finances, but proposed to renew it as a temporary
measure—for two years, from April, 1853, at 7d. in the
pound; for two years more, from April, 1855, at 6d. in
the pound; and for three years more, from April, 1857,
at 5d. in the pound, the tax to expire on the 5th of
April, 1860. He proposed to adopt the plan of the late
government, and extend the tax to all incomes above
£100 a year, and also to include Ireland in its operation.
The produce of the income tax, when levied in Ireland
precisely on the same conditions as in England, he
estimated at £460,000 a year; but as the tax will not
be levied until January in next year, the proceeds of
the half year would be only £230,000. The estimate of
the sum derivable from the extension of the tax to
incomes below £150 was £125,000; and the sum arising
from its extension to Ireland was calculated at £230,000,
the total amounting to £5,845,000 He next came to an
augmentation of taxation—the extension of the legacy
duty to all successions, by which he calculated that
£500,000 would be added to the permanent means in
1853—4; £700,000 more in 1854—5; £400,000 more in
1855—6; and £400,000 more in 1856—7; making a total
addition to the permanent means of the country of not less
than £2,000,000 per annum. The spirit duties were next
to be dealt with. He proposed, with regard to Scotland,
to add a shilling to the existing duty, by which he
expected a gain of £278,000, after making an allowance
for spirits in bond for waste; and with regard to
Ireland, an additional duty of 8d. per gallon, by which,
making similar allowances, the gain would be £198,000
He proposed also an augmentation of the revenue to
the amount of £113,000 upon a certain class of licences;
making a total of £1,344,000, which, with the surplus of
£805,000, would leave for the remission of taxes a sum
of £2,149,000 While making a stride towards the
equalisation of taxation, he had a measure of a
compensatory kind to propose with regard to Ireland—
which was nothing less than to sweep away the whole
of the consolidated annuities—to remit the entire
remainder of the debt due to England from the 29th
of September last. He next came to the general
remission of taxes, and proposed, in the first place, the
abolition of the soap duty, and considerable changes in
the stamp duties, including a reduction of the duties
upon life assurance, a uniform penny stamp for receipts
and other instruments, the reduction of the advertisement
duty to 6d, and the abolition of the stamp upon
newspaper supplements. He described various reductions
which were proposed in the assessed taxes,
involving a loss to the revenue upon servants of £87,000;
private carriages, £95,000; horses, £118,000; dogs,
£10,000; amounting in all to £290,000. Arriving, then
at the customs duties, he described the difficulties of
dealing with the question of wine, with regard to which
he promised no alteration. With tea he had been
more successful, and he proposed to adopt the resolution
of the late government in the first instance, and reduce
the duty to 1s. 10d. until 1854; then, from the 5th of
April, 1854, to the 5th April, 1855, to 1s. 6d.; from the
5th of April, 1855, to the 5th April, 1856, to 1s. 3d.;
leaving the duty from April, 1856, forwards at 1s.,
the whole time to be occupied in effecting the descent from
2s. 21/4d to 1s., being something less than three years.
A remission of the duties upon a large number of
minor articles also came within his scheme. The various
changes in the customs, as applicable to the year 1853-54,
would cause a gross loss to the revenue amounting to no
less than £1,338,000, but which he trusted would be
reduced by increased consumption to £658,000 The
remission of taxes on the year 1853-54 would be Excise—
Gross loss £786,000, Net loss £771,000; Stamps—Gross
loss £417,000, Net loss £200,000; Post-horses—Gross
and net losses £57,000; Customs—Gross loss £1,338,000,
Net loss £658,000, showing a remission of taxation for
the year of £2,568,000 Then he anticipated reductions
of charge which it was reasonable to expect would raise
the sum to be created by the new means of taxation from
£2,459,000 to £3,813,000. Then, in the year 1859-60,
there would come the falling-in of the long annuities,
and a large portion of the terminable annuities, which
would operate to the relief of the country to no less than
£2,146,000 a year. Adding that sum to the £3,813,000
which they would find between the additional resources
of taxation, the reduction of the charge that would
accrue in the interval, and the falling-in of the long
annuities, there would be an available increase,
amounting to no less than £5,959,000, against the
£6,140,000 of income which is its total amount. The
right hon. gentleman concluded his speech amidst great
applause. Several members asked questions with regard
to particular portions of the statement, the discussion
upon which was fixed for Monday the 25th.

On Tuesday, April 19, Sir B. HALL called the attention
of the house to the contents of three parliamentary
papers, intitled Dockyards, Dockyard Appointments,
and Dockyard Promotions, and moved that a select
committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances
under which a circular sent to the superintendent of her
Majesty's dockyards, dated September 26th, 1849, was
cancelled on the 19th day of April, 1852, without any
order or minute of the board; also, into the
circumstances under which a letter addressed by Sir Baldwin
Walker to Mr. Stafford, as Secretary to the Admiralty,
in which letter Sir Baldwin Walker tendered his
resignation as surveyor of the navy, was withheld from the
board; also, into the circumstances connected with the
appointment of Mr. James Wells as master smith in the
dockyard at Portsmouth, the subsequent cancelling
thereof, and the appointment of Mr. George Cotsell in
his stead; and generally into the exercise of the influence
and patronage of the Admiralty in the several
parliamentary boroughs connected with the dockyards,
since the 19th day of April, 1852, at which date a
circular was issued from the Admiralty, signed by the
secretary, cancelling their lordships' order of the 26th
day of September, 1849, which directs that "all reports
and correspondence on the subject of vacancies,
promotions, or changes of the officers and workmen of the
dockyards, shall be forwarded through the surveyor's
department;" and ordering that "in future such reports
and correspondence be transmitted direct to the Secretary
of the Admiralty." Sir B. Hall described the
circumstances referred to at some length, and read
a variety of documents, tending to show that there had
been an improper exercise of government influence for
political ends to the proceedings in question.—Mr.
STAFFORD defended himself and the department to
which he belonged at the period in question, from the
imputations of Sir B. Hall; quoting a variety of
correspondence and other documentary evidence, in order to
show that the transaction in question had been in strict
accordance with official custom and routine, and had not
been influenced by the motives assigned. He complained
of illiberality and unfairness on the part of those who
had brought the charges against him, who had not had
the manliness and courage to make their assertions
before a constituted tribunal, where he could have met
them upon oath. He admitted that he had been
imprudent in some cases, but urged as a justification the
"difficulties and temptations" of the period when he
acceded to office. He instanced particularly his having
gone round to the dockyards as an imprudent step,
though he denied that in so doing he was actuated by
any political motive. He felt secure in a clear
conscience, and asked for an impartial judgment.—Admiral
BERKELEY had hoped that the hon. member would
have seconded the motion, as he had in the course
of his speech cast imputations upon Sir Baldwin Walker,
which rendered an inquiry necessary for the justification
of that officer.—Mr. CORRIE opposed the motion,
considering an inquiry a work of supererogation, after the
able refutation of Mr. Stafford.—Sir F. BARING
considered that in a case involving such grave charges
against the Admiralty on the one hand, and a
distinguished officer on the other, common decency and
justice required a searching and speedy inquiry.—Sir F.
THESIGER opposed the motion, on the ground that the
character of Mr. Stafford had been completely
vindicated, and that the inquiry would elicit no further
information.—Sir J. GRAHAM exonerated Mr. Stafford
from any personal charge, but thought there should be
an inquiry as a matter of justice both to the hon. gentleman
and Sir Baldwin Walker.—Mr. DISRAELI
considered that Mr. Stafford had most ably vindicated
himself, but as a matter of justice to Sir Baldwin
Walker, was willing that there should be an inquiry.