was said that we wanted men in the West Indies. How many? Say, for argument's sake, 3000 or 4000. And was our existing establishment so low, that we could not afford such a force without augmenting it? But he was out of patience to hear always the old remedy-sending our troops to the West India Islands! Ministers ought to have spoken out before this period of the session, and to have said what eventually was to be done as to those islands. Ministers ought to speak out, he repeated, before they alienated the minds of the colonists. They ought to say at once, "We mean to liberate the slaves,” or,

"We do not mean to libe

rate them;" and not give opportunities to designing individuals to put the properties, and even the lives, of the white inhabitants in jeopardy. He concluded, by moving a reduction from 70,000 to 63,000.-Mr Gordon, as a West India proprietor, deprecated the discussion which it seemed to be Mr Hume's wish to introduce, relative to the affairs of those islands.

Mr Hobhouse came forward, on the broadest constitutional grounds, to oppose this vote. He was afraid his sentiments were so extraordinary, that they were not only unlikely, to find much sympathy in that House, but, he was sorry to say, even in the country at large. But he thought it the duty of members of that House, when there was a want of popular feeling, or an excess of it, to lead the public mind; and it became every public man to tell the people what was the difference between himself and his constituents. He, perhaps, should not have spoken on this occasion, were it not that it might appear there was some difference between his present sentiments, and those expressed by him last session. He had before said, and he could not too often repeat it, that our position was not such as became this mighty nation; we might

have given the law to all Europe, instead of truckling to others. He confessed himself an advocate for war, if the aggression on Spain could not have been prevented without it; but, as we had not had the honour of standing in that attitude, we ought not now to be called upon to pay for an army which was kept up, not to terrify or annoy tyrants abroad, but to keep down the people at home. Mr Hobhouse, reading history, as he thought every Englishman used to read it, found, from the experience of all ages, that standing armies had always been employed for the purposes of tyrants. How changed must be the public sentiment,when Englishmen can come to the conclusion, that augmentations to the standing army are mere matters of course, and the only discussion arising out of it are questions of how the troops are to be employed, whilst the great constitutional question, that, in time of peace, we are to maintain a great standing army, is passed by without observation. Those opinions, even if he should have the misfortune to hold them singly, he was nevertheless convinced were such as deeply concerned the preservation of the constitution. The absence of many of the honourable members who usually supported

the view which he had taken of the question, was among many lamentable proofs of the habit of supineness and insensibility to this subject, which was gradually creeping in where it had never before been observed.

Lord Palmerston, in reply, treated very lightly the representations of Mr Hobhouse, admitted by himself to meet with no support among his own party. He denied that there had been any understanding whatever of the intended reduction alluded to by Mr Hume. He replied also to some strictures which had been made on the mode of

relieving regiments abroad.

Mr Calcraft conceived that the ad

dition proposed could not be objected to; and, though Mr Hume pressed a division, he could not carry with him more than 10 against 102.

On the 28th February, Sir H. Hardinge brought forward the Ordnance estimates. There was a reduction in every department. The total sum of the Ordnance estimates was 978,3421., being less than last year by 91,6581. If from that was deducted the sum for the Ordnance barracks, 24,000l., the difference in favour of this year would be 67,000l. Upon the ordinary department, there was a saving of 15,588l., composed of 6000l. less for the civil estimates, 1500l. less for the Military Academy, 3000l. less for artillery clothing, and some other reductions. Upon the extraordinaries, there was a reduction of 55,000l., but that, he should state, was rather to be considered as a suspension of expenditure than as a saving. The permanent savings were 5000l. in the storekeeper's department, 6000l. in stores, and 1500l. in small arms. The next, being the third item, was the unprovided charge, which was reduced to 1090l. This saving was to be attributed to the introduction of short accounts, and he was glad that it had been effected, as it was a branch of which the House was always jealous, because it was an expenditure necessarily incurred without the sanction of the House. These three items would shew a total charge, after deducting 141,000l. for the savings and old stores, of 616,000l. for the effective charge of the land service of the Ordnance, being 97,000l. less than what the Finance Committee of 1817 recommended.

If they further deducted the 24,000l. for Ordnance barracks, transferred to the barrack department, the estimates of the year would be below what that Finance Committee stated the permanent establishment could be reduced to, by 55,000l. An additional 18,000l. had been required for repairs

of barracks in Ireland; and the com missariat of stores required 90,000 extra for iron bedsteads to the sol diers.

