-member went direct to the abolition of the whole of the assessed taxes. He did not contend that the 1,500,000l. of surplus should not be applied in reducing the duties upon articles of common consumption; but that three millions and a half more of reduction should be added, by getting rid of the sinking fund altogether. First, then, with reference to the articles already reduced-with several of these the honourable member felt displeased. The 15 per cent. duty remaining on hemp, the hon. member complained of; but he could assure him, that those interested in the article felt the reduction given a very considerable boon. It would be remembered, too, that though this remaining duty, at the present low price of hemp, amounted to 15 per cent., it would fall to a lower rate, if, as was very probable, the commodity itself should rise in value. The next item complained of was the reduction upon coffee: this was called a slight and unnecessary article to make alteration in. He could only reply, that it was an article in very general use, and one which would be more generally in use if the duty upon it were lighter. For some years past, its consumption had been decreasing, which was a certain sign that the duty was higher than it could bear; and upon the propriety of encouraging in our West India possessions, the growth of all produce which could be raised with little slave labour, he (the chancellor of the exchequer) apprehended that, on neither side of the house, there could be any doubt. With respect to the article of wine, he still contended that wine was not a mere article of luxury; and even if it

were so, he saw no reason why it should not be placed within the reach of the middle classes of society. The very arguments which the hon. member for Abingdon had made use of against the reduction of the duties on wines, were just the reverse of those which had been urged a thousand times over on different occasions by the honourable gentlemen who set round him. The reduction of the duty on British spirits the hon. member particularly found fault with any other commodity whatever, and twenty were named, the tax had better be repealed upon. But the honourable member forgot that as the article of spirits stood, it was absolutely necessary to do something in the way of alteration. It was impossible, after reducing the duties (to prevent smuggling) in Ireland and Scotland, that the tax could be left at 2s. a gallon in Scotland, and 10s. 6d. in England. And, for the complaint that this measure did not complete the purpose-that, as there was still a duty, smuggling might still existthat argument was perfectly true; but it must be recollected, every thing could not be done at once. The hon. member for Abingdon wished that the duties had been taken off tea, or off tobacco, rather than spirits; but even that project would not be found entirely free from objection. The reduction of duty given on spirits had cost the revenue 750,000l. Now, the duty on tobacco afforded 3,000,000l.; and to have reduced it less than 50 per cent. would have been to give no benefit to the consumer. Then say that, allowing for increased consumption, the loss of duty instead of 50 per cent. came to 25, still the cost of that 0 2 reduction

reduction would be 750,000l.; which, added to the reduction given in spirits, and the whole disposable sum of 1,500,000l. was at an end. Again, for the article of tea-certainly, the duty was heavy enough on that commodity -it was 100 per cent., and it produced 3,000,000l. But if the duty on tea were reduced, it must be reduced to a great extent-perhaps not less than three-fourths taken off. Here then would be a loss, at first sight, of 2,250,000l.; but suppose the eventual loss only to reach 1,000,000l., where were the funds from which these enormous deficiencies could be made up?

Mr. Maberly rose to explain. His arguments were mistaken. He had not intended to recommend all those reductions, nor any of them, to the extent, perhaps, imagined by the right honourable gentleman.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not intended to mistate; but he was still fully prepared to show that no funds in any way disposable could meet the views of the honourable member for Abingdon. For, after all, it was the assessed taxes, according to that honourable member, that were the real taxes to be repealed; and that object was to be effected by giving up the sinking fund. Now the house would remember that, with reference to the assessed taxes, something had been done already. Within the last four years assessed taxes had been repealed to the amount of three millions and a half-that was, one half of them had been taken off. Out of ten millions, in taxes reduced, three millions and a half had been reduced in assessed taxes: this was

