were

the House in the ordinary manner; but they were there exposed to a scrutiny more than usually severe. Mr. Hume en tered into a close examination of the smallest items in the accounts, and pointed out numerous instances in which the expense was unnecessarily great. Many of his proposed reductions were, doubtless, impracticable; but many of them were free from all objection; and though his amendments were negatived, they produced gradually a strong impression on the House, and on the ministers too. The heads of departments are seldom acquainted with the minute arrangements of their offices; without meaning to be extravagant, they are not aware, that all that is done might be accomplished at a less charge; superfluous expenses are introduced by accident and by carelessness; having once come into existence, they are continued by

necessity. Mr. Hume brought back the details of the expenditure to first principles; he suggested to men in office many points, of which they probably were not aware; he forced them to consider, what might be done in the way of retrenchment; even in resisting his propositions, they were compelled to make many concessions, and were taught to feel the necessity of adopting economical principles of administration. The nature of our plan will not permit us to record the details of the retrenchments, which Mr. Hume recommended; all that we can do is, to mention the principal propositions made by him, with respect to the most important heads of the national expenditure.

When the army estimates were taken into consideration, Mr. Hume moved,

"That there were in the service of Great Britain and Ireland

in 1792 (exclusive of the regular cavalry and infantry) 25,757 troops; namely, 3,730 (of royal artillery, 4,425 of the royal marines, and 17,602 of disembodied militia; and in 1821 (exclusive of regular cavalry and infantry) the number of 125,492 troops; namely, 7,872 engineers and artillery, 8,000 royal marines, 51,998, disembodied militia, and 57,622 yeomanry cavalry and volunteer infantry, making, with the regular cavalry and infantry, a larger force by 132,367 men, available for purposes of government in the year 1821, than the government had in 1792; that the supplies for the expense of the military establishment of Great Britain and Ireland in 1792 were 2,331,149.; that the supplies voted for the military establishment of Great Britain and Ireland for 1820 were 9,500,2167.; that the army estimates for 1821, now submitted to the House, are only 163,4987. less than those of 1820: and that it is the opinion of this House, that, under the present circumstances of the country, it is expedient to adopt measures to effect a large reduction in the number and expenditure of its military establishments, and to approximate as near as possible to the establishment of 1792, as recommended by the finance committee of 1817."

The House divided: There were 74 Ayes, and 98 Noes.

On the subject of the navy estimates, Mr. Hume moved,

"That it appears, by the returns before this House, that the expense of the Admiralty office, of the Navy Pay office, and of the Navy Office establishments, in the year 1792, when there were 144 ships in commission,

257 ships in ordinary, and 16,000 seamen and marines in the service, was 58,719.; that, in the year 1813, when there were 666 ships in commission, 355 in ordinary, and 140,000 seamen and marines in the service, the expense of those offices was 189,2271.; and in the estimates for 1821, when there are only 119 ships in commission, 582 in ordinary, and 22,000 seamen and marines in the service, the expence is 185,050l. for those offices, being only a reduction of 4,177. in the sixth year of a peace from the year 1813 of extended warfare, and the sum of 126,3317. more in 1821 than in 1792:-That the expense of the dock yard establishments in England in the year 1792 was 25,352l.; in the year 1813 it amounted to 212,1437.; and in the estimate for the year 1821, the amount is 210,745., being only 1,3981. less than in 1813, and of 185,3931. more in 1821 than in 1792; that the expense of the foreign dock yards in the year 1813 was 52,3697., and by the estimate for 1821, the charge is 53,9517. being 1,5917. more in the year 1821, a year of peace, than in 1813, a year of war: That the sum voted for the ordi. nary estimate of the navy in the year 1792 was, 672,4831.; the sum voted for the ordinary estimate of the year 1813, was 1,757,9281.; and that the ordinary estimate for 1821 amounts to 2,484,600/., being, 1,812,118/. more than the estimate of the year 1792, and 726,6721. more than that of the year 1813That the total supply voted for the service of the navy in the year 1792 was 1,985,4827. with 16,000 seamen and marines in

the service; that in the year 1819 the supply voted for the navy was 5,985,4157. with 19,000 seamen and marines in the service; and the estimate for the total supply of 1821 is 6,382,786., with 22,000 seamen and marines in the service, being a charge of 4,397,3041. more in 1821 than in 1792, and of 397,3717. more in 1821 than in 1819."

He did not press his motion to a division.

With respect to the ordnance estimates, Mr. Hume moved,

"That the sums voted by parliament for the service of the ordnance of the United Kingdom, in the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, upon the estimates laid before this House, amounted to 3,764,0341.; that the sums entered in the appropriation acts for those years amounted to 3,695,336/.; and that the sums stated in the annual Finance Accounts for those three years, as actually paid for the ordnance service, amounted to 4,387,2417., being an excess of 623,2071. more than was estimated to this House:

"That the total supply voted by this House upon estimate, under the different heads for the service of the ordnance for the years 1790, 1791, and 1792 (exclusive of about 35,000l. a year for Ireland) amounted to 1,419,126/. (being 473,042. per annum on an average of these three years); that the total sums voted for the Ordnance of the United Kingdom, in 1818, 1819, and 1820, amounted to 3,860,6667. (being 1,286,6667. per annum on an average of these three years); that the estimate for 1821, although 53,000l. less in amount than the estimate for 1820, is 115,000. more than the

estimate for 1819, and 40,3341. more in amount than the average of the estimates for 1818, 1819, and 1820.

"That, as the actual expenditure of the Ordnance service of the United Kingdom for the three years 1817, 1818, and 1819, for which the Finance Accounts have been laid before this House exceeded the estimates on an average of 207,7351. per annum, the expenses of the Ordnance for the year 1821 may be taken at a total of 1,534,7351.

