had the sanction of the noble lord then at the head of the government. He (Mr. Huskisson) possessed no other merit than that of having followed them up to their consequences. "And what," asked Mr. Huskisson in conclusion, "what is the system which the ship-owners would substitute for that which has been adopted? Would they have the country go back to its ancient prohibitions? Would they have the trade managed by charters, guilds, corporations, and companies? Would they have the 500 laws which I have had the good fortune to induce the House to repeal, re-enact ed? It is vain in those hon. members to hope that we can now stop in the course of the civil and commercial improvement which has commenced. England cannot lie still while other nations are ad

vancing and increasing within themselves the means of power and enjoyment."

This address was well received by the House. Mr. Peel and Mr. Baring joined in resisting the mo

tion as being in no way justified by any existing facts; and, in reference to his recent separation from the ministry, Mr. Peel said, that, as, if he had remained in the government, he would have resisted the appointment of a committee, which was intended to prove any thing against the system by which the commercial policy of the country had been modified, so there was nothing in his present circumstances which would allow or induce him to act otherwise. Mr. Ellison (member for Newcastle on Tyne) frankly said, he was afraid to vote against the motion, because his constituents, who were deeply interested in the question, would scarcely be satisfied without inquiry; and Mr. Curwen told general Gascoyne, that, having promised before-hand to support his motion, he would keep his promise if the general divided the House; but that he would now be able to give no other reason than his promise for so doing. The general, however, did not call for a division.

Parliament.

TH
Twas attention of

HE attention of parliament was so much occupied with the Corn-laws and with discussions relating to the state of parties, that the financial arrangements of the country attracted less than their usual share of notice. Indeed, the new minister announced, soon after his elevation, that it was not the intention of the government to engage in any financial investigations or inquiries, except so far as might be necessary for getting through with the business of the year, and that the minute consideration of such matters was to be postponed, till a Finance Committee was appointed, which Mr. Canning stated it to be his intention to propose in the following session.

On the first of June, Mr. Canning brought forward the budget. The method which he adopted was, to state, first, the financial situation of the country at the end of the preceding year; secondly, to combine and to compare, that one year with the several years which had preceded it; and lastly, to suggest the provision to be made for the service of the present year, and the grounds on which he felt himself justified in looking forward with confidence to the result. At the end of 1826, there was an actual surplus of 1,000,000,

But, the sum of 5,500,000l. being applicable by law to the Sinkingfund, there was an apparent deficiency of 4,500,000l. But, in the expenditure of that year, were included 1,200,000l., the aggregate of advances made by the Exchequer, under several acts of parliament, for public works, and for the purchases of beneficial interests, upon which the country had available and outstanding claims, carried to the account of the expenditure; and, further, the payment of expenses which had not been contracted in that year, amounting also to 1,200,000l. If these two sums of 1,200,000l. were deducted from the apparent deficiency of 4,500,000l., there would be left a clear deficiency of 2,100,000l. including the payments made on account of the Sinking-fund.

Taking the years 1823, 1824, 1825, and 1826, the total income of those four years was 229,204,2617., or, in round numbers, 230,000,000l. The total expenditure of the same period was 209,242,1847.; or, in round numbers, 210,000,000l. The surplus of income which remained applicable to the Sinking-fund of 1823, 1824, 1825, and 1826, was 19,962,6771.;-in round numbers, 20,000,000l. The total aggregate

amount of the income of the country, for those four years, was, therefore, something under 230,000,000l. ; the total expenditure, something under 210,000,000l.; and the surplus remaining applicable to the Sinking-fund was almost within a fraction of 20,000,000l. The amount of the Sinking-fund which, by law, was applicable to the reduction of the national debt, during the same period, was about 21,500,000l.; leaving, therefore, upon the whole of the four years, an apparent deficiency of income applicable to the discharge of the whole expenditure, including the Sinking-fund, of 1,265,6877. But against this apparent deficiency was to be placed the amount of the advances from the Exchequer, under different acts of parliament, either for loans, for carrying on public works, or on account of beneficial purchases, which the public had in their possession, as available securities for the repayment of the money which had been so advanced.

- The amount of excess of advances beyond repayment, for the four years, was something short of 2,400,000l. Deducting from this sum the amount of the deficiency of a million and a quarter, there remained a real surplus of income beyond expenditure, in those four years, after providing for the whole of the Sinking-fund, of something more than 1,100,000l. Mr. Canning then proceeded to state, the income and expenditure of the current year.

