overspreads the population, when nothing but despair and consternation prevail, the Chancellor of the Exchequer-I beg pardon the Archbishop of Tarento announces the liquefaction of St. Januarius's blood-as the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the issue of a Government letter: in both instances a wholesome state of currency returns, the people resume their gaiety and cheerfulness, the panic and the pressure disappear, everybody returns to music and maccaroni—as in London everybody returned to business; and in both cases the remedy is equally efficient and equally a hoax.

I think there is some reason for the House to agree with me that, as far as this great question of commercial distress (which the honourable member for Warwickshire is well aware has not yet terminated) is concerned, the House of Commons has not wasted much time. This is the most important subject which could possibly interest a great commercial nation; and yet I believe there are not a dozen members in the House who have expressed their opinions upon it. I confess that, as far as our discussions upon banking are concerned, I have long relinquished any hope that their result would be as satisfactory as I could desire. I observe that, by the adroit tactics of a great master of Parliamentary stratagem, a combat always takes place between opposite opinions, with which those who originate the question have generally very little to do. The debate is always interesting-it is frequently entertaining—but the sound principles of banking are seldom advanced by such discussions; and to obtain that great end I confess I look forward to only one means, and that a very painful one-another pressure and another panic.

I will now, Sir, refer to a subject of the utmost possible importance the financial question; and I will ask the House, now on August 30, after sitting for nearly ten months, calmly to consider whether, with regard to the financial statements and the measures which result from those statements, the conduct of the House of Commons has been of the thoughtless, unbusiness-like, unsatisfactory character which is alleged? I ask the House to inquire how much time has been occupied during the present session by those financial communications and arrange

ments which it is the first duty of an English minister to submit to the House of Commons? I ask the House to inquire whether, if time has been wasted, it has been wasted by the House of Commons-whether the speeches of honourable members on the forms of the House have occasioned such an expenditure of the public time? On February 18th the financial statement was made to this House. It was exceedingly satisfactory, both to the House and to the country, to be told that when Parliament met after Christmas not an hour would be unnecessarily lost before the financial statement was made. There was a disposition on this side of the House to view the conduct of the Government with forbearance; and I believe, indeed, they were in some degree favourites out of doors. People said, to be sure they are not men of business, but they have hard times. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a most active man. True, he got wrong in his deficiency bills, but that was an exceptional case. The Government are now sailing in still water, and they meet public business like men. When Parliament meets, not a moment is to be lost, the Prime Minister will be prepared, and we are to have the budget early in February.

Well, Sir, notwithstanding all the great events which have occurred in Europe, I still recollect that budget. It was communicated to the House quite in a grand style. It was not entrusted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Tamworth itself could not have arranged a programme more magnificent and more solemn. The Prime Minister himself came forward. The considerations included, in a political sense, were not less important than those of a financial nature. It was clearly a budget that could not be entrusted to a mere man of routine— it demanded the expansive views and the high spirit of a statesman. The country was to be defended as well as the taxes to be paid. These were great questions for the House to consider; and when we were informed of our danger-when we were induced to express our determination to protect our country, our sovereign, and our hearths-when we found there was to be an increase not only of the miscellaneous but of the military estimates-then the great sting in the epigram was apparent,

and we were told the income-tax was to be doubled. Now that was clearly a financial scheme which must have been most completely matured. It was not a scheme that was taken up in an hour, or drawn with a pen on the back of a letter. There must have been cabinet councils frequent and long, discussions secret and interminable, upon a budget which-in a moment of deficiency—required the country to increase its expenditure, and which attempted to accomplish two great ends to defend the country and to fill the exchequer.

I think, Sir, I am using no term of exaggeration if I express the feeling of the House, after hearing that budget, as one of considerable dissatisfaction. Every honourable gentleman who represented a party or a section, rose-almost even behind the Treasury bench-and expressed an indignant protest against the Government scheme. But this was only a murmur compared with the roar which took place out of doors. A menagerie before feeding time could alone give an idea of the unearthly yell with which the middle classes-especially the inhabitants of towns, especially the advocates of Liberal opinions, and more especially the disciples of free trade principles, met this demand. Day after day, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Bradford sent up their protests; meetings were held in the City of London, at which the scheme was condemned; and persons were, in fact, so much alarmed that they had not time to investigate the causes of their condition, but there was a general impression that the income tax was about to be doubled, because we were going to war.