Mr Hume, notwithstanding thes favourable statements, contended that the reduction was still not such as the country had a right to expect. The whole amount of decrease was not more than 92,000l. compared with the estimates of 1819. The expenditure was now two-thirds more than that of his golden era, 1792. In 1792 it was 442,000l.; in 1817 it was 1,284,000l.; in 1819 it was 1,212,000l.; in 1821 it was 1,326,000l.; in 1822 it was 1,244,000l.; in 1823 it was 1,217,000l.; and now it was come down to 1,119,000l. When Mr Hume, last year, contended against the appointment of the Lieut.General of the Ordnance, it was maintained that the business could not go on without that officer, and yet the fact turned out to be, that Lord Beresford had been absent at Lisbon nearly the whole of that time.-The answer. made was, that Lord Beresford, being requested by the Master General, in November last, to return, had sent home his resignation. In consideration of his merits, however, extraordinary exertions were made to keep the office open for him, till last week, when he finally wrote, that it was impossible for him to return; and the Duke of Wellington then conferred the office on Sir Charles Murray. Mr Hume, however, called for a vote to reduce 10,000l. on the proposed salaries. It was negatived by 89 to 19. The only other contested point was the Barrack Department, which Mr Hume contended was carried to an enormous extent, and too highly paid. He was joined by Colonel Davies and Sir J. Newport; and Mr Hobhouse complained, that whereas one or two years ago they had fifteen or twenty divisions upon this subject, now they could not get up one. A division was accord

ly got up, by Mr Hume's moving a reduction from 114,000l. to 100,000l. The sense of the House appeared less decided upon this motion, which was rejected only by 95 to 38.

cannot obtain a spark of fire to warm himself and dress his victuals, without paying a high duty.

According to the act by which, two years before, the salt-duty had been reduced from 15s. to 2s. per bushel, the whole duty was to expire on the 1st January, 1825. As the tax, however, at its reduced rate, had proved very productive, ministers shewed a certain hankering after its continuance; and Mr Wodehouse, taking the field in their cause, announced a motion for the continuance of the duty. A general, however, and indeed just, dissatisfaction, was shewn at this project; and ministers, when it came to the point, declared their determination to keep full faith with the public, and consented that all duty on salt should cease on the 1st January, 1825.

The removal of taxes on commodities is an operation not hailed with an applause so unanimous as might at first sight be imagined. There can seldom fail to be some class, whose interest, which they now advance as a vested right, is not injuriously affected by that measure. The first rumour of the remission of the duty on seaborne coals alarmed the western and inland proprietors, who even poured in petitions against the measure. When again it was discovered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to repeal the absurd restriction against introducing more than 50,000 tons of inland coals into London, and to substitute a duty of 1s. 6d. per chaldron, instead of that of 10s., which at present operated as a prohibition, the owners of northern coal took the alarm; and indeed there seems no reason why the duty on inland coal should be lower than that brought by sea. After a good deal of discussion, however, between them and the western proprie tors, ministers adhered to the original project, which was accordingly carried. There could not be a more improper subject of taxation than coal; and, so far as it was relieved of duty, good was done; and we hope the very first opportunity will be taken to exempt altogether one of the prime necessaries of life, and materials of manufacture. A member, indeed, said he would prefer the window-tax; that he thought light more important than heat. But, without entering into a comparative discussion on these primary elements of human comfort, it may just be ob served, that light admitted by more than five windows is a decided luxury; while the poor Londoner, who perhaps receives it only by a single aperture,

In regard to the reduction of the duty on rum, which brought it to the level of that on British spirits, the West India proprietors urged, that this reduction brought a relief very inadequate to the necessities and distress under which they laboured. On the other hand, the distillers, and even the land-holders, complained of the measure, as tending to diminish the market for British spirits. The bill was carried through, however, without any regard paid to these neutrali❤ zing objections.

The malt and beer duties, a source of revenue highly productive to the government, and burdensome to the people, were brought this year under a good deal of discussion. The levying of duty on the same article, at successive stages of its production, rendered the machinery complicated and costly. Mr Maberly urged the adoption of a system, already suggested by Smith, of laying the whole duty upon the malt. Mr Robinson observed, that the malt duties were already subject to much evasion, which would be practised to a greater extent, if the whole weight

were laid on them. He threw out even a surmise, which, however, was indignantly repelled by the members connected with the brewing interest, that a mixture of unmalted grain might be resorted to. Admitting, however, the inequality which arose from the same duty being imposed upon varying strengths of beer, he proposed a graduated scale, according to the quanti ty of malt employed. The tax was thus clearly rendered more equal; but the complication introduced could not but increase the difficulty of survey, and the opportunities of evasion. It was, moreover, a subject of complaint, especially from Scotland, that this equalization materially raised the duties upon some of the species that were manufactured on the greatest scale. In consequence of the opposition made upon these grounds, the proposition was given up for the present, and only a new regulation introduced as to licences. Brewers were allowed to retail their own beer, under licences at moderate rates. There can be no doubt of the equity of this; and, indeed, it was a palpable infringement of natural right, to prevent a brewer from selling his own beer to the public. At the same time, unless in the case of small country towns, it would be, we apprehend, under a false estimate of expediency, that a brewer should think of uniting the two trades of making and retailing beer. A graduated scale of licence was adopted, varying from 10s. upon the annual sale of 20 gallons, to 15. upon that of 10,000 gallons; while all who sold above 40,000 gallons were to pay 75l. A license duty is essentially an unequal tax, and it has only the good quality of being simple, easily collected, and free from harassing survey. But when it is connected with a system of survey, it seems to lose these advantages; or if, as in the present case, a system of survey already exists, why not lay the whole

