There was a deficit, he said, of £2,750,000; and the utmost limit of taxation upon articles of consumption had been reached. He therefore proposed a tax on incomes, calculated to produce £3,700,000; the Irish equalised stamp and spirit duties would give £410,000; and an export duty of four shillings on coal would yield £200,000. The surplus thus obtained he should apply to a reduction of duties in a revised tariff. The Budget had for its chief object the taxation of wealth and the relief of manufacturing industry. The income-tax, calculated at 7d. per pound on incomes of £150 and upwards, was to be limited for three years, with a possible extension to five at the discretion of the House. The resolutions upon the income-tax were carried early in April with very little opposition. Some days later Lord John Russell was defeated, by a majority of 106, in an attempt to overthrow the Government scheme, and a bill founded on these fiscal propositions was subsequently passed.

The second branch of the financial plan of the Government, the revised Tariff or Customs Duties scheme, was a formidable undertaking. Though brought into the House by the Prime Minister, it was understood to be almost wholly the work of his able lieutenant, Mr. Gladstone. Out of some 1,200 duty-paying articles, a total abolition, or a considerable reduction, took place in no fewer than 750 of such articles. Sir Robert Peel's boast, that he had endeavoured to relieve manufacturing industry, was more than jus

tified by this great and comprehensive measure. He had acknowledged, amidst loud cheers from the Opposition, that all were agreed in the general rule that we should purchase in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest; but he added, 'If I proposed a greater change in the Corn Laws than that which I submit to the consideration of the House, I should only aggravate the distress of the country, and only increase the alarm which prevails among important interests.' Mr. Hume, however, hailed with joy the appearance of the Premier and his colleagues as converts to the principles of Free Trade. Mr. Gladstone replied that though it was not worth while now to discuss who were the authors of the principles on which the Government measure was founded, he must enter his protest against the statement that the Ministry came forward as converts to principles which they had formerly opposed. The late Government had certainly done very little for the principles of commercial relaxation.

Again and again, during the progress of the Tariffs Bill, was Mr. Gladstone called upon to defend the details of the Government scheme. Something was said upon almost every article of consumption included in or excluded from the plan; but it was admitted on all hands that great fiscal reforms had been conceived and executed. No measure with which Mr. Gladstone's name has since been connected more fully attested his mastery over detail, his power of comprehending the commercial interests of the country, or his capacity as a

practical statesman in suggesting the best means for relieving the manufacturing industries of their burdens, than the revised Tariff scheme of 1842. Some idea of the strain involved upon him during this session may be gathered from the fact that Hansard records he rose to his feet no fewer than 129 times, in connection with measures before the House, but chiefly touching the provisions of the Tariff Bill. A writer, by no means favourable to the Tories, says of the session of 1842, 'The nation saw and felt that its business was understood and accomplished, and the House of Commons was no longer like a sleeper under a nightmare. The long session was a busy one. The Queen wore a cheerful air when she thanked her Parliament for their effectual labours. The Opposition was such as could no longer impede the operations of the next session. The condition of the country was fearful enough; but something was done for its future improvement, and the way was now shown to be open for further beneficent legislation.'*

But the distress in the country nerved the Corn Law reformers to renewed efforts. Scarcely had the session of 1843 opened, when Lord Howick called for a committee of the whole House to consider the reference in the Queen's Speech to the longcontinued depression of manufacturing industry. Mr. Gladstone opposed the motion, delivering a long speech in

rejoinder. Admitting the distress, he said he could assign various causes for it; the country was familiar with the fact, and so was the House, and no good could come from such a motion. The noble lord proposed to renew past and present agitations with tenfold violence, for he had not thought fit to state the measures upon which he had depended for the 'relief of the distress of the country. The Corn Laws were at the root of the matter, and yet there was a difficulty felt how to unite the noble lord and his friends, who were so divided in opinion as to what ought to follow the repeal of the Corn Laws; and he thought it must have been clear that the movement in favour of the fixed duty could not be repeated. The question between the Government and the Opposition was not really so great as the latter wished to make out. It was simply one as to the amount of relaxation the country could bear in the duties. It was the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury to attain his object by increasing the employment of the people, by cheapening the prices of the articles of consumption, as also the materials of industry, by encouraging the means of exchange with foreign nations, and thereby encouraging in return an extension of the export trade; but besides all this, if he understood the measure of the Government last year, it was proposed that the relaxation should be practically so limited as to cause no violent shock to existing interests, such as would have the tendency of displacing that labour

