and some persons to whom he should not be unwilling to concede the praise that was due to them. The Government had not only proposed measures of economy, but on some occasions had been disposed to carry them further than the House would go. It had wanted to carry measures into execution in which the House would not concur; and on more than one occasion the Ministers had gone further than the House liked. He only said this to show that the Ministers were not deserving of that censure which Members on the other side of the House were disposed indiscriminately to throw on those who did not adopt all their recommendations. He would claim for them that their conduct should not be judged till after a careful inquiry; and if it were investigated—if it were followed throughout—it would be proved that they had honestly, truly, and zealously promoted, to the utmost of their abilities, reform in the establishments, and reduction in the taxation. The hon. Member had talked of reducing the taxation eight millions, and this assertion might make a great impression, but it went further than he would find the House ready to go; and the hon. Member would therefore fail in his object. If, under the present circumstances of the country the hon. Member's proposition were carried into effect, the certain effect of it must be, as he would himself see on soberly examining the matter, that it would put an end to all the establishments of the country. The hon. Member was well acquainted with the documents he was speaking from, and he must know, that to reduce the taxes 8,500,000 l. a year was about, equal to the whole effective establishments of the Navy, the Army, and the Ordnance. If he were to take away 8,500,000 l. he would extinguish the Army, the Navy, and Ordnance. He was not prepared to vote for any thing so extravagant, and such a sweeping denunciation could not be carried into effect. The Member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly) had gone through the taxes, and he, it appeared, would diminish some, and modify others. The whole subject was of great

519
importance; it was a question affecting so many interests, that the House would not be ready to coincide with the hon. Member for Aberdeen. The Motion was taking the whole business of reduction out of the hands of Government, and would prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from executing his duty—it was depriving him of the opportunity of laying before the House the statement of what had been done by the Government, and of submitting to the House the Estimates and the account of the reductions which it was in the power of Government to make. It had been said that his right hon. friend wanted to get rid of the Motion by a quibble: than his right hon. friend there was no person in that House who would be less disposed to have recourse to a quibble. If he were disposed to quibble, he might find in the words of the Motion sufficient reason to vote against it. The House must wait till the Estimates were before them to see what reductions the Ministers proposed, and then the House might determine if those reductions were sufficient, but they must allow his right hon. friend to make his statement. It was made matter of accusation that his right hon. friend had not yet made these statements; but that was not the fault of his right hon. friend, but of those who had delayed his proceedings. They had opposed the vote for the Supply, without which his right hon. friend could not lay the Estimates before them. He objected to the Motion, substantially that it would deprive his right hon. friend of the opportunity of submitting his views to the House; it would betray a complete want of confidence in the Ministers, and reduce them to the impossibility of submitting their own views to the House. Several topics had been introduced into the Speech foreign to the nature of the Motion; and if the extent of that Motion were sufficient to make him oppose it, he was justified in his decision by the observations of the speakers. There was a great diversity of opinion among the Gentlemen opposite as to the cause of the evils and the remedies for them. He had listened with great attention to the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) but he had obtained much less instruction than he generally received from the hon. Baronet's speeches; he was not able to make out either the theory the hon. Baronet adopted of the cause of our distress, or the nature of the remedy he re-
520
commended or contemplated. He believed, from the symptoms of the distress, which was so general, [hear] he believed, from these symptoms, that it might be attributed to other causes than those connected with the currency, and within the sphere of legislation. Government could not control those causes. He was confident that Government would give to that distress a careful inquiry and a full discussion; but he was satisfied that it must be attributed to other causes than an alteration of the currency. Into that question, however, he would not then enter, as he could not do justice to it by a partial discussion; he would only say, that he believed it would be impossible not to adhere to the course the Ministers had on this subject already adopted. He should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, that before the question was put, he wished to say a few words. He, for one, had always been anxious to give his support to measures of economy, when it was possible to do so with due consideration for the public service. He had already, by his vote on the Address, expressed his opinion of the general nature of the distress; and feeling resolved to follow up that opinion, being prepared to take every opportunity of enforcing it, yet he must confess that he could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. The Government had made the strongest professions of economy in the Speech from the Throne, and the Ministers had the other night pledged themselves in the strongest terms to the same effect. Under these circumstances, believing in their professions, and seeing that they had not yet had time to carry them into execution—believing in these things, and thinking it would not be dealing fairly with the Government to express prematurely an opinion of measures it had not yet proposed—believing that it would be premature to express a distrust of such positive declarations, he could not support the Motion. To him it seemed more fair towards the Government to allow it to produce its propositions to the House, and when the House saw them, it would deal with them as it thought fit. He admitted the propriety, and indeed the necessity of reducing taxation; he trusted that this would be done by the Government; and when it made its propositions for reducing the establishments, it would