Well, on February 21st (the Monday following the Friday on which the announcement was made), there having been several cabinet councils in the interval, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was put forward—just as a great general, after arranging the disposition of his infantry, finding they cannot do all he expected, sends out a dashing commander of cavalry to make a charge which he hopes will set things right—and made a most extraordinary speech. It was a sort of lament over the misconceptions which had unaccountably occurred with regard to the statements of his chief. One would imagine that if there were any Parliamentary statement, any public narrative, which

would be carefully and clearly prepared before it was submitted to this House it would be a financial exposition. I had listened to the exposition, charmed by the classic eloquence of the noble lord, and I certainly was not aware that it was enveloped in that Theban mist by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was encompassed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the man to put a thing right. He came forward and said, that the greatest possible misconception existed as to the estimates—but that it was not a very great increase, and that it was occasioned by an expedition to the North Pole. This was the declaration of the right honourable gentleman to show that we were not going to war, but that we were merely endeavouring to discover the North Pole-a luxury, I think, better adapted to times when we possessed a surplus in the Exchequer.

Then the right honourable gentleman acknowledged that it was true the miscellaneous estimates were considerably increased; but,' he said, 'you forget the expense of building the new Houses of Parliament, of keeping up the British Museum, and, last of all, the immensely increased amount of your printers' bill.' That was the defence of the estimates made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer-a defence which heralded the most extraordinary proposition ever made by a minister. To the surprise, very probably, not of the members of the cabinet, but I am sure of every member of the Administration who was not in the cabinet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his determination to propose the immediate reference of the army, navy, and ordnance estimates to a select committee; and on the next day he also proposed that the miscellaneous estimates should be submitted to the same ordeal. But, Sir, the storm did not lull. Submitting the estimates to select committees a point on which, with the permission of the House, I shall afterwards make some observations-did not pay the double income tax; and there were symptoms of popular feeling which also might have led to the supposition that the tumults which afterwards broke out in various parts of the Continent were about to commence in this loyal country of England.

Well, on February 28th the honourable member for Montrose

(Mr. Hume), having given notice of a motion for the reduction of expenditure and the diminution of taxation, and there being also some other very inconvenient notices upon the books -on February 28th, ten days after the financial exposition of the noble lord at the head of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House, and, in the handsomest manner-keeping his promise to the House and to the public that they should have a budget in February-presented them with two budgets! On that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that misconceptions as to the intentions of the ministry not only still continued to prevail, but were even on the increase; that there were already several motions of a most inconvenient character on the books of the House; that it became necessary to review their position; that he had himself no doubt that the estimates might be considerably curtailed; that by borrowing money which had been destined for another purpose, and by not applying some money to the purpose for which it was originally intended-that is to say, by filching on the one hand and screwing on the other-they could manage very well to bring the expenditure and the income to a balance without doubling the income tax-an income tax which the noble lord had estimated would bring an additional 3,500,000l. into the Exchequer.

Now, let me remind the House that, from February 18th to 28th, ten days were wasted in this House while the country was kept in a state of agitation; but was it the House of Commons that was guilty of wasting that time? Was there too much discussion here, or were the antiquated forms of the House tripping up the noble lord and the cabinet? Ten days were wasted, and we had not advanced a step. On February 28th we were still with an empty Exchequer, and the only chance we had of getting anything to pay even 10s. in the pound of the deficiency was by scraping some 600,000l., 700,000l., or 800,000l. from the estimates, which had just been laid on the table with this announcement: Gentlemen of the House of Commons,-Her Majesty has given directions that the estimates of the next year should be prepared for the purpose of being laid before you. They will be framed with a careful regard to