Mr. Baring also dwelt on the disturbance to the money market which would be occasioned by the new mode of collection, which, he maintained, violated two important principles-that taxes should be taken only as the Government needed the money, and in the manner most convenient to the tax-payer. The needs of the Government were spread over the whole year, and there was no necessity to ask for taxes in anticipation. He declared Mr. Lowe to be the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who had not condemned the income-tax, and objected to the tendency of modern financiers to fly to direct taxation at the first pressure.

Mr. Crawford and Mr. Alderman Salomons, on the other hand, though admitting that some inconvenience might be experienced by throwing a large portion of the receipts into one month, thought it could be easily got over.

Mr. Neville-Grenville criticized the Budget as wholly failing to do any thing for the poor, and showed that though the rich man would pay about 35 per cent. less of assessed taxes, the poor man would pay 30 per cent. more.

Mr. Read complained that nothing whatever was done for the farmer.

Mr. Henley objected that his constituents would be called on to pay 48. in the pound every January.

The

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that the new mode of collection was essential, and to disturb it would break up the Budget. That there might be some inconveniences in it he did not deny, but they were the price to be paid for the remissions of the Budget, and for the great administrative reform of the assessed taxes. But in reality there would be no injustice done. income-tax and the land-tax taken this year would not be increased, and the 400,0007. additional assessed taxes would be repaid in two years. Of the disturbance of the money market Mr. Lowe made very light. It was not his business to study the money market, and he left it with confidence to those concerned in it to provide against the predicted inconveniences. As to the corn duties, Mr. Lowe now proposed that they should cease to be levied on the 1st of June.

Sir S. Northcote complained that Mr. Lowe's answer was unsatisfactory, and recommended him to consult with the Bank authorities as to the results of the alternate plethora and starvation of the Exchequer.

On a later day the above and other objections to the arrangements of the Budget were repeated. Mr. Ward Hunt again enlarged on the inconvenience which would be caused to the money market, as well as upon the hardship to the tax-payers which would result from Mr. Lowe's proposal to manufacture a surplus out of nothing, by forcing them to pay five quarters' taxes in one year, and by making so many due at the same time. This, he insisted, would more than counterbalance the saving in the collection, which in fact would probably be exceeded by the defalcations of tax-payers unable to bear the strain.

K

As to the effect of the new plan on the balances-leaving the Exchequer dry at one time and full at another-Mr. Hunt maintained that at the end of each year it would leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer without money to pay the public creditors. Then he would be driven to borrow, and thus the natural operation of the money market would be disturbed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that five quarters' Income-tax were always paid within the financial year. He repeated his former assertion that the inconveniences to the taxpayer would be practically balanced by the conveniences to him, and by the general benefits of the change in the mode of collecting the taxes. As to the balances, there would be no real difficulty in equalizing them, and he intimated that he had already considered several expedients for the purpose. One of these was to enable the Government to borrow from the National Debt Commissioners; and in the next money Bill he meant thus to extend the limitation which at present compelled the Government to borrow only from the Bank. Another was to provide that the payment of terminable annuities should fall in the quarters when the Exchequer would be full. He denied, however, that the Bank would be drained, as had been argued. It would be a mere transfer from one account to another, and the money drawn from the balances in the Bank would find its way back there as private deposits. Mr. Lowe repeated the observation so much criticized on a former occasion, that "the money market must take care of itself." It was his duty to look after the interests of the tax-payer, and not to "cocker up' artificially a private banking establishment which the commerce of the country had chosen to set over it.

Mr. Crawford apprehended serious inconveniences to the money market from the new system, particularly in times of pressure. He dissented emphatically from Mr. Lowe's disparaging remarks on the duties and functions of the Bank, and assured him that his remarks as to his relations to the money market had caused some consternation in the city. The effect of the change on the Exchequer balances, Mr. Crawford held himself precluded from discussing, by his position as Governor of the Bank.