which was now employed, and which, if displaced, would be unable to find another field.' Mr. Gladstone proceeded to show that the measure of the previous year had resulted in no great shock to any commercial industry, nor had it displaced English labour. He desired members to ask themselves the question, Whether or not they were in a condition to repeal the Corn Laws without the displacement of a vast mass of labour? He was not prepared to abandon the principle of the Corn Law while the principle of Protection was applied to other articles of commerce. The speaker also demonstrated the working of foreign duties in neutralising the benefit of greater cheapness of imported commodities as compared with those produced at home. Alluding to the American tariff, he demanded what better was the British manufacturer if he escaped paying paying twenty per cent. to British agriculture, and had to pay forty per cent. to the American Government? Foreign countries were not disposed to be taught the true principles of trade. The only question, he repeated, before the House was one of time and degree. 'That view had been recognised in this country for the last twenty-five years by every Government which had successively held office; there was no one who held office during that period who had not introduced measures in the nature of relaxation of our commercial code. But he must say that the Government to which right hon. gentlemen and noble lords opposite belonged was, of all others, most slack

in introducing such measures until the memorable year 1841.'

Sir Robert Peel concluded this debate with an eloquent speech, and Lord Howick's motion was defeated by a majority of 115. The question of the Corn Laws, however, was not suffered to sleep, for on the 16th of May Mr. Villiers moved for a committee of the whole House upon the subject. Mr. Gladstone opposed the motion in a speech devoted rather to details than general principles. His address bristled with facts, and the gist of his argument was that, in the absence both of experiment and of altered circumstances to justify it, a change so soon after the adjustment of the law would be a step ruinous in itself, and a breach of contract. In concluding his speech, Mr. Gladstone said that 'he was not satisfied that the motion could be adopted without a great action upon the currency. There was now a drain of gold upon this country, which had sent £3,000,000 to America since the commencement of the present year; and he was afraid that any considerable importation of foreign coin must be paid for in bullion. Let the House look, however, to the effect on the revenue, for the present law had contributed in a time of need £800,000 or £900,000 above the sum received under the old law, and more than could have been received under the scale of fixed duties proposed by Lord John Russell.' After some further general arguments against the motion, the speaker proved at length that Sir Robert Peel had not promised to maintain any particular price for

MEETING OF THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE AT MANCHESTER.

corn in proposing the present law. The motion, nevertheless, was not rejected by so large a majority as in the previous year, the numbers being For Mr. Villiers's resolution, 125; against, 381. A month later Lord John Russell reopened the whole subject, whereupon Mr. Gladstone strongly protested against the motion. He maintained that, under the existing Corn Law, provisions were extremely cheap, and speculation had been materially checked. He entered into statements of figures, showing that the importation had been much less unequal in the last year than it had been in the years preceding. Nor could the new law be complained of as having operated unfavourably with reference to the revenue. Then, if the law had not failed in any of these respects, the case stood, as between that law and the proposal of a fixed duty, just where it had stood last year, when the noble lord's motion for a fixed duty was rejected by the House. He spoke with indignation of the vulgar and violent cry that this was a question of rents— a question caused by the cupidity of the landlords. Surely that highly honourable and generous class were as well entitled to be spared from such an imputation as the manufacturers from the charge that they agitated against the Corn Laws only to lower the wages of their workmen. He protested against the constant renewal of uneasiness in the country by successive motions of this kind in Parliament. was unjust not to give a fair trial to the existing law; and there was no

It

reason to suppose that experience would lay any ground for departing from it. He believed that the agriculturists in general, though dissatisfied with present prices, were not dissatisfied with the present law. Considering the course of former legislation, and the necessity of maintaining a due protection to invested capital and existing labour, he trusted that the House would resist the motion. When the division came, the Ministerial majority was found to have again diminished, the numbers being— For Lord John Russell's motion, 145; against, 244. Mr. Gladstone spoke in the same session upon the subject of the Canadian Corn Laws. The Government carried a bill embodying a series of resolutions by Lord Stanley, securing a reduction of the duties on corn imported from Canada. A motion introduced by Mr. Hawes to reduce the duty on foreign sugar was opposed by Mr. Gladstone, on the ground of its tendency to encourage the slave trade, and it was rejected.

Having succeeded the Earl of Ripon as President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Gladstone introduced, in this same session of 1843, a bill for the abolition of the restrictions on the exportation of machinery a measure of great practical commercial value. The Minister showed that the existing law of William the Fourth, which prohibited the export of machinery, was really nugatory. It was pronounced by the authorities of the Customs to be impracticable, and was practically evaded. The law had also injured our trade, and increased that of Belgium. The new bill,