-

at least such a reasonable proportion as showed no inclination to neglect the subject. And the hon. member for Abingdon's plan was "Get rid of the sinking fund, and you may repeal all the assessed taxes that remain." The hon. member was mistaken; either he was wrong in one of his statements, or even the giving up of the sinking fund would not enable government to meet his views. For, according to the honourable member's account of the sinking fund itself, it was not a fund of 5,000,000l., but one only of 3,000,000l. Now, if the hon. member was right here, even the application of the sinking fund would not be sufficient for his purposes. It would be ridiculous to leave the finances of the country in that state, so that it would become a matter of doubt whether there should be a million of surplus, or a million of deficit. Several honourable members on the other side had admitted the expediency of retaining a surplus; but the motion of the honourable member would destroy all surplus. As to the observation of the honourable member, that his (the chancellor of the exchequer's) propositions respecting the reduction of duties had created universal disappointment in the country, he would only observe, that any such feeling had not been expressed to him, nor did he believe that it existed in the country. He rather thought, that if the opinions of the public could be known on this point, it would be found that the course which he had pointed out was considered as most consistent with a fair, just, and enlightened regard to the interests of the country.

After some observations from

Mr.

Mr. Huskisson and some other members, the house divided, when the bill was lost by 111 against 64.-Adjourned.

House of Lords, March 9.The royal assent was given to the Irish unlawful societies bill.

In the House of Commons, Mr. Peel obtained leave to bring in the consolidation juries bill.

Sir T. Lethbridge presented several petitions in favour of the western ship canal bill. The hon. baronet then moved the second reading of the bill.

Sir J. Yorke said he had no wish to oppose the bill; his only anxiety was that it might not interfere with the nursery for seamen which we had in our coasting trade. He would wish to ask his hon. friend whether the company was prepared to lay by a certain sum of money, to be expended in case this cut across the country did not succeed, to fill it up again?

Sir T. Lethbridge said he was not prepared to do any such thing. As to the nursery for seamen, he thought the objections made on that head had been already sufficiently answered.

The bill was then read a second time, and referred to a select committee.

The house then resolved itself into a committee of supply.

The house resumed, and the report of the committee was ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday next.

Lord Palmerston moved that the house do resolve itself into a committee upon the mutiny act. The house then resolved itself into a committee.

The marine mutiny bill was committed.

The house resumed the report to be received on Monday.

Mr. Martin moved the second reading of his cruelty to animals bill, which was lost by 50 against 32.

The second reading of the dissenters' marriage bill was postponed to Monday.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at one o'clock.

House of Lords, March 15.The spring guns bill went through a committee.

House of Commons, March 15.Col. Trench obtained leave to bring in a bill for building a quay and terrace on the north bank of the Thames. Leave was also given to bring in bills for the incorporation and sale of Canadian waste lands; for enclosing waste lands in Van Dieman's Land; for the regulations of co-partnerships in Ireland. The assessed taxes bill was read a third time. The wine duties bill was read a second time.

House of Lords, March 18.The army mutiny bill and the marine mutiny bill were read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.

The report of the spring-guns bill was brought up, read, and agreed to.

The Scots judicature bill, and the assessed taxes bill, went through committees.-Adjourned to Monday.

House of Commons, March 18. On the motion that the house do resolve itself into a committee of supply,

Mr. Goulburn moved a sum of 15,652l. on account, for the expenses of the protestant charter schools.

The motion was agreed to.
The next resolution was for
granting

granting a sum of 5,1601. on account, to the society for discountenancing vice in Ireland.

Mr. Hume wished that the right hon. secretary would consent to lay before the house a return of the prayer-books and tracts distributed by this society in Ireland.

Mr. Goulburn said that this society had already gone to some expense in the erection of buildings. Sir J. Newport again objected to the practice of these societies, of taking steps in which they could only be justified, if they were permanent, whereas they were depending on annual grants. It precluded all discussion on the vote, if they beforehand laid out money and involved themselves in debt, which was to be made good by the public.

The resolution was then agreed to; as was the next, for a grant of 20,000l., on account, to the society for educating the poor in Ireland. The next items were, a grant of 34,3781. on account, to the foundling hospital.

A grant of 15,574l. on account, to the house of industry asylum, and hospitals attached.

A grant of 5,640l. to the Richmond (Dublin) lunatic asylum.

