discovery that there were so many objections to his last plans, as above explained, that he could not proceed with the Bill without further time for consideration. He postponed the Bill for a week, in order to consider whether it was possible to reconcile the vote of the House with the raising of an adequate amount of revenue. On the 11th May he announced the result of his further deliberations, prefacing his statement with the explanation that he had intended an equalization rather than a remission of duty in favour of the smaller class of capitalists, though it had been found necessary to provide against a defalcation of re venue. The alteration which the House had made in his scale would not only entail a further loss, but would occasion a practical inconvenience, as a shilling scale would not fit in with any existing sum, and would occasion the expense of new stamp-dies throughout the country. He proposed to with draw the Bill, and substitute a wholly new measure, approximating, as nearly as it would be practically convenient, to the recorded wish of the House. The scale of duties would now stand as follows:-The duty on conveyances and mortgages would be 1 per cent on all values. On mortgages and bonds, which the late vote had recommended to be 18. per cent., he proposed charging 1-8th per cent. (making the duty on value up to 50l. only 1s. 3d.); for 100l. 2s. 6d., and as much more for every successive 1001. For settlements and money secured upon land the stamp to be 5s. per cent. The duty on contingent annuities he gave up altogether, as well as that upon leases for a year, of whatever amount. The stamps on memorials were laid at 2s. 6d., and on the "followers" in conveyances a fixed sum of 108. As a new feature of some importance in the Bill, he promised a clause, by which a sum of 10s., paid by way of verification fee, was to render the duty charged upon any instrument by the Commissioners of Stamps effectual in making the document valid in every court for all intents and purposes, instead of leaving the question of validity open for the decision of the judge at the last moment. He concluded by moving that the order for going into Committee on the Bill be discharged, and that the House should go into Committee on the preliminary resolution for a new Bill. This was ordered. At a late period of the Session, the House having gone into Committee on the Stamp Duties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a further modification of his measure in respect to the duties on law proceedings. He stated, that when he brought forward his propositions at an early period of the Session, he was not very cognisant of what the probable amount of the revenue would be; but since that time the revenue had increased more than he expected, and, without being very sanguine, he believed the loss by reducing the stamps would not be so great as he then estimated. The commencement of the Act also was postponed to October, so that it would be in operation only half of that year. Under these circumstances he felt justified in going further than he before intended, and he proposed to reduce the duty on conveyances altogether to onehalf per cent., instead of one per cent., as he last proposed. The duty on mortgages would be, as he before explained, an uniform eighth per cent., without limit to the progression. The loss on the revenue by the whole remissions of the Bill would be about 500,000l. a year. The Bill, thus modified by successive alterations from the original plan, was eventually passed. The result has since shown that the Chancellor of the Exchequer considerably over-rated the loss to the public income consequent upon his reductions. The demand for a retrenchment of expenditure and a reduction of the public burthens which had originated at the period when the country was suffering under commercial distress, and had been taken up by an active party in the State, still continued to make itself felt in the House of Commons, and to enforce upon the Government a more vigilant heed to the duty of economy. Nor was it only the more liberal class of politicians who were influenced by this sentiment. The representatives of the agricultural interest, still suffering under severe depression, declared their resolution to carry out the principle of retrenchment into every department of the State, by way of relieving their constituents from the burthens of which the reduced prices of their produce had made them now doubly sensible. Mr. Henley, Member for Oxfordshire, and a leading champion of the agricultural cause, gave notice early in the Session of a motion, pledging the House to a general reduction of official salaries. Before, however, the day fixed for this motion arrived, the Prime Minister had anticipated Mr. Henley by announcing his intention to propose the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the same question. Lord John Russell also, about the same time, brought in a Bill to reduce the salary of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, an office which had recently fallen vacant, from 8000l. to 7000l. per annum. Various other efforts in the cause of retrenchment, some of which we shall have to record in the present chapter, were made by individual Members, actuated by different views, and representing antagonist interests in the House of Commons. It happened, also, partly from the causes just referred to, and partly from the prevailing impression that the Government of Lord John Russell was peculiarly weak in its financial department, that several vigorous, though desultory, efforts were made in the course of this Session to obtain the repeal of some of the more obnoxious taxes. Thus Lord Duncan almost succeeded in rallying a majority against the Window Tax; Lord Robert Grosvenor actually carried against Ministers, through several stages, a Bill for the repeal of the duty on Attorneys' Certificates, which was only rejected on the third reading; Mr. M. Gibson made a vigorous attack on the Paper Duty; and Mr. Cayley arrayed a strong body of supporters on behalf of the abolition of the Malt Duty. It will be convenient to take the more important of these discussions in the order in which they occurred, so as to present a complete view of the financial transactions of the Session. It was on the 12th of April that Lord John Russell brought forward his motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the salaries and emoluments of offices held during pleasure by Members of Parlia ment; those of judicial offices in the superior courts, the retiring pensions of the judges, and the expense of diplomatic establishments. He premised that there were various precedents for the appointment of such a Committee-in 1798, in 1818, and especially in 1830, when Lord Althorp obtained a Committee for a similar purpose, and since 1848 a Committee had been employed in inquiries into the military establishments. That Committee had nearly completed its labours, and he now proposed to initiate an investigation into those of a civil character. Frequent proposals were made in that House for the reduction of salaries or offices, and it seemed to the Government far better that these questions should be considered by a Committee of independent Members than by the holders of offices. The proposition being in conformity with precedents, he should not have thought it necessary to go further, but that Mr. Disraeli had given notice of an amendment to it, as well as of a motion hereafter respecting the diplomatic and consular services, which was to be followed by a motion of Mr. Henley's for a general revision of all salaries, with a view to their reduction. The