that by this means we may be enabled to bridge over a time of temporary pressure." 1 The ministry, in short, proposed to abandon its proposal for fresh taxation, and to encounter a new deficit.

Since the days of Vansittart, no ministry had ventured on so radical an alteration of the Budget. The Whig Government of 1848 could hardly have survived its retreat if the divisions of its opponents had not left it without an organised Opposition. Peel sat apart from the Conservatives who had deserted him; and the protectionists were without a leader. Throughout 1847 the foremost place on the Opposition benches had been conceded to Bentinck. But, towards the close of the year, the attitude of Bentinck on a particular question had estranged him from the Tory party. For many years a desire had existed among Liberal politicians to remove the disabilities which excluded the Jew from Parliament. The re- Disabilities formed House of Commons, in 1833 and 1834, of the Jews. passed bills introduced by Charles Grant for the purpose. But the Lords steadily refused to consent to what was erroneously called the emancipation of the Jew. For many years. the division of opinion between the two Houses created no practical interest. No county or borough in the United Kingdom selected a Jew as its representative. The debates which Grant and others raised consequently only seemed of abstract importance, and little inconvenience resulted from the contrary views of Lords and Commons.

In 1847 the question suddenly assumed a new aspect. The City of London, at the general election in that year, chose as one of its representatives Baron Rothschild, a well-known and wealthy Jew. The voice of the City of London acquired double significance because the City simultaneously placed Russell, the Prime Minister of England, at the head of the poll. It would in any circumstances have been Russell's duty to have dealt with the questions which were raised by Roths1 Hansard, vol. xcvi. p. 1414.

For Grant's original motion, ibid., vol. xvii. p. 205. For the decision of the Lords in 1833, ibid., vol. xx. p. 249. For the decision of the Lords in 1834, ibid., vol. xxiv. p. 731.

child's election. The need for doing so was doubly urgent when his own constituents were partially disfranchised by Rothschild's exclusion from the House of Commons. In the short autumn session of 1847, Russell accordingly moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee for the purpose of considering the propriety of removing the disabilities of the Jews; and, in the course of the debate on this motion, Bentinck had the courage to express his determination to support the Whig leader.2

1

The protectionists, who had practically adopted Bentinck as their leader, were almost unanimously in favour of excluding the Jew from Parliament. They were disappointed to find that the man who had fought so vigorously against free trade. was not prepared to contend against the Jew. Intolerant of freedom, they had the arrogance to convey "their keen sense of disapprobation "3 to Bentinck. Perhaps the annals of English politics do not present a more surprising consequence than that which ensued from this remonstrance. Bentinck, stung to the quick by the ingratitude of his friends, withdrew from the prominent seat which he had occupied on the front Opposition bench. For more than a session the protectionists remained without a leader, and the cloak of Bentinck ultimately fell on the shoulders of the gifted but unscrupulous

Disraeli becomes leader of the Protectionists.

politician whose name has already been mentioned in this history, and who not only, like Bentinck, had separated himself from the Conservatives to support Russell's proposal, but whose name, whose face, whose voice, and whose pen constantly reminded his supporters that he was himself a Jew.

In the interval which elapsed between the retirement of Bentinck and the succession of Disraeli to the lead of the 1 Hansard, vol. xcv. p. 1234.

2 For Bentinck's speech, ibid., p. 1381. The motion was carried by 253 votes to 186 (ibid., p. 1397), but the bill founded on the motion was ultimately thrown out by the Lords. 3 Lord George Bentinck's Life, p. 513.

4 It would perhaps be more accurate to say that they were under a triumvirate: Disraeli, Lord Granby, and Herries. Malmesbury's Memoirs, p. 176; but cf. Greville (Memoirs, Part ii. vol. iii. p. 123), who says Granby was elected leader.

Tory party, the protectionists remained without a leader; and ministers, saved from the attacks of an organised Opposition, were enabled to survive humiliations which otherwise would have overwhelmed them. Wood was consequently allowed to reconstruct the Budget which Russell had brought forward. The financial troubles of the Government were not, however, terminated by the reconstruction of the Budget. The alterations which the Whigs had made in the sugar duties

Bentinck

in 1846 had been followed by severe distress in the and the sugar duties. West India colonies. The protectionists asserted that this distress was attributable to free trade; the free traders declared that it was the almost inevitable accompaniment of the embarrassments which were visible in every part of the world. On the first night after the Christmas recess, Bentinck asked for a Select Committee to inquire into the distress of the sugar-growing colonies. The Committee was granted; it pursued its labours under Bentinck's guidance with industry; and ultimately, at the end of May, after the rejection of several alternatives, it agreed, by its chairman's casting vote, to recommend, during the next six years, the imposition of a differential duty of ros. in favour of sugar the produce of British possessions.1