521
be proper to deal with each case by its own merits. He admitted that the public distress required relief, and that everything ought to be done to relieve that distress, consistently with preserving the high objects of public faith and public security. If he were to connect the Motion of the honourable Member with the Speech made in support of it, he should find still stronger reason for refusing to assent to this Motion. He and the hon. Members who supported him, had entered into such a wide field that it was impossible to follow them into all the various topics they had alluded to, or consider all the questions they had discussed. There was the amount of the Army and Navy, and of Taxation; and it was impossible to discuss these and all the other questions alluded to in one evening. There was also the Sinking Fund, which Gentlemen wished to have no longer; but it had been resolved two years ago, that there should be a Sinking Fund, which had then been placed on the soundest basis—that of real surplus Revenue. This was only a specimen of the many topics proposed for their discussion, and it was impossible, considering all the great questions involved in the speeches of hon. Members, that they could then be discussed. It would only be fair and honest to allow his Majesty's Government, before entering into an examination of the expenditure, the opportunity of submitting to the House,—sensible as Ministers must be, that a crisis had arrived—those reductions which they proposed to make, and which were now become indispensable. He should oppose the Motion.
Lord Howicksaid, those who opposed the Motion, objected to the time at which it was brought forward; but he believed the proper time for the Motion was before the Estimates were submitted to the House. The Ministers ought to be admonished to reduce the Estimates. He hoped nothing would be done to alter the currency; and for this reason he also hoped that some steps would be taken to reduce the expenditure, as otherwise we should be sure to have a national bankruptcy. The course which would avoid such a result was that proposed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen; and therefore he should support that hon. Member's Amendment. It was no longer time to inquire, if taxation could be kept up to the expenditure, or if the expenditure could be reduced; the country
522
was arrived at that state that they must reduce taxation. The country must be eased whether the establishments were kept up or not. He wished to see the Army, the Navy, and other establishments sustained; but the people were borne down by taxation, and even at the expense or these establishments they must be relieved. He could not understand those arguments by which Gentlemen contended that a reduction of taxation would not relieve the general distress, and that nothing could effect this but an alteration in the currency. But the condition of the labouring classes was affected by the burthens imposed on them, as well as by the changes in the currency; and as one of the effects of raising the value of money was to enhance those burthens, they would be relieved by a reduction of taxation as well as by an alteration in the currency. He meant to give his support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen.
Mr. Secretary Peelexpressed his satisfaction at having on that occasion to vote with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Westminster ["No, No," from Sir F. Burden.] He understood he was to have the benefit of the hon. Baronet's vote; but he found his opening sentence completely destroyed by the unexpected declaration that the hon. Baronet's vote was to be against his own speech. Certainly he inferred from that speech that the hon. Baronet meant to vote against the Motion. Undeceived as to his error, he should say that he could not agree with those Gentlemen who contended that no relief could be given to the people by a reduction of taxation. The remission of every tax was, undoubtedly, a relief to the people. He never did suppose that, when a tax was not necessary, the amount of such tax ought to be diverted from the natural application of industry; for he was sure it would fructify more in the hands of the people than in those of the state; and, if taxation were not necessary, he should not wish to levy taxes. He did not expect that the currency question would have been mentioned that night; and he really would advise any Gentleman who wished that the currency should be again altered, that he would undertake, on some specific night, to bring the motion regularly before the House; and he would also advise him, not only to give a notice, but to take the trouble to propose an enactment; and come to the House ready to show, in all its

