the notion that the remission would materially lower
the price of beer was a delusion. The only way to
secure a benefit to the consumer was to break up the
brewers' monopoly; but that could not be done in any
other mode than by abolishing the system of licences;
and then much might be done towards obtaining cheap
beer. If, then, there was to be no decrease in the price
of malt liquor, there would be no increase in the
consumption; and if so, no benefit would accrue to the
growers of barley, who would have, moreover, to
compete with the manufacturers of foreign malt.—Mr. BASS
defended the brewers from the charge of monopoly, and
strongly recommended the total remission of the malt-
tax.—Mr. WALPOLE supported the budget.—Mr.
GOULBURN opposed it, contending that the finances
were not in a state in which we could afford to part
with £2,500,000 of taxation the least oppressive to the
country, at the risk of creating a deficiency.

On Tuesday, the 14th, the debate was continued.
Before the house went into committee the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER, urged the inconvenience of
protracting the debate, observing that he did not desire to
pledge the house beyond affirming the principle that the
area of direct taxation should be extended.—In
committee, Lord JOCELYN supported the budget. He looked
upon it with satisfaction, because he found in it no
attempt to subvert the policy which parliament had
affirmed, but, on the contrary, a fair acceptance of that
policy.—Mr. OSBORNE gave the Chancellor of the
Exchequer credit for two main features of his budget,
the relief to the shipping interest, and the sagacious and
statesmanlike view he had taken of the tea duty. As a
whole, however, the measure was far from tending to
reconcile conflicting interests. He condemned the
house-tax; the plan of the government with respect to
this tax, he maintained, was nothing more than a
contrivance to compensate the agricultural interest by
throwing an additional burden upon the middle classes.
The reduction of the malt-tax he denied to be a
consumers' question, since the price of beer would not be
materially affected; still less would it benefit the
agricultural interest generally, as he well knew, being a
barley grower.—Mr. Alderman THOMPSON
characterised the budget as a bold, wise, and statesmanlike
measure, which deserved the confidence of the country.
—Mr. HUME thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
by his statement that evening, had altered the question
at issue. In his opinion no case had been made out for
any additional tax whatever, there being a surplus
revenue. He thought Mr. Disraeli had dealt fairly
with the shipping interest; he suggested the course he
should pursue towards the colonies, and with regard to
the agricultural interest, neither producers nor
consumers could be benefited by dealing with the malt-tax
unless it were abolished altogether. But there were 233
articles remaining in the tariff on which protecting
duties were still collected, yielding only £434,000, the
removal of any one of which would benefit somebody.
Mr. Hume then referred to the resolutions he had put
upon the paper on the subject of the income-tax,
expatiated upon the advantages incident to the substitution
for the customs and excise of a system of direct taxation
which would attach to all property, and strongly
condemned the house duty, one of the worst of taxes, he
said, being a tax upon domestic comforts, most unjust
in its nature and unequal in its operation.—Sir J.
GRAHAM, after some remarks upon the speculations of
Mr. Hume, observed that the issue before the committee
had been, "Shall we or not, for the purpose of the
budget, consent to a change in the house-tax, by
doubling its amount and reducing the exemptions?"
He asked whether this issue had been changed, and
whether the question was merely as to the area of the
direct tax?—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
replied, that he had said, in answer to a question, that
he had no objection to narrow the issue, and he found
nothing in the resolution before the committee as to the
amount of the rate on houses; it contained merely the
principle—namely, that the area of the tax should be
extended.—Sir J. GRAHAM observed that up to that
moment the whole budget had been debated, and the
government had staked their existence upon the resolution;
nor was it possible to narrow the issue, the decision
of which might create a deficit of revenue. He
proceeded, therefore, to discuss the whole financial
scheme, reviewing the principles upon which it was
constructed, and the manner in which the three
interests alleged to have been injured by recent legislation
were dealt with. He then examined the prospective
views announced by the government, observing that,
stripped of the repeal of half the malt-tax and the
increase of the house-tax, the budget was of an
ordinary character. With respect to the former, he had
invariably opposed a remission of any part of that tax,
and he assigned various reasons why such remission
would be of little or no advantage to consumers or
producers. Sir James next insisted upon the inexpediency
of interfering with the operation of the Exchequer
loan fund, which was of great local importance, and
asked why the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid his
hands upon a part of this useful fund to supply a
deficiency he would himself create by tampering with the
taxation of the country. The views of Mr. Disraeli
upon the subject of direct taxation, he remarked, were
incongruous. He had laid it down at one time that
direct taxation with large exemptions was confiscation;
and at another, that without large exemptions, it was
impossible. Sir James exemplified the manner in which
the income tax as introduced into Ireland, and the
increased house-tax in England, conflicted with these
maxims, and he showed how unequally the proposed
scheme of distinguishing between realised and precarious
incomes would work in both countries. Upon the
question of the relative merits of indirect and direct
taxation, he held that their admixture was the sound
legislative policy; but that admixture required great
caution, and the proportions must be most carefully
regulated. With reference to this point, he cited the
opinions of Lord Derby and of Sir R. Peel, who
declared that, except for a special and temporary purpose,
direct taxation could not, in his opinion, be carried to
a much greater extent than it had reached already.—
Sir J. PAKINGTON, in reply to Sir J. Graham, denied
that the government were seeking to evade the main
question of the budget; and proceeded to defend the
measure from the various objections made to it.—Lord
J. RUSSELL wished to know upon what proposition the
government wished to take the opinion of the house—
whether it was the doubling of the house-tax, or merely
extending the area of taxation?—The CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER said he wished the vote to be taken
on the first resolution, which he would consider as a
decision upon the whole budget.—After some
conversation the debate was adjourned to Thursday.

On Wednesday, the 15th, the debate on Irish
Tenants' Compensation Bill was concluded. The bill
was read a second time, and referred to a select
committee.

On Thursday, the 16th, Mr. GOULBURN brought up
the report of the select committee upon the alleged
Bribery at Derby, which was to the following purport:—

"The select committee appointed to take into
consideration the petition of certain inhabitant householders
of the borough of Derby, of the 2nd of November last,
have to report to your Hon. House:—That your
committee have examined witnesses, and have heard counsel
in support of the petition, as well as on behalf of the
Right Hon. William Beresford, Secretary at War, and
a member of this house. Your committee have to
report, with reference to the specific allegations
contained in the petition before them, that the evidence
has satisfied them that a plan for an organised system
of bribery existed in the borough of Derby at the last
election. That the Right Hon. William Beresford
wrote a letter to one John Frail, of Shrewsbury, in the
following terms:—

"'A good and safe man, with judgment and quickness, is
wanted immediately at Derby. I suppose that you cannot leave
your own place; if not, send some one whom you can trust in
your place. Let him go to Derby on receiving this, and find the
County Tavern, in the centre of the town. Send his card to Cox,
Brothers. & Co., Leadworks, as coming from Chester. That will
be enough.                                                    "Yours,
"'Monday.'                                                                "'W. B.'

"That in consequence of such letter one Thomas