The policy which Bentinck and the Committee were thus propounding was defended by protectionists who hated free trade, and by free traders who hated slavery; and a combination of Liberals and Conservatives compelled the Government to deal with the matter. On the 16th of June Russell offered to reduce the duty on colonial sugar by is. a year for three years, and to continue the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar for three years longer than was originally proposed, till it was equalised with the duty on colonial sugar in 1854. The new scheme, therefore, maintained the differential duty for three years longer than the original plan of 1846. It formed to this extent a concession to the protectionists.2

A proposal of this character was not likely to satisfy every

1 For the debate on Bentinck's motion, Hansard, vol. xcvi. pp. 7, 84, cf. Life of Lord G. Bentinck, p. 529 et seq. 2 Hansard, vol. xcix. p. 738

one, but it was almost certain to pass. Men like Hume, unable to understand a minister who was "unblushingly" modifying a policy on which he had deliberately taken his stand, were powerless to defeat a change which was supported by Whigs and protectionists. Men like Bentinck, who desired much greater concessions to the West Indies, were unable to overcome the united forces of Whigs and free traders. The slight concession to the colonies secured for the Government adequate support. The protectionists, indeed, induced Sir J. Pakington to propose a resolution censuring the policy, but the ministry, after a long debate, succeeded in defeating the motion by a small majority,3

The third

In the course of the discussion on the sugar duties, it occurred to some persons that a reduction of duty would increase the financial embarrassments of the nation, Budget of and the Government was accordingly pressed to 1848. declare how it intended to provide for the fresh deficit it was incurring. In consequence of this criticism, the ministry was drawn into a fresh dilemma. It had commenced the session by suggesting that the establishments should be increased and that the income-tax should be raised; it had subsequently besought the House to continue the tax at its previous rate of 7d.; in June it discovered that the increased expenditure which had necessitated fresh taxation was unnecessary. No less than £235,000 was saved on the miscellaneous estimates, the expenditure on the navy and on the ordnance was reduced by £300,000, and the proposal for embodying the militia at a cost of £150,000 was quietly abandoned. These changes, however, did not reduce the expenditure within the limits of the income, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the last fortnight of the Budget of session, was consequently compelled to propose what 1848. was humorously called a fourth Budget. The total expenditure of the year was finally placed at £54,161,256. The 1 Hansard, vol. xcix. p. 753

The fourth

2 Ibid., p. 825; and cf. Disraeli's Bentinck, p. 544.

3 The ministry was supported by 260 votes to 245. Hansard, vol xcix. p. 1396.

revenue was raised by some minor changes to £52,130,000, and the deficiency of £2,000,000 was covered by a new loan. of that amount.1

The result proved more satisfactory than Wood had anticipated. The revenue, instead of amounting to £52,130,000, produced £53,017,000; and the expenditure, placed in the Budget at £54,161,000, only amounted to £53,287,000.2 The year therefore ended, from a financier's point of view, with brighter results than had been anticipated. The increase in the revenue, indeed, reflected the general condition of the country. Notwithstanding the severe crisis of the preceding year, trade was gradually recovering its former elasticity. The income-tax in 1848-9 was levied on a higher assessment than had ever yet been reached; the value of British exports was greater than in any previous year. There was more shipping in British ports, more work in British factories, more spirits, unhappily, drunk in British taverns than had ever previously been known.5

Returning

prosperity of the people.

The return to prosperity which was thus evident was partly accelerated by a fall in prices. The people were better off, not because their incomes were larger, but because the commodities which they required were cheaper. Almost every article of daily use cost 10 to 25 per cent. less than at the time of the passage of the Reform Act. The average price of wheat throughout the year was lower than, with the exception of 1835, it had been in any previous year in the century. The retail price of meat in the best shops was id. to 1d. a lb. less than it had been eighteen years

1 Hansard, vol. xcix. p. 1452; and cf. vol. ci. pp. 544-546.

2 Ibid., vol. cvi. p. 740. But Wood's statement is very complicated. Cf.

Statistical Abstracts.

3 £259.214.593: this amount was not again reached till 1851-2. • £63,596,025 against £52,849,445 in 1848.

5 3,400,809 tons of shipping were registered in British ports at the close of 1848, an increase of nearly 100,000 tons over the previous year. The consumption of spirits in 1849 rose to 1.02 gallons per head of the population. The highest previous consumption had been 101 gallons in 1846. The increase was the more remarkable from the fact that the Irish, who had been almost decimated by the effects of the famine, are a spirit-consuming people.