the general result would be that the tax on the new
basis would yield about the same amount as the average
of the last three years under the present system. He
had now to propose the ways and means by which
the diminution in the revenue would be met. He
should be obliged to make a considerable increase in
the estimates, especially in those necessary for the
defence of the country, for which the government had
a great and comprehensive scheme to propose. He
should be obliged to ask that the expenditure of the
present year should be supplied through the ways and
means; and for the next year he should make an
estimate which would exceed the usual estimate by
£600,000. And he considered himself justified in proposing
this expenditure when he stated (after going through
the various items) that the surplus which he expected
on the 5th of April would amount to about a million
and a half. He proposed the abolition of the loan-
fund commission—a useless and expensive body, and
from their repayments he expected to gain a large sum
to the country. The increased expenses, however,
joined to the large reductions would (as he showed by
minute calculations) leave a considerable deficit; and to
meet this he proposed an extension of the house-tax,
bringing to bear upon it the same principle which he
proposed to apply to the income-tax—to avoid exemptions
as much as possible. He recommended that the
present tax should be made to extend to houses of £10
a-year, and that the rate should be increased to 1s. 6d.
in the pound for private houses, and 1s. for shops. This
would yield £1,723,000. By this means he calculated
that for the financial year 1853-4 there would be
£2,500,000 in hand to meet an extra expense of
£2,100,000. That for the financial year 1854-5, allowing
for all losses in respect to diminutions of duties, the
surplus from the previous year and the house-tax, which
would then be in full operation, he would have in hand
£3,510.000. Thus he came to the conclusion that the
surplus the first year would be £400,000, and that of
the second year something under £500,000, which he
considered a healthy state of the finances, promising
happiness and prosperity to the country. Mr. Disraeli
concluded a speech of above five hours by making the
formal motion for a grant to pay outstanding Exchequer
Bills. After some desultory observations from various
members, the formal motion was agreed to, and the
house adjourned, it being understood that the resolutions
should be laid on the table on Monday, and the
sense of the house taken upon them on the Friday
following.

On Friday, Dec. 10th, on the motion that the house
go into a committee of ways and means on the Budget,
Mr. Thomas DUNCOMBE said he disapproved of the
whole scheme, and intimated that if any member would
support him, he would divide the house against the
motion, expressly as a vote of no confidence.—Mr.
Walter immediately signified that he would be happy
to divide with him, not on the ground of "no confidence,"
but to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if
he were resolved on suicide, a little time to repent.—Sir
Bulwer LYTTON said that the house should consider how
far it was desirable to destroy the present government,
that had recognised the principle that it was unjust to
impose the same taxation upon the income of a man
who, without fault of his own, might lose it to-morrow,
and upon the income of a man who might bequeath it
to his children. He advocated the proposed reduction
of the malt tax, stating that it would reduce the price
of superior beer a penny a quart, and describing the
question as one of free trade against restriction. Defending
the principle of the house-tax and its contemplated
extension to the most important part of our constituency,
urging the freetraders to treat the agriculturists kindly,
as they deserve to be treated, and explaining his own
reasons for tendering his service to Lord Derby's government,
which he believed to be earnest in promoting
large reforms, he gave his cordial support to the Ministry.
After some remarks from Mr. Gladstone, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Mr. T. Duncombe, Lord John Russell,
Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Hume, the house went into
committee; and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved the resolutions Doubling and Extending the Duty
on Inhabited Houses.—An amendment by Mr. William
WILLIAMS, to substitute the extension of the legacy
and probate duties to real property, instead of the house-
tax, was moved; but after a short discussion, withdrawn.
—After some comments from Mr. Phinn, Mr. Ball, Mr.
Monckton Milnes, Mr. H. Drummond, and others, Sir
Charles WOOD entered into an analysis of the whole
budget. Approving of the concession to shipping and
sugar, he showed that the light-duties remitted, equally
to foreign ships with British, could have no effect in
enabling the British to compete with foreign rivals, as a
reduction of the timber-duties might have done; and in
Mr. Disraeli's rejection of those West Indian "claims"
which he had so long advocated, Sir Charles saw an end
to the delusive talk of assistance for "suffering interests."
The reduction of the malt and hop duties he criticised at
much length; adding new arguments to those which he
repeated after other speakers. Of all lands, barley lands,
whose crop and live stock (sheep) pay best, least require
relief; while the remission of the malt-duty will be
intercepted by the maltster and brewer. He made much
of the unpopular character of the extension of the
income-tax to persons in humble circumstances, upon
whom the taxgather has never yet called; and the
extension of the house-duty to farmers' houses—one of
the "benefits" they conferred on the farmer! Practically,
the house-duty would lead to extensive disfranchisement
of electors. The Public Works Loan Fund consists of
money originally borrowed to be lent out again, with
accumulations of interest; it has been very useful in
aiding local works, such as county lunatic asylums: now
if it were to he discontinued, evidently the debt ought
to be extinguished; but who ever heard that it could
be considered as annual revenue? Yet Mr. Disraeli
proposed to use it in making up a fictitious surplus! It was
malappropriation. Sir Charles examined the balancing
of the figures, and convicted the budget of a deficiency
—by the reduction of two chief indirect taxes, and
notwithstanding the increase of the two chief direct
taxes, in one year. As to the "consequences" of rejecting
the budget, Sir Charles saw no consequences except
an amended budget. Let ministers take the Christmas
holidays to think of it. The debate was then adjourned
till Monday.

On Monday, the 13th, the adjourned debate on the
Budget was resumed.—Mr COBDEN, protesting against
any attempt to infuse compensatory ingredients into the
budget, and deprecating the revival of an antagonism
between town and country, denounced the addition to
the house-tax as unjust and partial, since it increased,
he said, the existing disproportion of taxation upon
houses and upon land. This tax, moreover, fell upon
owners as well as occupiers. Its avowed object was to
removed half the malt duty. If the whole of that duty
could be repealed, he would advocate its remission; but
his objection to the removal of only half was—first, on
principle, and because it did not get rid of the excise
restrictions; secondly, on account of the manner in
which the deficiency was to be made up. It was an open
question, he added, whether an increase of the consumption
of beer would be beneficial to the people, who were
indifferent in the matter. As to the modification of the
income-tax, he was bound to give the government credit
for what they had done in this way; but here again an
undue favour was shown to the land. In short, this
budget, which did not correspond with the magniloquent
speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could not
stand. Mr. Cobden took a rapid glance at some of the
vices of our system of collecting the indirect taxes, many
of which, he said, must be repealed, and the country
must make up its mind to a fair system of direct taxation.
—Lord J. MANNERS supported the budget.—Mr.
RICH opposed it. The budget, he said, was compulsory
and penal, at once unjust and dangerous, which
unsettled a vast amount of taxation merely to fulfil a vain
expectation recklessly held out.—Mr. LOWE objected
chiefly to the reduction of the malt-tax, in the price of
barley, which was not probable. The tax formed a very
large portion of the revenue; it was paid with less
discontent than any other portion; and what was to be
got in exchange for the moiety remitted? If the beer
trade was under free competition, cost, as in other
trades, would regulate price; but there was not in the
country so iron a monopoly as that of the brewers, and