terms of Mr. Disraeli's amendment seemed to imply that Government had not taken measures for effecting reductions in the national establishments, whereas the military estimates alone had been reduced in the last two years to the extent of 3,284,000l.; and in the civil de partments reductions had been going on for several years. In the Treasury, for example, between 1821 and 1850, there had been a reduction of nine persons, and 42 per cent. upon the aggregate sa laries. Lord John read statements of the economical operations which had been gradually taking place in the Customs, the Excise, and the Stamps, in the abolition and consolidation of offices, as well as in the curtailment of salaries. These reductions, made by the Government, showed that the Ministers, in their several departments, were endeavouring to enforce economy with as little hardship as possible to individuals. In proposing this Committee, he observed, it was not his intention that it should enter upon its inquiries with the view of regulating salaries according to the price of corn, which would require a scheme of adjustments according to the fluctuations of seasons. Another notion had been lately started, that the public service would be better carried on if the persons employed in it were altogether removed from Parliament; but such a proposi tion was inconsistent with our machinery of government, which required that persons connected with the Executive should be present in Parliament to explain and support measures of legislation. The value of this system was sufficiently exemplified in the constitution of the remodelled Poor Law Board. concluded by expressing his belief that an independent Committee of that House would deal with the subject in the most satisfactory manner. 66 He Mr. Disraeli moved, as an amendment to the motion, that the House is in possession of all the information requisite to revise and regulate public salaries, and that it is the duty of the Government, on its own responsibility, forthwith to introduce measures necessary for effecting every practicable reduc tion in the national establish ments." He had listened, he observed, with great attention to the address of the noble Lord, but when he heard that the Government had effected so many reductions, the impression upon his mind was that of surprise at their not persevering in so successful a course, instead of devolving their duty upon a Committee. Lord J. Russell had laid down no principle; he had appealed to precedents; but there was this essential difference between precedents and the course he proposed-Estimates had been referred to a Committee; but they were the embodied opinion of the Government submitted to the House. Lord John, however, had expressed no opinion whether reductions were practicable or not— a question which must have been the subject of investigation and reflection by the Government; and all he asked was that they should act upon their own conclusions. Mr. Disraeli asked the House to affirm that it was already in possession of all the necessary information-a fact which was proved by the numerous documents referred to by Lord John Russell himself. Whence was further information to be obtained? Were the judges to be examined as to their travelling expenses, and the diplomatic hierarchy as to their extraordinary outlays? All this information was now at the command of the Government. He had great difficulty in arguing against a proposition which, insidious as it was, wore a flattering aspect; but he advised the House well to consider whether the devolving this inquiry upon a wellarranged Committee, having lively sympathy with the policy of the Government, would not diminish the authority of that House, by relieving Ministers from their pro Mr. Henley likewise supported the amendment, considering that reductions were more likely to be obtained by throwing the burden upon the Executive Government, which had better means of extracting information than a Committee. With so large a scope, the inquiries of a Committee would be illusory. Lord H. Vane, on the contrary, believed that a reference of the subject to a Committee would be attended with the best results. Mr. Grantley Berkeley supported the amendment, looking upon the attempt of the Government to cast this duty from themselves upon a Committee as an endeavour to shelve the question for the Session. Mr. Cockburn said, in his judgment, Lord J. Russell had adopted the proper, correct, and constitu tional course. For a question affecting the expenditure and taxation of the country that House was the proper tribunal. He did not agree with Mr. Disraeli that all the required information was already obtained. The settlement of such a question should be, as far as possible, upon a permanent basis, and the information for that purpose should be acquired, not secretly by the Government, but openly, and placed upon record. Mr. Herries considered that the House had a right to know what the Government intended to do by means of this Committee. The course proposed by Mr. Disraeli was not only the fairest, but would give more satisfaction to the country than a Committee could. Mr. Bright said, upon a close examination of the amendment, it contained nothing more real than the appointment of a Committee; it did not pledge the House to any reduction of expenditure; if it had done so, nothing would have induced him to vote for a Committee in opposition to such a substantial proposition. If, however, the Committee should be an impartial one, he thought the inquiry would be better conducted in their hands than in those of the Government, who could not resist external influences; and that all parties whose salaries should be diminished would bear the reductions more patiently after an investigation and a report by a Committee. Mr. H. Drummond observed, that Lord John Russell asked the House to inquire-of whom? It could only be of himself. The proposed Committee was not one to reduce expenditure-it was only to inquire; and if this motion. were carried, it would be useless to entertain any future question of financial reform. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to the objections of Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Hume, and other Members, and declared that the object of the Government was to effect whatever reductions should be expedient and practicable in the opinion of an impartial Committee. Lord J. Manners anticipated no beneficial result from a Committee constituted as this would be, and called upon the House to prefer the amendment to the motion. After a brief reply from Lord J. Russell, the House divided, negativing the amendment by 250 to 159. Mr. Horsman then moved that the inquiry be extended to the incomes of ecclesiastical dignitaries, urging reasons derived from the amount of those incomes which were enjoyed for life, and the disproportion they bore to the incomes of Ministers of State, Judges, Ambassadors, and other public officers. The Bishops per formed duties; but the capitular bodies, deans and canons, were acknowledged sinecurists, yet they annually divided amongst themselves a larger amount of income than the salaries of any one of the departments of the public service included in the motion of Lord J. Russell. Sir George Grey said, Mr. Horsman was not doing justice to the object in view by mixing up this question with one totally foreign to it. Episcopal and capitular revenues stood upon a different footing from official, judicial, and diplomatic incomes, which were derived from public taxation, whereas the former came from other sources. He urged the House not to adopt this amendment, which would pro |