The estimated receipt of 1827, said he, founded on the actual receipt of 1826, is 54,600,000l. The estimated expenditure of 1827, not including the Sinking-fund, is 51,800,000l. The Sinking-fund, applicable to the debt, during the

present year, is 5,700,000l. Add this Sinking-fund to the expenditure, and the total demand for the present year will be 57,500,000l., leaving a deficit, to be provided for, of 2,900,000l. Omitting so much of the income of the four preceding years, as accrued from repayments from public works, &c. and so much of its expenditure as arose from grants and loans, the income of the last four years, exclusive of such repayment, amounted to $228,000,000l. The estimated income of the present year is 54,600,000l. The total actual and estimated income of the five years, exclusive of repayments, is 282,600,000l. The expenditure of the last years, exclusive of advances, was 205,667,000l. The estimated expenditure of the present year is 51,810,000l., making together a total expenditure, for the five years, of 257,477,000l. The difference between the aggregate of the income, and the aggregate of the expenditure, may therefore be taken at something more than 25,000,000l.

The Sinking-fund, by law, amounted in the years 1823, 1824, 1825, and 1826, to 21,227,7651. Its legal claim, in the current year, is 5,700,000l., making in the whole the sum of 26,927,765l., and, consequently, leaving a deficiency of income, on the five years, to meet the Sinking-fund required by law, of 1,804,765l.:-a deficiency, say of two millions, accruing on an expenditure of nearly 300,000,000l., and spread over a period of no less than five years.

It may be said, continued Mr. Canning, that there is a fallacy in this statement arising out of what is generally designated by the name of the "dead-weight." I admit, that the dead-weight is open

to the vice of obscuring and of complicating the national accounts. But, in respect to this particular account, it has not only not operated badly, but, in fact, has proved of very considerable advantage to the country. The contributions, during the last four years, from the commissioners of naval and military pensions, have amounted to 7,600,000l. When this measure of the dead-weight was first introduced, taxes to the amount of two millions annually were repealed. Before, therefore, it can be assumed, with any degree of fairness, that the addition of this 7,600,000l. has a tendency to give an exaggerated appearance to the statement of the national income, we ought to consider what would have been the produce, during the same time, of those taxes which were repealed, because this system of contribution-and only because this system of contributionwas established. Those taxes, if they had continued unrepealed (which, by hypothesis, would have been the case, inasmuch as the temptation to the House to sanction that scheme of contribution was the enabling it to arrive at the repeal of such taxes) would have yielded 8,240,000l. So far, therefore, from the amount of the public income being unfairly swollen by the introduction of this deadweight, it shews a total 640,000l. less than it would otherwise have amounted to, by reason of the dead-weight having been substituted in the place of those repealed taxes.*

of

To include as income 7,600,0007. of borrowed money (borrowed, too, unluckily on the most mischievous terms, that of being repaid by a deferred annuity, thus throwing the whole burthen both of principal and interest on future

At

The question to be decided was, whether the deficiency of about 2,000,000l., was to be provided for by any extraordinary course, or whether it would be expedient to take credit for the amount in the present year on the consolidated fund, and wait until it should be seen, in the next session, what measures of a more decisive character should be adopted. The mode of making up the deficiency which suggested itself to him, was by an addition to the amount of Exchequer-bills already afloat. the present moment, the 100%. Exchequer-bill was bought at a premium of 50s., it bearing only three per cent interest. The whole amount of Exchequer bills afloat was 23,800,000%. That amount would be increased (supposing the whole of the present deficiency to continue at the end of the year, and the revenue to go on at the same rate at which it had gone on for the last four months) to no more than 26,700,000l. Of this amount of Exchequer-bills, one-fifth was totally different from the remaining four-fifths, being issued in respect of sums advanced by government for carrying on several public

years) is extravagant enough; but it is still more extravagant to suppose, as Mr. Canning does, that a loan is converted into income, if it induces us to repeal taxes. The question is-Whether the amount of the national income is fairly represented in certain accounts? Those accounts state as income money borrowed, and borrowed in the most unthrifty of all modes of borrowing. Money borrowed is not income, but the contrary of income; neither can repealed taxes constitute income. Whether it is prudent to borrow in order to obtain present relief from taxation, is a fair question; and this question Mr. Canning confounded with a mere question of fact, as to the amount of the national income.