A grant of 7,5441. to the Hibernian society, for the support of soldiers' children.

These were agreed to, without any observation.

A grant of 1,150l. to the Hibernian marine society.-Agreed to.

A sum not exceeding 10,000l. to defray the expenses of commissioners for wide streets in Dublin.-Agreed to.

The resolutions of 2,500l. for the farming society of Ireland, 300l. for the royal Irish academy, and 7221. for the commissioners

of charitable bequests, were then successively agreed to.

19,9981. to defray the expenses of the Irish linen board.

3,6811. for the board of inland navigation in Ireland.

The remainder of the estimates were then voted without any division.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the third reading of the annual duties bill.

The

Mr. Sykes, after expressing his regret that an honourable friend of his was not now in his place to bring forward certain objections to some provisions of this bill, which he (Mr. Sykes) knew that hon. gentleman to entertain, declared, that with the leave of the house, he must now, himself, state a few of those in which he entirely concurred with the hon. gentleman he alluded to. heavy duty that was continued, notwithstanding the generally liberal and improved system of our commercial policy, on our East India sugars, was a grievous restraint upon our trade, and a most burdensome tax upon English consumers of the article. It was perfectly well known that all the countries, almost without an exception, lying within twenty-five degrees on either side of the Equator, were by nature adapted for the production of sugar; and yet, such had been the narrow and mistaken policy of our governments, as to have so loaded with duty every other growth, that its imposts might be said to have confined the growth of sugars for our market to a few small and isolated spots of land in the Caribbean sea. Those duties amounted to a prohibition upon the importation of sugar raised in

any

any other countries, excepting, indeed, in our vast East Indian possessions; and our East India sugars were burdened with an extraordinary weight of duty also. He called upon gentlemen on the other side of the house to account for this-namely, why, and on what grounds, such a duty had been thought proper to be laid upon a most important produce of our Indian empire, which contained a population of 80,000,000 of souls and more-who were ready to take our manufactures of us to a very large amount, provided only that they could find in our markets a vent for that native produce? If he was told that the object of the government had been to protect the West India interest, he must contend that the only effect of such a plan was to keep up and sustain a cursed and detestable system of slavery, the existence of which every man in that house must join with him in sincerely deploring. When he stated that the duty on West India sugars was 27s., while that upon East India sugars was about 37s., the house must immediately perceive that such a difference as 10s. between the two duties, was calculated to keep one of these sugars almost entirely out of the market; and, by consequence, greatly to repress and diminish the supply that would otherwise be poured into it. Now it was pretty generally allowed, that abundance of produce was the very sinews of commercial prosperity. On the other hand, it was true that there was a drawback allowed on the exportation of sugars, amounting to 6s. per cwt.; but it could be easily shown, that that drawback, without effecting any benefit for

this country generally, by increasing the supply, and diminishing its price, served only to put upwards of 1,000,000l. in the pockets of the West Indians. It was with pain that he felt himself bound, on this occasion, strongly to object to the course which his Majesty's ministers seemed disposed to take upon the subject. He had with pleasure supported them, on many recent occasions, in the principal measures of what he conceived to be their improved policy. He had had the gratification, in the course of this and the last session, to see them reduce the duties on wool, timber, iron, hemp, and wine itself; and in all the principles upon which right honourable gentlemen over the way had suggested those reductions, he (Mr. Sykes) had most cordially concurred. Even upon questions, perhaps, of more doubtful expediency-as when the bounties on our fisheries were withdrawn-he had gone with ministers, upon reflection, because he conceived that trade could only flourish by being entirely free. But to retain the duty upon East India sugars, did appear to him a resolution on the part of government which was calculated most materially indeed to injure our commerce. was that duty to be continued, if it was (and that every body would admit) so contrary to those principles of free trade which ministers themselves had advocated with so much energy in other cases? Was it for the sake of exhibiting an anomalous variety in the maxims of our modern commercial policy? He called upon the government to set open the sugar trade, as it had done others, and not to make it the exception to its revisions. As

Why

for