"That therefore, it be a recommendation to the committee to effect every practicable reduction in the Ordnance Estimates now laid before this House for the year 1821."

This motion was negatived by a majority of 110 to 56.

We have seen, that in the former session, Mr. Hume endeavoured to show, that a considerable saving might be made in the collection of the land and assessed taxes, and that a direct negative was then put upon his proposi. tion. On the 23rd of March, he brought the matter again under the review of parliament, and proposed to include the distributors of stamps, as well as the receiversgeneral, in his scheme of retrenchment. The substance of his statements was comprised ni the five resolutions which he moved,

1. That there are 65 receiversgeneral of the land and assessed taxes in England and Wales, who received an allowance of 41,415., and of 41,9847. in the years ending 5th of Jan. 1820, and 1821, for the duties of their office, although the greater number of these receivers-general performed that daty entirely by deputy; and retained balances of

cash in their hands which, on an average of these years, exceeded 367,5741. sterling per annum.

2. That it appears, by the returns before the House, that ten receivers-general were, on the 1st of Jan. 1820, in arrears (at the time of their death, or of leaving their office, since 1790) to the amount of 304,3371. 2s. 4d. of which amount a balance of 117,1157. 1s. Sd. then remained due to the public, as stated in the annual finance account laid before the House in 1820.

3. That the office of receivergeneral of the land and assessed taxes is one of deposite, and for remittance of the taxes from district collections to the exchequer; and, in the present state of the finances of the country, that such service may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred, with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service.

or

4. That there are 95 distributors of stamps in Great Britain, who received allowances poundage amounting to 87,233. for the year ending the 5th Jan. 1820, and 87,9731. for the year ending the 5th Jan. 1821; and also retained balances of cash in their hands, which, on an average of these years, exceeded 138,9261. sterling.

5. That, in the present state of the finances of the country, the duty of distributor of stamps may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred, with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service.

Mr. Hume stated, that by adopting these resolutions, an annual saving of 132,000l. might be made, and 167 sinecure places

abolished; if ministers would not consent to them, he hoped, that they would at least appoint a committee to take the subject into consideration.

Such is the effect of perseverance, that the government did not choose to meet directly a question, upon which they had, not twelve months before, put a direct negative; and the only amendment moved upon Mr. Hume's resolutions, came from the chancellor of the exchequer, who recommended the appointment of a select committee, to inquire whether the object of the motion could be carried into effect consistently with the public interest. He would adopt the suggestions of such a committee, whatever might be their effect as to patronage; that was a consideration, which he would put entirely out of the question. They would examine into the details of the plan of the hon. member, and see how far the arrangement he proposed could be carried into effect. He could not think, that the existing system was worthy of such complete reprobation, as the hon. member bestowed upon it; but if on examination it should be found that defects existed in those establishments, he would not object to their removal. He could not, however, but be cautious in laying aside a system of collection, which had been tried so long, and which had secured the public revenue with a degree of accuracy, which the hon. member was not aware of. Under this system, for a period of 30 years, a sum of 337 millions of money had been collected, and the whole loss on that sum was but 13,750l. He should now move as an amendment, "That a

Select Committee be appointed, to consider of the duties of the receivers-general of land and assessed taxes, and of the distributors of stamps, in Great Britain, and of the allowances made to the said receivers-general and distributors, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

A committee was accordingly named, with the composition of which, Mr. Hume expressed himself perfectly satisfied. It consisted of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Hume; Mr. Grenfell; Mr. Macdonald; the Solicitorgeneral; Mr. Bankes; Mr. C. W. W. Wynn; sir C. Long; Mr. Goulburn; Mr. Courtenay; sir T. Acland: Mr. Tremayne; Mr. E. Wodehouse; Mr. Holford; Mr. W. Smith; Mr. Chetwynd; sir H. Parnell; Mr. R. Smith (Lincoln); Mr. N. Calvert; Mr. W. Whitmore; lord Binning.

On the 22nd of March, the night before that on which ministers made this concession to economy, Mr. Western moved, for leave to bring in a bill for repealing the additional duties which had been imposed in 1819, of 1s. 4d. per bushel on British malt, and 4s. 8d. per barrel on Irish malt. The effect of the high duties, he contended, was to take away from the comforts of the people, and, by lessening the consumption, to aggravate the embarrassments of the agriculturists. In 1791, the consumption of malt in England amounted to nearly 28 millions of bushels, for the last four years, it had not exceeded an average of 22 mil. lions; so that, notwithstanding the great increase of our population, there was a falling off of five millions and a half. Among the

supporters of the motion, were Mr. Wilberforce, and Mr. Wodehouse. The ministers opposed it. Mr. Huskisson moved the previous question. The House divided: for the previous question, 125; for the original motion, 149. This majority of 24, occasioned no small exultation among the opponents of government.

The exultation was not of long duration. Mr. Western brought in his bill, and on the 3rd of April moved the second reading of it. He was opposed, not only by the ministers, but by several who usually voted with the Opposition. The ground taken against him was, that the national income ought not to be diminished by a sum exceeding a million and a half; that it might be proper to reduce our expenditure, but, till that was accomplished, it was extravagant to dream of diminishing the revenue. Lord Castlereagh reasoned against the measure at great length. He stated, that the tax in question formed the principal branch of the system of finance which had been adopted in 1819, and could not be repealed without the greatest inconsistency. The chancellor of the exchequer had then predicted, that it would not inflict any additional pressure upon the country. That prediction had been completely. verified; for, so far was the price of beer from having risen under its operation, that since June, 1819, it had twice suffered reduction; so that the tax had been a considerable resource to the exchequer, without placing any additional burthen upon the consumer. He called upon the House to consider, what would be the effect of taking it off at present; and whether, in case no other tax