523
details, how the currency was to be depreciated, what would be the effect of his measure on all contracts, and how the distress would be remedied by the depreciation he meant to propose. Members seemed to conceive, in every discussion, that depreciating the currency was an obvious remedy for the distress; and when the hon. Baronet brought forward the important measure he no doubt contemplated on this subject, he should be ready to meet his argument: on the present occasion he meant only to make one or two short observations. He could not understand the hon. Baronet's doctrine, that reducing the currency five millions in amount necessarily reduced the income of the country fifty millions. He could not see why the reduction of the currency should reduce the income to a ten times greater amount. By raising the value of money, those who possessed it could obtain a greater command over commodities. He admitted that there was a certain class whose property was incumbered, and who were obliged to discharge their incumbrances at a fixed sum; and he would admit, that raising the value of money was a hardship on them, but to those destitute of incumbrance it was no hardship. The hon. Baronet said, that because they had already tampered with the currency this was a reason why they should tamper with it again. That was the hon. Baronet's argument:—we had recently tampered with the currency, and we ought with less reserve to tamper with it again; if we had at one time depreciated the currency, the same argument would apply again with additional force. But he would beg the hon. Baronet to recollect the inconvenience that would be felt, if by any further tampering with the currency they were again to unsettle after ten years continuance, (for so long had the currency been established on its present basis, with the exception of a short interval, in 1822.) he would beg the hon. Baronet to recollect the vast inconvenience which would result from their again unsettling all the contracts of the country. Would he then attempt to alter all the engagements contracted on the faith of Parliament, that an alteration in the currency should not again take place? And would the hon. Baronet venture to say what would be the consequences of their altering the currency, influencing and deranging all the contracts that had been entered into during the last thirteen
524
or fourteen years? Not only would the hon. Baronet unsettle all those engagements; but he (Mr. Peel) wished to know what criterion he would fix upon to determine the precise standard. There was one other point connected with the hon. Baronet's speech on which he wished to say a few words. If the House were to determine on the hon. Baronet's proposition to depreciate the currency, what would be the inevitable consequence? The moment that the public who held paper convertible into gold coin found that that gold coin was to be deteriorated, they would rush with their paper to obtain gold before the deterioration. If indeed the hon. Baronet could, by his emphatic will alone, instantly alter the standard so that a man who held paper should find on awaking to-morrow morning that for that paper he could obtain only eighteen or nineteen shillings in the pound, that would be another affair. But before the Legislature could pass a Bill upon the subject, every man who held paper, consulting like most persons his individual interest, would press forward to obtain the performance of the engagement which had been made with him in the medium in which that engagement had been contracted. On these two grounds, therefore—first on the impropriety of unsettling all the pecuniary engagements which had been entered into since the year 1819, or rather since the year 1816; and secondly, on the confusion which the urgency of the demand for gold in its present state must necessarily occasion—he intreated the hon. Baronet to pause before he dreamt of proposing a deterioration of the currency. So much for the episode which the hon. Baronet had introduced into the discussion; and now a few words upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. To that Motion there were, in his opinion, more objections than it would be convenient to take up the time of the House by stating. It was unusual and unprecedented. It was unusual, before Ministers laid the Estimates on the Table, and stated their views with respect to taxation, to propose a Resolution, not to repeal any particular tax, but a general Resolution that the House would proceed to repeal a certain taxation. What was to be gained by such a proposition? If the Resolution were not agreed to, the hon. Member would be just as much at liberty to propose the repeal of any particular tax as if the Resolution were

525
carried. In fact, it was the duty of the House to repeal whatever taxes could be repealed consistently with the public benefit. The hon. Member, therefore, would not advance a single step, if all that he meant was, that the House should repeal exactly the amount of taxes which their duty to the, public would permit. But the proposed Resolution went further. As had been justly observed by his right hon. friend, it went to dispose of the Sinking Fund. Now that might be a proper proposition; but undoubtedly it was one which required more consideration than could be given to it when introduced incidentally to their notice. But here, without an hour's consideration, it was proposed to determine that there should be no Sinking Fund. He protested, therefore, against the adoption of that Resolution without further consideration. But that was not all. It was impossible to separate the Motion from the comments with which the hon. Member had accompanied it. The public would couple the Resolution with the hon. Gentleman's speech. Now in that speech he proposed to reduce the expenditure, and, consequently, the taxation, eight millions and a half. He would leave the House to judge what effect would be produced on the public mind if a Resolution should be agreed to by the House of Commons, promising a reduction of taxation of eight millions and a half. Another objectionable part of the proposition was, that it had no specific purpose. The hon. Gentleman proposed to remit a great taxation, but he did not particularize the taxes which ought to be remitted. He did not propose that the tax upon Soap, upon Candles, upon Malt, &c ought to be remitted. Now any one who proposed the remission of a tax ought at once to bring in a Bill for that purpose. For nothing could be so injurious to the retail trader as to leave in a state of uncertainty the taxes which it was intended to remit. But the hon. Member said, "remit taxation, but leave the country in doubt what particular taxes you will remit." The consequence of adopting such a Resolution, coupled with such a speech, would be not to restore confidence in the country, but to suspend business; because it could not be known for three or four weeks what particular taxes would be reduced. The hon. Member would have adopted a more rational course had he brought forward a proposition for repealing some particular
526
tax, and taken the sense of the House upon it. An hon. Gentleman had urged as an argument in support of the hon. Member's proposition, that it would atone to the country for the omission in the King's Speech, and repair the disappointment occasioned by doubting the existence of distress in the country. He knew how unpopular any person made himself at the present moment by arguing against the existence of universal and overwhelming distress. He was convinced, however, that the description of the distress in the Speech from the Throne was much nearer the truth than any description characterising it as universal and overwhelming. The communications which he had received from various parts of the country since the delivery of the Speech from persons with whom he was unacquainted, but who volunteered their statements, concurred in declaring that there was not that universal distress which the hon. Gentlemen opposite supposed. Although he admitted that there was distress in many parts of the country, while he deeply lamented it, yet he did not believe that it extended over the whole kingdom, or that it was so severe as to extinguish all hopes of remedy. There was an elasticity in the resources of the country which he was persuaded would ultimately lead to a return of comparative prosperity; and he did not think, by exaggerated descriptions, and by exciting, however unintentionally, general despair and dismay, that we should approximate more closely to the restoration of confidence, and the practicability of diminishing the public burthens.
Mr. Wodehousedeclared, that his confidence in his Majesty's Government was utterly gone. All great authorities differed from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. All the pigmies of former days differed from those giants of the present. The one set was wise, but the other was knowing. Knowledge was always proud that it knew so much; wisdom humble because it knew no more. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have some respect for that chicken Lord Bacon. He would here read an extract from Bacon, who held that "It is bad for a State when money is gathered in a few hands; for money, like muck, is only good when it is spread."
Mr. Humein reply denied that his Resolution went so far as the right hon. Gentleman opposite imputed to it. In