Mr. Samuda and Mr. Fowler confirmed Mr. Crawford's views as to the impolicy of disturbing the course of business in the money market, and the alarm caused by Mr. Lowe's observations on the Bank of England.

Mr. Morley and Mr. Norwood, on the other hand, applauded Mr. Lowe's resolution to hold himself independent of the Bank.

After various strictures upon the propositions of the Budget, and some divisions upon amendments, which, however, the Government succeeded in defeating, the Bill for giving effect to the various fiscal alterations passed through Committee, and the entire scheme, almost unaltered from its original shape, received the sanction of Parliament.

It has been observed that Mr. Lowe in his Financial State

ment expressed his opinion that it would not be safe to estimate the total cost of the Abyssinian Expedition at a less sum than 9,000,000. It will be remembered, too, that the estimate given by Mr. Disraeli's Government of the amount required for this purpose was very much lower, in fact, only 5,000,0007., and when it became known that the actual cost would reach so much beyond that sum, considerable dissatisfaction was expressed in the House of Commons, and explanations were asked for. The explanation given by Sir Stafford Northcote, the former Secretary of State for India, was, that when the first estimate was framed, the expedition had not left India, and that the second estimate was necessarily vague and loose, and exceeded, in fact, the information furnished by the departments. He pointed out, too, as a reason for the insufficiency of the estimate, our entire ignorance of the country into which the expedition was despatched, its actual barrenness of supplies, and the necessity of taking precautions against events which never occurred. Much of the excess had arisen since the period up to which the estimate extended, and in conveying the troops from the shores of Abyssinia to India after the expedition was over. He repudiated for the late Government the charge of having consciously kept back any thing from Parliament, or of having submitted culpably inaccurate estimates.

Whatever opinion might be formed of the wisdom of those who had incurred the outlay, it was manifestly too late to object after the money had been spent; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no alternative but to move a supplementary estimate of 3,600,0007., which, with the 5,000,000l. already provided, brought up the cost of the expedition to 8,600,0007. Up to this time, however, the Home Government had only received very rough accounts of the expenditure, but according to these, the War Office had spent 461,0007., subject to a small deduction; the Admiralty, 1,262,000Z.; and the Indian Government, 7,042,000l. Under this last item 319,0007. had been spent for extra staff pay and batta; for stores and supplies, 563,0007.; mules, camels, and forage, 1,400,000/.; land transport in Abyssinia, 1,345,000l.; sea transport, 4,232,000Z.; coals, 581,0007.; and miscellaneous, 160,000.

The sums asked for were voted, though not without many expressions of dissatisfaction, which, doubtless, would have been much louder, had the expedition been less successful; but the public had been so much gratified at the rapid and satisfactory termination of this hazardous enterprise, that they were not disposed to scrutinize with great severity the extravagance, if such there were, of the Indian Administration. Certainly, there must have been some laxity in the financial management in that country, for Mr. Hunt stated in the discussion which took place in the House of Commons in March, 1869, when the vote was moved for 3,600,000l. over and above the 5,000,000l. first provided, that so recently as the 8th of December preceding, the Indian Government had telegraphed to this country that they had only spent 5,000,0007.

Later in the Session, the dissatisfaction with which the costliness of this expedition was viewed had the effect of inducing a motion, brought forward by Mr. Candlish, for a Select Committee to inquire into the great excess of the cost over the estimates.

Without seeking to fix the blame on any person, in support of his motion Mr. Candlish read a long string of extracts from the speeches of Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Hunt in moving the votes for the war, and contrasted their calculations, rising from three millions and a half to five millions, with the actual cost, now ascertained to be over eight millions and a half.

Sir Stafford Northcote seconded the motion. He admitted, on behalf of the late Government, that the desire for inquiry was natural and reasonable, and could not but be useful in the public interest. They had the fullest confidence that its result would demonstrate the complete bona fides of the statements they had made to the House, and the sufficiency of the grounds, and also that the excess could be accounted for by the circumstances of the war.