duty upon the quantity ascertained b that survey? To do otherwise seem an unnecessary complication. It ma be observed, that if anything lik thorough equality was aimed at, it wa very far from being attained. Thus if the license corresponding to 20 gal lons was 10s., and that to 50 gallon 1., the license corresponding t 10,000 gallons should have been 2001 instead of 15., and 40,000 gallon should have required 800l. The ta: was therefore still excessively unequal and there does not seem to be, in th case of retailing brewers, any room fo that discouragement of little dealers which Smith allows may be prope in the case of common alehouses. Re tailers of beer to be consumed out o their premises, were allowed on the same terms as brewers ;-a good re gulation.

The leather tax was one of those for the remission of which the opposi tion members most earnestly pressed. It had been already reduced, but, on the 18th May, Mr Calcraft brought in a motion for its total repeal, to commence from July 1825. He represented it as most impolitic and unproduc tive, collected with great expense, and producing only 300,000l. It drew much out of the pockets of the people, and put little into the Exchequer. The diminution of the duty could not fail, in the long run, to reduce the price of the article. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the objectionable character of the tax, and said, that, having had to consider the repeal of taxes to the amount of four millions and a half, this had come in for a share of his attention. But he conceived that there were more urgent objects;-the coal duties, the Scots spirit duties, which created so much inconvenience on the Border, the tobacco duty, which was 4s. while its price was 3d. per lb.-Mr Canning complained of this way of cutting up in

detail the financial plan, which had received the general approbation of the House. They had begun with the window tax, then with the house tax, then the assessed taxes, afterwards came the coal tax, now the leather. Sir J. Yorke, however, derided, with some reason, the idea of putting filthy poison like tobacco" in competition with leather, a necessary of life.The arguments of ministers, which were not, perhaps, very triumphant, procured only the somewhat narrow majority of 71 to 55.

a

The assessed taxes, however, formed the point on which the opponents of ministers drew forth their main strength. These taxes, however, as formerly observed, are far from being the most objectionable that can be imposed. They fall chiefly on luxuries; are easily collected, and do not embarrass the trading operations of the country. Being paid, however, direct from the pockets of the contributors into those of government, they are more felt, and consequently more unpopular, than those which merely operate by enhancing the price of commodities. The public, also, in consequence of certain authoritative paragraphs which appeared in the journals, had been worked up into a belief, that the present session would be signalized by a general repeal of these taxes. No real source could be discovered whence funds could be drawn, adequate to such a purpose. Still the public felt disappointed, when, instead of this extensive boon, they were presented only with a few cuttings and parings from some of the minor objects of taxation. The parliamentary chiefs, who claimed this repeal, failed not, therefore, to experience a certain support from the nation.

Mr Hobhouse, on the 2d March, brought forward a proposition for the

repeal of the house and window tax. He expressed satisfaction in general with the financial measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he admitted that the country was improving, and that agriculture was recovering; but the prosperity of this last branch he considered as resting upon. a very precarious basis, since the opening of the ports would bring in a fresh inundation of foreign grain. He thought it was very idle to attempt employing the small surplus of revenue in a sinking fund; and as for spending it in the building of churches, he conceived it, in the distressed state of the country, to be little better than sacrilege. With respect to this particular tax, it was the most oppressive, and the most unequal. It was, in fact, a kind of property tax. The owner of a house to the amount of 200l. a-year paid 421. for the house and window tax, while the owner of land to the same amount paid only 287. 18. He was justified in calling for the total repeal of this tax; and he thought the whole of the assessed taxes should be done away; but, for the present year, he should confine himself to the house and window tax.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was sensible that the application of the existing surplus to a sinking fund, instead of the reduction of taxes, was not a popular measure; but he could not sacrifice to a temporary popularity those great principles which he deemed essential to the welfare of states. There had been already remitted seven millions of taxes entire, besides nearly four millions reduced on articles still subject to taxation.-After some discussion, the motion was negatived by 155 to 88.

So little was Mr Maberly discoura➡ ged by the result of this motion, that, on the 10th May, he brought forward another, for the total repeal of the as

14