527
bringing the subject forward he had done his duty, and he would now leave it to the House to do theirs.
The House divided: Ayes 184; Noes 69. The main Question was then put, whereupon—
Mr. J. Duncombe, alluding to something which had passed whilst the gallery was cleared, spoke in terms of censure of the criminal prosecutions recently instituted by the Attorney-General, and then adverted to the distressed state of the country. He said that in these unexampled days of unmitigated taxation, he felt it his duty to raise his voice in behalf of the distressed agriculturists and the unemployed manufacturers. He warned the Government not to exult either in their numbers or power. He would tell them, that if they should persevere in a course of lavish expenditure, they might perhaps find, when it was too late, that there was a majority out of doors which would make the majority within doors at length acknowledge the just views of the small minority of this night.
Mr. Peelsaid, the hon. Member must have completely misunderstood what fell from him if he supposed that he expressed any feelings of triumph on account of the division which had taken place.
On the Question that the Speaker do leave the chair.
The Marquis of Blandfordsaid, he thought it wrong that the House should proceed to dispose of the nation's money before it had considered the nation's distress. He therefore moved as an Amendment "that the House do now adjourn."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished to be allowed to place the Estimates on the Table in a Committee of Supply: the House would then by comparing them with the Estimates of last year, see the extent to which Government proposed to reduce the expenditure.
Mr. Tennysonthought, that laying the Estimates on the Table ought to be preceded by an explanatory statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he wished to know their amount.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that the amount would be stated in the ordinary course.
Mr. Maberlywas anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should state the amount of the Estimates at once.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, that when the subject was before the
528
House, he would take the regular opportunity of stating the whole Estimates. He only asked that the business might be allowed to proceed in the usual and regular way.
The gallery was cleared for a division. The arquis of Blandford's Motion was withdrawn:—The main Question was again put, and agreed to:—Order for Committee read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair:"—An Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House will upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into the said Committee," and after some opposition the Committee of Supply was eventually adjourned to the following Wednesday.

SMALL POX.
Mr. Dickinsonpresented a petition from Mr. William Towsey, M.D. and others, for the adoption of a remedy to prevent the practice of Inoculation. It spoke of the prevalence of the Small-pox, and prayed the legislature to take efficient measures to prevent children afflicted with that malady from being carried about the streets.
Mr. Humesaid, he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to this subject. He found that many deaths from the Small-pox had recently occurred, owing to the industrious efforts of certain practitioners, who wished to persuade the public that no benefit was derived from Vaccination. After the public had been put to such expense to render Vaccination effectual, he thought, something ought to be done to prevent children afflicted with the Small-pox from coming in contact with those who were liable to catch the disease, leaving individuals at liberty to inoculate in whatever way they pleased.
Petition ordered to be printed.

SYSTEM or BANKING.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, he was authorized by the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. E. Davenport) to withdraw his notice of Motion which stood for to-morrow (upon the Distressed State of the Country). The hon. Member was induced to take this step partly on account of ill health, but chiefly from a desire to concur with those Members who were of opinion that it would be unwise to do any thing at the present moment which could have a ten-

529
dency to embarrass Ministers. He would take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, whether Government had it in contemplation to propose any measure respecting the system of Private Banking. He was induced to ask the question by what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman on a former evening.
Mr. Peelsaid, in reply to the hon. Member's question, that all he had stated on a former day was an opinion that it was possible materially to improve the system of banking, by removing the restrictions which impeded the formation of companies to carry on the business of banking. He had then said, that he hoped to see the day when a sound system of banking would be established; but he had said nothing with respect to any measure being in contemplation, nor was he now prepared to make any further declaration on the subject.
Mr. Wodehouseasked whether it was trite that Mr. F. Lewis had been appointed to the office of Treasurer of the Navy?
Mr. Peelanswered Yes;—a new writ has already been ordered.