Mr. Otway assented to the Committee on behalf of the Government, but added a doubt whether it would be so creditable to the late Government as Sir S. Northcote anticipated.

The motion was agreed to nem. con., and a Committee appointed. The Estimates for the Army and Navy were moved in the early part of the Session, and in both departments the Government had the satisfaction of being able to show a considerable reduction in amount, as compared with the year preceding.

Mr. Cardwell, in moving the Army Estimates, stated their amount, 14,230,4007., and, comparing them with former years, showed that, after making certain deductions and re-arrangement of accounts, there was a reduction of 1,196,6507. on the effective services, or about 10 per cent. on their whole amount. The reduction arose from two causes-the recall of our troops from the colonies, and the adoption of the new system of control. This year the number of our troops in the colonies would be 34,852, at a cost of 1,070,7357., showing a reduction of 15,173 men and 573,0597. on the votes of last year. This would raise the force at home from 87,505 to 92,015; and having explained and justified the reductions he proposed to effect by maintaining the cadres and cutting down the numerical strength of each battalion, and also by the suppression of certain staff appointments, Mr. Cardwell dealt at some length with the question of our reserve forces. Attaching great importance to the Militia force, he stated that it would be kept up to its full amount, and that 20,000l. would be taken to improve the position of the officers, and to bring the Militia into closer connexion with the regular army. He expressed, too, a warm appreciation of the services of the yeomanry and the volunteers; and though compelled to decline an augmentation of the capitation grant, he pointed out that the present grant was over half a million, and that it would speedily be necessary to furnish the force with a

new weapon and new ammunition. The first reserve and the Militia reserve would be maintained at their present strength; but though not reducing the vote for Militia reserve, Mr. Cardwell intimated very great doubt as to the wisdom of the scheme. As a general result, the total force in this country in the ensuing year, including regulars, Militia, volunteers, and reserve forces, would be 381,828, as against 341,997 last year. He next explained the saving to be effected, of over half a million, from the adoption of the control system by the late Government, which he entirely approved, and which had been extended to many of our foreign stations. On the important question of the matériel of the army he gave an interesting account of some of the recent improvements in guns, powder, &c., from which he drew the conclusion that at the present moment Parliament ought not to be asked for any vote except for real and important improvements. Both in great guns and small arms we were in possession of better weapons than any other army; and under the first head he proposed to confine the year's operations to the construction of the heavy classes of guns; and under the second head to manufacture for trial a few HenryMartigny rifles, which had been recommended for adoption as the future weapon of the British army. On the Works Vote there would be a considerable diminution; and having said a few words on the other topics contained in the Estimates-such as barrack accommodation, education, employment of old soldiers, &c.-Mr. Cardwell concluded a very effective speech by claiming for the Estimates not only that they promoted economy, but that they would add to the efficiency of the service and to the defensive power of the country.

Sir J. Pakington, while admitting the generally satisfactory character of the Estimates, doubted the wisdom of so large a reduction of the army, and also whether the recall of troops from our eastern settlements and colonies had not been carried too far. But, conceding the necessity of reduction, he did not deny that it had been effected in the most judicious manner. On the advantages of the control system Sir John dwelt with much satisfaction.

In the desultory discussion which followed on the different topics in the Estimates, Lord Garlies and Colonel North sharply criticised the policy of the proposed reductions, which was defended by Major O'Reilly. Mr. Anderson, on the other hand, was dissatisfied with the smallness of the reductions, and only excused it by the shortness of Mr. Cardwell's term of office. Mr. Mundella recommended a re-organization of the present contract system; and Mr. Rylands declaimed on the large sums spent on the army during the last half-century. Lord Elcho, Sir W. Russell, Colonel Loyd Lindsay, General Percy Herbert, and others, made some practical observations on different votes.

The Government found no difficulty in carrying the votes required for the Army Departments, but the larger question of the