27 APRIL 1850, Page 9

POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDA.Y.

Much time was occupied in the House of Commons last night by Mr. Disraeli and Lord John Russell in vivacious criticism and counter-cri- ticism of party tactics on finance. The discussion was raised by Mr. Disitema on the motion to go into Committee of Supply—

It was nearly two months ago that the Minister favoured the House with a general view of the finances of the country ; an exposition that would be laudable for its earliness, if it had ever been finished. But the House finds itself again in the difficulty. of 1848, when Government began a financial statement on the 17th of February, which it did not bring to a close till the 25th of August. A Sugar Bill was introduced which was un- successful, a second also failed, and a third shared the same fate ; but if three failures of Sugar Bills brought an end to the budget of 1848, it should follow that four failures on the Stamp Act should indicate the abandonment of the present scheme. He therefore assumed that they would hear no more of the Stamp Act,—no such monstrous assumption, considering the present to be a much more aggr.ivated case of Ministerial incompetence than that of the Sugar-duties. There is u certain indulgence to be extended to the finance of a Whig Government—it cannot be expected to excel in every brunch. In Foreign policy, the Government, by its peremptory decrees and numerous blockades, vindicates our supremacy on the seas ; the Colonial Office, by its ingenuity in manufacturing constitutions, upholds the country's well- earned reputation for being foremost in liberal constitutions ; and at Home, the pigeon-holes of the Government have ever ready some scheme to keep Ireland rich and England content. These circumstances compensate for an occasional deficit, and an occasional proposition to double the Income-tax. But as to the budget, hitherto nothing has happened but the repeal of an excise-duty : that cannot be the budget of the Government ? Some more distinct explanation of plans is desirable. Have the circumstances which prompted the relief volunteered to agricultural distress since rendered the agricultural exigencies less severe ? Or do Ministers intend one more at- tempt to complete the budget according to their original scheme ? What do they now mean to do for the relief of the agricultural classes ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought it hardly worth while for Mr. Disraeli to have interrupted the practical business of the House either to give such information as he had conveyed or to put such inquiries.

It is not usual to bring forward the budget early, to state what taxes you will remit, and then proceed with supply. In times of peace such a course is very inexpedient, in times of war absurd and impracticable. The Chan- cellor of the Exchequer's statement has been plain enough ; its principle is, to divide a surplus between public burdens and public debt : that general policy the Ministry is carrying out, and he would not go into details on their course on any particular matter.

But Mr. Disraeli's own course has been not a little remarkable—not a little wavering and inconsistent. Before the session, he propounded a great plan of finance of his own, which had at least the creditable feature that it pro- posed to maintain the credit of the country very high. But on the first night of the session, the House was told the great question was protection ; next they were told that as the House was clearly against protection there was no need to talk any more about it ; and now for a month past, upon every motion, about paper, marine insurances, or what not—from whatever quar- ter made, or with whatever object—the honourable gentleman and his fnends have been only eager to diminish the revenue of the country below its ex- penditure. The only principle has been, without any reference to the state of our finances, to vote with anybody who thinks one tax worse than another; abandoning all their own views, they endeavour to get into a majority by fol- lowing in the train and adopting the policy of Mr. Cobden himself. A worse plan of finance—a plan based on more shallow views, more tending to destroy the credit of the country in the first place, and disturb the peace of the country in the second place—had never been conceived by a party which had number and wealth and station in that House. And "elsewhere " not only is revi- sion of taxes and salaries mooted, but the payment of dividends on the Na- tional Debt questioned ; questions most unwise to be mooted in such high places ; questions not asked, and a course certainly not likely to be sup- ported, by the people of England generally. If the country be really suffer- ing under the infliction of free trade, it is the duty of those who think so to bring the question fairly before Parliament : Lord John, at all events, will not be afraid of the question. The episode thus originated became the chief discussion. Lord JOHN MANNERS defended the policy Lord John Russell had reviewed : at all events, it had enough merit to be eulogized and even plagiarized by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. HUME marked the scene of mutual crimination and recrimination ; and complained that Government do abide by their plans, which amount to this, that expenditure should be un- reduced.

The House went into Committee of Supply ; but Sir FRANCIS BAILING stated that it was too late to proceed, and the Navy Estimates were post- poned. The other business of the House was of secondary interest. The Dis- tressed Unions Advances and the Repayment of Advances Bill passed through Committee, without important alteration of its clauses. Mr. HENRY HERBERT made a defensive statement on Irish credit; showing from official returns, that of 8,483,0001. lent to Ireland by the Imperial

Government since 1817, only 2,843,395/. was unpaid in 1848. Mr. M‘Giesooa's motion to abolish Marine Insurances was very briefly de-

bated ; and was negatived, by 156 to 89. Sir JOHN PAXINGTON made a grievance statement on the King's Road and Eaton Square question be- tween the Trustees and the Marquis of Westminster ; and Sir JOHN JERVIS justified, on legal technicalities, his own course in the matter as law-officer of the Crown,—repeating his refusal to let the inhabitants use his name as Crown prosecutor in an action to compel the Marquis to re- pair the road.

The Lords sat, and adjourned early.